intellectualism

The impact of modernity on non-western societies has forced them to redefine their traditions and related institutions. Islamic societies have not been immune to the influence of modernity, and Muslim intellectuals have been deeply involved in the concepts of modernity; Concepts such as: rationality, science, progress and secularism, individual freedom, social equality and democracy. Ali Shariati was also in such a field of thought. The main question of the article is what is the relationship between tradition and modernism in Shariati's thought. The hypothesis of the research is that Shariati, like most Islamic intellectuals, was in the confrontation between tradition and modernity. Due to facing the social issues arising from this encounter, he has definitely proposed some ideas regarding these two.The background of research in this topic is very rich, the most important of which have been reviewed. The article "Analysis of the position of religion in interaction with modernity in the thought of religious intellectuals of the second Pahlavi period" tried to examine the relationship between religion and modernity (case study: Shariati and Bazargan). The article "Shariati, Political Modernity and the Islamic Revolution" tried to "evaluate some modern concepts in Shariati's thought in relation to political modernity and examine its impact on the Islamic Revolution". Also, the article "A reflection on Shariati's political thought; Unsuccessful attempt to combine tradition and modernity" has been searching for an answer to this question: "What is the most important Sharia reason for creating a dialogue between tradition and modernity and what was the result of this attempt?" The article "Meaning of the West and Modernity in Shariati's Thought" tried to explain Shariati's view of the West and modernity. These researches are important works, but they only deal with the political aspect. The innovation of this research is the attention to epistemological dimensions.

The methodology of this article is an interpretive approach. This interpretive approach has been textual. But this interpretive approach has been based on a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework has been a critical reading of the relationship between tradition and modernity. This critical reading, by distancing itself from the common theory of the antagonistic conflict between tradition and modernity, has sought to understand the connection between the two. Therefore, the emphasis on the critical reading of Ali Shariati's original texts has been based on that theoretical framework.

While Ali Shariati had a deep look at the historical features of the tradition system and was aware of the weight of the heritage of the tradition, at the same time, he also paid attention to the effects of modernity and knew that neither of these two could be ignored. Therefore, he never wanted neither tradition to overcome modernity nor modernity to marginalize tradition. He tried to open a third way by criticizing both modernity and tradition. His third way is a critical reconstruction or in other words a kind of renaissance or religious renaissance. A renaissance that enabled the system of tradition (at the heart of which was the collection of religious teachings) to face modernity and accept it critically. To open such a way, Shariati considers a vital role for intellectuals. Shariati emphatically condemned the fanatical and irrational nature of traditional concepts and expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity based on blind imitation of the West, the spirit of capitalism and modern scientism. With such presuppositions, Shariati criticized the modernity, and by distinguishing between good and bad, he chose what he needed. Then he started the same interaction with the tradition system. Then he puts his selected components together to present a new architecture. Modern building with traditional materials.Finally, it can be said that Shariati's approach to tradition and modernity was a type of "selective modernity". Shariati saw modernity not as a whole and a unified nature, but as a multifaceted collection that, instead of accepting such a collection at once, should be carefully selected in its parts. It means that Shariati approached the tradition with a critical ruler from the point of view of modernity and its requirements and "selected" the necessary components, and had a "selective" approach to modernity itself. In the end, he passed both of these through the sieve of his critical view, so that instead of "rejecting modernity" (hostility to modernity) or "praising modernity" (immersing in modernity), he chose "selective modernity". In this view, there is neither blind hostility nor unconditional surrender; But a critical and conscious choice!

The comparative study of the approaches of Fakhr Razi and Stace toward religious language reveals that concerning the methodology, they both emphasize the mystic and religious intuition method. With regard to their justification for religious beliefs, they both adopt a foundationalist view to the religious propositions. However, Stace has taken the whole religion to be equal to mysticism, beyond reason and logic, and paradoxical, while Fakhr Razi has deemed only a part of religion to be inexplicable and has considered the language related to it to be true. In the same vein, their stances toward religious faith and their understanding of revelation are also different. With regard to the criticism of their views it might be said that in Stace’s viewpoint, in addition to the internal inconsistency, the material and immaterial worlds have been considered as separate and horizontal. His approach involves conditions such as fideism, non-cognitivness of the religious language, human’s needlessness to revelation, etc. However, Fakhr Razi has adopted a fideistic-intellectual method to deal with the religious language. Analyzing the divine attributes and names through affirmative and negative approaches, he has considered human to be in need of revelation. Therefore, Fakhr Razi’s viewpoint to religious language is more complete than that of Stace.

The correct analysis and explanation of intellect and quotation relation based on the principles and foundations of the Ibn tamiyah and Javadi Amoli thought, as representatives of the two intellectualism and text adherence movements in the field of religious knowledge, have significant Results. Ibn Taymiyyah by rigidity on texts Appearances Even in the belief principles, beleives that the reason for the difference between philosophers and theologians, is the lack of inherent authority and independence of intellect. Therefore, he say the preceding of reasonable on fixed is baseless, and the only way of true faith is to believe decisively in the Prophet. He offer a Definition for intellect, according which intellect is accident and reduces it to the limit of instinct and common Sense; by confuse of quotation with Islamic Law, Ibn Taymiyyah absolutely defending the precede of quotation on intellect;and by  acceptance of intellect multiplicity and Epistemic Relativity, he tries to solve the conflict of intellect and quotation , and  beleives the revocation of a kind of intellect does not means the revocation of the whole intellect. But Javadi Amoli By leveling up rational and traditional  knowledges,  believes Each of the intellect and quotation is confirm one another,  and by the separation of revelation from the quotation, he introduces  quotative understanding such as Rational understanding, which is vulnerable, Unprotected from the fault and right and Conflict,  And defends interpretation as a solution to the conflict of reason and quotation; Javadi considers the preceding of rational reason on Unexplained verbal reason, to be necessary. He believes the product of empirical intellect, semi-abstractintellect, abstract intellect, and pure intellect is Valid , if it is a type of dogmatization, certainty, or led to rational assurance,  And while differentiate between intellect and the conduct of the wise ( bin’ al-‘uqala’),  he consider the  Rational argument a kind of knowledge that its reliability and validity is  inherent, not fake. According to him, it is necessary to discuss the intellect, quotation and the related topics in the epistemological domain of religion, in the principles knowledge.

