فهرست مطالب mortaza mardiha

Reason and love are two abstract nouns and like lots of this kind of nouns have been a kind of elastic concept. For longtime this resiliency have caused vast discussions concerning their essences and limits of meanings. Philosophers, mystics, and intellectuals have commented in some way for their demarcation. The great Persian poets have also used and introduced these concepts in different ways. This article is to follow the course of semantic changes of these two words in Shahnameh, Panj Ganj, and Masnavi. We found that Ferdowsi has used these two words in the meanings close to their usual applications; Nizami has represented romantic love at its most exciting level and has also had some primary and raw remarks about the transcendental reason (Aghl-e Kolli) and reason derived by revelation. Mowlavi has been in an outstanding manner as a groundbreaker in changing the implications of the concepts and attributed such spiritual and mystical meanings to them that they reach the borders of homonyms. That is why Mowlavi’s conceptions of reason and love, because of their untenable method were limited within a discourse of spiritual aristocracy while usual and practical usage of these words remained close to the approaches and symbols of Nizami and specially Ferdowsi

Despite what it may seem, some indicators show that during the last quarter of twentieth-century science has been in the state of stagnation and there is less news about big discoveries. However, this period has seen a vast increase in time and money spent on research as well as real augmentation in the number of scientists and articles. Moreover, due to the new tools, hardware, and software, there is a huge amount of data, from microphysics and astronomy to biology and social science, in the disposition of researchers. This article considers those indicators, asks of its causes, and concentrates on relationship between increase of data and development of science. It proposes that development of science depends on testable hypotheses, but massive data and considering more variants make the very act of hypothesizing more difficult. In other words, having more experimental backing does not always contribute to scientific progress, sometimes it becomes an obstacle.

Few spheres of personal, social, political, and even scientific life have not gone under changes after the advance of the Internet and other information and communication technologies. From the massive areas that have been influenced by the cyber world, our attention is drawn to the humanities and social sciences. The question is, what new conditions social media have created for humanities and social science, and how these conditions have served as a strengthening or weakening factor in the growth and development of these sciences. The range of estimations varies from positive to negative. With the advance of social networks, the vast majority of society, the passive consumer of classical communicational devices, has become the expressive consumer or even the amateur producer. The findings suggest that, In this evolution, two processes of democratization and liberalization of communication and science, as a part of it, have progressed together, with more positive estimates for the first case and more negative for the second one. From an analytical standpoint, we try to corroborate the idea that, as in the real world, these two are going together, although this does not mean to stop trying to increase the benefits nor reduce the defects.

The scientific explanation is usually defined as finding the cause. For some reasons, this has been a subject of doubt, however, it seems that, both in common sense as well as in philosophical approach, the mainstream still support the very Idea of explanation something as introducing its cause. But cause searching and cause finding are not so easy tasks. This Article is for corroborating the idea according to which the essential tension in scientific research is derived from the practical difficulty of distinguishing a complex netting of causes, not from the theoretical disfunction of causality. Multiplicity, variety, interaction, and dynamism of causes and factors intervening in a causal process constitute oftentimes a perplexing netting in which it is difficult, sometimes practically impossible, to distinguish, dissociate, evaluate, and calculate vectors effective on final resultant and explain or predict the output or the effect the process in question has. Not paying enough attention to it leads mistakenly to doubt about causality itself. The problem is pragmatic, not paradigmatic.

The main question in this article is: what is the philosophical kind of statements which refer to human rights? From an abstract point of view, the rights and the obligations, for example in the universal declaration of human rights, are founded upon which foundations? Our hypothesis is that to rely human rights on “nature” is a wrong reasoning but considered to be useful in practice. Human rights, in final analysis, can not rely upon anything except some expedient consensus. The conventional theory of rights which is defended hear reduce the universality of human rights to the nature of human being with two aspects: common instinctive needs and rational approbations which will be promoted according to degree of instruction and welfare. This article is written in analytical method.

Radical feminism is definable as a movement in second half of twentieth century that considers patriarchy or maledomination at the root of women’s oppression. According to this idea, the problem is born within the family and non equal relations between it’s male and female members, and then from hear goes to society and politics. The radical feminists were inspired by dominant discourse of new left philosophers. This school which emphasized upon culture instead of economy and refuted the apparent innocence of capitalism, will become an excellent example for new wave of feminism. This article will try to confirm the hypothesis that as the deconstructive point of view of Benjamin and Marcus about social and political change had very little chance to triumph, radical feminism inspired by it, couldn’t have another destiny.

The theoretical and political frameworks of feminist thoughts emerge from some of the classical traditions of the social and political theories. Thus, first wave of feminism was influenced by liberation and second wave influenced by radicalism.Since the modern bourgeoisie which is based on liberation and equality has not been fully successful to extend these values to women, it disappointed some of feminist scholars. Considering the impact of social issues on women’s lives, feminists have revised some of these classical perspectives or applied new perspectives to explain the women's position in society in a better way.Romanticism as a form of contemporary social theory admires "emotions" and adores the "past" and has had much appeal to some of the feminists because of some commonly shared assumptions in both feminism and romanticism. This has become a basis of aspiration for some feminists who emphasize on women's sentiments and its superiority instead of rational equality between men and women and the importance of women's movements. They believe in the existence of matriarchy in the golden age as an assumption and try to revitalize it. It seems that even though romanticism could be considered as a reaction to the problems arisen from rationality and modern development, but it is not a solution for the new world, as it is even true for feminism.