مقالات رزومه دکتر محمد اصغری

In the present article, we are faced with two phenomenological philosophers who, in two different intellectual traditions, namely philosophical hermeneutics and moral phenomenology, have referred to the concept of the Other as the fundamental possibility of the individual. The other, as an ontological and common concept in the thought of Gadamer and Levinas, is the turning point of the condition for the possibility of understanding and ethics. Focusing on the concept of the other, while addressing the points of difference and commonality between Gadamer and Levinas, this article will show that Levinas’s preoccupation with the other as a philosopher refers to the foundations of ethics, and the condition for the possibility of foundations of ethics is encountering the other. In Gadamer, the turning point is the determination of the possibilities of understanding in dialectical and dialogue-oriented relationships. Without the other, in Levinas’s thought, ethics, and moral matter, and in Gadamer’s thought, the process of understanding will not occur in the form of a fusion of horizons. Therefore, this article shows that the other is a common concept between these two philosophers, which both of them cannot avoid in their philosophical analyses of ethics or the process of understanding.

In this article, we have tried to show that the phenomenological approach can be a suitable method for analyzing religious experience in the field of education. To show this, we have argued that the phenomenological method, as a descriptive method from the first-person perspective, allows a person to directly describe and analyze his/her lived experience, and the analyst can use this lived experience to analyze the meaning of the experience, giving the person the necessary knowledge and understanding of the meaning of his/her religious experience. Therefore, in the first part of this article, we have mentioned some important features of the phenomenological method. Also, in this article, we have shown that the holistic approach provides the possibility for the phenomenological researcher to expose the target person, i.e. pupil or student, to the description and phenomenological analysis of his religious experience from different angles. In addition to these two important points in this article, it should also be mentioned that adopting a phenomenological approach in the analysis of religious experience in education provides the researcher with the possibility of opening his/her mind so that he/she can learn about different religious beliefs without bias and prejudice and do research about them without judging whether they are right or wrong. This issue can be one of the strong points of such research, which in the field of religious education gives the researcher and the researched people the possibility to share their religious experiences in the field of education without bias and prejudice.

Introspection is a method used to access the contents of the mind, relying on the thesis of the transparency of the mind. This notion constitutes part of Descartes’s philosophical paradigm regarding the mind, characterized by immediacy, infallibility, and first-person authority. Proponents of the transparency thesis argue that the mind resembles a transparent container, with all its contents, including constant entities like mental states and unstable ones like mental events, essentially known. However, empirical experiments and philosophical arguments reveal numerous apparent and hidden intermediaries in the mind, leading to errors in self-understanding, unawareness of external influences, and the presumption of authority over all judgments. This challenges Descartes’s claim that the mind is transparent to itself. Utilizing the analytic-critical method, this article scrutinizes these characteristics to assess the transparency thesis and dispel its self-evidence.

In this article, we try to show that in the present century, one of the theorists in the field of philosophy of education and training, Richard Rorty, the American neopragmatist philosopher, by criticizing the past philosophical thinking about education and training to the issue of "self-creation" as the central core of education and training in the era the present emphasizes. According to this philosopher, the purpose of education in schools, universities and educational centers is to help a person to create himself. According to this philosopher, education in educational centers, especially in America, is generally divided into two parts. In the pre-university stage and schools, a person is taught to socialize, and in the university and academic stage, a person learns to engage in self-creation and to question the image he had in the previous period of pre-university education. To analyze the key concept of self-creation, Rorty uses the updated thoughts of John Dewey, Foucault, Nietzsche and even Heidegger to show that the philosophy of contemporary education in the current century needs to place this concept in the center of its analysis.

This article tries to analyze the issue of religious experience and its role and place in the philosophy of education. The issue of religious experience is one of the important issues in the education process in the educational system of a country. Necessarily, in order to understand this issue, one of the methods or philosophical analysis to investigate this issue is the phenomenological method. Religious experience in the field of education and training is a fundamental thing in the education process, but the phenomenological method describes the lived experience from the first-person perspective, and therefore, it is possible to describe and analyze the religious experience of people in the field of education and training with this approach. Basically, learning as the core of education itself is an experience, and phenomenology as the science of analyzing and describing experience is closely related to this. For this purpose, it is necessary to raise the issue of the place of religious experience in education and training, the characteristics of the phenomenological method or approach as well as the types of religious experience and its role in the philosophy of education in general have been mentioned. The main question of this article is how this method can lead us to a better understanding of a person's religious experience in the process of education.

