This article examines the influence of the Hanafī philosophy of the Mamlūk period on the early Ottoman fiqh studies. Since the Egyptian and Damascus regions, which were under the rule of the Mamlūks, became the most important centres of knowledge in the Islamic world, it is understood that the Mamlūks’ scientific knowledge was superior to the Ottomans. On this occasion, many scholars who were considered the leading figures of the Ottoman scientific community turned to Egypt and Damascus regions and benefited (...) from the scientific accumulation there. In fact, these scholars who played an active role in the formation of the Ottoman scientific environment completed their education in Damascus and Egypt under the rule of the Mamlūks and graduated from the Mamlūk education system and assumed important roles in the formation of the Ottoman science understanding. During this period, the Hanafī judges (fuqahāʾ), who were active in the Mamlūk community, contributed to the development of the leading names of the Ottoman scientific community and this thought had an impact on their understanding of science. In this context, it is possible to say that the fiqh studies of the Ottomans in the first period were influenced by the Mamlūk Hanafī who had their characteristics. The two main characteristics of Hanafī thought in the Mamlūk period, the hadīth-centred juristic (fiqh) idea and the method of mamzûc (mixed) fiqh style are also seen in Ottoman fiqh works.Summary: In this article, the effect of Hanafī fiqh thought on the early Ottoman fiqh studies in Mamlūk period is discussed. While the Ottomans did not yet establish a scientific tradition in the period of foundation and ascension, many Mamlūk cities replaced Baghdad as the centre of knowledge of the Islamic world. Because the Mongol invasion, the crusades and the destruction of Andalusia due to reasons such as many scholars displaced by the Mamlūks settled there. Especially during this period, Egypt and Damascus, which were under the rule of the Mamlūks, became the most important centres of science in the Islamic world. In this respect, 14th-16th It is accepted that the science level of the Mamlūks was quite superior to the Ottomans in the 16th century. On this occasion, many scholars who are considered as the leading names of the Ottoman scientific community turned to Egypt and Damascus regions and benefited from the scientific accumulation there. Osman Ghāzī’s teacher and father-in-law, Sheikh Edebālī, Davud-i Kayserī, Sheikh Bedreddin, Molla Fanārī, Molla Gürānī are some of these scholars. In addition to these, scholars such as Muhsin-i Kayserī, Germiyanlı Poet Ahmedī, Hacı Paşa, Celāleddin Hızır, İbnü’l-Cezerī and İbn Arabşāh have also studied science in Egypt and Damascus. These scholars, who played an active role in the formation of the Ottoman scientific environment, completed their education in Damascus and Egypt under the rule of the Mamlūk and after graduating from the Mamlūk education system, they played an important role in the formation of the Ottoman science understanding. Sheikh Edebālī was accepted as one of the scientific and spiritual leaders of the Ottoman Empire. Davud-ı Kayserī was the first chief professor of İznik madrasah, the first Ottoman madrasah. Molla Fanārī had the privilege of being the first Ottoman shaykh al-Islām. Molla Gürānī became the teacher of Fatih Sultan Mehmed. During this period, the Hanafi faculties, which were active in the Mamlūk science community, contributed to the growth of the leading names in the Ottoman science community. Molla Fanārī, Seyyid Şerif Cürcānī, Shaykh Bedreddin and Poet Ahmadī have learned lessons from Bābertī, who important Hanafī scholars in Egypt. The idea of Hanafī fiqh in the Mamlūk period influenced the studies of the Ottoman fiqh in the first period. In this context, Molla Khüsrev refers to Zeyla‛ī and Bābertī, the leading Hanafī scholars of Mamlūk in many parts of his work, although he did not go to the regions dominated by the Mamlūks. The two main characteristics of the Hanafī thought in the Mamlūk period were the hadith-centred fiqh thought and mamzûc (mixed) method of fiqh. In the Mamlūk period, hadith studies which were not seen before in Hanafī sect were done. During this period, Hanafī jurists spent time in the field of hadith such as Ibn Balabān, Ibn Turkmānī, Zeylaʻī, Kuraşī, Mogoltay b. Kılıç, Bedruddīn Aynī, Ibn Kutluboğa, Serūcī, Bābertī, İbnü’l-Humām, İbnü’l-‛Adīm. They tried to eliminate the lack of studies in the field of hadith in the Hanafī circles while their studies certainly require hadith expertise. As a result of the works of these jurists in the field of hadith, the basic sources were frequently included in the fiqh studies in the Mamlūk period and, the hadiths were started to be made. The influence of this understanding, which had an important place in the thought of the fiqh of Hanafī during the Mamlūk period, can be seen in the Ottoman fiqh works in the first period. In this context, Molla Khüsrev, in his work with the influence of the early Ottoman jurists who had been educated in Egypt before him, gave some basic sources of hadith and sometimes gave information about the reliability of hadiths. On the other hand, it is possible to say that this issue is quite insufficient in Ottoman fiqh works when compared with Hanafi jurists of the Mamlūks. A comparison of Ibnü’l-Humām’s Fethü’l-kadīr and Netāicu’l-efkār, which was performed by Kādızāde order to complete it, can be compared. Apart from that, there are different attitudes between Şürünbülālī and Şeykhi-zāde known as Damad Efendi, they lived in the same period. Şürünbülālī, one of the Egyptian scholars of the Ottoman period generally gave the hadiths from the basic hadith sources in his work Merāki’l-felāh, while Şeyhīzāde did not obey this issue and rarely included basic hadith sources in his work Mecma‛ü’l-enhur. These differences can be explained by the necessity of the scientific environment. Because the Hanafīs were accused of not using hadith in Egypt and its environs, the Hanafī jurists living in this region should have directed them to be more rigorous about the hadith. However, since the Hanafī jurists living in other Ottoman regions did not have such a problem, they probably did not feel the need to refer to the main sources of hadith in the power of hadiths. Therefore, it can be said that the scientific environment and the need arising in this direction lead to different attitudes of the jurists living in the same period. The mamzûc (mixed) method starting with Ibnu’s-Sāātī, In the 8th-century, it was especially effective on the idea of ​​the fiqh style of Hanafī jurists. Although the first name of the mamzûc (mixed) method, Ibnu’s-Sāātī, was not one of the scholars of the Mamlūk period, the influence he initiated was more common in the Mamlūk period and became one of the characteristic features of the Hanafī fiqh thought in this period. Therefore, it is understood that the majority of Hanafī jurists had a gratified method. In addition to this, it is seen that Ottoman jurists who were educated in and around Egypt write procedural works in grammatical style. Molla Fanārī's work Fusūlü’l-Bedāyi is the most important example of this genre. Moreover, even Molla Khüsrev, who had not gone to Egypt and his surroundings, wrote a memoir-like work called Mir’ātü’l-Usûl. The works of these two authors show that the Ottoman jurists were influenced by the Mamlūks. As a result, it is possible to say that the fiqh studies in the early period of the Ottomans were influenced by the Mamlūk Hanafīs who had their characteristics. The hadith-centred fiqh thought and mamzûc (mixed) fiqh style understanding had an impact on the early Ottoman fiqh studies. (shrink)

