جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "آیرونی" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Plato scholarship underwent fundamental changes. Most of these took place in Germany, centered on the two Romantic Plato scholars, Friedrich Schlegel and Friedrich Schleiermacher. This theoretical revolution had already begun before these two, with the likes of Dietrich Tiedemann and Wilhelm Gottlieb Tennemann, but it culminated with Schlegel and Schleiermacher. Although Schlegel’s Plato scholarship was largely overshadowed by Schleiermacher’s work, his role in shaping romantic Plato and modern Plato is undeniable. This role was revealed by Dithery’s edition of Schleiermacher's correspondence (Aus Schleiermacher’s Leben). To understand the nature of modern Plato, as well as the Romantic view of philosophy, it is necessary to recognize the role of Schlegel and the influence of his Plato scholarship. The following article is devoted to Schlegel’s understanding of Plato, which will be shown to be in line with his view of the ideal of philosophy in general. Relying on the documents, we first examine Schlegel’s role in the Romantic movement of Plato studies and in launching the massive project of translating all Plato's writings into German. The philosophical elements of the Romantic interpretation of Plato are then addressed. These elements are the idea of the inner expansion of Plato’s philosophy, its asystematic nature, and the incomprehensibility or ineffability of the infinite, the reality. Three of Schlegel’s main contributions to Plato studies are then emphasized: the idea of irony, his theory for the order and authenticity of Plato’s dialogues, and his view on the “unwritten doctrines”.

This article deals with the place of imagination in the philosophy of Richard Rorty. Imagination is thought to play a key role in his philosophy and understanding its place in his thought can help us understand the true mission of his philosophy. It seems that Rorty is trying to replace imagination with reasoning. We show that this alternative arises from the logical necessity of Rorty’s philosophy so that such an initiative can be considered in line with his critical view of the idea of “truth” and replacing it with the idea of “justification”. From this point of view, imagination can provide the ground for progress, hope and social solidarity by creating alternatives for existing situations. In this article, in the form of the place of imagination in Rorty’s thought, an attempt is made to examine the idea of imagination and its place in relation to the key concepts of Rorty’s philosophy, including hope, social solidarity and democracy. It seems that imagination is a key concept in Rorty’s philosophy, and this philosopher can implement his project under the title of new pragmatism only by relying on the element of imagination as a substitute for the reason.

Focusing on Lukacs’s and Adorno’s ideas, this paper aims to clarify how the philosophical attitude of critical theory relates to the essay genre as a method. It firstly elaborates on essay as an emergent genre of modern philosophy, indicating that philosophy is extremely interwoven with its form of presentation. Accordingly, form, language, and stylistic features are irreducible to chimerical or ornamental appearances; it includes various methodological and epistemological implications. The genre first appeared closely linked to the emergence of modern observing self, became critically self-conscious in the 20th century, increasingly engaged with the question of methodology. In doing so, interpreting Lukacs’s essay “On the Nature and Form of Essay”, indicates essay is a proper form of expression for lived experience and it is inherently an ironic form. For Lukacs, irony has the same relation to essay as doubting has to science. Afterward, by reading Adorno’s “Essay as Form”, this paper shows how he employs essay as a methodological tool to realize the negative dialectics thesis. Adorno formulates essay against the four rules that Descartes’s Discourse on Method sets up, contends that it proceeds methodically unmethodically. This method makes it a force field in which concepts come together in an open, dynamic network. So essay is a privileged form of philosophizing, allowing for the resistance to identifying, totalizing tendencies in a philosophical system. Therefore, both Lukacs’ and Adorno’s descriptions of essay are largely informed by their broader philosophical outlooks. Combining its epistemological and aesthetic aspects, they have also extended beyond the modern science-art dichotomy.

"Irony" is one of the pivotal themes of Richard Rorty's thought. This concept has a long-lasting background in the history of philosophy. At first it was used in the Ancient Greece to describe the method of Socratic dissimulation which drew the attention of great thinkers such as Søren Kierkegaard. On the other hand, the concept of rendi has also an enduring and meandering background in the history of Persian language. This concept particularly has a focal place in Hafez's poetry and it is so significant that rendi is considered as the most consistent theme in Hafez's thought. The main purpose of this research is to compare the two concepts of "irony" and rendi in the thoughts of two outstanding thinkers who lived and flourished in two different cultural backgrounds.

The comparative research method is used in this study. Comparison would help us to understand two phenomena if we could find similarities between them, and these findings could enhance our knowledge about the two phenomena to a certain extent. Comparison sheds light on the points that have been concealed and ignored, and helps us to understand the affinities and differences of various cultural and thought resources. In fact, comparison reveals unique as well as similar aspects of thoughts and cultures. The main question of the present research is that in what aspects the two concepts of Richard Rorty's "irony" and Hafez's rendi are similar and in what respects they differ. Although such a comparison seems at first sight impossible or at least problematic, it reveals many similarities between the two concepts, despite the cultural and linguistic differences of Hafez and Rorty. Not only does the comparison of rendi and "irony" show the literary and philosophical values of these two concepts in two different cultures, but it also provides the possibility to look into the literary and philosophical texts from alternative and new perspectives.

From Rorty's viewpoint, human beings are free to build their inner self and his ideal character is "ironist". The Ironist is a playful, free, and innovative person. Like a strong poet, an "ironist" tries to show that he is not a duplicate of another person and he intends to recreate himself in a unique and distinctive manner. Indeed, the "ironist" endeavours to recreate the best of himself. From Hafez's viewpoint, on the other hand, rend is someone who simultaneously experiences the love of living life, attempts to understand it, and is amazed by its mysteries. Hafez asks that how we could live in an age that hypocrisy, deceitfulness, and conformity (i.e. blending in with the crowd) are rife and that the impious and the hypocrites have dominated the arena. Therefore, Rorty's "ironist" and Hafez's rend have similarities in certain respects. Rorty's "ironist" has a rebellious and independent character that views everything with a sceptic outlook. Hafez's rend is also an extraordinary combination of scepticism and certitude, and tries to save his life from any sense of belonging and attachment. Rorty's "ironist" is a free person who creatively thinks alternatives. Rend, too, represents outstanding aspects of creativity and delicately protests against the moral degradation and improbity of his age.On the other hand, there are some differences between them as well. One of the most important differences is the difference in poetry insight and doing philosophy. The potentials of poetic language provide Hafez with the possibility of introducing rend as a person who equivocates dauntlessly and incorporates the conflicting elements in itself. However, Rorty's "ironist" emerges as a philosopher (yet a non-essentialist one) and his attempt is focussed upon creating the final vocaublary which are less contradictory and which would be able to persuade the audience. From this perspective, while Hafez's rend tries to find the persuasion in a poetic language which is sarcastic and equivocal, Rorty's "ironist" is pursuing it in a consistent and less contradictory language.

There is no doubt that understanding Plato’s dialogues in a philosophical way is depended to understanding that what the position of Socrates is? And first of all, because we know that Socrates is the Master of Irony we should consider and try to understand how his Irony works? But the question then arises about the nature of Socratic irony. This has been considered by many scholars who discussed about Socrates. This article aims at the first to give a review on the history of Irony from ancient Greek texts until the Modern’s, and then according to that review explain the necessity of returning to understanding the nature of Socratic irony. After that with recognizing levels of Socrates’ irony in the Platonic dialogues, we’re going to achieve the purpose of the article. The levels of Socrates’ irony that discussed in our classification are: 1. Rhetorical 2. Existential 3. Ontological.