نشریه غرب شناسی بنیادی
سال دهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 20، پاییز و زمستان 1398)

Gadamer, like Plato, considers “dialogue” as the basis of the knowledge; that is, we know things around us through the dialogue. It is clear that, dialogue needs, at least, two partners. In Plato, at least at first glance, it seems that the partners in dialogue are two persons. Is that so in Gadamer? To this question, there are two answers among Gadamer commentators. a) Most of them think that the dialogue between “persons” is the basis. We as persons must, in their view, come together and make conversation in order to come near to the knowledge of the world and the things around us. b) but, some others, as Figal see the things themselves as a partner in conversation alongside with persons. in Gadamer human being and the world both are of verbal nature. Things also have the verbal nature and have something to say. Understanding and knowledge take place in the verbal conversation between human being and the world as the partner; that is, as I and Thou. this paper tries to show that, in Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, “conversation between human being and the world” and “conversation between persons” both are the basis of understanding and knowledge.

Fichte, In the book of the foundations of the natural right, in a Double-sided dialectic, not only deduces the concept of the right in beginning from abstract terms such as rational being, activity, freedom, consciousness, another, and the concept of intersubjectivity, but, at the same time the inclusion of all those terms is realized on the basis of the concept and principle of the right. Therefore, in the intellectual system of Fichte, all these concepts form a complex set understood only with each other, because they are created dialectically from each other and can only be realized with each other. But at the end of the way, due to the inference of the law of right and all its proportions through reason, we will show the free rational being Timely and logically as the head of the pyramid of the strategic terms of the philosophy of right and politics of Fichte. In the following, to realize its law of right and guarantee it to people in the outside world, Fichte deduce the commonwealth (as the will of the public) and politics as the state science, and consider this new science as a servant of right that The basis of its essence has a priori been derived from free rational being.

This article investigates and evaluates models of the unity of science in 20th century. In general, the models of unity of science could be divided into two parts and investigated separately. The first group are models which defend reductionism and eliminativism by relying on physicalism. The second group are the ones that by relying on methodology try to guarantee the unity of science. In evaluating the first group on the works of Thomas Nagle and William James it is argued that these models not adjusted to different ontological fields. The various methods of scientific research and different function of the values of preferring a theory in different contexts of comparison also undermine the claim of scientific unity in the second group models. Anyway, for avoiding the harmful result of the being incommensurable, relying on holism the possibility of giving a model of the unity of science could be defended which has provided possibility of interdisciplinary cooperation and defies any attempt for reductionism or ignorance of the plurality of methods.

Justice is one of the fundamental concepts that various schools of thought have paid special attention to. John Rawls, a leading philosopher of ethics and politics in the field of Western political thought, is one of the thinkers who tried to think about justice. Political and social events in the United States, in the realm of the world and in the War of Independence, Rawlsaraba raised the question of what factors have led a country like the United States to an unjust and aggressive system in the world. These preoccupations strengthened his will to formulate an influential theory of political thought. The essence of Rawls's thought in the theory of justice has four key elements: Moral intuitionism is a mental experiment, the main state and freedom. His Theory of Justice is a reflection of his view of justice as fairness and political justice, in which justice as fairness, legal freedom, and the concept of distributive justice are discussed. Rawls's justice is rooted in St. Kant's. Therefore, it emphasizes the moral concept of justice and finally reaches political justice under criticism in a turn. The main question in this study is what factors have contributed to the formation of John Rawls' theory of justice? And the hypothesis is that her philosophical justice system, philosophy of ethics, Kant's theory of social contract, and Hegel's philosophy of law contributed to the formation of her theory of political justice, influential critiques, political radicals, and socialists.(feminine)

I will raise two fundamental questions concerning Seyyed Ahmad Fardid's thought: Firstly, what “the west” is; secondly, what the relation of the west and wisdom is, regarding the problem of the west, in addition to what Seyyed Ahmad Fardid insightfully explains as the framework of the foregoing problem. The explication of The West seems to be necessary to conceptualize the wisdom as  specific sort of knowledge. It is also necessary to explain the relation of our situation and the western world.  As he uses “wisdom” what He means is the realm of mystical knowledge which is the same theoretical knowledge based on the eastern Islamic tradition, or he uses "wisdom" as what manifests throughout the history of philosophy from Farabi to Sadra. Afterwards, I reorient the issue within a further conceptual stage in order to demonstrate potentialities and deficiencies of Fardid’s meaning of The West and its relationship with the wisdom.

Objecting Quine’s indeterminacy of translation, Hans Glock claims that this thesis is in a dilemma about how to face the hermeneutic circle: On the one hand, opposing optional hypotheses, Quine prevents accepting the hermeneutic circle, and on the other hand, the scenario of Quinn's radical translation actually uses optional hypotheses and hermeneutic circles. Here, after explaining Glock’s claims, I investigate the nature of the hermeneutic circle and its various versions, and, on this basis, defending convergence between hermeneutic circle, according to Gadamer, and indeterminacy of translation, I object Glock’s claims.

