modernity

Many of the challenges of contemporary life stem from the tensions between tradition and modernity. In his works, particularly Hezar Dastan, Hatami provides a nuanced analysis of the social, historical, political, and cultural dynamics of Iranian society. Through his insightful exploration of Iran's transition to the modern era, he highlights the inherent flaws in this process. This research focuses on Hatami's examination of the modern city and how modernity integrates into Iranian society, as well as the broader implications of modernization within urban contexts. What does modernization mean in Iran, and how has modernity impacted our lives? Hatami’s narrative in Hezar Dastan is more than just a recounting of Iranian tradition and culture. His analysis of the city is both spatial and temporal, addressing concepts that span across both space and time.This article investigates the complex relationship between urban environments, urban society, urban culture, and the traditionalist framework in Hezar Dastan. Hatami's narrative goes beyond a mere account of Iran's historical traditions and cultural heritage. The goal of this research is to elucidate how Hatami’s portrayal of urban environments reflects deeper dimensions and confrontations, especially by examining the historical traditions embedded in Iranian culture. It also looks at the philosophical foundations of Islamic thought regarding the city, as well as Hatami’s distinctive cinematic techniques, which contribute to his unique representation of urban spaces.

This article adopts a semiotic approach to explore the traditional and modern concepts of urban planning and the cultural impact of Hatami's films in their representation of the city, society, and urban identity. The research also examines the urban crises that arise at the intersection of traditionalism and modernity, taking into account the historical, social, and cultural context in Iran. Through semiotic analysis, the study decodes Hatami's narratives in Hezar Dastan, aiming to provide new interpretations of Iran’s transitional period and the associated changes in urban environments.

The study presents an in-depth case analysis of key locations, visual concepts, cinematic techniques, and symbolic representations within Hezar Dastan. The goal is to foster a comprehensive understanding of the significance of urban space representation in Iranian cinema. This analysis provides a detailed reading of how urban environments are depicted, shedding light on their broader cultural implications and their role in reflecting the tensions between tradition and modernity.

The final outcome of this research is the identification of twenty dominant visual concepts in Hezar Dastan, which illustrate the transition from tradition to modernity in the Iranian city as represented in the series. These concepts help to showcase how the series captures the evolving landscape of Iranian urban identity in the face of modernization, offering valuable insights into the cultural and social transformations taking place in Iranian society.

The analysis of the relationship between reason and morality is as old as the history of thought, and philosophers from ancient Greece have always had a serious concern for evaluating this relationship. Taha Abd al-Rahman, an important Moroccan philosopher who is considered among the important thinkers of the Islamic world, is also trying to do something new by examining the concept of reason and morality and measuring the relationship between the two. In his thought, modern rationality is an element that is opposed to morality. To understand the nature of reason, he mentions three types of reason, whose analysis is necessary to understand the relationship between reason and morality. These three types of intellect are Abdur Rahman's innovative division, which can be considered as the basis of his moral system. In his opinion, the difference between humans and animals is morality, not reason . A rationality that is based on morality and constantly considers ethics as a supervisor and ruler has value, not that rationality that is alien to morality. In this article, after analyzing the two concepts of reason and morality in Abdul Rahman's thought, we will evaluate his approach regarding the relationship between reason and morality.

Shīʿite mysticism aims to determine its distinct principles between the pressure of two schools of thought, i.e., traditional Islamic jurisprudential scholars, and the progressive and religious intolerance foundations of modernity. The main issue that we intend to research is what the principles of Shīʿite mysticism have to say about the foundations of modernity and how the principles of Shīʿite mysticism differ from other mysticism in this regard. This research extracts the distinct foundations of Shīʿite mysticism from the words and teachings of Imām Khomeinī raḥimahu llāhu by using the method of text analysis, and explains the conflict and agreements of Shīʿite mysticism with the foundations of modernity by using the method of analytical comparison. The results of this research are as follows: 1. Shīʿite mysticism has original and distinct foundations from other mysticism, and it is completely based on the true Islamic principles in this regard. 2. The foundations of intuitionism, esotericism, and the necessity of the purity of soul in mysticism are in conflict with the foundations of rationalism, scientism, religious intolerance, and economic welfare of modernity. 3. Imām Khomeinī by presenting the foundations of Shīʿite mysticism, harmonized scientism, rationalism and economic development of modernity with religiosity and mystical spiritualism and redefined the material, social, and political dimensions of man in the heart of the spiritual dimension and the unified truth of the universe. In this way, Shīʿite mysticism, in the form of the political system of the Islamic Republic, will be able to respond to the needs and problems of the believer in modern society.

