جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « aristotle » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

Al-Farabi, a prominent Muslim philosopher and thinker of the 4th century Hijri, made significant contributions to the philosophy of art, particularly in the realm of poetry. Al-Farabi's perspective on poetry echoes Aristotle's concept of "Mimesis," which emphasizes the re-creation of observed phenomena rather than mere imitation, resulting in the enjoyment of a new artistic creation. This viewpoint positions literary works as independent phenomena. This article sought to investigate the extent to which Al-Farabi's ideas aligned with formalism, given his influence by Aristotle. Employing a descriptive method and content analysis, the study drew on the insights of Russian Formalists, particularly regarding Mimesis (re-creation), to analyze Al-Farabi's artistic views on poetry. The examination encompassed several works of Al-Farabi, including "An Essay on the Rules of Poetry", "Poetry Collections", "A Treatise on Proportion and Composition", as well as poetic speeches from "Iihsa’ Aleulum", "Ara’ Ahl Almadinat Alfadhila", and "Fusul al-Montazaea". By scrutinizing the perspectives of experts, who considered ancient Greek critics, such as Aristotle, as formalists, alongside the views of Al-Farabi, a prominent figure in Arabic literary criticism, and by delving into Al-Farabi's own works and opinions, it became evident that formalism strongly influenced Al-Farabi's notions regarding the poetry industry.

One of the methods of persuasion in academic linguistic interactions is the use of metadiscourse markers. These markers are a tool to facilitate communication, increase the readability of the text, establish a relationship with the readers and involve them, and avoid rejecting the author's interpretations. The purpose of this study is to explore meta-discourse markers in academic correspondence between students and professors. To this end, 200 student e-mails (13,103 words in size) were randomly selected between 2019 and 2022, and were analyzed based on Hyland's (2005) model of meta-discourse markers with two categories of interactive metadiscourse markers (including transitive markers, frame markers, endophoric markers, evidentials and code glosses) and interactional metadiscourse markers (including hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers). The relationship between the frequency of either of interactive or interactional markers with one of the Aristotle's rhetorical triangle (i.e., logos, ethos and pathos) (Hyland, 2005) is also discussed. Results show that the use of interactional metadiscourse markers was more than interactive metadiscourse markers in the corpus. Also, the engagement marker as an indicator of appealing to pathos was the most frequently used interactional markers in the corpus. In addition, transitive markers, as an indicator of appealing to logos, has the highest frequency among interactive metadiscourse markers. The results of this study conform to the previous findings that the use of metadiscourse markers depend on the context and genre in which it is used.

A quintessential element in Nizami’s oeuvre is the correspondence between the characters’ articulation and discursive features. In other words, one can explore different layers of their subjectivity in light of their articulation. In this respect, this study investigates Nizami’s Iqbal-Nameh. When Alexander instructs his three advisors, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, to compile “Kherad-Nameh,” their individual formulation echoes their position and personality. This study aims to investigate the three advisors’ divergence of discourse in light of Fairclough's 3D model. He analyses the discourse in three levels: description, interpretation, and explanation. The description level is a textual analysis, the interpretation level is a contextual and intertextual analysis, and the explanation level is a socio-cultural analysis. This study concludes that in formulating “Kherad-Nameh,” Plato’s discourse is informed by his position beneath the king, Aristotle’s assertive discourse is informed by equating his position with the king, and Socrates’ authoritative/degrading discourse is informed by positioning himself above the king.

In Muslim rhetoric, there are some debates about the way odes are composed. One of the debates among poets and critics is a narrative that contains specific instructions for composing an ode. That is, poets must go through certain steps to compose a beautiful ode. According to the instructions, poets should first think about the meaning and then choose a suitable meter and rhyme. Finally, they are to correct and confirm the poems. This study attempts to find out what the philosophical basis of this method of writing poems is. The study concludes that this foundation has its roots in Aristotle's theory of language mentioned in Organon and Peri Hermeneias.

Since the structure of the play is based on the story, each play must have a certain structure so that there is no gap in the story. Therefore, plays, like stories, have special elements that are important to study and analyze in today's research. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to compare the elements of the play in the two plays "Tengna" by Mahmoud Dolatabadi, one of the great contemporary writers of Iran, and Bae ol-debs al-Faqir by Sadollah Venus, a contemporary Syrian playwright, based on Aristotle's view. Based on the findings of this study, both authors have written their plays based on a series of principles and elements. In the meantime, all the elements of Aristotle are present in the two plays, except rhythm and song, which have no special place in the play "Tengna", but there are differences in some other elements, when in the character element, all the characters of Dolatabadi's play , Are subsidiary While the play of Venus has a central character that all the sub-characters revolve around him and also the type of expression in the two works is different and that the theatrical scene of the play of Venus appears in several scenes while the whole play of Dolatabadi in the courtyard of an old house On display.

