Each course including philosophy for children is based on theoretical foundations. These fundamentals can be traced in the theories and views of PHILOSOPHERS, given the objective of the course intended to teach philosophy to children and also the overall generality of philosophy itself. In this paper the views of Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nelson and Lipman were considered. Findings indicated that the views of Socrates, Plato, and Kant advocate a sense of philosophy upon which the curriculum for children is based, meanwhile the views of Socrates would support the curriculum in terms of methodology and the entirety of philosophy. Dependence of Plato's views on education and its philosophy provided an appropriate milieu for the development of a program as such.Emphasis placed on philosophizing and returning philosophy to its own position as well as the similarity of Descartes' methodology to that of course of philosophy for children could be considered as the theoretical foundations of this course. The major contribution of Hegel to the course is his emphasis on teaching logic. The contribution of Nelson is to provide a practical experience similar to the methodology of Socrates in consistence with the aims of the course. Lipman as the founder of philosophy for children made a crucial contribution to the development of the curriculum.A shift from two-side dialogue to group discussion, the use of written texts, Plato's disbelief in democracy and his tendency to enter to dialectic from the age of 18 upwards, opposition of Kant with premature engagement of students and children in philosophical debates, emphasis of Hegel on compliance with the government and the like are discrepancies of views of these PHILOSOPHERS with the curriculum in question.

Artifacts are ubiquitous and influential in our world, but their nature and existence are controversial. Several theories have been proposed to explain the ontology of artifacts. Drawing on Popper's theory of three worlds, this paper suggests a metaphysics for artifacts along the line of a critical RATIONALIST (CR) approach. This theory distinguishes between three realms of reality: the physical world (World 1), the mental world (World 2), and the world of objective knowledge (World 3). The paper argues that artifacts have different ontological components that correspond to these three realms, and that each component is real and causal. The paper shows how this perspective can account for the intentional and functional aspects of artifacts, as well as their dependence on plans that influence different realms of reality. The paper explains how this pluralistic ontology, compared to the rival theories, enables one to explain the relevant ontological problems of artifacts. The paper also explores how this proposal can lead to a research program encompassing a broader range of technologies, such as social artifacts. In sum, the paper suggests that Popper's three worlds theory provides a rich and comprehensive framework for understanding the metaphysics of artifacts.

Ibn Sina is a philosopher who in the domain of Islamic Philosophy has presented a new reading of Aristotelian doctrines and therefore not only he is Aristotle's commentator but also is a great and prominent philosopher in his own right. The attempt to show the consistency of religious beliefs with rational perception has been one of the mental concerns of Ibn Sina Although this problem in many cases has not been stated in his writings, but considering his whole writings. support this claim. At the same time, in some of the philosophical topics such as the problem prophet hood, bodily resurrection, as well as in the area of ethics, we are witnessing that shaykh tries to show the supremacy of religious teachings over rational perceptions and inability of intellect in some of these areas. This fact shows that Ibn Sina is not merely a retionalist Philosopher but he is a RATIONALIST- fideist Philosopher.

This paper argues that it is not reasonable for a critical RATIONALIST to be a religious believer in the Abrahamic tradition. The argument is distinctive, in that it takes seriously the critical RATIONALIST view that we should abandon ‘justificationist’ argument. What this means, is that the structure of argument then becomes a matter of offering theories as resolutions of problems, and then judging how they fare in the face of ongoing critical appraisal. The paper surveys issues in several areas, including God and what is good; homosexuality; mysticism; and messianic ideas. It argues that, unless the believer engages in intellectual retreat (something that is unacceptable for the critical RATIONALIST), the problem-situation facing the believer appears to be so daunting that it would be unreasonable for them to hope that they can overcome it.