Hans Diebreder "Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy" deals with the historiography of Islamic philosophy, from the time of publication of the first work by De Boer until our time. He has analyzed the assumptions of Orientalists in the historiography of Islamic philosophy and outlined the history of Orientalist writings about Islamic philosophy and expressed its strengths and weaknesses. Daiber considers the most important features of the Orientalist approach (such as De Boer, Goldziher, Max Horton, etc.) in the historiography of Islamic philosophy to be neglecting the interaction of philosophy with Islamic words, emphasizing Platonic elements over Aristotelian elements, and paying little attention to the religious context. Islamic philosophy and exaggeration about the role of ethnic (Semitic) elements in the development of Islamic philosophy. Sharif, Nasr, Mehdi Khan, Tawfiq Ebrahim and others) believes that these works are more descriptive than critical and historical and in those historical-comparative studies about the Greek background of Islamic philosophy are generally ignored and exaggerated emphasis is placed on the originality of Islamic philosophy. considers it to be the reaction of Muslim scholars to the European-centered historiographical approach to Islamic philosophy. (ibid., xxviii).

Dr. Davari's reading of Islamic philosophy and its position in contemporary history and culture, whose main paradigm is the modern and Europe-centered discourse, while paying attention to the status and nature of contemporary Western philosophy and culture, tries to explore the possibilities of Islamic philosophy in dialogue with issues and Think about contemporary culture. This attention to Islamic philosophy has existed in different intellectual periods of Dr. Davari, including in books such as Farabi, the founder of Islamic philosophy (1354, first edition) and Maqam of philosophy in the period of Islamic Iranian history (1st edition, 1356) and later in our book and the history of philosophy Islamic (1389). According to Dr. Davari's analysis in his book "Ma and the History of Islamic Philosophy" (2009).

The survey of Islamic philosophy was directed to the sky rather than to the earth. He quoted Cicero as saying that Socrates brought philosophy from heaven to earth, and that Socrates has two talents: one earthly and the other heavenward. The first talent realized the modernity system and the second talent achieved the return to the sky (p. 25). Philosophy in the west of the Islamic world took the first path with Ibn Rushd, and Asan was placed on the path of Spinoza, Hume and Kant, and the second talent was actualized in the east of the Islamic world, especially in Iran. But now that modernity has fallen into disrepair in its own land and experts are talking about the weakness of its principles, the modernists have taken modernity and its philosophy as their goal and blame the philosophies that did not lead to it. This criticism is caused by an abstract understanding of the wisdom of the Enlightenment period and the desire to achieve it. Every fruit on a tree and every tree has its roots in the land that provides the conditions for planting and harvesting that tree. Philosophy cannot be cut and separated from its own world and it can be taken anywhere and kept fresh there. New philosophy is from that world of modernity and Christian and Islamic philosophy is from that world of Christianity and Islam.The type of metaphilosophy (METAPHILOSOPHY) and the perception we have about "philosophy of philosophy" are decisive in the reading we present of the position of Islamic philosophy in the contemporary world. In Dr. Davari's metaphilosophy, philosophy is not a set of correct rules about the inherent symptoms of existence, but rather a historical thinking. If the philosophers of the Islamic world had interfered in philosophy due to considerations, their philosophy would not have balance, proportion, and order, and it would not find durability and historical validity, but it would be an incoherent set of discussions and issues, which, because it did not have a solid foundation, would be carried away by the smallest wind of opposition. Therefore, the work of philosophy in the Islamic world did not end with the transfer and translation of the works of the predecessor philosophers, but this historical approach to Greek thought with a new interpretation that started from the beginning led to the emergence of another form of philosophy. The philosophers of the Islamic world considered the problems of Greek philosophy with They interpreted new principles and established a philosophy that, like any other form of philosophy, was an absolute and universal philosophy in the eyes of its owners. The division of philosophy according to the Greek, Middle Ages, Islamic and New eras has been done in the new era. In addition to this division, the thousand-year-old philosophy of the Islamic world can be called the Islamic-Iranian philosophy. Islamic philosophy, like the Greek philosophy, which considered the consistency of the just (human) Medina, thought about the place of man and his life in a divine but rational system.

