Iman Motlagh Arani on Clubhouse

Bio

Research scholar in the field of continental philosophy & clinical, educational psychology. Interested in theology, ethics, hermeneutics.
ABA & Clinical mental health counselor 🇺🇸 & 🇮🇷

Biblephile
Philosophile
Epistemophile
Phronemophile
Eleutherophile
Necrophile
Thanatophile
Noctiphile

Telegram: @iman_motlagharani
YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/imanmotlagh
+18182765705

فلسفه ذاتا چیزی است نهان روش (esoteric). بالذات نه برای عامه ساخته شده است و نه مهیا شدن برای عامه را بر می تابد؛ فلسفه به آن فلسفه است که درست در تضاد است با فاهمه و بیشتر با فاهمه ی سلیم انسانکه مراد از آن محدودیت مکانی و زمانی نوع انسان است. نسبت به فاهمه ی سلیم فلسفه بالذات ها و لذات ها دنیایی است وارونه.
---------
The being that exists is man. Man alone exists. Rocks are, but they do not exist. Trees are, but they do not exist. Horses are, but they do not exist. Angels are, but they do not exist. God is, but he does not exist. The proposition "man alone exists" does not mean by any means that man alone is * real being while all other beings are unreal and mere appearances or human ideas. The proposition "man exists" means: man is that being whose Being is distinguished by the open-standing standing-in in the unconcealedness of Being, from Being, in Being. The existential nature of man is the reason why man can represent beings as such, and why ho can be conscious of them. All consciousness presupposes ecstatically understood existence as the essentia of man - essentia meaning that as which man is present insofar as he is j man. But consciousness does not itself create the openness of beings, nor is it consciousness that makes it possible for man to stand open for beings. Whither and whence and in what free dimension could the intentionality of consciousness move, if instancy were not the essence of man in the first instance?