Since the emergence of modernity, and in response to its myriad aspects and potentials, which are constantly unfolding, countless reactions have kept emerging in almost all quarters of the globe. A large variety of anti-modern reactions, the common core of which is perhaps the idea that modernity, in one way or another, is illegitimate, stand out among these responses. According to some of these anti-modern responses, modernity has usurped the characteristics and features of religion, which has been the soul as well as the main shaping force of the pre-modern era and has reproduced it in a corrupted form. Two German-speaking PHILOSOPHERS, Karl Popper and Hans Blumenberg, are among the intellectuals who have defended modernity against the onslaught of anti-modern tendencies. In this paper, I briefly, though critically, compare and contrast the approaches as well as some of the arguments of these two thinkers in defence of modernity.

Following Aristotle, some PHILOSOPHERS mainly Peripatetic such as Avicenna hold that Ancient Greek PHILOSOPHERS are physicist. In his al-Shifa, Avicenna calls them tabi'iyyun (physicist), in contrast to other group whom he with respect refers to as ila'hiyyun namely metaphysicians. According to this approach, the project of separating physics from metaphysics was set up in Aristotle's philosophy,thus, the idea of pre-Socratic PHILOSOPHERS that a single element –,such as water for Thales or fire for Heraclitus-as the prime matter or the origin of all things was misunderstood and made them belittled. In contrast to this group of PHILOSOPHERS, Muslim mystics and PHILOSOPHERS of Illumination adopted another view closer to that of Ancient Greek PHILOSOPHERS. Their attitude towards nature as manifested existence paraphrased in Ancient Greek as "aletheia" and towards natural things as different manifestations of that truth greatly corresponds to what Greek PHILOSOPHERS meant by "phusis". ..

The Abbasid Chaliphate in the period of Al Motavakel attempted again to present himself as the political leader of the Islamic society. So, with the help of Ahle Hadith and the Turks, and with their approval he tried to suppress the Shiite and the Motazeli. With summoning Imam Hadi to Samera, he issued humiliating orders against Motazeli, Shiite, and Ahle Zeme, and honored Ahle Hadith and their leaders. Moreover, lack of confidence to Iranians resulting in the entering of the Turks provided a basis for the Sunni Turks beside Ahle Hadith and Abbasid Chaliphate as the circles of a chain to put press on Shiite, Motazeli, and the lower social groups. This full fight with the RATIONALIST schools in the period of motavakel had many negative effects on the growth and flourishing of the Islamic civilization.

Realizing the motivation of human behavior has been one of the most significant issues of human beings. In this regard, there are two approaches: egoism and altruism; egoism considers the motive of all human benevolent actions to be self-interest. but altruism considers all these kinds of behaviors as merely providing another’s welfare. Daniel Batson and Thomas Nagel are supporters of altruism in different ways. Batson advocated psychological altruism by an empirical approach and offered altruism-empathy hypothesis, while challenging egoism. Existence of motivation for altruism in human nature was proved. The emotional feeling of empathetic concern creates an altruistic motive for the well-being of others.Nagel defended the possibility of the rational motivation of altruism with a Interpretive methodarguing unbiased altruism is a requirement of rationality so it is purely moral and it is an undeniable condition of morality and fundamental principle. Batson's altruism is not necessarily moral, and he tends to put together self- interest and other-interest motives.Descriptive-analytical approach was used to evaluate their views. It has been indicated that their perceptions of altruism and its relationship to morality are distinct, but they can be supporter for each other in rejecting pure egoism and defending pure altruism.

Although Pre-Socratic in 600 B.C founded new research ways in science and philosophy, wrote the first scientific essays, introduced basic conceptions of deduction, and abandoned mythological explanations, all we have of their works is but the fragments in the works of further doxographers, biographers, historians or PHILOSOPHERS who brought their statements between their own words. This would sometimes result in misunderstanding the presocratics’ purposes. Hermann Diels in his Doxographi Graeci raised a new method for dealing with doxography tradition. Diels’ new approach to doxography returned all this tradition to Aristotle’s pupil, Theophrastus. Some scholars like Jaap Mansfield criticized his disregard for the sophists like Gorgias and Hippias, and the successions of PHILOSOPHERS. According to his criticism, some matters like the Sophists’ influence on Plato, Aristotle’s definition of Doxa in the Placita and the influence of the succession and interpretation tradition on doxogtaphy are more noteworthy than Diels has thought.