The life of an intellectual and artistic trend requires the use of ideological and cultural tools to internalize its core elements among its audience. The position of mainstream and outdated trends also greatly depends on the performance of cultural instruments, and, of course more important, on cultural and social planning. Now that over three decades of ups and downs have elapsed since the outbreak of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, indicating the current cinematic trends and examining their relationship with the ideal artistic trend of the Islamic Revolution can be helpful for understanding the art of the Revolution. Reviewing cinema according to the two Islam and secularism, this study seeks to provide social worlds a theoretical basis for analyzing the cultural cinema trends in Iran. After making a review of the cinema of these two worlds, the details and ups and downs of the cinema in the post revolution period is analyzed. In the end, selecting films which have to do with each trend, this paper analyzes the notable works of each trend in each of the political-cultural periods following the Islamic Revolution. Trend semiotics has been used in analyzing the film.

There is a perplexing transition in Dr. Reza Davari's thought, when he problematizes the relation between Iranian and Western history/cultures, on which this paper is focusing. The interprative objective is to clarify this transition on the basis of the implicit relation between the two most fundamental concepts in his earlier and later thought respectively westernization and underdevelopment. Although, by this transition, the level of discussion transits from an ontologico-philosophical to an intellectualist one. So, there are two different levels of problematization in his thought which differ deeply. Therefore, we are not just dealing with the substitution of fundamental concepts, but with different problematizations and different levels of discussion. Obviously, there will be new problems arising which are not just conserning with the justification of the transition but with the problematization of westernization itself. Finally, it's been concluded that in order to clarify these new problems, we should step back to the level of philosophical discussion, and first of all to the clarification of the I-not-I relation which has been neglected thouroughly in the whole project.

Gilbert Ryle distinguished between knowing that and knowing how. Prefer to believe that either of these two forms of knowledge than others, radical intellectualism or anti-intellectualism has shaped. This article aims to analyze and critique of radical intellectualism and anti-intellectualism attitude and suggest new model is as moderate intellectualism. The method used in this paper is Ryle's analysis of ordinary language. In order to illustrate this, the concept of intellectualism and anti-intellectualism in the relationship between knowing that and knowing how on the one hand and knowing how and abilities on the other hand has been dealt. In moderate intellectualism pattern propositional knowledge independent of practical knowledge, and ability is not necessarily require a knowing how. This new scheme to distinguish between two types of knowledge and at the same time believe to the fundamental role of knowing that to achieve s appropriate knowing how. In this approach, knowing that is implicit and gradual in shaping the knowing how.

According to the claim of some contemporary intellectuals rationality and spirituality are among the non-ignorable needs of mankind; while religiosity not only is not a human need, but also is an obstacle against the encounter of some human needs. Religiosity is not consistent with rationality; and, because one cant give up rationality, inevitably one must put aside the religion-based spirituality. In this concise article, only one part of this claim is examined: the claim of inconsistency of religiosity with rationality. It will be explained that religiosity in its universal meaning, is neutral in relation to rationality and irrationality. Although religiosity demands complete obedience, it does not demand a blindly and unreasoned obedience. What is inconsistent with rationality, is a blindly and unreasoned obedience, not a complete obedience.

Agreeing with the theory of white tablet and sensualism, including inner and outer senses both, in the field of concepts and with intellectualism in the field of judgements, as two bases of Muslim philosophers, would lead to two problems when dealing with invisible phenomena such as experiences of revelation: one is non-explanotry state of them and the other lies in finding an authentic way for studying them. For the latter there can be found four probabilities: 1. avoiding to judge, 2. seeking to aquire such experiences if possible, 3. using examples and models, 4. relying on the people of such experiences, namely prophets, and taking a religious position.In the paper, the meaning of model and the difficulties in the way for using models have been introduced and it has been proved that the only authentic way consists in the four probability.

Hasan Hanafi who is among the contemporary Egyptian intellectuals has his own intellectual and epistemological foundations borrowed from schools such as Husserl’s phenomenology, Marxism and socialism, relativism, pragmatism, empiricism, humanism and historicalcivilizational approach; and, relying these foundations, he studies the Islamic heritage. In this view, heritage is not something sacred, rather it is a historical development and a social evolution and there is no standard against which false and truth may be theoretically recognized within it. Hanafi’s historical approach has been intertwined with his Marxist approach and the result is a materialist interpretation of the fundamental principles of religion. His view to the West, human sciences and Islamic sciences is not something new and specific to him; rather, its general spirit and main features are shared by many westernized intellectuals in the Islamic world and should be seriously and fundamentally criticized. The present article is aimed to do so.