difference

The subject of the current article is Foucault's analysis of the ontology of the novel. This research provides an interdisciplinary reading indicating that the ontology of the novel is based on the deconstruction of home’s concept: novel characters, unlike the heroic characters of Greek mythology and the Bible, constantly depart from home to discover the unknown realm of existence or a new dimension of humanity. There is a direct relationship between this transcendental homelessness and the novel's ontology. The results of the current research have shown that the conceptualization of home has yielded specific outcomes: 1. The novel has replaced similarity-based ethics with difference-based ethics. 2. Home is not a fixed and unchanging concept, but rather a construct. 3. The novel's adventure is a journey from the known to the unknown realms. 4. The novel is not in pursuit of utopia but rather maps out heterotopias as realms of diversity and abundance. The clear implication of this research is that the difference between the novel and the epic is not merely a genre difference but rather an ontological difference

Justice has always been a central concern of divine religions and human schools of thought, with various scholars engaging in its discourse. A new frontier in justice studies involves examining the underlying ontological and anthropological perspectives that shape the content of justice. Justice encompasses a wide range of domains, including gender justice, which refers to the fair treatment of men and women. Due to the multifaceted nature of gender justice, its study necessitates not only an understanding of justice but also an awareness of human nature, the nature of creation, gender differences, women's rights, and the foundations of justice. Examining and proposing criteria for achieving gender justice is an area that has received relatively little research attention.Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, a contemporary philosopher with expertise in anthropology, women's issues, equality, justice, and gender differences, offers valuable insights into these topics. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach to investigate his views on the criteria for achieving gender justice.By analyzing Ayatollah Javadi Amoli's perspective on gender justice, it can be concluded that the criteria for achieving justice vary depending on the context. In matters related to human identity, justice is measured by the standards of equality and fairness. In matters of gender, which are related to upbringing and environment and do not represent inherent differences between men and women, justice is achieved based on individual merit. In matters of biological sex, the criteria for justice also change, with proportionality based on difference serving as the foundation for justice in this domain.

Derrida plays a significant role in introducing Saussure to the philosophical and linguistic discourse of our time. While dealing with Saussure's intellectual foundations and Saussure's influence on Derrida, this article aims to analyze Derrida's deconstructive criticism of Saussure on the issue of writing. Saussure, in the book of General Linguistics, by dividing the realm of language into two parts outside and inside, pushes writing out of the inner realm of language and considers it as the representation of language. Saussure considers writing to usurp the place of speech and considers it a marginal matter. Derrida believes that Saussure could not violate the metaphysics of presence by determining the limits of the inside and outside for language and the exit of writing from the inner realm of language. By proposing the concept of Difference, he refers to the independent aspect of writing compared to speech and removes writing from the subjugation of speech. According to Derrida, the arbitrariness of the sign can bring the signifier out of the subjugation of the signified and create multiple signifiers. According to Derrida, Difference indicates the possibility of continuous becomings in the text, and these becomings will bring an endless chain of signifiers.

This article seeks to demonstrate, through a hypothetical dialogue between Hannah Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, that the essence of politics must be sought beyond "real politics" and its agent, namely, the state. For this reason, politics requires a fundamental, radical and serious rethinking. This rethinking, however, must be carried out by first deconstructing politics to prepare it for emerging new possibilities; second deconstructing Ethics and extending it from the individual level to the level of "I in the We"; third reinterpreting the relationship between politics and ethics, which are already in the process of constructive judgment and are ready for a relationship that has no master or servant. As a result of such simultaneous reflections, the foundations of what this article views as Ethical politics could probably be clarified in general terms. This essay thus raises three long-standing questions: What is politics? What is ethics? What is ethical politics? The response to the first question is founded on Arendt's views. This paper draws attention to concepts such as plurality instead of unity, public realm instead of private realm, and peace instead of war. Relying on Levinas's philosophy of ethics, the second question is answered by emphasizing the primacy of understanding over cognition, the other over self, and the person over the land. Last but not least, the third question is addressed by establishing a link connection between the mentioned thinkers’ views and their shared ideas such as responsibility for the other, the primacy of the interest of humans over national interests and a new concept of state.

