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

This article aims at disambiguation or better say, decontradiction of the concept of ideology by referring to Ricoeur's opinions about ideology. Ricoeur calls his method of studying ideology phenomenological. Why phenomenology? Because the term ideology, when placed in a polemical framework, will suffer from both "bad use" and "abuse". Only with a serious semantic approach and a correct explanation of the conditions that this concept depends on, can we put an end to this abuse. Such a task is possible in the light of an approach that Ricoeur calls "developmental phenomenology", "a rising analysis of the concept" and "an attempt to explore the subsurface of the obvious meaning of ideology to reach its fundamental meanings". The attempt is to disambiguate this concept, which is at first glance polemical and controversial, so that a clearer and fairer definition of it would be presented. Based on Paul Ricoeur's work titled Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, which was delivered at the University of Chicago in 1975, and his other articles and works on ideology and phenomenology, this article has tried to answer the two main questions of this field together with Ricoeur: a) Who were the main theorists of the concept of ideology? b) How many major definitions can be extracted from the phenomenological study of ideology? The extract of the intertwined answer to the two mentioned questions is that Ricoeur, while examining the works of people such as Marx, Althusser, Mannheim, Weber, Habermas and Geertz, questions the common and negative perceptions of ideology, and based on a detailed and deep examination of the works of the mentioned thinkers, comes to three major and specific definitions, or in other words, three stages or functions of ideology; the first one based on Marx's definition, the second one based on Weber's attitude and the last one based on Geertz's views about this term. Ricoeur calls these three definitions, stages or functions respectively, ideology as "ambiguity of reality", ideology as source of "power legitimacy", and finally ideology as source of "social cohesion". Based on such an analysis of ideology, in the second part of the article, the different functions of utopia have been discussed, and while emphasizing the positive aspects of utopia, it has been concluded in conformity with Ricoeur that a society without utopia is a dead society.

The aim of the present research is to elaborate and interpret human communication based on narration and re–reading the concept of friendship in a mythological communication. While poets and ancient Greek thinkers used the term mythos for Word, after Socrates the term mythos was substituted by the term logos and logos became common. In this research, by interpretation of logos in Heidegger’s Phenomenology tradition and through Gadamer’s Hermeneutic, it will be illustrated how dialogue based on logos manifests in a co-breathing concept. I draw this main question that in case of restoring and retrieving the dignity of mythos meaning as a Word, then how mythos appears in a friendly dialogue and what is the characteristics of such a communication?  I draw another question through which asking that if the presence of logos  in a live dialogue leads to re-animate of soul (Psyche) and comes about to co-breathing moment, whether a mythological communication also will be an introvertive communication? Ricour’s reading of Augustine’s theory of Time, made a contribution to illustrate the relation between soul and mythos, as my subordinate hypothesis. Also, for achieving the telos of communication based on mythos I use Recour’s hermeneutic phenomenology to show how a real dialogue in the position of mythos will be an opportunity for intimate solitude.

Aristotle is one of the philosophers who have influenced young Heidegger’s thoughts. The purpose of the present paper is to clarify certain aspects of this influence. During the years 1922–1926, Heidegger ponders deeply on Aristotle’s Philosophy. Among Aristotle’s works, Nicomachean Ethics draw more much Heidegger’s philosophical attention to itself. To understand Heidegger’s encounter with Aristotle, we concentrate on three important works of this period: “Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle” (1922), “Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy” (1924), and Plato's “Sophist”. The argument of the current study is that Heidegger’s interpretation of Aristotle during these years can be considered to be his first attempts and exercises leading to his special methodology, i.e. that of Phenomenological Hermeneutics. From this special perspective, we can consider phenomenological hermeneutics and most of other basic concepts of Heidegger’s thought in Being and Time, such as phenomenological deconstruction, care, and conscience as products of his contemplations on Aristotle’s thoughts during these years. Therefore, the leading question of this inquiry is this: What are the ingredients of Heidegger’s self-appropriating interpretation of Nicomachean Ethics? And through this question we aim to investigate the influence of these ingredients on Phenomenological Hermeneutics, the effect of young Heidegger’s reflecting on Aristotle on his understanding of technology.

The possibility and character of comparative philosophy are nowadays important questions. Phenomenological approach is one of the main approaches concerning comparative philosophy. Henry Corbin is also one of the founders of this discipline، who though many efforts، concluding his critiques to historicism، lacks in some components، as many of his followers do. Current essay، reading Heidegger''s second major work، attempts to unfold a richer way for comparative philosophy. This way is based on discovering the directive questions of philosophies according to the ground question of philosophy; then comparing questions and/or answers by Hermeneutic phenomenological way. This position can itself reveal the way philosophy nowadays is and the style of productive comparisons in the history of philosophy.