Conclusion :

The philosophers of the Islamic world learned from the Greeks the concepts of existence, nature, cause, causality, step, essence, width, change, movement, stillness, civil system, and moral virtues from the Greeks, and to some opinions and thoughts of Alexandrians and in general The debates that took place in the history of philosophy in the five hundred years after Plotinus were more or less accessible. The result of his discussion is that, firstly: Greek philosophy observes the perfection of human existence in Medina and guides the education of the people of Medina. Second: Islamic philosophy. It did not emerge by manipulating the opinions of Plato, Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists, but it is the first great and important intersection between two cultures and philosophies that are connected with the spirit of the Iranian-Islamic world. and it has been with this talent and desire that he has tried and worked hard with philosophy in the field of religious thinking. Fourth: Philosophers of the Islamic world interpreted Greek philosophy with regard to the horizon that was opened with Islam, and of course, in this interpretation, they did not ignore the wisdom of their ancestors in Iran before Islam. Ibn Sina spoke of Eastern wisdom, and Suhravardi considered the essence of his philosophy to have been learned from Khosravani's wisdom, and finally, he was involved in the consistency of philosophy of the Islamic period of ancient Iran, Sufism and mysticism from the beginning, and this involvement and presence gradually reached its peak in Mulla Sadra and his followers. If it is possible to stand somewhere in the current history of the world and have a dialogue with the philosophers of the past, those philosophers no longer belong to the past but are contemporary. The difference between philosophies and science is that science depends on its history in any case. Ptolemy has known history and the world, and for this reason his book is no longer taught, but Plato can be a contemporary philosopher. This ruling is also true for Farabi, Suhrawardi, Ibn Sina, and Mulla Sadra. If we read and memorize the texts of these philosophers and teach them to others, they will repeat the learned words and expressions. It is obvious that the text belongs to the past, but if, as Leo Strauss said, we read the hieroglyphics or, to be more precise, the gaps between the statements and the contents between the lines, and by reading them we reflect on the text, that text comes alive in time and speaks to its reader. All philosophers have unsaid and unwritten things. The task of the successor philosopher is to search for the unsaid of the predecessor. In Islamic philosophy, how should one search for the unsaid when a philosophy has traveled a thousand-year path, what path has it not taken and which words are left unsaid?

In Europe, Modernity begins with the Renaissance and it is generally the result of four developments: a) the replacement of human relative values ​​such as freedom, equality, and individualism for “church religion”; b) the emergence and strengthening of the scientific movement and scientific methods; c) the belief in reason and rationality and the socio-cultural effects of technology; d) the belief in “progress” (Ameli, 2017: 10). Some of the results of these principles are:Humans will be able to solve all current and future problems of humanity and find answers to all current issues or issues that will arise in the future.According to principle (a), in modernity the world is meaningless; there is a belief that the existing meanings are meanings derived from Abrahamic or natural religions that must be changed. Therefore, “modern man” mustcreate new meanings.The above principles have led to the identification of two things in terms of validity and credibility: one is modernization and the other is modernity -which is both a subject in the humanities and social sciences, a historical period (the Modern era), and a set of specific sociocultural norms, attitudes, and practices that emerged in the continuation of the Renaissance, in the "Age of Reason" in the 17th century, and then the Enlightenment in the 18th century-. The postmodern era is the continuation of the modern era, and in this article, modernity is considered.Reflections on modernity and its consequences take these principles into account. A point that has attracted the attention of Western thinkers since the early 20th century is the difference between modernity and modernization. Modern natural sciences are successful because of current technology and prosperity (modernization), but they have also given rise to sociocultural and normative value problems. In this context, Francis Fukuyama, in an article that deals with the feedback on his book The End of History (1992), acknowledges that the end of history is essentially an argument about the endangerment of the normative basis of modern liberal democracy due to the philosophical “crisis of modernity,” -first articulated by Nietzsche and Heidegger and then continued by postmodern thinkers-; not about the empirical conditions of the world (Fukuyama, 1995). He considers the empirical and technological success and normative crisis, as modernity's main insoluble internal contradiction (logical inconsistency) (Ibid.). In consequence, Nietzsche and Heidegger condemned modernity by calling the modern man a “bewildered human” and an “enchanted human of modernity". Therefore, this essay begins by stating the objections of Nietzsche and Heidegger on the normative values of modernity.