By analyzing the story "Report to the Academy" by Franz Kafka and considering it in the context of Aristotle's and Heidegger's views on the explanation of man, this research has tried to achieve a new reading of the concept of man. Aristotle considers the concept of wisdom or Logos to be the foundation of human beings; he repeatedly states this opinion in his three important works, namely "Politics", "Ethics of Nicomachus" and "Poetry". Although Aristotle's opinion has been accepted in the history of thought, this does not mean that others are trying to explain new readings that did not come from humans. One of these thinkers is Martin Heidegger. In the article "Language", Heidegger, while dealing with the nature of language, also explores the nature of man. According to this research, Aristotle's emphasis on the originality of wisdom or logos on the one hand and Heidegger's interpretation of man as a linguist being on the other hand, can lead us to a new point of view. Based on this, wisdom and language are neither completely different nor completely similar. These two concepts can be used to complement each other. By referring to Kafka's story, this approach is clearly visible. Human nature is nothing but the harmony of wisdom and language.

In this article, we are trying to show that in the postmodern era, by questioning the ontological foundations of theology and rejecting absolutism and embracing pluralism and relativism, religious education has been placed in an anti-realistic postmodern framework. This type of education and training tries to replace the horizontal and context-oriented or local view by rejecting the vertical-oriented view in traditional and modern education and training, in which transcendental and absolute values are accepted, and this is the method of deconstructing this type of education and training that has been proposed under the influence of postmodern philosophers such as Derrida. This type of education is expanding and growing in the 21st century. But this approach itself also faces problems that cannot be completely general. Negation of the essence and nature of religion, failure to recognize the essence of religion, considering religious experience to be historical and local, etc. in this approach indicates its insufficiency in its complete spread throughout the world. Therefore, it seems that critical education is a suitable alternative to post-modern religious education in order to familiarize students with the nature and essence of religion and to accept pluralism and contextualism in their own education.

By discovering effective reality and then establishing a relationship between effective reality and concepts such as human relations, the nation, and the salvation of the homeland, Machiavelli succeeds in devising a new interpretation of morality, virtue, and its relation to the reality of life. By placing human relations and the public interest in the exploration of moral law, he paved the way for Hegel’s conception of concrete morality and ethnic religion. It is according to Machiavelli’s idea that Hegel came up with the basic idea of ​​the phenomenology of the soul, which is to establish the dialectical relationship between heaven and earth. Accordingly, the contradiction between morality and human nature and desire is eliminated, and by cultivating morality from the roots of desire, human desire and nature introduce morality in general in the name of an understandable ethnic and customary spirit. Also, given the possibility that Machiavelli’s effective reality gives him, Hegel succeeds in establishing a relation between idealism and realism and explains the extraction of idealism from within realism. In this regard, the authors try to establish a relation between the logic of Prince Machiavelli and the evolution of the phenomenological logic of the soul by presenting a new interpretation of the modern Prince Machiavelli and showing the great philosophical possibilities that this work offers to philosophers after him, especially Hegel.

This article critically examines and evaluates the book “German Philosophy” by Terry Pinkard, translated by Neda Qatouri. The first perspective looks at the content of the book regardless of the Persian translation text and the second perspective looks at the Persian translation of the book and the translator's translation method in terms of advantages and disadvantages. In general, this book has forced the author to find a practical solution to this contradiction by presenting the paradox of Kantian reason in the theoretical field and its extension to the practical field, and the efforts of post-Kantian and post-Hegelian philosophers to find a practical solution to this paradox. To present the historical and social time in the form of the social revolution of German society in the 18th and 19th centuries. Despite the translator's efforts in translating it clearly and well into Persian, there are still some objections to the translator, such as not including an introduction to this book, which we have mentioned in the detailed text; however, this book can be useful for a philosophy student in graduate school. In this article, while reviewing and analyzing the content of this book, we have evaluated the Persian translation and suggestions for improving the translation. This book can be very enlightening and useful as an important source for the study of German philosophy, especially idealistic thinking for those interested in German philosophy.