To shed light on the key premise of the bifocal stance theory (BST) that social learners flexibly take instrumental and ritual stances, we focus on developmental origins of child-led information transmission, or teaching, as a core social learning strategy. We highlight children's emerging selectivity in information transmission influenced by epistemic and social factors and call for systematic investigation of proposed stance-taking.

Bu araştırmanın esas amacı 1875-1877 yılları arasında meydana gelen Osmanlı-Sırp, Karadağ Savaşları esnasında bölgede yaşanan eşkıyalık faaliyetlerine tarihsel bir bakış açısı ile yaklaşmaktır. Çalışmada gerek 1875 Hersek Ayaklanması, gerekse 1876’da Bulgaristan’da Müslüman Türkler aleyhine Rusların kışkırtmaları neticesinde meydana gelen bazı eşkıyalık olayları ele alındı. Bu olaylar neticesinde ortaya çıkan konjonktürde Avrupalı devletler, Osmanlı Devleti karşısında Sırbistan ve Karadağ’ın bağımsızlık süreçlerini desteklediler. Bu dönemde Sırbistan ve Karadağ Osmanlı Devleti karşısında bazı konularda Avrupalı devletlerle birlikte hareket etti. Yaşanan olaylar sonucunda önce Sırbistan, (...) sonra da Karadağ aralarındaki ittifak antlaşması sonucu Osmanlı Devleti’ne savaş açtı. Bu durumda Rusya oldukça etkili oldu. Savaşın başlaması ile Bosna, Sırplar tarafından, Hersek de Karadağlılar tarafından işgal edildi. İngiltere bölgedeki çıkarları gereği Balkanlardaki statükonun korunmasından yana bir tavır takınarak Rusya’nın Panslavist politikasına karşı çıktı. İngiltere’nin bu politikasındaki temel dayanak noktası ise Balkanlarda ve Akdeniz’de Rus yayılmacılığını engelleme düşüncesiydi. Ayrıca Rusya’nın Panslavizm ideolojisi doğrultusunda geliştirdiği politikalarına karşılık Avusturya, orta ve güney Avrupa’da Almanya ve İtalya’ya karşı kaybettiği toprakları ve prestijini geri kazanmak amacıyla, Balkanlardaki siyasetini yeni bir temele oturtmuştu. Bu temel, Bosna ve Hersek’i ele geçirdikten sonra, Arnavutluk ve Makedonya’ya uzanıp oradan da Selanik’e kadar olan yerleri ele geçirmekti. Buna mukabil Almanya, bu dönemde Balkanlarda doğrudan herhangi bir çıkarı olmamasına rağmen Fransa’nın kendisine karşı bir intikam politikası takip etmesine engel olmak düşüncesindeydi. Bu sebepten dolayı Almanya, Fransa’nın Balkanlardaki sorunlarla meşgul olmasını kendi çıkarları adına faydalı görüyordu. (shrink)

