هگل

The discussion of experience by Hegel and Whitehead is based on a basic and similar basis, but it develops in two completely different directions. The basis of these two philosophers is about the experience of tying the discussion from it to what is existence; Although this topic is also different despite the similarities between them. Hegel sees the reality in becoming so that the soul reaches its final stage. Whitehead also respects the form but not the soul and considers whatever he experiences as reality. This is why, in examining and analyzing the experience between these two, although we can find the presence of this common basis everywhere, we see that in most cases these two are distinguished from each other. In the current research, we have tried to show these aspects of "similarity" and "difference" between these two philosophers by placing the concept and characteristics of experience between Hegel and Whitehead as the basis and using the works that we were able to study.

More than a century and a half has passed since Iranians encountered Hegel's thought. During this period, "our" reference to Hegel has undergone changes, so after all this Hegel research, Hegel translation and Hegel reading, we should start an evaluation of the relationship we have made with Hegel and ask; After all this time, have we adopted Hegel in our tradition? In other words, is it possible to speak of an Iranian Hegel among the various interpretive traditions of Hegel, such as Hegel right and left, old and young, English and French, etc.? Is it basically possible to understand Hegel differently from other understandings? Is it open for us? The answer to these questions refers to the history of philosophy and our intellectual tradition. Our understanding structure must have the capacity to listen to Hegel and speak with him. This statement is clearly a question of the contemporaneity of Islamic philosophy. The answer to this question requires an examination of the readings of Hegel's thought in the context of Islamic philosophy. Since Mulla Sadra's thought is the entirety of our philosophy, our readings of Hegel are mainly formed in the context of Mulla Sadra's philosophy and in the extension and expansion of that thought. Therefore, we focused on evaluating Sadra's encounters with Hegel. Seyyed Javad Tabatabai is one of the contemporary Iranian thinkers who made comparisons between Sadra and Hegel. Therefore, it is necessary to describe his encounter with Hegel, and we seek to be able to make an accurate assessment of one of the most important readings of Hegel in the context of our thought tradition, which is the philosophy of Mulla Sadra, and to explain one of the major aspects of the "Iranian Hegel" project.

Hegel by studied the French Revolution and its negative outcomes, and he identified democracy as a kind of mass that is not only unable to protect the basic rights of minorities, but also prevents freedom from being realized. Hence, he rejects universal suffrage as democracy undermines the role of representation in political life and even tends to cancel it, so in such a situation an individual cannot be represented and with the domination of the public vote is so insignificant that the outcome will not be extended beyond the "the tyranny of the majority". As a result, people will vote to gain material interests and seek immediate impulses. In this paper, Hegel critical attitude toward democracy and its challenges, as well as their suggestions for the ideal government form, are analyzed.

One of most important post-Kant attitudes is philosophy of Hegel’s non-rationalism and idealism. Hegel’s philosophy considers other one of fundamental attacks of non-modernism to rationalism and individualism in history of western philosophy. He is certainly philosophers who took most important and strongest steps to postmodernism. Hence, he could establish systematic idealism in thought of postmodern actually. Kant by knowing of subject as a prior matter, took more step than previous philosophers and he started non-rationalism systematically and generally, but Hegel believed that Kant had taken the step weakly. Hence, he took four major steps even more extreme than Kant, in forming of postmodernism which could reach program of postmodern to itself final. The four steps are as following: 1.subject creates whole reality. 2. Contradiction is a possible matter and cause perfection. 3. Whereas main frame of reality is contradictive, truth is a relative and variant matter. 4. World concludes collective operation not personal. Hegel by these four major theses, has massive share and very key and serious in solidarity and conformation of idealism and skeptical foundations of postmodernism.

