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

In his text Subject and Power (1982), written two years before his death, Foucault stated that the central theme of his research was not "power" but the "subject." His lecture series Subjectivity and Truth (1980-1981) and The Hermeneutics of the Subject (1981-1982) also confirmed this emphasis, particularly as he considered the overarching problematic of these lectures to be "subjectivity and truth," demonstrating that the subject must become problematized in relation to truth. Finally, in the preface to The History of Sexuality (1984), eight years after the first volume was published, he provided a general outline of his intellectual trajectory and explained why he shifted toward "genealogy." Based on this introduction, the present article, after explaining how the subject relates to the network of power and truth, concludes that the method and approach to studying the subject are "genealogy and problematization." The domain of inquiry into the recognition and construction of the self as a subject is the history of the desiring human and, consequently, sexuality. In fact, the "techniques of the self" associated with the system of sexuality maintain the individual's constant relationship with themselves, which results in the continuous production of subjectivity. Therefore, by studying the history of these techniques, one can arrive at the history of subjectivity. However, this history only leads to the genealogy of the subject when we analyze the intersection of techniques of the self and domination, which is essentially the meaning of "governmentality"—the governance of behavior and the management of possibilities through various truth games. Thus, it is concluded that sexuality is not only an appropriate domain for genealogical study of the history of subjectivity and techniques of the self but also a rich field for understanding governmentality and the more complex ways in which power functions.

During the Ilkhanid period, after Ghazan Khan converted to Islam, the construction of mosques and paying attention to the decoration of mosques became very important, and it was considered alongside other political efforts to legitimize the Mongols. Establishing legitimacy and popularity among the people does not always happen with the sword and military power and can be achieved with ideological mechanisms. Foucault believes that power influences a network of complex relationships, determines the structure of society, and legitimizes it. He believes that where there is power, there is also resistance. During the Ilkhanid period, Iranian identity was contrasted with Mongolian and non-Iranian identities, and the religion of Islam became important as the main source of legitimizing the identity of the Mongols. As mosque construction continued, paying attention to special altars with specific verses was on the agenda of the government, artists, and founders. The purpose of this research is to examine the discourse of power in the Ilkhanate period and to reveal the motives of the Ilkhan rulers to build special altars with specific verses. This research is in search of an answer to the question: How did the motivations of power among the Ilkhan rulers help to create special altars with specific verses? The research method in this research is descriptive-analytical, and with the philosophical approach of discourse analysis, it examines the verses of the inscriptions on the altars of the Ilkhanid period. The results show that in the construction of patriarchal altars, certain verses with political meanings and themes favored by the patriarchs were involved, and the patriarchs pursued specific political goals through the construction of these altars.

Problematization is an important concept in Foucault’s thoughts and one that plays a fundamental role throughout his historical analyzes. He sees problematization as a special interpretation of signs. On the other hand, in his analyzes, he equates the importance of art in interpreting history with other fields. The main issue of the present study is how the problematization in his thoughts is related to art. To address this issue, first the place of this concept in Foucault’s thought was examined and then with the help of the sections by which he has analyzed works of art, the relationship between art and this concept was examined. The result was that Foucault used the concept of problematization in two senses, In the first sense, it refers to a historical matter that has been problematized by knowledge and power, In the second sense for him, it is the problematization of a philosophical-historical activity by which “the history of present” is analyzed. Studies have shown that in his historical analysis, art as a strategy of knowledge or technique of power problematizes various issues. For Foucault, on the other hand, the analysis of some works of art is a philosophical activity to problematize the history of present. Accordingly, art has a direct and internal relationship with the two meaning of problematization.

Reflexivity not only is one of the most remarkable characteristics of modern life but also depicts an important idea challenge of the contemporary social sciences’ thinkers.  For such sociologists like Anthony Giddens reflexivity plays a key role in modern era as an inseparable part of political and moral everyday life. Meanwhile, Michel Foucault raise the question in which he asks how reflexivity can be exist in the realm of power relations and reproduction of social forms of domination. This paper attempts to clarify the process of transformation of reflexivity as the most important feature of modern life through applying Foucault’s genealogic point of view. relying on original materials, we looks at the definition of reflexivity for Giddens in the first section and then in the second part we intend to use the Foucault’s genealogic point of view to elaborate the process of transformation of reflexivity to the main feature of modern world. This article will show us the importance of re-evaluation of our trust to the reflexivity in the modern world.

The present article attempts to analyze and compare the views of Charles Darwin and Michel Foucault from an ontological point of view, claiming that there are serious ontological common grounds between the two. At first glance, such a comparison seems to be a bit odd and somehow impossible. The oddity of such a comparison is due to the point that, on the one hand, Michel Foucault is deemed as one of the vanguards of postmodern movement and as a result emphasizes and is associated with concepts such as relativism; on the other hand, the Darwinian viewpoint, or simply Darwinism, as a biological theory is more concerned and associated with "objectivism," as opposed to "relativism." In contrast to the views of many Darwinists and postmodern Foucauldian thinkers, the researcher attempts to, through an ontological study, demonstrate that the Darwinian and Foucauldian viewpoints share common ontological bases, namely, materialism and positivism.

