جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « لاک » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

In recent Iranian intellectual space, some thinkers of political thought and jurisprudence (in particular the late Dr. Davood Feirahi) have believed that Iran’s situation in Islamic world is similar to and comparable with England in Europe and Christian world. That's because Iran is a Muslim country yet at the same time a Shi'ite one and England in Europe is a Christian yet at the time an Anglican one. On the other hand, they have believed that the situation and the political project of John Locke in England is similar to and comparable with the situation and the political project of Allameh Mohammad Hossein Naeini in contemporary Iran. That's also because both of them tried to defend freedom and democracy on the basis of a religious ground, that means the holy text. And both of them had religious opponents (Sheiq Fazlollah Nuri and Robert Filmer). Therefore, the quarrel for democracy and freedom at the time of John Locke and Allameh Mohammad Hossein Naeini was a religious one. That means it was religion against religion, both authoritarianism and democracy was based on different accounts and interpretation of the hole text. Hence, in Iran Feirahi believed that secularism isn't our real problem but the problem is religious accounts of authoritarianism and democracy. He believed that the path of democracy passes through a democratic account of religion. Here, what he called as modern theology can make sense.The main concern of the present article is to evaluate this claim. Is Shi'ite Islam is comparable with Christianity and Anglicanism in particular? What are the differences? At least we know the Constitutionalism movement in Iran came to a different conclusion than the Constitutionalism movement. In Iran, only after two decades after the Constitutionalism revolution an authoritarianist government came to power and it can be said that Rezakhan destroyed democracy. The main subject of my essay is Law but not any kind of Law (Natural Law, Religious Law, etc.). It is only governmental law or human Law. What is created by man and in particular by a government. In order to evaluate the aforementioned claim and what people like Feirahi said I chose the concept of law and on the other hand I tried to study the concept in the context of the two important treatises of these two thinkers; the second treatise of John Locke on Government and Mohammad Hossein Naeini’s Tanbih o lommah va Tanzih o lmellah. It should be added that Law is very important for these two. Locke defines political power on the basis of Law. For Locke, that's Law which draws a distinction between a state of war and a political state. For Naeini, Law is an alternative for ismah (innocence) of imam at the time of qeibah (absence of imam).It should be noticed that Law in Iran was a goal that so many people had tried the achieve. One the main aims of the Constitutionalism revolution was to create Law and to limit and control the behavior of the governors on the basis of Law. So, the essay studied different aspects of the question of law in the project of those two thinkers (Naeini and Locke) and what the said in their most important treatises (Tanbih o lommah va Tanzih o lmellah of Mohammad Hossein Naeini and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government). This study is a part of a wider research, which tried to find the basis of such comparison. My methodological approach in present essay is an interpretive-comparative one. That means that I tried to interpret both texts from the viewpoint of Law and after that and the same time I tried to compare the two texts.   The present essay is divided in different parts. First, I studied the foundation of Law in the two treatises (a metaphorical one and a normative one). Then I wrote about the limitations of Law for Locke and Naeini. For Locke and Naeine there two different kinds of limitations. Locke limits Law by Natural Law or Natural Rights and the contents of the very basic contract between people and the governors. On the other side. Naeini limits Law by Shari'ah and the contents of the very basic contract between people and the governors. Then I talked about the Legislative Power (Parliament of Majlis). Here I studied the position of the the Legislative Power and its conditions. And in the end, I wrote about the goal or aim law, what Law tries to achieve. Here I pointed to the relations between public good and its relation with consent. In the final analysis, the present research shows that in spite of some similarities, there are fundamental differences between John Locke and Naeini, which cannot and should not be overlooked. I believed that the proponents of the claim are ignorant of the differences. Such ignorance twists our system of thinking more and creates more problems.