The fundamental problem that has always been paid attention to in the history of thought is that 1- What is the relationship between subject and object? 2- How can we pass from subject to object and know the internal structure of the objective world? The answer to this epistemological problem in the modern period caused extensive changes in the system of thought, and out of it came rationalism, empiricism, and idealism. To explain the mentioned ratio, some like the materialists put the principle as a material object and consider everything, especially the knowledge system, to be explainable based on it. On the other hand, subjective idealism puts the subject first instead of emphasizing the object and bases the explanation of the empirical world on the concept in Kant and rational intuition in Fichte. In both of them, the knowledge system was based on a hard ground that made knowledge as a whole possible by transcending the knowledge system itself. But Hegel took on a completely different role in the Phenomenology of Spirit. 1. by considering the concept as fundamental in the knowledge system, 2. giving it an ontological aspect due to its connection with the object-in-itself, 3. making it fluid from the stage of abstract substance to the stage of the actual subject, he introduced the concept as the absolute with its movement from the potential stage to the actual stage, it determines the subject and the object and harmonizes existence and thought as a system and a dialectical whole. With this work, Hegel was able to rule out elitism in the system of science, and by knowing the concept and its connection with the absolute as fundamental, he reconciled the absolute knowledge with the conventional view and revealed it to everyone. In this article, the author tries to present a concrete interpretation of the system of knowledge in Hegel's thought by focusing on the "concept" according to the preface of the phenomenology of the soul. For this purpose, the author deals with the position of the concept and the explanation of its structure in the phenomenology of the soul under the following nine titles: the position of the concept in the phenomenology of the soul; prior concepts and the beginning of the phenomenology of the soul from essence as nothing; Hegel's critical stance towards instrumentalization of consciousness; the concept and passing from the phenomenal field to the realm of the object in itself; the concept in motion, the ontological foundation of the world; Hegel and the two-way reflection of thought and existence; experience and its extension to the object itself; Hegel's criticism of elitism in the knowledge system through the negation of rational intuition; Hegel's system of knowledge is the only way for subjective idealism to escape from skepticism.

In short, Hegel is trying to define existence and knowledge as a system through a concrete understanding of the concept and its historical and existential development and make thought and existence compatible with each other. In order to turn the knowledge system into something concrete, Hegel changes the foundation of science from fixed transcendental matters to a mediated and negative concept by negating prior concepts and intellectual intuition. In this view, instead of starting from prior and fixed things, which is the condition of knowledge of the concept of the world, science starts from a concept that is considered empty and abstract in the first stage. In this way, knowledge does not start from a definite and actual matter, but from a concept whose only determination is the power and ability to become absolute. According to Hegel, it is this concept that, through its inner negation, dismantles each particle of its former world after another particle and silently matures in a new form. With this statement, Hegel negates any first fixed point that is outside the movement of the concept and conceptual knowledge is based on it, and in this way, everything is determined and known within the concept in motion. This is where Hegel finds the ability to eliminate any dark spots in the history of consciousness and by clarifying the absolute for everyone, destroys the foundation of elitism that Fichte and Schelling's rational intuitions emphasized. Also, by ontologicalizing the concept and relating it to the object-in-itself, Hegel escapes from the skepticism that plagues mental idealism to escape from skepticism.

The Oneness of Being (wahdat al-wujûd), which has a mystical root, has been proposed in the views of mystics and some philosophers. Ibn Arabî and Hegel have made this topic the focus of their discussions with different approaches. Ibn Arabî’s Oneness of Being is not the conceptual unity of being, but rather the unity of the external existence of beings that the mystics have achieved through intuition. According to this theory, there is no more than one true Being, and that is God, and everything that appears to exist other than God is only the determinations, attributes, and manifestations of the same Being. Hegel designs his philosophical system with the concern of finite and infinite connection. In his philosophical system, it is through this finite matter that one can speak concretely about the realization and realization of the absolute and infinite, and in a dialectical development, the unity of the real and the reasonable can be reached. Despite the similarities between the ideas of these two thinkers, their views in this field have a fundamental difference.

The issue of "Bildung" has been considered more than anyone else in Hegel's philosophical thought. He has focused more on this issue in the Phenomenology of the Spirit and Elements of the Philosophy of Right books, and the Nuremberg Speeches. In this article, two central points in Hegel's thought have been emphasized: a) the necessity of distinguishing between different types of "theological-ethical", "natural-anthropological", "political" Bildung, and finally the Hegelian "cultural-historical" Bildung; And then removing the accusation from the Hegelian system, about trying to remove God and the theological view from the Bildung concept; b) Proving that, according to Hegel, the process of education includes "nature", "individual" and "human society" at the same time, and contrary to popular opinion, it will not be limited to the human individual. Therefore, when discussing awareness, freedom, alienation, and the like, he actually explains the formation of education in these three fields.