In this article, we take a fundamental look at the imperfections of modernity. Thus, the critique of modernity is carried out with the foundations and assumptions of “modernity”. In response to the question of this article, we use a philosophical analytical method to extract the objections of modern science and modernity from Western philosophers' words and the impossibility of making philosophical rules from science.

As mentioned at the beginning, one of the main beliefs in modernity is that “modernity” can solve all human problems and this task has been assigned to modern human science. Therefore, one of the goals of modern human sciences is to deconstruction and de-territorialize old concepts (ecclesiastical knowledge or, in the new claims, Abrahamic religions and natural religions) and to produce new meanings and territories using rules derived from empirical and natural sciences. Examining the validity of this claim is the main question of this article. It is necessary to say here that these new and modern concepts appear deceptively logical; in some cases, they even have a scientific and empirical explanation; however, in fact, and contrary to expectations of modernity, they have created insoluble problems for modern societies - from abstract and intellectual problems to behavioral and practical issues in the life of modern man - to the point that in an interview, Michel Foucault announces the "death of man" (Foucault, 1966).It is impossible to make philosophical rules from modern science. Because, modern natural science theories are often incompatible with each other, also, some new theories contradict old theories. In addition to these objections, modern human science theories have an internal inconsistency due to having more ad-hoc principles in there. An important note is that humans and material beings, in general, cannot be omnipotent, thus they cannot solve all human problems, so an immaterial (metaphysical) being is necessary. In the history of modernity, especially in recent decades, the consequence of modernity in modern society shows that modern science in solving some human and natural problems has created numerous newer ones. Therefore, modern science cannot be an emancipation and solver of human issues.

Perhaps this is the question of many readers: "All this is true, what should be done now?" What is available to us now other than modern science for solving current problems? Although this is the subject of new research. However, it is useful to note that: first, some of the current problems are based on the entry of modernity and the application of modern science in our society. Therefore, we are also involved in the issues of modernity to a large extent. The experience of the last few decades regarding economic problems in our country and the world casts doubt using on modern science to solve them. Second, in countries that modernity has realized, there are many unresolved social, cultural, and economic problems, and the “welfare state” has also faced challenges (Fukuyama, 2014:ch34). Therefore, given the fundamental weaknesses and objections of the theories of modern science, they should not be given meaningful authenticity and should be considered as expressions of how “happenings” are, and nothing more. There is also a need for a deep and fundamental look at the “developing and excellence in the human science”; That is, it should not be reduced to “developing in modern human science.” Of course, the discussion for developing in human science is a detailed discussion and a topic for further research.

Globalization means a long-term and multifaceted process that is being formed with a kind of shared global self-awareness. The main question is how should we act in this process so as not to lag behind the pace of progress and changes that are taking place in the human world and to maintain and enhance our country's position in the international system? Given the importance and necessity of being present in the global order, a serious task has been placed on the shoulders of rulers, managers, and policymakers. If they hesitate and take the path of internal conflict and disagreements instead of focusing on the components that increase the country's power in the global equation, they will jeopardize the future of society and pave the way for the growth of competitors. The following article, while briefly reviewing the history of globalization, presents strategic components for an effective presence and enhancing the country's position in the international system, so that in addition to benefiting from the benefits of the modern world, the shortcomings and shortcomings that prevent an effective presence in the global community can be overcome.

Nietzsche's philosophy is considered a fundamental criticism of the tradition of Modern philosophy in general and specifically in opposition to Kant's project. For Nietzsche, the ironic and paradoxical aspect of Kant's critical philosophy is that it takes the form of legislation (viz. categorical imperative). Kant's critique confined itself to delimiting the laws governing knowledge and the claims to morality but, in so doing, failed to challenge the value of knowledge and moral ideas per se. Nietzsche considers Kant's philosophy a clear manifestation of Enlightenment appearance/reality and subject/object distinctions, which are challenged through genealogical inquiry in the first and second essays of On the Genealogy of Morality respectively. This paper will examine Nietzschean genealogy. In addition, it will discuss the nature and value of Nietzschean genealogy as a critique. In the end, it is concluded that "Nietzsche's genealogy project" can be considered the first postmodern confrontation against Kant's Enlightenment project and modernity thinking, in which the radicalism viewpoints of genealogy are hidden.