The aim of this article is to consider Hegel's unity, which is "the Unity of Identity and Difference" Or to examine and explain the "unity of seemingly contradictory features in a single coherent whole" in the light of the main problem of Hegel's philosophy, that is, the overcoming of divisions or dualities, as the solution of her philosophy. Unity (Einheit) is an important ideal, goal and end for Hegel's philosophical system. Hence, in his entire philosophical system and in different periods of his intellectual life, the traces of the search for unity are always obvious, from the beautiful artistic unity in Greece to his desired unity, which is a rational, speculative, philosophical, absolute and Mediated unity. For him, the whole of philosophy is nothing but the study of the definition of unity and its realization in society. A unity that, instead of eliminating or absorbing another, tries to preserve and eliminate pluralities and differences by accepting and recognizing another in a single coherent whole. A unity in which differences and dualities do not disappear but are preserved as necessary and inevitable moments. Unity that is not the result of direct intuition but the product and result of passing through different stages and an intersubjective matter. For Hegel, it is not atomism and excessive individualism in the modern world that lead to rupture, not mere mystical and abstract unions that wipe out all differences, but the unity of the whole in which All distinctions are preserved.

In this article, we try to show that contemporary philosophy and its main philosophical currents are rooted in the thoughts of modern philosophers, and the influence of these philosophers is still understandable with ups and downs in the present century, although scathing critiques of modern philosophies. It has been done by contemporary philosophers. In this article, we briefly refer to the role of the philosophical ideas of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin in the development of contemporary philosophies such as poststructuralism, existentialism, phenomenology, and American pragmatism. Understanding the philosophical foundations of contemporary philosophies can be understood directly in relation to the philosophical foundations of these philosophers. We can evaluate the role of these philosophers in contemporary philosophies in three areas. First, we can point to the historical aspects of the thinking of these philosophers and the contemporary reception of such an attitude. Almost

Ibn Habib Neyshaboory in self' book –that it is classified as sufi literature- considers the kinds of madness. In this classification, never madness isn't conceived as illness and it isn't the contrast with rationality. A madman is a man who he chooses different style with public life and refuses formal normal. At a conclusion, a madman is representated as critic of society and politics. Madness is language of outcasts and isolated persons. Therefore, it is irony and overturne ethics-knowledge regime.Foucault, also, criticizes psychiatry' dividing practices that constitutes reason-madness polarity and denies a different ways of thinking. In view of Foucault, psychiatry is a apparatus for social control and rejaction of singular subjects. In this approach, Foucault's perpective becomes similar to Ibn Habib's.But, Foucault, against Ibn Habib, avoids romantic or essentialist interpretation about a innocent essence. Foucault considers refrence to pre-modern discourses as a regressive approach. He pays attention to madness concept because it make possible forms of informal politics: ways of practicing power down to up and pass out of dividing practices. It is beyond of good-bad or truth-false. But Ibn Habib, in sufi discourse, constitutes madness language as hegemonic discourse against philosophical discourse. This article make a comparison between Foucault and Ibn Habib and it transfers superficial similarity to discoursive difference.

Heidegger believed that a metaphysical conceptualization of the relationship between identity and difference is not original and maintained that such negligence is rooted in the fact that metaphysics has forgotten “difference as such” as pure unfoldedness. In his view, the Greeks had a clearer image of the above-mentioned relationship. In his interpretation of Anaximander’s view, Heidegger demonstrates that, while viewing all being as a whole, Anaximander does not ignore the differences among them. Based on Heidegger’s interpretation, through introducing apeiron and time as two fundamental elements, Anaximander managed to have an early encounter with the relationship between identity and difference. Heidegger called this relationship “participation” and maintained that this concept can lead one to fundamental difference. This is because, unlike metaphysical theories, it does not depend on external elements, upon which correlation relies; rather, it depends on the being of beings. Apeiron and time open the door to a pure space in the unfoldedness of which beings find their essence and, at the same time, depend so much on each other that the whole is created based on their mutual relation.

In this writing, the basics and preconditions of the discussion such as the recognition of the truth of the soul and body and its ability as the inductor or the sentient of perception, are specifically expressed in Mulla Sadra's view. In the following, the differences between the views of the Islamic scholars in the discussion of the above are discussed as the introduction of the concept of perception and feeling, and these discussions will also differentiate the speeches of those intellectuals in the context of perception and feeling. In terms of perception, the author, after expressing the theory and foundations and the results of the discussion, regards those intellectuals, and especially Mulla Sadra, in expressing the differences and differences between the views of those Islamic scholars. In the final section, discussions on issues such as emotions and controversies have been considered, based on Mulla Sadra's principles and views on animal and human perception, and the attention is paid to the distinction between feelings in animals and humans.