As Hegel claims in the phenomenology of the soul, subjectivity as the fate of the history of consciousness aims to show how the soul tries to establish a dialectical relationship between the objective and the subjective by becoming aware of itself and reconciling consciousness with self-awareness and to reconcile the two in the subjectivity found in absolute idealism. The main problem of this article is to show how and with what conceptual possibilities Hegel can overcome the one-sidedness of objective realism and subjective idealism by means of the subjectivity in the phenomenology of the soul. To answer this question, the author tries to explain the subjectivity in the book Phenomenology of the Spirit through the conceptual possibilities of consciousness, self-awareness, human society and political situation, and how to actualize the abstract absolute existing at the beginning of the history of consciousness through the mentioned concepts. show for this reason, it is explained that by bringing the absolute closer to the human community and creating an ontological dialectic between God and human "us", Hegel integrates the absolute into the political situation, and by integrating God into the political state, to reveal the absolute both to himself and to human "us" in philosophical knowledge and in this way establish a dialectical union between the realm of the subject and the realm of the object. In this article, the author has used the descriptive-analytical method to explain his position.

Foucault and Hegel are two influential thinkers that were fundamentally involved with the problem of knowledge and history. Without an understanding of the place of history in their thoughts, it seems very difficult, if not impossible, to understand their philosophy correctly. Although Foucault pointed out his ideas about Hegel and his confrontation with him in his conversations and writings, he never explained this important in detail. However, by looking at his works and specifically what he proposes as archaeo-genealogy, we can see a fundamental contrast between this method and Hegel's philosophy of history. This article seeks to show how these two views can be understood in opposition to each other by reading Hegel's view of history as a philosophy of history and Foucault's archaeo-genealogy. Foucault's genealogical view, based on Nietzsche's ideas, is completely opposed to any metaphysics or philosophy of history, as philosophy of history is based on universality, reason and teleology, and the other is based on plurality, discontinuity, and the absence of any universal goal. This article will also try to clarify that these thinkers have commonalities in some aspects of their thinking, including some basic problems in relation to history, although these problems find completely different answers.

Kant and Hegel are philosophers and theorists in ethics. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study aims at comparing Kant’s and Hegel’s ethical theory and discovering the commonalities and differences of these two theories. The findings of the study show that Kant puts the ethics as the goal in itself instead of the ethics as a means to reach the goal, believing that ethical precepts should be carried out because of the duty and motivation to do the duty, not as a means. According to Kant’s general law, only good will is unconditionally good, and all other things become good when they are accompanied by good will. By combining the idea of law and the idea of the end in itself, Kant proposes the idea of autonomy and enters the sphere of ‘freedom’ from that point. Hegel also relies on freedom more than anything else, but unlike Kant, he seeks to make morality particular and insert it in the man’s individual and social spheres. Furthermore, he reconciles morality and action based on inner nature and desires. According to Hegel, individual satisfaction, freedom, and morality can be gathered together when we follow the beliefs and social values of an organized society. Unlike Kant, in Hegel’s moral theory, firstly, the conflict between satisfying natural desires and doing one’s duty is resolved; secondly, unity is established between individual and collective interests; thirdly, the individual’s particular moral duties and obligations are also clarified.

Perception is the second stage of the developmental process of consciousness in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, which consists of logical necessity and universality. It clears the ground for the possibility of the emergence of things as “essence” for the first time in this process. The conflict between the unity of the thing and plurality of its properties is, however, a fundamental problem that thinkers in the first phase of the history of philosophy (namely, the Aristotelian’s intellectual tradition) tried to solve by making the distinction between essential and non-essential aspects of the thing and ascribing the latter to it multitudinous properties. Nevertheless, when the subject’s role in achieving knowledge came to the front in Modern Philosophy, this solution of Naïve Realism was being challenged, and rethinking it was quite required. As a consequence, this rethinking at first resulted in turning this conflict into an insoluble controversy between Rationalism and Empiricism in ascribing the essential aspect (unity) to the thing (or the object) and the non-essential one (plurality) to the subject by the former and its vice-versa by the latter; the controversy which Kant’s Copernican Revolution proceeded to be its final terminator through invalidating the traditional distinction between essential and non-essential and re-defining the notion of “essence” under the subject’s transcendental conditions for knowledge; However once again his solution was put into the challenge by Hegel’s phenomenology.