In this article, we try to explain Merleau-Ponty's art and aesthetics by focusing on his phenomenology, which is based on bodily sensory perception and show that Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological analysis of the body in his early writings, such as the structure of behavior and especially the phenomenology of art in perception. He is the determining element in the formation of his philosophy of art. The main hypothesis of this paper is that body and art have an intertwined relationship and form the basis of Merleau-Ponty's aesthetic phenomenology. Thus, the artist's sensory perception and body-to-body relationship with and reflection of this encounter in the work of art is a concern of what we have called the body-centered aesthetic phenomenology. In addition, in this phenomenology, we consider painting as a way of thinking that Merleau-Ponty has analyzed concerning Cézanne's works, as well as body-centered aesthetics and, consequently, the close connection between body and art. In this article, we have tried to advance our analysis by referring to the key works of this philosopher.

The aim of this article is to consider Hegel's unity, which is "the Unity of Identity and Difference" Or to examine and explain the "unity of seemingly contradictory features in a single coherent whole" in the light of the main problem of Hegel's philosophy, that is, the overcoming of divisions or dualities, as the solution of her philosophy. Unity (Einheit) is an important ideal, goal and end for Hegel's philosophical system. Hence, in his entire philosophical system and in different periods of his intellectual life, the traces of the search for unity are always obvious, from the beautiful artistic unity in Greece to his desired unity, which is a rational, speculative, philosophical, absolute and Mediated unity. For him, the whole of philosophy is nothing but the study of the definition of unity and its realization in society. A unity that, instead of eliminating or absorbing another, tries to preserve and eliminate pluralities and differences by accepting and recognizing another in a single coherent whole. A unity in which differences and dualities do not disappear but are preserved as necessary and inevitable moments. Unity that is not the result of direct intuition but the product and result of passing through different stages and an intersubjective matter. For Hegel, it is not atomism and excessive individualism in the modern world that lead to rupture, not mere mystical and abstract unions that wipe out all differences, but the unity of the whole in which All distinctions are preserved.

Before Machiavelli, in order to explain the transition from subject to object, he justified concepts that played a pivotal role in the transition from subject to object, or vice versa, which were essentially theological-metaphysical concepts, but Machiavelli in his political thought defined There is a new relation, and it must be achieved, that Hegel was later able to use in his ontology in a complex interpretation - and a critique of the views of the likes of Kant and Fichte, who are and should have dealt with the separation of territory. Influenced by Machiavelli, instead of inferring, hegel's ontological and transcendent affairs should be sought in the midst of the effective facts of this world, and thus he was able to criticize the precedence of subject over object, as philosophically explained by Kant, and the dialectical relation. Study between the two from a normative point of view. The author tries to present a new interpretation of the problem and must explain in Machiavelli's thought the logic of Hegel's transition from subject to object and how to replace normative logic with transcendent logic in this regard.

In this article, we try to show that in Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology, the body as a bodily subject has an ontological relationship with the world due to its own existential modes. To explain this, it is necessary to know the nature of perception, which is inherently existentially related to the body and consequently to the world. Show me. In general, Merleau-Ponty, by criticizing the duality of Descartes' soul and body in the philosophical tradition and reducing the soul or subject to the realm of thought, tries to prove the corporeality of the subject and to show that the corporeal subject is of the type or flesh of the natural world. And therefore its relation to the world is a natural and existential relation. Thus, by proposing concepts such as the bodily subject, the flesh, the bodily view, being in the world, etc., Merleau-Ponty seeks to show ontologically that we have complex relations with the world, and without understanding these relations one cannot know He had himself and the world.