Michel Foucault’s genealogy is a theory which emphasizes on his epistemic principles and denies inherent purposefulness and orientation. The most important epistemic principles of this theory are nominalism, power-centeredness, fortuitism, constructivism, historiography, considering intellect and truth as relative, adopting coherent theory about the justification of cognition. These epistemic principles can be evaluated according to the Mulla Sadra's philosophical principles, such as: the principle of reality, dividing existence into independent and copulative, the principle of causality unity of the system of being, and its purposefulness, the existence of divine traditions in managing societies and history, the existence of incontrovertible facts, the possibility of absolute and certain cognition, fundamentalism in the justification of cognition, verisimilitude of cognition, the two-dimensional nature of man, the originality of human soul, awareness, man’s will and purposefulness, the common nature of human beings, and validity of empirical, rational and intuitive methods.

The question of deliverance and resistance which represents the final aim of Michel Foucault's research projects, has not received due attention in spite of their importance.
Having described and analyzed Foucault’s view about resistance, this paper fundamentally criticizes it in reference to certain anthropological assumptions included in it.
Since Foucault’s thought on resistance is centered on the negation of the subject, resistance, like the subject, concentrate on three questions: truth, power and morality. Resistance, like the application of power is, in contrast with power and its regime of truth, like power, has two forms: positive and negative.
Foucault’s sees that the positive form of resistance that comes into being outside the framework of hegemony, manifests itself as an aesthetic form.
But, the essence of negative resistance is formed by the negation and rejection of subjection resulting from the truth-power regime and the limitations placed on its maker, in order to achieve deliverance and freedom which can be divided into two forms: theoretical and practical.

New sociology of knowledge, as distinct from the classical pattern of sociology of knowledge, in which society has a causal relationship with knowledge is concerned with cultural atmosphere and semantic interpretation, and this renders important the understanding of discourse of knowledge. Giving a brief account of the history of sociology of knowledge, the present paper seeks to expound the theoretical background of discourse theory in sociology of knowledge.
This paper cites Claire Rayner’s research program entitled "sociology of knowledge approach to discourse" as an example of attempting to explicitly like these two areas and criticizes it .
Claire’s look at sociology of knowledge corresponds to that of Berger and Luckmann and Michel Foucault's discourse theory. Claire’s innovation can be understood through demonstrating the relationship between discourse theory and sociology of knowledge.
Two objections are raised against Claire’s work. First, she does not explain how discourses develop and become hegemonic and how hegemonic discourses are challenged.
Secondly, Rayner Claire’s focus on discourse analysis makes her response to the question of social determination of knowledge highly abmigueous.

Michel Foucault was a contemporary philosopher with a global influence. He proposed serious critiques to the earlier intellectuals and was also influenced by many of them. The present study will only examine the epistemic principles of his genealogy through answering questions such as “how did Foucault define the truth? What path did he take to get to the truth? Was Foucault a relativist? In what domain was he a relativist and what was the basis of his relativism?” The analysis of the epistemic principles of genealogy showed that Foucault remained loyal to the theory of Coherentism in defining the truth through both stages. Moreover, in genealogy had nominalistic approaches and Foucault's choice of the varieties of relativism was ontological relativism and epistemological relativism. Loyal to Nietzsche and his ontological-relativist approaches, he extended the relativism maintained in genealogy and emphasized that, during every period in history, power determines the truth or falsehood of premises through discourse.

concerns the possibilities for agency and revolt in his perspective. In addition, these scholars have debated whether his stance on the Iranian revolution can in any way be compatible with his theories on power and freedom. In this essay, I will study the possibilities for freedom and subjectivity in Foucault’s works, especially his Iran writings. According to Michel Foucault, when power has pervaded every sphere of human life, an important possibility for subjectivity can be found in “spiritual exercises” – a series of exercises for self-cultivation. The Iranian revolution represented these spiritual exercises, since many revolutions were engaged in internal self-fashioning as well as external change. The French scholar believed that, because of its esoteric teachings, Shi’ite Islam provided these chances for freedom. Clearly, these conclusions were not easily acceptable for the Western audience, who are not accustomed to these categories.

This essay wants to consider this critique of Sandel that one introduction of difference principle in distribution of possession which says no one deserves his possessions and endowments in society, so this possessions should be regarded as common assets and all in the society should be share in the benefits of this endowments, is involved a communitarian concept of self wich is more extended owner than individual one. This kind of self can be called communitarian self and contradicts with individualism and deontological liberalism in the view of Rawls, sandel says.Nozick critiques Rawls’s difference principle also. He says that difference principle requires take tax from riches to help disadvantage members of society and this causes that we use benefites of riches’s labor arbitrary and it is to say that we make them slave in this way. It is appearent this action is in contradiction with individual freedom. Nozick belives that because redistributive of asset is not acceptable for liberalism, there is no necessary to based on difference principle to redistribute in society.we should allow anybody to start with endowments which achieves them in a just way.Here with analysis and evaluate of this two objects, it want to be explained the characters of difference principle more than the past.