Since Vattimo's interpretation of Nietzsche requires examining the views of Heidegger and Dilthey as his main points, Therefore, in this article, we intend to first mention Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche, as the last metaphysical philosopher of the West, in which Heidegger to justify his goal; which is a re-evaluation of the history and experience of the West, deals with Nietzsche's interpretation. Then, briefly, we discuss Dilthey's interpretation of Nietzsche, as a philosopher of life, in which the closeness of Heidegger's and Nietzsche's thinking is emphasized. In the end, by explaining Vatimo's interpretation of Heidegger's Nietzsche, we show that, contrary to Heidegger's opinion, by examining Nietzsche's interpretation of modern nihilism and its connection with postmodern nihilism, he calls him the first postmodern philosopher. And it shows that it is Nietzsche who should be read as the first postmodern philosopher, not Heidegger, and the reason for these different perceptions and interpretations presented by Nietzsche, itself expresses the sensitive position of Nietzsche's philosophy at the end of metaphysics

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 purpose of this study is a comparative study between the goals of the Qur'anic lifestyle and modernity, which distinguishes between the two and explores the results and consequences and benefits and fruits of each to be a guiding torch for every questioner and seeker of truth. For this purpose, by emphasizing the descriptive-analytical method and using library tools and scientific-religious approach, we studied the teachings of the Holy Quran and the views of modern thinkers. The main achievement of this research is to analyze the efficiency and results by stating the main differences between the goals of the two so that each scanner can choose more consciously and more easily and walk the path and achieve eternal life.

Michel Foucault (1926-1984), a French postmodern philosopher, has reflected on the nature of philosophy and its relationship with modernity in his various books. This article is based on the contemporary controversies about the nature and destiny of philosophy that have been raised under the literature of "metaphilosophy" since the 1970s and by referring to Foucault's key Ideas such as the order of things, the Archeologydg of knowlee, the history of sexuality, power-knowledge. And …. to Analyise the relationships of Foucault's understanding of philosophy (Foucault's metaphilosophy) in connection with his reading of humanism as the foundation of modernity. What in Foucault's opinion is the link between metaphilosophy and modernity is Foucault's theoretical effort in expanding and deepening the intellectual literature of "anti-humanism" in the tradition of continental philosophy.