In this article, we try to show that contemporary philosophy and its main philosophical currents are rooted in the thoughts of modern philosophers, and the influence of these philosophers is still understandable with ups and downs in the present century, although scathing critiques of modern philosophies. It has been done by contemporary philosophers. In this article, we briefly refer to the role of the philosophical ideas of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin in the development of contemporary philosophies such as poststructuralism, existentialism, phenomenology, and American pragmatism. Understanding the philosophical foundations of contemporary philosophies can be understood directly in relation to the philosophical foundations of these philosophers. We can evaluate the role of these philosophers in contemporary philosophies in three areas. First, we can point to the historical aspects of the thinking of these philosophers and the contemporary reception of such an attitude. Almost

In this article, our aim is to examine the place of “reality” in Richard Rorty’s thought in view of the important and key discussion of language in the philosophy of this thinker. In other words, we know that with the occurrence of the “linguistic turn” in the middle of the twentieth century, the relationship between language and reality has become one of the central debates of philosophy, especially analytical philosophy, and has become of particular importance. Is it language that determines the external reality for us? Is knowing the world outside the mind possible only through the possibilities that language gives us? And to what extent does the structure of language affect our cognitive pattern? These are only a part of the linguistic concerns that have occupied the minds of contemporary philosophers. The main concern and problem of the present article, which has been approached using a descriptive-analytical method, is to examine the relationship between language and reality in Richard Rorty’s thought and to show how he defends the linguistic structure of having reality. Rorty, following an analytical philosophy that, in addition to detailed analyses of traditional philosophical concepts, like the concepts of truth, meaning, necessity, etc. and by changing the discussion from experience to discussion from language in the direction of pragmatizing the basic principles of positivism, believes that it is trans-lingual (outside our descriptions) and trans-temporal (fixed and unchangeable). The common denominator that Plato found in the outside world and transferred to man in the Cartesian-Kantian tradition is sought in analytic philosophy in language, and so analytic philosophers continue to pursue the traditional philosophy project of providing a trans-historical and eternal framework for the accurate representation of the world. Rorty tries to overcome this view of analytical philosophers with a Darwinist and pragmatic view of language and under the influence of philosophers such as Wittgenstein.For Darwinists, language is a tool among other tools that gives its users the ability to better and more efficiently adapt to their environment and meet their needs. For the likes of Wittgenstein and like-minded people, despite their many and sometimes profound differences, language had an important and pivotal place with its eventual and possibility feature. Influenced by thinkers such as Wittgenstein, and in the context of his Darwinist and pragmatic approach to language, Rorty attributes certain characteristics to language that can be said to influence his whole thought. Firstly, he considers language as a tool like other tools and, therefore, considers it to have no fixed nature and identity. Given that it is not possible to leave the language and on the other hand language has a poetic and metaphorical character, the function of language cannot be a representation of reality and reality can never be available to us naked and as independent of language and descriptions. Therefore, from Rorty’s point of view, reality is a linguistic and constructed matter of language that we humans have invented in cooperation with each other and in accordance with our historical-cultural situation and needs. Of course, Rorty’s point in saying that reality is made by language is by no means that we create reality arbitrarily and as we wish; rather, what is happening is that we are responding to an external stimulus, a response of various sentence types that manifests itself as linguistic reactions.

This article reviews the book “Understanding Hegelianism” written by Robert Sinnerbrink and translated by Mehdi Bahrami and edited by Mohammad Mehdi Ardabili. In this article, we will first analyze the content of the text in the book, regardless of its Persian translation, and mention Hegel's role in European philosophy, especially its role in the formation of French structuralist and poststructuralist thought, and then evaluate Persian translation. Orientalism is one of the best books in our country that can fill the gap caused by Hegelianism in the twentieth century to some extent, although the author of the book is often with his own taste and style of the important French thinker Jacques Lacan, who is part of the thought. It owes itself to Hegel, especially in the sense of "desire," and is one of the book's shortcomings. This article tries to express the advantages and disadvantages of this book with an introduction in order to introduce the author and the importance of his book for the reader and to introduce the form and content of the work and analyze the content of the work. Of course, we have also suggested some Persian terms for the Persian translation.

Lacan and Levinas were among the first contemporary thinkers of the twentieth century who have put emphasize on the concepts of otherness and subjectivity. The approach of these two thinkers to the issue has been accompanied by critique and challenge of rational subjectivism and the ethics of modern philosophy. Accordingly, the decentralization of the self-sovereignty subject, the priority of the other in the destruction of subjectivity and the redefinition of Ethics among the common principles that have been heuristic in presenting their new reading of the subject. However, Lacan and Levinas have taken different interpretations, insights, and conclusions in their attempts to explain the meaning of the other, the reason for its priority over the subject, and also to redefine the subject. On the one hand, in the contexts of structuralist and poststructuralist approaches in the heart of the field of psychoanalysis, Lacan Summoned the lacking subject, which is split and barred, to resist and negate with the structure of the big other, and in this resistance, the concept of desire plays a key role. On the other hand, Levinas with a phenomenological approach and in the heart of a religion-based approach, exposes the subject to the other with asymmetric responsibility, and in this regard, the face of the other plays a fundamental role in evoking the inescapable responsibility in the subject. Lacan and Levinas deal with two different aspects of otherness, which has also led to a different reading of subjectivity.