This article compares Aristotle's classical view of Hamartia in the tragic narrative with that of the contemporary theorist of Narrative theory, Joseph Hillis Miller. Considering that both of these theorists have chosen the tragedy of Sophocles's Oedipus the King as a model tragedy for their study, so the case study of the present article is dedicated to the same play. In order to answer its comparative questions, this study first examines the function of narrative in general from Miller's point of view and then examines this function in the subject of Hamartia in the narrative of Oedipus the King. Second, it explores Hamartia in connection with Aristotle's broader philosophical theory,and especially his moral theory. Third, as a result of the above two studies, it studies the similarities and differences between Aristotle and Miller's views on Hamartia in the tragic narrative.Finally, considering the results of the above studies, the question has been answered that from the different point of view of these two ancient and contemporary theorists, What is the use of narrations?The main achievement of this article is that it shows that according to the classical theory, narratives can provide clear and definite answers to the fundamental human questions about how to solve problems in life to present the work of the world, while in poststructuralist theory, narratives can not give such clear and definite answers, and they always owe human beings the repetition of narratives in the course of these answers.

The encyclopedia of the war contains the humor of eight years of Holy Defense Which is collected based on the oral memoirs of Islamic warriors. The third volume of this encyclopedia contains all kinds of humor. These humor are categorized with a subject-oriented approach. Examining the humor functions of the Holy Defense, in addition to presenting another atmosphere of the fight that is depicted in the opposite point of the violence of war, shows its effect in softening and changing the atmosphere of the fight. This qualitative article, by means of content analysis, applies the theory of fun relaxation from Aristotle's point of view to the humor of the fight and in this way, with examining Aristotle's views on humor, it shows the function of the humor of the fight. According to the theory of fun relaxation, humor with the entertainment of the audience, causes pleasure and expansion.

 This article is written in a descriptive-analytical method based on library resources. The study of the functions of humor explains the reason for its occurrence and analyzes the philosophy of humor; On the other hand, the study of the humor culture of the fight and criticize of it from the point of view of philosophers will provide valuable results that will be useful in compilation literary texts related to the atmosphere of war, such as poetry and stories.

The importance of humor and its role in human life has interest philosophers and critics to study it. Among these philosophers, Aristotle proposed a comprehensive theory of humor that, by stating the place of humor in human moral values, the necessity of humor and how it affects human life. The humor of the fight is part of the fight culture, which is deeply connected with the moral and spiritual virtues. This study answers the following questions by examining the humor of the fight with emphasis on Aristotle's theory:What is the nature of humor and its function from Aristotle's point of view? According to Aristotle, what are the results of the analysis of the satire of the fight? What are the functions of humor in the humor of the front?

The analysis of the humor of the fight from a philosophical point of view, by reflecting the rich culture of the front, describes its functions. The oldest comprehensive theory of the philosophy of humor goes to Aristotle. By expressing the place of humor in human moral virtues, he introduces this feature as one of the ways to achieve human happiness and perfection. Aristotle, in his book Nicomachean Ethics, enumerates the principles and characteristics of humor, while noting the observance of moderation, and considers its function to be pleasure, comfort, and happiness. The necessity of humor and its sociality, the diversity of the scope of humor and the necessity of controlling it by emphasizing the factor of politeness and prohibition of the legislator are other characteristics of humor. Among the three groups of people, he considers good-natured people to be the best companions.Examining humor of the fight, in addition to the main function of peace and pleasure, shows other functions that are related to the main function, and for this reason, it is called the secondary or late function. These functions are classified into nine sections, which has had a significant effect on changing the violence atmosphere of war.

This article examines the similarities between Nezami Oroozi's "Chahar Maghaleh" and Langinus' "Treatise". Langinus is one of the greatest critics known as Aristotle. In his literary and critical theory, he examines the characteristics of a literary work by proposing the category of "excellent model" and, in fact, shows the character of a literary masterpiece. Langinus believes that a literary work with its characteristics can be considered as an excellent example and model, and this excellent model is not limited to a literary genre. Nezami Oroozi Samarghandi, the author of "Chahar Maghaleh" in both the secretary's and poetic articles, believes that special circumstances can exalt a literary work. The present article explains Langinus' views and their conformity with the perspective of Nezami Oroozi. In the meantime, of course, it should be noted that the artistic and critical views of Iranian poets and writers are subject to certain rhetorical principles and foundations that may be different from the intellectual and rhetorical foundations of Western writers, but this study only seeks to find similarities that can be seen in these two works. Perhaps the analysis of these similarities can reveal the common sources in the two works and show signs of the presence and influence of Aristotle's views in both books.