This article tries to show how the philosophy of difference comes out of the dialectical philosophy at the time of "writing" when Bataille's reading of Hegel comes complete with some Derridean meditations. The importance of the move from dialectic to difference is realized well when serious critics of Hegel, such as Michel Foucault, assert the difficulties of releasing ourselves of the dialectical thinking. Bringing in the concepts of negation and death to the philosophical discourse has given Hegel an outstanding place in the history of philosophy. These crucial issues could even attract the contemporary critical thinkers. Even though Hegel's treatment of negation and death is considered as the distinct merit of his thought, his approach in this regard has provoked some severe criticisms. Both Hegel and Derrida aim at "affirmation" in their encounter with the negation, however, it seems that in attaining affirmative thinking, Hegel could not remain faithful to his own insight regarding the significance of negation and death. Bataille and Derrida are not satisfied with Hegelian determinate negation at all. That is why they seek another kind of affirmation. Taking some of Hegelian achievements much seriously, which leads to Hegelianism without reserve according to Derrida, can provide us with a new mode of thinking which is non-dialectical. Referring to the Derridean description of Hegel as "the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of the writing", we start our article and then try to show what it is meant by Hegelianism without reserve in details. We demonstrate how Hegelianism without reserve is accomplished through placing Nietzsche at the hub of dialectic. Inspired by Nietzsche, Bataille challenges Hegelian tragedy, seriousness, systematic thinking and conceptualization with comedy, play, chance and poetry or myth in his encounter with death and negativity. However, Bataille has faced some problems in accomplishing his non-dialectical project. Indeed, it is difficult to criticize conceptual thinking without conceptualization. Derrida's reorganization of Bataille's reading of Hegel according to his conception of writing and difference can overcome the problems of Bataille's approach to Hegel and pave the way for the move from dialectic to difference. Derrida's difference is an influential attempt in overcoming dialectic and introducing a non-dialectical mode of thinking that eventually breaks with Hegelian dialectic.

From the beginning, opponents used to level accusations against Shiite imams and their followers. One of these accusations is that it is said that after every prayer, Shias beat on their thighs with their, showing a sign of regret saying that Gabriel committed treason. This is because he gave revelation that was supposed to be given to Ali bin AbiTalib, to Muhammad bin Abdullah. This article tries to study the different aspects of this skepticism and answer it. It firstly mentions what Shias and Sunnites consider as recommendable after giving salutation and then deals with the origin of this skepticism, answering it historically, experimentally, jurisprudentially and intellectually.

Stratification and injustice are among the obvious inevitable, deep-rooted social realities in every society. Sociologists present different views on this issue, and the main views are two macro-theories called conflictism and functionalism. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the present paper expounds the general views of the Quran on this issue, giving special attention to Al-Mizan Commentary and the late 'Allamah Tabatabaii's views. Among the results of this study are providing a critical approach to some of the views discussed in sociology and evaluating these views in the light of Quranic teachings.

Comparing doctrines of one religion with similar doctrines of other religions and pointing out the similarities and differences between them can contribute to deep understanding of religious beliefs. One of the main beliefs in eastern religions is reincarnation, which means belief in rebirth of souls in new bodies in this world. The Shiite school advocates the doctrine of Return, in the sense that some of the dead decedents will be brought back to the life at the time or after Imam Mahdi's universal uprising. It is sometimes thought that these two doctrines are of the same origin and that the doctrine of return which some Muslims advocate has been taken from other religions. Therefore, it is necessary to contemplate on, and re-examine the relationship between return and reincarnation in order to comment on this claim. This issue has different dimensions so the present paper tries to study the similarities and differences between the two doctrines. It elaborates on the fact that these two doctrines differ in terms of foundations, principles, and aims. Using a comparative method, the author analyzes the principles and implications of these two doctrines.

The Soul in immaterial for Descartes, because it’s Inherent attribute; i.e. thought is immaterial. Moreover, it is independent from body and matter and has no extend. In his view, the Soul from the beginning has been immaterial, while Mulla-Sadra recognizes it as a corporeal object at the beginning, in generation, and immaterial afterward and survivance. Mulla-Sadra demonstrates that, Soul needs material possibility for its becoming and being completed. He solves the problem of Duality and Relevance of the Soul and body in this way. But what is the correspondent and different points between these two major thinkers? In this article we are going to discuss about “incorporeity of Soul” and their “attention to intuition and perception in understanding of truth”, as correspondent points; and about “the style of the existence of Soul”, “the manner of its incorporeity and distinction from or unity with body”, as different points.