One of the issues concerning technology is the orientation discussion. This issue has always had Proponents and opponents. Some see technology as directional and some know technology being neutral. The neutralists view technology as merely a user-defined tool. In this study, based on a orientational interpretation. According to this study, technology is oriented in different manners. Some of these aspects as follows: orientation in terms of fundamentals, orientation in terms of frameworks, orientation in terms of application, orientation in terms of supplies, orientation in terms of requirements, orientation in terms of context and subtext, orientation in terms of the all–collectinely of the systematics, orientation in terms of the genuine effects of the technology, and orientation in terms of results. According to this approach, the orientation of technology does not essential to the nature of technology, but the purpose of this orientation is among the majority of these technological attributes and characteristics in human will.

The objective of this paper is to clarify that the distinction Malkam Khan makes between natural (ordinary) and scientific reason, is crucial to his entire thought, and he makes this distinction because he is aware of the critical status the idea of method has in the formation of the scientific reason. So, I try to prove that the idea of method and the distinction he makes between these two reasons are the same idea which is to be considered as his central idea. According to Malkam Khān, following the principles of this reason is the key to prosperity and progress. So, he believes that in order not to be colonized, we should progress, and in order to become prosperous, we should act according to the principles of scientific reason. On the basis of this analysis I claim that he thinks like a strategist, therefore, whenever we want to interpret his thought as a consistent whole, we should consider this particular approach. My own approach in this paper is in harmony with the main argument of Malkam Khān, trying to interpret his thought not on the basis of his personal character, his concealed intentions, or simple political events in which he was a part, but on the basis of seeing his thought as scientifically (objectively) as possible by focusing on his own writings in different stages of his thought-life, and analyzing them structurally.

A prominent concept in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is “will to power” which is proposed as an alternative against metaphysical thinking. Nietzsche’s thought is a new interpretation of the modern human’s social and individual life. Nietzsche criticized metaphysical thinking tradition as it ends up in nihilism. The very criticism in its final analysis has resulted in the emergence of new interpretations of the concepts “knowledge” and “truth”. Nietzsche goes back to the ancient Greek thought and regards knowledge as imposing the will to power upon reality. Truth is not then a fixed absolute idea, but is regarded as a productive, plural entity that can be used as a useful mythology with a regulative function for meeting human needs. Will to power as the artist overcomes nihilism through a return to the nature, self-command and his creativity power and shapes the constitutive elements of life and says yes to it. As to this meaning, truth is not anything but the will to power. Some thinkers like Martin Heidegger believe that Nietzsche intends to go beyond the metaphysics and systematic thinking but brings metaphysics to its zenith with his extreme subjectivism. According to this view, Nietzsche provides a systematic thought with his will to power, eternal return and reassessment of values, and his radical criticisms are true about himself in the first place and ultimately challenge his own ideas.

From the old times dualism, i.e. human beings' ownership of a body and a spirit , has been a controversial problem. With the dominance of positivism in modern times, the dominant view was the principality of matter and that spirit is a byproduct of matter.In recent decades a number of scientists consider the spirit to be material but it cannot be explained in terms of present science. On the other hand, some believe that due to its complexity it can never be explained by science. But some very eminent scientist of our era believe that it is immaterial. Among this group some consider the human spirit to be an effusion from God

Dilthey's attempt failed in the first part of his thought for independence in the humanities. So, to find the right solution, he considered his initial thoughts. The achievement of this re-effort was that the pathway inside was not a proper way in the humanities because it could not be a means of understanding. In the second part of his thought, Dilthey believes that history should be considered as a mirror, and through reflection, he has come to grasp. The terms that Dilthey uses to achieve his purpose include:The experience of life, the objectification of the spirit and understanding, He perceives the understanding of the reconstruction and reproduction of experiences that the subject has done. In this reconstruction, the intellectual space and the backgrounds historical-cultural and other matters related to the author should be considered. Also, Dilthey introduces categories as categories of life, include: time, meaning, value, goal, and productive power. Among these categories, time has a special place in the Diletai intellectual system. Because there are other categories of reflection in this category.

Bijan Abdolkarimi is one of the most progressive contemporary philosophers in Iran. He has attempted to invent a genre that could enable him to address the public and the academic circles. In this article, it has been argued that Abdolkarimi has conceptualized the question of religion in relation to the secular issue in a sense that one cannot see any distinction between this concept and 'Urf'. This lack of distinction seems to be related to his inability to view 'Urf' as a non-Catholic concept and by disregarding the meaning-domain of Urf, he has fallen prey into the traps of catholicization of knowledge which seems to be very influential in the context of the Shiite thought. But the question is how could Abdolkarimi deliver himself from such a dilemma? First of all, he should make a categorical distinction between the domain of Urf and the filed of Secular and secondly he should not conceptualize the meaning domains of Urf in terms of Christianity which led him to divide the theological categories into sacred and secular while in the Islamic metaphysics the being is distinguished in terms of 'Ghayb' and 'Shahadat'. I shall dwell upon these and other apsects of Abdolkarimi's project.