Aristotle considered rhetoric the art of discovering and affecting the factors that were useful in persuading the audience, and in the rhetorical process. These factors must be respected following the requirements of the audience. According to Ethos, the statements of a speaker should express his personality and knowledge to compel the audience to listen to him. Granting the second element, Pathos, the speaker employs a variety of expressions to target and touch the feelings and emotions of the listener. The third side of Aristotle's rhetoric, Logos, relates to argumentation (inductive or inferential). Consequently, it is only when a lecture reaches its primary goal, that is the listener's conviction, that these three ideals are fully met. The principles of Aristotelian rhetoric are universal and can be identified and explained in Persian literary masterpieces, especially in the Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. If we look at the verbal controversies of the stories of Shahnameh, particularly in one of the most outstanding ones, Zal and Roodabeh, it emits that the principles of the Aristotelian rhetoric can be studied and explored in these stories.

The relationship between rhetoric and poetry has been the subject of experts’ controversy since the beginning of the controversy, and this controversy has continued to this day without reaching a definite conclusion. The root of such controversy lies in Aristotle's two treatises on rhetoric and poetry. In these two treatises, the general boundaries between these two techniques are drawn and their minor boundaries remain invisible.
In this descriptive-analytical method, while examining the commonalities and differences between the two rhetoric and poetry techniques, the present article tries to study the separation of their specific rhetorical techniques based on the two treatises of rhetoric and Aristotle's poetry. This article concludes that the art of rhetoric and the art of poetry, in addition to the commonalities and differences in generalities, components, materials, types, theologians, audiences, and styles, have more to do with the use of rhetorical techniques than the sharing of materials and differences; That is, the working materials of these two techniques
Are generally common, and the purpose of using these materials in them is different.

Although in this article, dramatic capacities of Holy Qur'an has been investigated; But the author's perception and view of the Qur'an is not dramatic and purely something entertaining. Since The Qur'an has been sent as a divine miracle of the Prophet Muhammad with a very rich and valuable contents to guide humanity toward redemption; then a large part of it is consist of stories about other Prophets, ancient narratives and etc to educate people in path of salvation and the fabric of these tales have dramatic elements. Drama has also been presented as one of the phenomena of human's thought with purpose of helping human kind even more in path of redemption and salvation. A show  or drama, in order to be believable through action, seeks to objectify the events that take place during the course of the story and in this process, the dramatic elements manifest themselves. One of the oldest and most authoritative theories related to the art of drama is Aristotle's theory which is mentioned in Poetics book. This article tries to evaluate the examples of stories and narratives of the Qur'an that can be demonstrated based on Aristotle's theory of imitation of the orthodox structure. in this theory, the six components of drama art are as followed: View perspective, Character, Thematic legend, Speech, song and Thought.

The classic Persian literature enjoys plenty of story enrichment. In some authors’ works, these prose and poetry texts provide beyond the pure storytelling, somehow dramatic tale. However, with regard to lack of play in early centuries of Persian poems in Iran, the works do not hare play from appearance and are written only for reading. After the arrival of play from the West to Iran in the late century, play writers referred less to old literature treasure. While the reading of these works from the perspective of the play demonstrates their capacity for theatrical adaptations. Among the works of poets, Shahnameh Ferdousi and Nezami Middle poetry, and among prose books, Beyhaghi’s History are the best samples for evaluating the mentioned dramatic works. We attempt in this paper that after describing dramatic theater elements (Aristotle) and epic theater, pay to adjust their measurements with Beyhaghi’s dramatic stories and offer play (dramatic) capacity for the works.

This article investigates concept of plot in thoughts of Aristotle and Kundera. Kundera's critiques to Aristotle show ontological-epistemological contrasts between them. In this regard, this article tries to answer this question: Why does Kundera -contrary to Aristotle- considers the plot as enemy of Novel?In Kundera'narrative world there wasn't Aristotelian concepts as unity,necessity,generality. On the contrary, Kundera discusses about world of multiplicity, unintelligible elements and coincidences; a world that Novels represent it.In this regard, Kundera is close to post-structuralism school. The Novel is a thinking way that it is in contrast with Aristotelian essentialism and causality. Contrary to philosophy, the Novel is narrator of irrational events. Kundera expressed her objection to plot, because It is outcome of rational perception about the world as causal texture. Kundera considers the elements that Aristotle cross them out :elements as minor event, off-topic and accidentalism. Kundera considers the plot as storyline hegemony and denial of polyphony in Fiction. This essay elaborates Kundera's post-structuralism perspective(Nietzsche perspectivism) resulted in narration change. For Kundera, Nietzsche as post-structuralism ancestor has always been the essential philosopher.