I myself became interested in textual work when I began checking the logical rigor of Plato’s Parmenides hypotheses. To my great surprise, the proof patterns were not simply valid, but as woodenly uniform and rigorous as Euclid’s Elements. Such rigor was exactly what a Neo-Platonist like Proclus would have expected, admired, and possibly imposed; it is not paralleled anywhere else in Plato. At that time, it was believed that the three primary manuscripts containing this dialogue—Oxford B, Venice T, and Vienna (...) W—came from a common archetype of a date as late as the fifth century, and that the only other records of the text of any extent—the lemmata in Proclus’ Commentary and the quoted passages in Damascius’ Problems—were, or at least could be, equally late. Only some evidence that the text as the ninth century manuscripts have it had been in this rigid form before the fifth century could finally settle the question of whether it was Plato’s own or that plus stringent re-styling. I thought that if there were traces of independent descent from some earlier archetype or archetypes, a dragnet technique applied to a collection of all the reported variant readings ought to catch them. (shrink)

From the various discussions of Kant’s theoretical philosophy throughout Hegel’s works, it is not difficult to come away with the impression that Hegel thinks that the Kantian categories are derived from experience, and that the method of a “transcendental” investigation of the forms of subjectivity is nothing other than that of generalization upon observation. As early as the 1802-03 essay, Faith and Knowledge, for example, he characterizes the critical philosophy as the “completion and idealization” of Lockean “empirical psychology.” In § (...) 41 of the Encyclopedia he tells us that Kant’s systematization of the “special forms of the a priori element … of thought … is solely based upon psychological and historical grounds.” Moreover, in the Lectures on the History of Philosophy, he refers to Kant as going “psychologically,” i.e., “historically,” to work in his accounts of intuition, understanding, and reason in a manner that is “entirely empirical, and not developed out of the concept.”. (shrink)

Metrical work with Hindi translation on divination.

I MAKE NO APOLOGIES for writing about this well-worn topic. For, although there has been an enormous amount written about the account Hume gives of the nature of moral evaluation, commentators are as far from agreement as ever. My own contribution to the controversy has, if anything, not only added to the variety of opinions but also has increased the general confusion. For this I must accept some responsibility. I have certainly laid myself open to some misinterpretation, and the view (...) I have so far expressed in print may also need some modification. I shall here attempt to clarify what precisely my view now is, and why I prefer it to some alternative views advanced by those who find my interpretation of this aspect of Hume's philosophy unacceptable. II. Since what I want to defend is in all important respects my earlier interpretation of the Treatise, 2 I shall for the most part, though not exclusively, be concerned with what Hume says in this, his early, but major, work. (shrink)

This is the first scholarly study of Atlas Shrugged, covering in detail the historical, literary, and philosophical aspects of Ayn Rand's magnum opus. Topics explored in depth include the history behind the novel's creation, publication, and reception; its nature as a romantic novel; and its presentation of a radical new philosophy.

One group of commentators takes book 10 as determinative and thus tortures the text in book 1 to say the same thing. This position is described as intellectualist or exclusivist and produces certain puzzles in reading Aristotle’s ethical theory. These puzzles are not benign since the privileged position given wisdom in book 10 seems at odds with the discussion of virtue in book 1 and its development in the Nicomachean Ethics as a whole. Indeed, Aristotle appears inconsistent or even contradictory, (...) recommending in these two brief chapters of book 10 a life devoted to contemplation that only grudgingly allows for the necessity of the practical life discussed in such detail in the rest of his ethical works. If this is the case, under what conditions are we expected to forgo contemplation to engage in the various activities of the moral virtues? Since no conditions are spelled out in the text, the range of speculation is confused and ways around the apparent inconsistencies complex. (shrink)

A psychoanalyst looks at the portrayal of love in poems from Homer to Shakespeare, discusses Freud's writings on love, and examines the relationship between narcissism and love.

Nyāyadarśanam.--Vaiśeṣikadarśanam.--Sāṅkhyadarśanam.--Yogadarśanam.--Mīmāṃsādarśanam.- -Vedāntadarśanam.

__Improvement in Action_, Anthony S. Bryk’s sequel to _Learning to Improve_, illustrates how educators have effectively applied the six core principles of continuous improvement in practice._ The book highlights relevant examples of rigorous, high-quality improvement work in districts, schools, and professional development networks across the country. The organizations featured in the book have addressed, with remarkable results, long-standing inequitable educational outcomes in high school graduation rates, college readiness, and absenteeism. The cases emphasize the measures the educators took and the thinking (...) that motivated their actions. Bryk describes how improvers, working in different contexts and confronting different problems, used select principles, tools, and methods to make improvement come to life. Brief analytic reflections are embedded throughout the narratives, and each chapter concludes with an analysis of a set of larger lessons illuminated by the organization’s story. Taken as a set, these examples offer readers valuable insights about the actual dynamics of doing improvement work. _Improvement in Action_, paired with _Learning to Improve_, provides readers with a comprehensive understanding of the practice, method, and theory of large-scale continuous improvement in education. (shrink)

In Boccacio's Decameron, Cervigni sees a parodic echo of the circles of Dante's Divine Comedy, and asks whether Bocaccio envisions the voyage of the brigata as similar to Dante the Pilgrim's journey toward the center, first the abysmal center of Lucifer, then towards the highest center, God.