malek shojaei jeshvaghani

Dariush Shayegan (1935-2018) is one of the contemporary philosophers in Iran who, during five decades of his intellectual life discussed philosophical and comparative Occidental studies. During the five decades of his intellectual life, on the one hand, Shayegan has taken a serious position against radical modernity opponents and cultural relativism advocates, and as an Eastern-Third World thinker who has lived- experience the danger of losing enlightenment values in efforts, Shayegan is a defender of social-civilized order and achievements. It is modernity, and on the other hand, due to the recognition of the lack of meaning and spirit in the whole of the Western modernity experience, in the struggle between these levels in the model of planetary human, some approaches to the three stages and some to the three stages (looking at the periods his intellectual differences) have mentioned. This article, based on the early advocates (from 1940 to 1980) and the late advocates (from 1980 to 2017), has tried to deal only with the Early advocates and the main topics of his philosophical-comparative Occidental studies.

Serious considerations of the relationship between religion and human sciences, and the formulation of human sciences as adapted to the cultural context of Islamic Iran, should be traced back to the intellectual context prior to the Islamic Revolution (1979) and in the thoughts of intellectuals such as ʿAllāma Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Muṭahharī, ʿAlī Sharīʿatī, and others. In the Seminary of Qom, efforts have been made in 1960s and 1970s to confront the ideas in modern Western philosophy and human sciences from the perspective of the Islamic culture and philosophy. In the post-revolutionary strands, however, there is no consensus on the possibility and necessity as well as methodology of indigenization (or Islamization) of human sciences. Even those who advocate the Islamization of sciences do not agree over the grounds, the method, and the strategy. The relationship between religion and human sciences can be studied at three levels: 1. The epistemological level: considering human sciences as epistemic fields—this can be referred to as an epistemological-propositional conception of human sciences.‌2. The institutional level: The institutional level is concerned with sociological studies of the institution of science as a major and crucial institution of a society. Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), as a key intellectual in human sciences, refers to sociology as a “science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning” (Durkheim 1964, 45). This level can be referred to as the academic conception of human sciences. 3. The discursive level: how human sciences have been experienced and understood by intellectual, cultural, social, religious and even political currents, what actions and reactions it has provoked, and how effective it has been in the field of policy-making and development plans. This level can be referred to as the discursive‌ conception of human science. The main issues in contemporary Iran have been epistemic and conceptual, whereas institutionalization and discourse were not equally appreciated. In recent years, there have been attempts, particularly by the Council for Transformation in Human Sciences, to tie the epistemic level to both institutional and discursive levels. This article provides an analytical-critical review of this experience and concludes with suggestions for improving the experience.

This Paper, By referring to the different approaches to Islamic philosophy and wisdom in the contemporary world, examines Abdul Javad Falaturi's different approach to Islamic philosophy. Contrary to the predominantly Orientalist readings of Islamic philosophy, which understand this tradition under the Neo-Platonic tradition, Falatouri seeks to explain the role of the Qur'an in Islamic philosophy through contemporary comparative and linguistic studies. According to his analysis, Islamic philosophy and wisdom resulted from the fusion of two different worldviews, namely, the worldview of Greek science  and philosophy and the Qur'anic worldview. So this philosophy was neither purely Greek nor purely Qur'anic nor a mixture of the two, but rather a separate and distinctive process arising from their synthesis and consequence.

cultural translation is a translation that adaptsthe text message and the source culture to the target culture. Such a translation often increases and decreases and is not a verbal translation. In cultural translation, the translator transcends the meaning of the material, the context, and the context of the source, paying attention to the specifics and requirements of the coordinates of the target culture for the transfer of concepts and even intellectual experiences. According to the common terminology of the Islamic tradition, the cultural translation of European philosophy and thought requires a kind of ijtihād. this process requires prerequisites such as mastering the spirit of culture and thought of origin on the other hand, and paying attention to the capacities and specifications of the target culture on the other. We can not claim that Foroughi, in the Seyr-e Hekmat dar Oroupa (Development of wisdom in Europe), has all the preconditions and requirements for cultural translation. In his work and his mind, it can be argued that the development of wisdom in Europe is beyond mere mechanical translation and is somewhat in the midst of the cultural translation of Western philosophy and thought in Persian and Iranian culture.

If we accept this relatively well-known and to some extent Justified metaphor that "philosophy is the mother of sciences", and sciences, in their historical expansion, have been slowly separated from philosophy and specialized, one can say that philosophy has a kind of epistemic, historical, value-oriented and even policy-making primacy over other modern Human sciences. It seems that the special approach of the pioneers of Western philosophy teaching in Iran to this epistemic field and their different and sometimes conflicting expectations and perceptions about the nature and function of the epistemic and discursive scientific function of Western philosophy, in some areas such as policy-making in this field, its influence in shaping the intellectual, cultural, and even the socio-political trends of contemporary Iran has been serious. Although in the early entrance of Western philosophy (through Faculty of Literature and Theology) to Tehran University, there was no critical self-awareness in our relationship with this epistemic field, but this situation developed slowly, especially in the late 1960s, with the formation of the grounds of Islamic revolution of Iran, and especially after the Islamic revolution. This paper, while emphasizing the developments in the planning of philosophy education in Iran, provides a critical analysis of the evolution of philosophical teaching planning curriculum developments.

this essay review  the origins of  problem of possibility of Islamic And indigenous human sciences and Literature of this issue in in the West , Muslim world, and contemporary Iran (with an emphasis on three decades after the Islamic Revolution).Given that the Basic problem in the current Discussion is Theoretical questions from the islamic philosophical tradition point of view, in the second part, by a comparative study of philosophy of Human Sciences in Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), a German Philosopher  and one of the Founders of The continental philosophy of Humanities with the possibilities and limitations of the Islamic intellectual tradition , Review the short History of practical Wisdom in Islamic philosophy and Analyse the possibilities and Limitations of Theory of conventional perceptions (I tibariat) in regard to Diltheys philosophical Grounding for the Human sciences.

The eighteenth century enlightenment is one of the most important foundations of the modern culture and thecontemporary Western philosophy can be regarded as a dialogue between the Enlightenment and its critics. Although the roots of the Enlightenment can be traced to the Late Middle Ages and even before، but it is in Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” (and implicitly in his critical trilogy and political works) that the Enlightenment and the modern situation are formulated philosophically. Foucault، French postmodern philosopher، has written three essays on kant''s “What is Enlightenment?” They are as follows: “What is Critique?” (1978)، “Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution” (1983)، and “What is Enlightenment?” (1984). These works indicate a considerable shift in his approach to the Enlightenment. This essay tries to explain this shift by analyzing and comparing Kant’s and Foucault’s views of the Enlightenment. For Foucault، the Enlightenment is not a historical period which has its own general principles but is a continuation of the critical tradition، philosophical ethos and ontology of the present and، as such، has been one of the main currents of Western philosophy from Kant until the present time.