Nietzsche and Levinas are the most prominent contemporary philosophers who have emphasized on the necessity of passing over rational subjectivity. They tried to rethink the meaning of ethics in a world where neither religion nor other moral philosophies could create a strict and reliable source for the crisis of the contemporary human being. In an attempt to overcome rational subjectivism, Nietzsche and Levinas redefined concepts such as morality and the subject. The purpose of the paper is to describe the attitudes of Nietzsche and Levinas towards their critiques of rational subjectivism. Then examine Nietzsche’s naturalistic reading and Levinas’ transcendental reading of the subject and their encounter with the other and also introduce their critiques of traditional ethics and propose a new kind of ethics in their thoughts. We will then evaluate their alternative concepts in the problem of overcoming rational subjectivism and finally, we will compare these two attitudes. Although Nietzsche and Levinas initially adopted common points of view for the critique of subjectivism and traditional ethics and common criticisms in the field, they presented different results, goals, and methods. Based on these approaches, each has proposed different principles and conclusions about ethics and overcoming rational subjectivism. Nietzsche’s problem is the genealogy of values, and Levinas’s question is the possibility of a moral condition. The answer to the first question is not related to the second question. The present paper shows that both Levinas and Nietzsche have presented different insights into the meaning of subjectivity. Their efforts to find the meaning of subjectivity have also been accompanied by the necessity to destruct the meaning of morality. Accordingly, by focusing on the overman (Nietzsche) and the other (Levinas), they have sought to reevaluate values ​​(Nietzsche) and asymmetric moral responsibility (Levinas). In this regard, they have adopted a completely different view from the traditional view of ethics. Although both of them start with a common point of view, their methods, interpretations, and results are different. With a genealogical approach, Nietzsche considered the will of power in the active subject and the birth of the overman to be desirable and practical to end the history of the development of nihilism. And Levinas, with a phenomenological approach to the concept of asymmetric responsibility in the passive subject, has put an end to the history of neglect of the other and rational subjectivism. The final suggestion is that Nietzsche and Levinas are both looking for a new meaning of morality that resides not in the mind but in the body. In Levinas, the relationship between the body and morality is evolving and transcendental, with concepts of responsibility and suffering, but in Nietzsche, this kind of connection fluctuates between naturalistic and transcendentalist views and considers the concepts of power and instinct important. Nietzsche’s attitude about the human being is a combination of a naturalistic and over-humanist approach, and with the precedence of selfhood, he has expressed a negative view of the other. However, Levinas’ philosophy is more humanistic and inter-subjectivity because of ethical ideals, and ethics begin with recognition of the priority of the other.

The French Revolution is recognized as the first concrete presence of the modern individual in history, where he stands for the realization of right and liberty against the absolute power of the king and wants absolute freedom. But Hegel, despite much praise for the revolution, deals with Pathology and critiques the meaning of will, freedom, and individuality in them. At the end of the Spirit chapter of Phenomenology, Hegel deals with the French Revolution, especially the era of terror and, in his dialectical space, rises to the battle by imagining the revolution from the absolute self-consciousness, absolute freedom, partial will, and general will, and proves Robespierre’ and the French nation’s abstract and hollow understanding of these terms. Hegel, after this criticism, also implicitly deals with Rousseau's critique as the foregrounding of the French conception of the meaning of these terms. After examining the outcome of absolute freedom and all its determinations to the end, Hegel redefines the fundamental terms in the Terror section and illustrates how public freedom and will are realized in his political thought system whereby penetrating into the absolute power and will, not only does the particular return to the individual again, but also realizes the whole inside him through outer mediators, and in this way, coming up with a very precise definition of the whole exclusive in individual and returning the external reality to the individual in a complex way.

