An Analysis and Criticism of Heideggerian discourse of Fardid

Concurrent with the emergence of postmodernism in the West, distinguished thinkers such as Seyyed Ahmad Fardid, considering the West as a symbol of sensuality and carnal desires, introduced a new system of thinking in Iran. Sharing Heidegger’s thoughts, Fardid tries to liberate the world from the clutches of Western metaphysics and its accompanying subjectivism. It should be noted that what Fardid borrows from Heidegger is the negating aspect, while for the creative aspects of his criticism of the West, he relies on Ansi’s philosophy and Ibn Arabi’s mysticism. The main point that should be mentioned about the difference between the thought of Heidegger and Fardid is that although Heidegger tries to fundamentally criticize the Western metaphysics, he was raised in the context of the Western metaphysical thought. This paper focuses on the issue that Ahmad Fardid, by deconstructing and using elements of Heidegger’s thought such as disagreement with subjectivism and Western metaphysics on the one hand and using Islamic and mystical fundaments on the other, tries to offer a new classification whose focal point is criticism of the West as an integrated whole. Despite insightful points in Fardid’s thought, his thought is subject to certain criticisms. Fardid is basically opposed to any philosophy and logical, demonstrative thought. At the same time, the holy Quran frequently lays emphasis on the significance of argumentation and reasoning. There are also some doubts about Fardid’s philosophy of history. Fardid maintains that the origin of yesterday's history can be traced back to Greek of Plato's time. The question that is raised is whether the entire mankind was a united nation of the day before yesterday before that period and all were monotheists without social classes and free from sensuality. The other points is that Fardid's interpretation of West-toxication and its consequent universality, definitions and interpretations are merely some contentions that he does not provide any proof to prove them which is an outstanding weakness in his scheme of thought.