The point that is stressed by definitions of culture, which rely on its authenticity and considerations that it entails individuality (diversity), is its diversity. Being diverse and acknowledgement of authenticity of the diversity, involves forwardness in itself. Though the acknowledgement of diversity and the impression of integrity formed by the acknowledgement seem to pose a coherence, yet it bears a negative aspect internally. Despite so-called acknowledgement of diversity, coherence and integrity formation seem to be more important. Since coherence of the (...) integrity is based on measures of the seeking subject, forwardness aims to preserve things that are available or to simply fill the gaps. Hence complexity and diversity bear a negative meaning for available things. Because of centered approach which basically is putting familiar things into a closer circle while putting others aside. It brings concretization to the culture. To the extent of concretization endeavor, it leads us to study culture as belonging to a society (the privatization aim here even breaks down culture to a subculture level). Concretization of culture itself might seem as understanding and acknowledgement of culture, however, the aim for making a definition involves detaching the existent from existence forms and from the environment that it exists in. This article is to discuss, with philosophical terms, how different cultures embrace sincerity in exposing themselves while interacting with other cultures given our definitions of culture and eeking for multiculturalism. Thanks to developments in transportation and means of technology, different cultures and societies meet and interact easily. Though we have a heritage of drawing borders, these borders hardly preserve their existence. The issues under discussion have evolved from the endeavor to build a common identity-culture-society to acknowledgement of diversity and difference. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to explore Heidegger’s approach to how educa- tion and reflection endeavor, which have been experienced through a vast variety of both regional and universal approaches, should be experienced. Hence, I’ll start with explaining Heidegger’s problematics. “Why he takes all philosophical problems into one question?”, “What is the meaning of be- ing?”, and then I will explain what we should understand by education and reflection process. Heidegger links it to an exploration process, investigation of the (...) truth. He believes that the primary responsibility in this process lies on universities and rulers. The process should be centered on reflection and individuals should be reflecting by challenging their own and other individ- uals’ existence. This leads us to two concepts: Being-in-the-world (In-der-Welt- sein) and co-existence (being-with, Mitsein). The most remarkable ability of Dasein, as he calls, is the reflection, and it facilitates challenge. Through its capabilities, the individual (Dasein) will turn out to be self-conscious of its existence. Grounding on being-in-the-world and co-existence concepts, Das- ein can challenge the existence and starts exploring the being. This leads to reflection and questioning, which together form an educational and learning process. Education and learning are the two technical parts of exploring Da- sein’s existence. Due to scientific methods and methodological approaches of education, cultural, regional and local attributes are ignored. Heidegger believes that the individual coexists, which requires considering all the dif- ferences around it. Heidegger stresses the importance of reflection and says that the West has a flawed approach. Criticizing that flawed approach which is solely centered on the subject, Heidegger asserts an educational model which reckons many differences such as culture, challenge, etc. (shrink)

I have inquired as to what sort of knowledge humans need to make justifiable claims regarding free will. I defended the thesis that humans do not have the sort of knowledge which would allow them to make such claims. Adopting the view of mind based on cognitive science and Kant’s philosophy of mind, first I laid out the characteristics of that knowledge with the help of a simulation example I devised. Then, upon investigating the epistemic relations between the different sources (...) of knowledge and the agents of a system (such as the relation between the programmer and the simulated agents as well as god and humans), I claimed that knowledge bearing those characteristics cannot be accessible to human beings. (shrink)