Richard Rorty considers "liberal ironism" to be the best formulation of what the West has been pursuing since the Enlightenment, a position that works out the ideals of enlightenment ethics without relying on a metaphysical worldview. According to him, alongside Dewey and Wittgenstein, Heidegger can be considered one of the most influential figures in achieving such an optimistic perspective. This pivotal role can mainly be attributed to Heidegger's intellectual efforts to depict the finitude of human beings and the contingency of their ultimate vocabularies, an awareness that can dispel any illusion that one’s most important values are eternal and immutable, hanging on something beyond time and chance. Another skill of Heidegger, according to Rorty, is his emphasis on the most elemental words through which each period of human history has its own understanding of being. In a sense, Rorty's pragmatist critique of the epistemology-centered culture of the West owes much to these aspects of Heideggerian thought. However, it seems that Heidegger sometimes overlooks all of implications of acknowledgment of finitude and contingency of final vocabularies and identifies himself as a recipient of a call from Bing that is incompatible with his own facticity; on the other hand, he occasionally has a one-sided judgment regarding the capabilities of modern understanding of Being, alongside its damages and threats: 1) Like other ironist theorists, Heidegger constantly tends towards spreading his self-creation project to others and prescribing his own special version for existence, even its political fatal consequences. He believes that the most elemental words he has discovered in re-describing the past - words like "Plato," "Aristotle," "Parmenides," "alétheia," "will to power," and similar ones - should resonate the same for anyone in contemporary Europe because it is these very words that have shaped Europe's destiny.In addition, it seems that Heidegger considers words such as "ethics," "technology," "striving for the greatest happiness of the most individuals," and similar elemental words as lacking a "constructive force" and discredited in modern understanding of being. However, a liberal ironist can still use them towards the main ideals of enlightenment, namely freedom and equality, even by removing their metaphysical halo. 2) Heidegger's strong inclination towards a kind of fatalism and a descending trajectory of human understanding of being can be considered another inconsistency in his thinking. On one hand, he believes that being is revealed solely through the passage of "understandings of being," and therefore, as soon as elemental words of each period are found, one can determine that the understanding of that period is equally revealing of being in its successive revealing and concealing, just like the pre-Socratic understanding for example. On the other hand, he places the Greeks in a better position throughout his works for their relationship with being and considers their understanding to be more primordial. Since according to Heidegger any understanding of being in any historical epoch is a gift of Being itself, it seems that this evaluation accompanied by valuation is only possible through fatalistic reasoning. If we accept Heidegger's fatalism, concepts such as "forgetfulness of being" or "neglecting being" become problems that humans have no possibility to solve. 3) According to Rorty, it is possible to interpret the concept of "primordiality" of an understanding of Being as our acknowledgment of the contingency of ourselves and our own final vocabularies, facilitating our readiness to be changed as much as possible. In other words, it makes us more cautious about false self-confidence and the illusion of control over the field of all beings and their possibilities, and strengthens our ability to be skeptical about our final vocabularies and be more sensitive to their potential falsehood. If we accept this interpretation of the concept of "primordiality," then from Rorty's perspective, Heidegger's evaluations of the possibilities of modern understanding of being have been unfair and one-sided because it cannot be denied that human beings have been increasingly eager and deliberatively receptive to alternative possibilities and radical changes in their thinking, actions, and way of life since enlightenment.

The issue of stagnation or lack of progress in Islamic culture and civilization and its causes is one of the main issues that modern Muslim intellectuals have addressed and elaborated from various perspectives. Most of them believe that the main obstacle is Islamic philosophy(hekmat) and mysticism, which have hindered the progress of Islamic countries compared to the so-called Western countries. This research does not focus on the well-known factors such as scientific, social, political and geographical factors that are usually relevant for the development of civilization and culture. Rather, it investigates and analyzes this issue by arguing that the concepts of progress, civilization and culture are novel and modern concepts that are based on specific (modern) philosophical principles that originated and spread in Europe and have no precedent in any civilization and thought of non-European peoples, including Islam, even in the Christian Middle Ages. It is a novel initiative that was launched in the Western world history, and in essence, neither Islamic, Christian, nor Chinese or Indian wisdom and mysticism have obstructed its emergence. Contrary to what is claimed, in the pre-modern era, the source and basis of what is called culture and civilization in the modern era, for example in the Islamic world, were their wisdom and mysticism. To do this, the article first provides the historical background of the advocates of this opinion, who saw themselves as religious reformers or the so-called Islamic Protestants, such as Sayyed Jamaluddin Asadabadi. It also explains the history of the main concepts of this opinion, namely civilization, culture and progress, in the modern Western thought and their novelty in the non-modern thought and among the predecessors. It deals with the teachings of the great mystic Rumi as the one who is wrongly labeled as an opponent of science.The article also gives some examples of how the views of two Muslim philosophers, one from the west, Ibn Rushd, and the other from the east, Mirfenderski, could have contributed to the emergence of modern science and technology among Muslims, but they did not. The study concludes that this opinion and judgment is fundamentally flawed and is mainly due to the lack of comprehension of the foundations and principles of modern thought and secondly, Islamic philosophy and mysticism.

 In this research, considering the types of relationship between science and religion (conflict, contrast, intersection and contact), the opinions of a number of sociologists have been examined. Theorists such as Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, etc. have a conflicting point of view and believe that with the transition of societies from traditional to modern and the dominance of experimental science and the modern way of thinking, the position of religion in the modern era is weakened and science takes its place. Some other sociologists like Spencer believe in interaction and others like Simmel believe in separation (independence) between science and religion. Habermas's strategy is the interaction of science and religion, and he considers the social life of modern societies impossible in the absence of religion and religious ethics. Giddens is also against the reduction of the influence of religion with the progress of modernity in the modern world, but he proposes religious rethinking. The findings show that there is no single point of view in sociology that can adequately cover all the complexities related to the relationship between science and religion. But it can be said that the views of classical sociologists based on conflict are changing towards the views based on the interaction of science and religion in the later theories of sociology, which is a kind of peaceful coexistence between modernity and science on the one hand and religion on the other.

