epic

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

his philosophy with Iranian mysticism. Such identification is fundamentally flawed and contradicts Nietzsche's ontological principles and moral values. Some of the Iranian commentators, expert in Nietzsche's philosophy, identified Nietzsche's thought is pregnant from the epic universal values, not the mystical patterns. Understanding of Nietzsche's Philosophy is possible with the help of Shahnameh and Iliad not mysticism. The reason of this fundamental error lies in the fact that these Iranian commentators fail to distinguish the subtle differences between mysticism and epic, and this failure, has led to their mixing Nietzsche's thought with the Iranian mysticism. Epic and mysticism are related in the differences not the similarities. Although there could be some similarities between the mystical worldview and that of epic, they are merely outward and superficial. In effect, in the matter of epistemic, moral and ontological principles, epic contradicts mysticism. At the best, mysticism can be considered to be the negative correspondence of epic and called “Negative Epic”. Nietzsche's thought has been affected to a greater extent by the Greek culture than and prior to the Iranian traditions. Nietzche's symbolic recourse to Zoroaster cannot be a cogent basis for these commentator's claim. Moreover, Nietzche's grasp of Zoroastrian worldview is so much blurred and incomplete. He appreciates the Greek culture not the Iranian traditions. Therefore, autonomy, voluntarism, appreciation of life and denunciation of passivity are the set of values and principles associating Nietzsche's philosophy with epic. These are exactly the principles disregarded and even denied in mystical thought. In other words, Nietzsche's philosophy can be considered the rebirth of the epic in the sphere of philosophical thought.