جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "marx" در نشریات گروه "علوم اجتماعی"

Television is a subject that has been repeatedly studied and investigated by scientists and has been researched from different angles such as sociology and psychology. One of the approaches to studying this important issue is the philosophical approach. In this article, from a philosophical point of view, television as a technology, based on the viewpoint of four thinkers: Marx, Heidegger, Burgman and Feinberg, has been examined. Of course, these philosophers of technology have not commented on television as a technology; Rather, it is based on the foundations of each of their views about television. Based on the principles of Marx, the role of television in value addition is the focus of analysis. From Heidegger's point of view, television can be studied as a type of development and awareness. According to Borgman, the necessity of searching about the relationship between information and reality, as well as the relationship between subject and object, as well as the topic of focal objects can be inferred about television. And from Feinberg's point of view, the role of capitalist values and democratic values in television production is important. After examining these four points of view, conclusions are made regarding the value or neutrality of television based on the explanations made.

Validity of Knowledge is the most important issue of science studies in philosophy and sociology. Exploring knowledge and questioning its validity introduced science as a social phenomenon and introduced sociology into the debate. These developments have revolved around the concept of praxis as the foundation of society and social phenomena. Clearly, Marx and Wittgenstein introduced praxis and consciousness – and therefore science - in conjunction. This article argues that from the perspective of praxis, science is bound by the requirements of the collective action of the actors and the question of the validity of the findings is left to the analysis of social relations that surrounding science.Applying this position to sociology, which is the science of praxis itself, complicates the situation; The criterion for the validity of sociological findings is adherence to the praxis of social agents in the form of class. This position prevents sociologists from imposing the praxis on the subject of studying and distorting social facts and prevents the objectification of the studied groups. This position also dissolves the exhausting dualities of subject/ object and micro/ macro, while leading to the Fertility of sociology in the face of the concrete situation of Iranian society.

Experimental and avant-garde art did a lot of service to the Russian Revolution, and the artists of that time were mostly considered revolutionaries, but after the revolution, strange things happened and many artists were considered traitors.As we all know, Marx's intellectual foundations were influenced by Hegel's philosophy, and for this reason he sided with Hegel's committed art in the face of the famous dichotomy of independent art and committed art (Kant-Hegel). Theoretically, this bias means rejecting the autonomy and independence of the artist and rejecting the individual subject's individuality in the field of creating the work, but in practice we will see that due to the humanistic nature of communist utopian claims (such as equality - classless society) Inevitably, humanist aspects are also found in Marx's earlier views. This article seeks to trace the roots of the success and growth of avant-garde art in Marx's earlier views and to show as much as possible how the decline of these teachings and the rigidity of the ideological system caused the decline of modernist art in the post-Marx period to the height of Stalinist ideology. They provided the sphere of leftist thought.

Works of Henri Lefebvre who has been entitled father of France dialectic and the last classic philosopher, includes a wide and exceptional range of themes: dialectic, Marxism, alienation, the production of space, critique of everyday life, urban revolution, rhythmanalysis, space-time, capitalism, city, the urban, the right to the city, theory of language, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and so on. What, however, links all of his works is his own method that he uses: dialectics. Lefebvre in dialectical materialism begins with a critique of Hegel's dialectic, and by explaining Marx's critique on Hegel, introduces his own version of dialectic. Here, in order to illuminate aspects of Lefebvre's dialectical method, first of all, dialectical materialism's schema and its relation with Lefebvre's real life condition and his others works is provided. The difference between formal logic and dialectical logic, thenis addressed. In the next step, Lefebvre's critique on Hegel is presented. By explaining Lefebvre's critique on Marx, therefore, his own dialectic is put forward.Throughemploying Marx's concept oftotal man, and based upon praxis that is the total activity of mankind, action and thought, physical labour and knowledge,and Marx's concepts of use value and exchange value,Lefebvre elucidates an application of his dialectical method.

Works of Henri Lefebvre who has been entitled father of France dialectic and the last classic philosopher, includes a wide and exceptional range of themes: dialectic, Marxism, alienation, the production of space, critique of everyday life, urban revolution, rhythmanalysis, space-time, capitalism, city, the urban, the right to the city, theory of language, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and so on. What, however, links all of his works is his own method that he uses: dialectics. Lefebvre in dialectical materialism begins with a critique of Hegel’s dialectic, and by explaining Marx’s critique on Hegel, introduces his own version of dialectic. Here, in order to illuminate aspects of Lefebvre’s dialectical method, first of all, dialectical materialism’s schema and its relation with Lefebvre’s real life condition and his others works is provided. The difference between formal logic and dialectical logic, then is addressed. In the next step, Lefebvre’s critique on Hegel is presented. By explaining Lefebvre’s critique on Marx, therefore, his own dialectic is put forward. Through employing Marx’s concept of total man, and based upon praxis that is the total activity of mankind, action and thought, physical labour and knowledge, and Marx’s concepts of use value and exchange value, Lefebvre elucidates an application of his dialectical method.

It has been almost two decades since Lefebvre’s thoughts penetrated the Western rationality in the field of geography, urban studies, planning, and architecture. Today, Lefebvre’s book “The Production of Space” is routinely quoted. It seems, however, that Iranian Academia has been remained untouched in terms of Lefebvre’s ideas. This Article then wishes to fill the gab in question. In so doing, I shall begin with philosophical foundations of Lefebvre’s approach since it is believed that these foundations enable us to better understand his urban theories in general and his spatial concepts developed in Urban Revolution, The Production of Space, and Writings on Cities in particular. Drawing on Lefebvre’s philosophical bases, this article begins with explaining logic of dialectic in Lefebvre’s thought. It aims at clarifying the relation between Lefebvrian dialectic and Hegelian and Marxian ones. Then I will turn to the influence of Nietzsche on Lefebvre’s dialectical point of view. This furnishes a basis for developing his dialectical view in urban conceptualising the urban. Finally, the way Lefebvre uses dialectic as a methodological tool in rural sociology is briefly touched upon.