Constitutionalism has been accompanied with bounding the kingship system power by law; it is not important this manner has been happen in England or in Iran, but it is important that despotic authoritarian discourse do support from kingship and be legitimize it. Now, constitutionalism, by a rendering democratic interpretation from religion, has effort, until articulate a new discourse that meantime legitimize political system, respect on rights of individual in society. This article, by studying this issue in Locke and Naini political thought, has concluded that albeit both of them ground his thought basis on religion, but has theorized differently on process of sovereignty surrendering to people and on result. Like, Locke in the process of sovereignty surrendering to people passaged on human rationality and drew a temporal and free from church intervention. But, Naini by basing the politics on religion, has study society and government under the religion alike. And this mean that Locke do not certainly be bounded on religion on society and political arena, and Naini certainly be bound on religion in both case.

How the government is formed is one of the important themes about the phenomenon of government.  Yet more important is the issue of the dissolution of government.  This paper studies the dissolution of government from the viewpoint of John Locke as one of the greatest political philosophers in the modern world.  The main research questions are, what are the foundations in Locke’s political theology that can explain the dissolution of government? and what conditions should be met in order to concede the possibility of the dissolution of government or confer on citizens the right to it? Locke believes that in the state of nature, human beings have rights as well as the ability to govern themselves.  Human beings enter the political society with some rights, the most important of which is the right to judge the performance of rulers.  Moreover, they have the right to dismiss or even penalize rulers whenever they do not fulfil their obligations, and if rulers go against the popular will, people can resort to force and revolution.  For Locke, revolution is not the worst thing in politics but in the despotic politics.  In Locke’s viewpoint, revolution is necessary to ensure rulers’ adherence to their obligations.  More importantly, revolution is both the foundation of freedom and the greatest manifestation of humans’ self-government.

Hobbes and Locke as the seventeenth century English philosopher put profound impact on the political thought, As far as they can, including the founders of the political philosophy of liberalism -that is now one of the most pervasive political doctrines- And the founders of the of nation-states current world system knew that the researching on the thought them make necessary. Hobbes and Locke, both in the philosophical and political thought are very similar to each other: both the empiricist and are of the companions social contract. However, though the two lived in a historical period and although it is a way to analyze a political system based on social contract theory, But the political system which was born out of a social contract, is very different. State of the Hobbes, is authoritarian government, but Locke's state is democratic political system, with popular aspects. The question of this paper is the reasons for differences in such analyze from State of the Hobbes and Locke? Asked in a paradigm framework of political thought and with content analysis method based on original works of Hobbes and Locke Is performed.

Following the detachment from tradition, the liberal thought has been looking for the latest foundation to justify its own values. Meanwhile, it has been endeavored to defend from the freedom being considered the most superior value ahead of this thought. Reviewing the thought of some outstanding intellectuals linked to liberalism, the article illuminates that the freedom in this viewpoint has been alienated from an indispensable theme of the idealist value as well as the rational virtue, and it has been appeared in the form of negative concept of freedom out of the external obstacles, and due to some particular gnosis-based principles, even the necessity of humane and moral values independent from the will of individual has been considered an unacceptable external hindrance. This interpretation from the freedom is followed by hazardous consequences in the meaningfulness of individual life and humane considerations regarding the communal life which will be partly noted.

Surveying chapter 5 from the second Treatise of Government, the present article aims at indicating the fact why and how this chapter from Two Treatises of Government forms the main axis of economic liberalism in a capitalistic system. In other words, referring in this chapter to the ownership of work and presenting an ethical justification of the possession of lands in African colonies, John Locke puts an end to the disputes of colonialism and proposes a mechanism to the British politicians of the 19th century. This mechanism saved England from social, political, and economic collapse. In other words, establishing a rational and rather ethical mechanism, Locke attempts to prove firstly how and why the large domain of colonies in North America is permissible or legitimate, and secondly with respect to the influence of European rivals, it is considered something practical and rational. Analyzing these arguments and the economic crises of England, the present article seeks to reveal and interpret the internal logic of Locke,s economic theory based on the approach taken by those who have broken the mould of the ethical theory of Locke in the last decades of the 20th century.