نشریه پژوهش سیاست نظری
پیاپی 18 (پاییز و زمستان 1394)

Navabet (a metaphore of isolated humans) is among concepts that has applied in islamic philosophy. Both Farabi and Ebne baje has used this concept in their philosophy. In this paper, we want to answer thisquestion that what reference, the expression of “navabet” has in Farabi’s Ebne baje ‘s views. This essay’s finding indicates that in both philosophers’ view, Navabet are isolated humans; but the reference of one view is philosopher and that of the other view is non-philosopher. The innovation of this essay is this point that in terms of modern philosophical and social view, the disscusion of Navabet diverts toward otherness in one orientation and in other orientation, this disscusion leads towards “identity”. The exploitation of this traditional thought aboat the politics, identity and distinction provides some horizons before us.

The european modern age has been considered as contemporary with renaissance so as the issue of seperation of religion and politics is one of its key concepts. This discontinuity predisposed the emergence of modernism view with the axis of human’s self-founded intellect and the earthly politics project so that it lead to thought production based on the seperation of politics and religion. But in 20 th century, we observe the return of religion to politics field and political theorizing in this field. The beginning of theorizing in political theology can be observed in the views of German intellectual “Karl Schmit”. Through the new interpretation of christian theology, he rejected the thesis of the seperation of theology and politics. the problem of this paper is that what interpretation ofpolitical affair, schmit offers based on the theological propositions and what new understanding of religion and its relation with political affairs proposes? Schmit considers religion as the social life foundation and defines political affairs in relation with politics. In his view, the political concepts are the traditional form of theological concepts.

According to theoretical view of Habermas on “relation between ethics and politics” in history of western political thought, the ethics and politics in classic era and aristotelian tradition are ingrained around the concept of welfare, because the ethics defines the welfare and the politics serves as achieving welfare concept. Although, in the modern political thought and in Hobbsian tradition, the ethics and politics are seperated from each other, because the politics defines its goal, not as prospering and giving excellence to its citizens, but as controlling and managing the human instinct for the creation of “security” and achieving “prosperity”. With this description and according to the theoretical framework of Habermas, the present paper believes that in the views of Frankfurt school intellectuals, the ethicsand politics merge around the ethical concept like the classic tradition, the only difference is that the joining of ethics and politics is not“prosperity" concept but it is the “salvation” concepts; the concept that is compatible with “excellence concept”. We should add this point that any of this school intellectuals considers the “salvation” achievement way in its special mechanism. Horkhimer, “the objective intellect”, Adorno, “aeshetics”, Markoze, “the intellectual reconstruction of society”And Hobermas, “the dialogue” is the way of achieving the salvation.

Civil disobedience has a long history in campaign method position. Political campaign of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandella in 20 th century, are clear examples of civil disobedience. Of course this concept didn’t remain at the level of tactics and political campaign method, but it had been deliberated theoretically and philosophically by some inellectuals like Hana Arendt, Urgen Habermas, Ronald Dorkin, John Rawls and many others and entered practically to modern political philosophy domain. In this paper we try to comprehend this fact that why and how civil disobedience tactic was deliberated theoretically by philosophers and turned into a serious issue in political philosophy domain? The proposed view in this paper is that through Arendti argumentation of civil disobidience concept and by documentation of society intellectual convention formation of liberalism’s instruction aboat crises and tensions, we can show the importance of civil disobedience concept in modern political thought. The crisis of liberal tradition in theoretical domain and existing capacities of civil disobedience thought in intellecual tactics and criticism, created the bond of this concept with modern political thought domain.

This paper seeks to study Carl Marx’s view, as a sciologist and political philosopher concerning the objective conception of revolution occurrence requirement focusing on human suffering key concepts. In examining the requirements of revolutuion occurrence, Marx focused on the suffering concept (that he defines in alineation form and objective and subjective requirements leading to its occurrence) and talks aboat the paradoxical aspect of suffering that is based on toghetherness of positive and negative aspects of proletariat social suffering. From his viewpoint, the precondition of Praxis achievment and revolutionary action, is dependent on objective and subjective existence of social suffering that can turn it from passive state to active issue of social affair along with revolutionary action infrastruture by means of proletariat awareness(objective and subjective) achievement and egression of alineation state. In this path, he as political philosopher and sociologist, is not unaware of religion’s role (that in his view it is the purposeful infrasructure of aristocrats for false informing and neutralizing the effect of existing social suffering). Therefore, Marx by acknowledging the affirmative aspect of suffering (in spite of social privative determinations), attends to it in proletariat (revolution) political action process as a vital, driving and even necessary force in the dialectic process of social and political evolution.

From controversial view that has been flowing with regard to governmental interference and market freedom since three last centuries, two approaches can be identified: market-inclined and gvernment-inclined. This distinction is based on the weight that each approach assigns to one of these two institutions and its capacities for achievement of optimal economical efficiency. Controversy on this issue has a deep idealogic nature more than anything else and each approach tries to form historical evidence in their favors. In this paper, in addition to proposing the historical process of two approaches’ controversy and their internal varieties, we prove that in the shadow of achievements and failures of two approaches on one hand and proposing the alternative theoretical patterns and formation of developmental successful experience outside of conventional experiences that documented by two controversy parties on other hand, the grounds of the new pattern proposition of governmental interfernce extent have been provided since 1990 decade until now. The institution-inclined approach focusing on the topic of “quality” of interference instead of “quantity” of governmental interference is looking beyond the mentioned ideologic controversy and theorizing aboat the method and quality of positive governmental interaction with market institutions.