In this article, after the author theoretically studies social-political events, and how to develop the theory of civil society, he goes on to understand and study the development of public will in civil society and the state and the dialectic between them in Hegel's political thought. Hegel was the first philosopher in the history of philosophy to consciously place a strategic position on civil society. And through the three basic elements, namely the legal system, the police, and the guilds and unions, as well as by examining the classes, all of which are in the service of civil society for the first time, it takes steps to form a partial will to form the public will. And through the theory of institutions, not only can he achieve the objectification of the abstract human will, but he also achieves the first stage of a unique general explanation. Here Hegel steps into government. Upon entering the public sector, Hegel quickly distinguished the field on the three principles of the organic matter versus the mechanical matter, the public interest over the personal interest, and finally the general precedence over a part of civil society. Consequently, with the precedence of the state over civil society in its own sense, it considers the public will to be the truth of the partial will, morality, and moral life.

The different definitions of rationalists and empiricists from man have different approaches to man. Hegel offers a dialectical view of whole and part together in a Kantian-Spinoza context by defining man as an embodiment subject, while also paying attention to his totality, while also showing the importance of his particularity and individuality. Mulla Sadra, on the other hand, makes a significant contribution to the body in perception. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of the embodiment of the subject on the principle of conatus from the perspective of Mulla Sadra and Hegel. Just as the embodiment of the subject in Hegel's view leads to the conatus, the acceptance of the axis of the soul-body as the subject for Mulla Sadra also leads to the conatus, albeit with differences, which in turn, in addition to individual and social changes in the attitudes to the humanities and the importance of physical life and collective well-being, lead to a change in the attitude towards humanities.

Many believe that one of Hegel's serious critics is Kierkegaard. In this article, we first try to show that some commentators believe that Kierkegaard's criticism is more related to Danish Hegelians than to Hegel himself. Second, when he meant to criticize Hegel himself, to what extent was he able to criticize the Hegelian system correctly, thirdly, was this anti-Hegelian thinker able to separate himself from the context of Hegel's thought, or is he still criticizing Hegel in the Hegelian Atmosphere? Of course, in this article, only some of Kierkegaard's criticisms have been examined and criticized; Like his critique on the position of the individual, theoretical reason, and historical necessity in Hegel's philosophy. We will also take a look at Kierkegaard's statement about the paradoxical field of faith and compare it with the Hegelian contradiction, and we will look at how much Kierkegaard is influenced by Hegel in expressing this concept. The purpose of the article is to examine Kierkegaard's criticisms, however, Hegel's ideas are also mentioned wherever necessary.

Martyr Ayatollah Beheshti, a contemporary thinker and philosopher, in his anthropology, has introduced the human being as a moving and continuously “becoming” being that can be on the course of growth and follow the path of perfection. There are various theories on the origin of motion and becoming in ontology, and Hegel’s dialectic theory can be considered as one of the most prominent theory. . On the other hand, Islamic thinkers have refuted this theory, and Martyr Beheshti has adopted the law of contradiction, attraction and healing. According to this theory, man evolves when he faces contradiction and tends towards one of the contradictions, and this continuous evolution is the very motion and ‘becoming’ in the eyes of Beheshti. This law has a clear manifestation in his anthropology, and originates from anthropology in human social systems, such as political, legal and educational systems. In the present study, through the descriptive-analytical method, while explaining and criticizing Hegel’s dialectic theory, we have discussed Ayatollah Beheshti’s viewpoint about the agent of motion in metaphysics, we have made use of this viewpoint in explaining the ‘becoming of a human being’, and we have pointed out its effects in Beheshti’s educational and political thoughts.

Hegel is one of the few thinkers who has thought about the art of sculpture. He has spoken concisely in his book Phenomenology of Spirit and extensively in his Lectures on Fine Art about sculpture. The common feature of these two texts is that the Absolute, which is synonymous with the Divine, in both, has been able to express self-conscious through Sculpture to the extent of the power and capacity of art. Hegel considers art to be over after the Romantic and believes that art can no longer represent the need of the Spirit because art is no longer an urgent need of the spirit. Modern sculpture is fundamentally different from Hegel's conception of this art. However, this new conception of sculpture can also be found in the heart of Hegel's thought. Hegel considers the art of sculpture as expressing and representing the divine order in different stages of history (including the history of religion and the history of art). In the art of modernism, the human body as a sanctuary and temple of the spirit has disintegrated, and the art of sculpture can no longer express the divine. In fact, the foundation of modern sculpture is humanism, and human individual and social affairs replace the divine. In this article, an attempt has been made to reflect on the relationship between the divine order and the announcement of the end of art by Hegel. Then the discontinuity of the expression of the divine command in modern sculpture is investigated. The results suggest that a secular conception of modern Sculpting can be extracted from the heart of Hegel's thought.