Studying Christian theology and confrontation of ideas in the West and theorizing about issues such as the nature of revelation, how the Quran was revealed, and the method of understanding it, the new intellectual current tried to create harmony between religion and modernity, which sometimes caused some aspects of religion and the Quran to fade in modernity. Mahdi Bazargan and Abd al-Karim Sorush are among the representatives of this current who, despite the difference in their views, had common foundations in the tendency towards modernity. Examining some foundations of modernity such as liberalism, humanism, secularism, positivism, religious pluralism, rationalism, pragmatism, historicism, and contemporary and philosophical analysis in the thought of these two religious intellectuals, the present article studies the language and method of understanding the Quran. According to the results of the research, although the way these two religious intellectuals deal with the theoretical foundations of modernity has similarities and differences, it has had a similar effect on the roots and context of their theorizing. The methodology of understanding the Quran from the point of view of Mahdi Bazargan can be analyzed in the framework of the simple components of modernism, but Sorush's theological approach goes with postmodern logic and the movement of libertarian theology.

This article tries to examine modern humanism and the position of the concept of the subject from Nietzsche's critical point of view, considering the importance and position of instinct compared to consciousness. Man as the subject and subject of knowledge has a privileged position in modern metaphysics, and basically, modernity has an inseparable link with the subject and consciousness. Nietzsche's criticism of the subjective concept of modern man and the revival of the elemental instinct in the drawing of the human face is considered a fundamental criticism of modernity. In this research, firstly, the relationship between instinct and consciousness is examined in the theoretical foundations, focusing on the thought of Rousseau and Schopenhauer, and then the relationship between instinct and moral values, as well as the desire for truth in Nietzsche's view, is investigated. Nietzsche believes that the reduction of man to consciousness (the knowing subject) requires ignoring other dimensions of human existence, such as physical, instinctive, emotional, and historical dimensions, and as a result, he considers the image of modern man as a subject to be an incomplete form of man, which, despite the cognitive and moral centrality in modern metaphysics, has ignored important aspects of human being and natural dimensions that can lead to his prosperity. This article finally deals with the place of body and instinct as natural dimensions of human existence and their priority over mind and subjective consciousness in Nietzsche's anthropology.

Modern thought, focusing on spatiotemporal connections of human beings and emphasizing science, technology, and earthy bliss, has ignored the idea of ultimate and otherworldly bliss as a form of asceticism. It thus filled with Nihilism and Dysphoria. It was while human beings in the classic world emphasizing the hereafter bliss were ignoring the importance of life and happiness in this world. Nowhere, neither the results of modern thought nor the classic lifestyle cut off the earthy bliss is desirable. The issue is how to achieve an attitude beyond their problems and obstructions? This article has turned its attention to this issue through a descriptive-analytical method. It seems that on the basis of the Primacy of Existence (Isalat al-Wujud), any duality is artificial and unreal. Insisting on the unity of the modes and moments of reality, we can emphasize the unity of the soul and body, saying that happiness in this world and that world are in parallel. The result according to us is that the path of heaven passes through the earth, and the prosperity of the other world as the interior of this world can be possible only through the prosperity and protection of the present one.

Religion is one of the most important human phenomena that has had a special place in the theoretical apparatus of thinkers and thinkers in the field of human sciences in every historical period. It was the modern era and the concepts created during this period, in this research, an attempt has been made to examine a category such as religion from the perspective of postmodern thinkers. Accordingly, in the present research, a phenomenon such as religion has been examined from the perspective of postmodern thinkers such as Deleuze, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, and the type of view of each of these thinkers has been examined based on their theoretical apparatus. Am. The results of this article showed that religion in the postmodern era also faces many contradictions that these contradictions show the incompatibility of the epistemic foundations of religion and postmodernity. Based on the results of this research and the perspective of postmodern thinkers, it can be claimed that Religion and postmodernity are not compatible with each other.