This article reviews Michel Foucault’s late work, entitled What Is Critique and the Care of the Self, which deals with both the content of the book and its Persian translation. Foucault’s most recent work, especially in this book, deals with the subject of Kantian Enlightenment and the question of the ethics of taking care of a particular attitude to the subject and its governance and upbringing to express its critical view of modernity and social and moral structures. What is Foucault’s critique of the Kantian epistemological approach to the question of “what can I know?” Redirects to the critical question and believes that critique is a redefined movement that gives the subject the right to know the truth about his power effects and the power of his truth discourses. Ask a question. Concerning the second part of the book, one can also summarize Foucault’s words about his upbringing in his aesthetic attitude, something that Foucault himself emphasizes. He believes that it is an artwork in itself. An art work that everybody has to make, and everybody has it in their own way. Regarding the evaluation of the Persian translation of this book, it can be said that although it has been translated into fluent and fluent language, the lack of an introduction by the Persian translators and the lack of a profile and last references of the book and some incorrect translations of Latin terminology are some of the shortcomings of this work.

As Hegel has stated in the foreword to the foundations of the philosophy of right; the central argument in this work is to eliminate the arbitrary of the will, which is the folk meaning of freedom. Hegel seeks to trace the realization of the concept of freedom as an idea in the subject matter. The author argues that in both Hegelian transitions between the three main parts of this work, namely from the abstract right to morality and from morality to ethical life, he has eliminated the autocracy of will as a appearance without concept. In the wrong dialectic and its resolution, is captured by the arbitrary will of the individual who puts the mass into an infinite constellation. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the general sphere of the human being in order to legislate the good as morality. In this section, conscience as the determinant of the inner good of the human being, after forming all the institutions and rules of custom within himself. This way he claims to be absolutist, which Hegel considers to be the result of Kant's ethics and in line with the logic of the terror government in France. In order to remove this arbitrary, Hegel trans to The distinctive aspect of his moral philosophy, that is, the ethical life, in which the content of moral laws must be framed through the institutions of the actual social world in which the person resides

Over the past decades, the development of medical technology and economic concerns, as well as the expansion of health specialization, causes the dehumanizing of this field. This has led to the neglect of the effect of psychological and environmental aspects on the patient during treatment, and the health staff only pays attention to the patient's biological body, which led to their misbehavior with the patient. To solve their problems, health care professionals have resorted to various philosophical schools, such as phenomenology. Phenomenology, with its various doctrines, such as in bracketing of presuppositions and prejudices, allows us to describe reality as it appears to us. Undoubtedly, one of the realities we face in our daily lives is health and illness. While in the field of modern medicine, illness is defined as the dysfunctioning of organs and systems of the body and health as the lack of these disorders, Emphasizing the lived experience of individuals, phenomenology makes it possible to reveal psychological and environmental aspects of illness and health. Paying attention to these aspects of illness and health changes the meaning of illness and health. According to these phenomenological meanings, the illness is no longer limited to the patient's biological body, but his body is considered as a lived body, a body with different dimensions of existence, each of which can have a significant impact in his illness. Paying attention to this level of the body and the phenomenological meanings of health and illness will bring the horizons of the patient's vision and the field of treatment closer together and they will communicate better with each other.

De Beauvoir and Butler are the most prominent thinkers who have emphasized the necessity of re-reading the subject and gender identity. Their attempt to find the meaning of subjectivism has been accompanied by the necessity to deconstruct the meanings of sex and gender. Accordingly, by focusing on the concept of becoming (De Beauvoir) and performance (Butler), they have sought to change the gender mentality (De Beauvoir) and the plurality of gender identity (Butler). Although Butler started with De Beauvoir with common points of view and owes some of the most important concepts of her thought, her interpretations and results of her thought are broader and more different than De Beauvoir. Explaining the constructivist nature of gender identity, De Beauvoir proposed a change of mindset to end the binary oppositions man-woman. Recognizing the cultural nature of gender identity, Butler exposes the various forms of power and its binary opposites and proposes the plurality of gender identity with the intent of ending gender ideology. According to Butler, although De Beauvoir’s constructivist views on gender identity and the formation of the female subject have had a significant effect on the formulation of her views