نشریه غرب شناسی بنیادی
سال هشتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 16، پاییز و زمستان 1396)

According to Aristotelian tradition, Thales is known as the first philosopher, but in ancient Greece, he was called a wise man or sophos. Sophos and Sophia, meaning wisdom, at that time implied two aspects of thought and action so that Thales was mentioned in the list of the seven ancient sages that except Thales, the rest were politician or legislator. Anecdotes related to Thales indicate both aspects so that these anecdotes show him a man concerning action as well as thought. These two aspects of action and thought would be better known by analyzing the conception of arche in his teaching so that upon this analysis, arche as the way that means the beginning or origin of universe and the basis of his cosmology, it implies the governance and domination and his political thought depends on this conception. This article aims to clarify two aspects of thought and action in the concept of sophia by giving such analyzing so it would appear that Thales as a sophos was not only a thinker, but a thinker who his thought was in conjunction with action.

This article argues that “democracy” does not necessarily guarantee “liberty” and “human rights,” and analyzes the causes of such an inconsistency and the solutions for reconciling them in the ideas of James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill. The US founding fathers and the Federalist authors, found out the possibility of the emergence of this inconsistency and, following Locke and Montesquieu, proposed a set of “institutional devices” such as “separation of powers,” “a system of representation,” “a system of checks and balances,” and “legal guarantees of minority rights” to defend “liberty” and “human rights.” However, distinguishing “social and cultural causes” from “political and institutional causes,” this article believes that this problem in “democracy” is too complicated to be solved by mere “institutional devices.” It argues that “violating minority rights,” “suppression,” “tyranny of the majority,” and “despotism of the custom” are still possible even in a democratic system, and it is impossible to solve them by mere “institutional devices.” So, using Tocqueville’s observations and argumentations in Democracy of America, his distinction between “mild despotism” and “tyranny of the majority,” and also the concept of “public consent” in Noam Chomsky’s and Edward S. Herman’s Manufacturing Consent, this article analyzes the possible types of “tyranny” and “despotism” in a democratic system, the effect of “mild despotism” on “self-censorship,” “political and social pressures on the dissenters,” and incapability of the mere “institutional device”" in solving these problems. Then, it shows the development of the theory of “mild despotism” in Mill’s theory of “despotism of the custom,” and analyzes his argumentation that it is more dangerous than “political despotism” for “development and welfare in society.” Finally, it analyzes Mill’s theoretical and practical proposals for solving this problem.

Reviving the role of religion in modern societies and the attention of those like Habermas to this phenomenon, by new articulations, have challenged dualities such as tradition-modernity, public-private, and secular-religious. For this reason, the direct connection between modernization and secularisation is now completely out of place. This article, with this in mind, has also tried to focus on the transformation of Habermas' votes in relation to the public sphere and the place of religion in it, Argues that Habermas's perspective on religion has changed in his various stages of thought, and this view has changed from a philosophical critique to a positive socio-political look. This is due to the perception of the realities of the contemporary world, and Habermas, by understanding this fact, has posited the concept of post-secularism as a rethinking of secularist perspectives as well as the role of religion in the public domain. Accepting such a concept, in turn, promotes Habermas' view of the acceptance of coexistence and plurality in political life.

Wittgenstein, in his early philosophy, regards philosophy as critique of Language, and the aim of tractatus is to draw limits to thoughts, to what is sayable vs unsayable(showable), in other words science vs ethics. And the latter is more important to him. Such aiming for philosophy is very similar to Kant's. The main question of this research article is whether Wittgenstein is also under influence of Kant in ethics or not. Whether he repeats Kant’s second question in another words or not. To answer it, we will start with I or subject, and will, then proceed to ethics and the mystical.

Gorgias dialogue is one of the most important Plato's dialogue, because Plato challenges Socrates against of most of these important figures of his time.in this essay, we consider the third act of dispute between Socrates and Kallikles which is more than half of the dialogue. In this essay we try show that parts of Nietzsche’s critics are the same of Kallikles critics that are explained in raw and primitives form. Present essay tries to avoid spiteful views of Nietzsche’s opinion and show their approximate to Kallikles’s opinion. Center of this essay is the concept of power in the views of Kallikles and Nietzsche. We try with analysing of this central concept explain the views of Nietzsche and Kallikles in the case of truth, meaning of life and law. So the basic question about all parts of essay is: what is the relation between conceiving of Kallikles and Nietzsche in the case of power? If such a relation exists between a Sophist in the era of Western philosophy and the last philosopher of this tradition (Nietzsche), can there be a rift between the two?

Reason is Difference among human and animal that makes human civilization. But creek mythology and philosophy believe that women are imotional and irrational. Modern Philosophers like Kant also introduce women irrational so they are inappropriate to social and political and economical area. But philosophers of feminism criticize the patriarchal approach about rationality. They believe patriarchal approach causes both sexual injustice and other injustices in human civilization. So feminist philosophers are trying for another discourse of reason because of bringing women to social and political and economical area sothat maternal rationality returns kindness and peace to mankind societies. In this article after analyses of modern male rationality and critiques of post modernism, the author evaluates feminist theories and presents rationality standards that don't get in trouble with human confrontation and duality of subject/ object, me/other, main/ subsidiary.

Plato and Hobbes are one of the most prominent political philosophers who have put emphasis on the necessity of the construction of the government. The superiority of the authoritative government and its features in their political philosophy arises from the states of their times and is based on the metaphysical foundation of their thoughts. Plato has considered an absolute scientific-ethical government as an ideal and practical government in order to finish the scientific-ethical anarchies. And Hobbes has proposed an absolute secure-political government in order to finish secure-political insecurities. Our main question in the paper is that: how have Plato and Hobbes established the authoritative government on the base of the features of their metaphysical system. The main claim of the paper is that Hobbes's attitudes about the human nature are reductive and pessimistic and Hobbes, unlike Plato, has not tried to present a good civil life for human beings. However Plato's philosophy is more humanistic because of educational ideals. And Plato prefers the government which regards its civilians not in a beast mood and lust and anger rank, but in a humanistic rank. That is to say, he wants to promote the human being to a virtue which is rational activity.