The main purpose of this study is to analyze the barriers to intellectual education on Hegel's point of view. The present research was qualitative research and the research method used was qualitative content analysis. The results of this study showed that the individual barriers to rational education from Hegel's point of view are: self-centered, fear, abstraction, negative skepticism, austerity and social barriers to rational education are: utilitarianism, collectivism, hypocrisy and fear of judgment. Negative. According to Hegel, obstacles to intellectual education begin when a person, due to lack of personal independence, lack of free will and lack of reciprocal and equal relationship with another, can not act as an independent intellectual being or when actuality It should not act as an independent rational being, but as an object serving the interests and purposes of other people. However, Hegel considers the obstacles of rational training as other stages of raising awareness as a step towards the development and promotion of the individual's personality, because consciousness faces these limitations and the intellectual obstacles and suffering that it suffers in the meantime. Can be aware of his inadequacies, which leads him to put himself in front of himself as an object and by exploring himself, to re-measure his understanding of himself, to know what he is. And it overcomes its one-sidedness.

By discovering effective reality and then establishing a relationship between effective reality and concepts such as human relations, the nation, and the salvation of the homeland, Machiavelli succeeds in devising a new interpretation of morality, virtue, and its relation to the reality of life. By placing human relations and the public interest in the exploration of moral law, he paved the way for Hegel’s conception of concrete morality and ethnic religion. It is according to Machiavelli’s idea that Hegel came up with the basic idea of ​​the phenomenology of the soul, which is to establish the dialectical relationship between heaven and earth. Accordingly, the contradiction between morality and human nature and desire is eliminated, and by cultivating morality from the roots of desire, human desire and nature introduce morality in general in the name of an understandable ethnic and customary spirit. Also, given the possibility that Machiavelli’s effective reality gives him, Hegel succeeds in establishing a relation between idealism and realism and explains the extraction of idealism from within realism. In this regard, the authors try to establish a relation between the logic of Prince Machiavelli and the evolution of the phenomenological logic of the soul by presenting a new interpretation of the modern Prince Machiavelli and showing the great philosophical possibilities that this work offers to philosophers after him, especially Hegel.

Before Machiavelli, in order to explain the transition from subject to object, he justified concepts that played a pivotal role in the transition from subject to object, or vice versa, which were essentially theological-metaphysical concepts, but Machiavelli in his political thought defined There is a new relation, and it must be achieved, that Hegel was later able to use in his ontology in a complex interpretation - and a critique of the views of the likes of Kant and Fichte, who are and should have dealt with the separation of territory. Influenced by Machiavelli, instead of inferring, hegel's ontological and transcendent affairs should be sought in the midst of the effective facts of this world, and thus he was able to criticize the precedence of subject over object, as philosophically explained by Kant, and the dialectical relation. Study between the two from a normative point of view. The author tries to present a new interpretation of the problem and must explain in Machiavelli's thought the logic of Hegel's transition from subject to object and how to replace normative logic with transcendent logic in this regard.

Initially, sources such as dreams, the presence of spirits, and the respiration of beings are among the origins of understanding the soul. One of the greatest intellectual problems of the human being is that it has an inner and spiritual imagination of itself, which is difficult to reconcile with a comprehensive scientific understanding of the material world, including the body. We see ourselves as beings with souls and minds, albeit in a world made up of mindless material particles. Now the question is, how can these two imagines be reconciled? Why is it so difficult to imagine the soul along with the body? At least since Descartes, the problem of the soul and the body has become such that how can the relationship between the soul and the body be interpreted? Western philosophers disagree on the concept of "I" with which everyone refers. What can be said to explain these disagreements? Is the subject (I) referred to as a material and a body; Or is it neither a body nor a material? or is it composed of these types? Our goal in this article is to discover and interpret the data by descriptive-analytic method while expressing the Western philosophers' definition of the soul, explain their solution to the relationship between the soul and the body. The finding of this research on the soul can be considered as being; The soul does not fit into any scientific definition and explanation, and we cannot say what it is, but we can say that it exists and that there are consciousness and life around it.