Human life is in vital need of daily bread, and, as is said in Quran, God has guaranteed human daily bread. Yet, as is seen, there is not equality in daily bread of people. How can we explain such a disparity with regard to the absolute justice of God? Without a reasonable answer to this question, Divine justice would remain unexplained. Regarding the close relation between daily bread and Divine justice, the paper has presented a reasonable explanation on human daily bread and Divine justice. In this way, the differences in daily bread have been philosophically justified.

The present paper tries to make explicit the differences between man and woman and their roles and functions. Its main aim is to find out the grounds and contexts which are necessary for a lively and peaceful life regarding the relation between man and woman by recognizing the differences between the opposite sexes in different dimensions. This research uses a descriptive-analytical method, and the data are obtained through a study of these differences in scientific and religious sources. The effects and functions of these differences are based on religious and psychological studies and the important finding of this research is perceiving the differences between the opposite sexes regarding physical, natural, sexual, emotional, and intellectual aspects. This perception helps us to lead an agreeable life of accountability and spirituality by sharing love and affection, happiness, joy, and equality and just judgment.

The theory of gradation is one of the few problems that has attracted the attention of all philosophical schools (Peripatetic School, Illuminationist School and the Transcendent Philosophy) and Muslim logicians, mutakallimun, and gnostics. It is indeed because of this careful attention of Muslim thinkers that this theory has gradually flourished and attained relative and acceptable perfection in its process of development. This theory has greatly influenced logical and philosophical semantics, as well as the epistemology and cosmology of Muslim philosophers and gnostics. The theory of gradation has been propounded in response to the following question: Is the reality of being one or many? The answer to this question, in a way, reveals one’s philosophical and cosmological propensity. Generally speaking, there are three main responses to this question:1. The reality of being is “one”, and there is unity in the world (gnostics’ view).2. The reality of being is “multiple”; therefore, there is multiplicity in the world (this view is attributed to the Peripatetics).3. The reality of being is both one and many (Sadrian philosophers’ view).The most important debate and its outcome in this regard have emerged in the cosmology of Sadrian gnostics and philosophers. Here, gnostics believe in the theory of “gradation in the loci of the manifestations of being”. However, Sadrian philosophers advocate the theory of “gradation in the levels of being”. In this paper, while explaining the historical development of the problem of gradation, the writer has discussed the views of Muslim gnostics, mutakallimun, philosophers, and logicians in this regard.

This study is an attempt to investigate women’s permission to pass a judgment in the court which is a current trend and has always been important for Islam’s opponents to refer to it targeting Islamic values. Here we have investigated the scientific and legal bases of this religious order (women are not authorized to judge) and we want to see whether this view can be followed. We have considered different important sources available to critically analyze literature in this regard. Those who believe in the necessity of masculinity of a person who passes a judgment refer to various sources, narrations, consensus of arguments to support their own claim. However, analyses made on the arguments of religious authorities revealed that there is no logical reason disallowing women to pass judgment. We can conclude that taking an unbiased look at this issue, for women possessing the related requirements, judgment cannot be denied. Rather we can allow them to pass a judgment to fulfill their responsibility of “joining the right and forbidding the wrong”.

Philosophers before Sadra by a definition of man as rational animal regard reason as true differentia and first perfection and perceptions and actual volitional activities as second perfection which occurs to his specific quiddity; therefore, the plurality and difference of human beings is from the second perfections that human souls in the course of their spiritual perfection get access to them.
Mulla Sadra by discussing the problem of matter and form for a definition of man, unlike previous philosophers regards human form as a purgatory between two worlds of corporeality and spirituality and by basing gradual perfection on substantial motion, regards human being as having different degrees that along with his existential perfection finds different quaddities. By appealing to divine verses and reports, he regards the essential difference of human soul as definitive and emphasizes that the best and most distinguished people can never be at the same plane with the worst and most degraded ones; these two, not only in essential unity but also in specific unity, are different with each other. In this article, after a review of these two completely different views that are deriving from a difference based on principles and foundations, the reason for diversity and essential difference between individual persons as well as the mystery of stations resulting from this diversity will be explained.