Aristotle divided tragedy into six formative elements and mythos or plot is the most important one. In shahnameh plot plays a pivotal role in tragedies and bears considerable resemblance to Aristotle’s mythos. The purpose of this research is to discuss this issue according to Aristotle’s views employing descriptive analytic approach to indicate that most tragedies in Shahnameh correspond to Aristotelian mythos and its constituent elements such as recognition, transformation and catastrophic event or downfall. Plot refers to the sequence of events inside a tragedy which affect other events through the principle of cause and effect. The existence of recognition, transformation and catastrophic fate of the protagonist encourage the reader to reread times and times again tragedies of Shahnameh. Therefore the everlasting appeal and the secret of survival of Shahnameh owes itself to its strong plot greatly corresponding to mythos of Aristotle although as far as narrative structure is concerned in parts for instance forecasting in the beginning of tragedies and domination of destiny and final fate discrepancies exist.

Dramatic literature beside the narrative literature and Epic literature are known as the main branches of literature which have been divided into two genres: comedy and tragedy. The tragedy of Rostam and Sohrab as symbol of epic Iranian stories owns Aristotelian theatric criterion. The mentioned tragedy is based on a theme which shows the will to find the father in a dramatic struggle. The present paper citing the Aristotelian theatric principles derived from Poetics studies and surveys dramatic factors in the tragedy of Rostam and Sohrab in order to clarify Aristotle’s viewpoint on dramatic literature. Thus the reader – of the paper – may obtain comprehensive understanding of this tragedy.

Ancient Iranian literature is an appropriate source for playwrights and screenwriters to adapt them for the stage. Ancient Iranian literature lacks some aspects of dramatic literature like dramatic narrative or characterization. Thus they have not been used frequently by dramatist. Bahram Beyzai who is well versed in Ancient Persian literature has adapted ancient texts to dramatic ones. “Straw Curtain” is a script that can be a good example for dramatic adaption from a literary text. Bahrām Beyzāi (1938 in Tehran) is an outstanding Iranian film and theatre director, screenwriter, playwright, film editor, producer, and researcher who is famous for his special use of literature and a unique language that preserves traditional Persian language. In this paper Beyzai's adaptation of “Straw Curtain” is analyzed based on Aristotle's views on six factors of a drama components and the relation between plot and character. Beyzai has presented new portrayal of the primary character in “Devout Woman” so that the central female character is not passive.

The aim of present article is to study the story of Rostam and Sohrab based on moral virtues in the thoughts of Aristotle. According to Aristotle, virtue is a praiseworthy ethical habit between excess and negligence. Some of these virtues are courage, honesty, nobility and hauteur. In the present article, after a cursory examination of the Aristotelian approach to moral virtues, they are studied in the story of Rostam and Sohrab. The analysis of the story shows that there is a considerable correspondence between virtues and moral conducts of the characters of the story and Aristotelian virtues. It also shows that moral codes have an important function in Shāhnāmeh and the behaviors of Iranian heroes. The moral behaviors of Sohrab, considerably correspond to Aristotelian virtues.

In the current article, the history of rhetoric from 400 B.C. to 100 A.D. is reviewed. During this 500 years, the theoretical basis of classical rhetoric was established and has remained almost the same throughout the centuries. The first sage who established theoretical basis for rhetoric with a logical approach was Aristotle. Aristotle’s views on rhetoric are very carefully and precisely analyzed in this article. Following Aristotle, Roman teachers of rhetoric such as Cicero and Quintilian added more to the theory of rhetoric. The Roman’s theory of rhetoric is also reviewed in the article. The current article seeks to show the differences and similarities of Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric as well as the Romans perception of it.

The Relationship between locutor and interlocutor has always been an interesting subject for philosophers and critics. In Rhetoric, Aristotle expresses that the author can affect reader by three ethos, pathos and logos. Between them, we concentrate on ethos that is so important in new criticism and represents the presence of author in text or discourse. This presence is not limited to the text as an enunciator. Specifically, it should be studied in discourse where the author essays to consider the writing and the way of writing in order to justify his artistic identity. This type of identity quest is noticeable in Indian style poets’ works. The Indian style poet, who wants to show a perfect image of himself and his art of writing poems, tries to keep his ethos. They attempt to create an acceptable image of themselves through self-theorization, self-expression, self-exception and self-comparison.

Persuasion is a process which tries to convince audiences and invade their minds. This communicative process has an important role in literary world، because one of the main aims of authors and poets has always been to persuade their audiences. Considering such an important، there has been accomplished several different studies on the nature of persuasion in literature and literary studies in recent years. These types of researches which have started in West and developed and spread all over the world deal with various methods on which the audience would be persuaded. In this study، we have tried to survey the history of persuasion process to make the importance of such studies in the field of literature and literary criticism clear.