نشریه شناخت
سال سیزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 82، بهار و تابستان 1399)

The first step in this paper is to differentiating between two possible aesthetic encounter with nature. The core of this difference is located in an effect impressed by art on its audience. The effect, named here Poetry-stroke (being blighted by poetry), is essentially ascribed to poetry because of its linguistic origin and is counted as a blight in respect to demolition caused by it in man-nature (or man-world) authentic relation. Poetry-stroke is at the same time recognized as a powerful operator in generating and sustaining culture. For it is this very blight that facilitate the possibility of comprehending and feeling the passions and moods of the others. This comprehension leads straight to accepting others as different and so to the genesis of civilization. Therefore there is a dilemma between authenticity and culture essentially based on how we approach art or poetry. Demonstrating this dilemma is the main aim of this paper. But we also propose in response to this dilemma a sketch of what can be called a rational culture. In this kind of culture every single poem in every encounter by everyone is under surveillance of reason. The process of becoming cultured therefore would be based on knowing and not feeling.

A great number of contemporary & traditional philosophers, used the principle of the “impossibility of the impression of the big things in small places” to prove the immateriality of the soul. Also, they have used this principle for other purposes. These thinkers have not provided an argument to prove this principle. they seem to have taken this principle as a self-evident principle. Today, because of the variety of reasons, including recent scientific advances, especially in two branches of science, biology and physics, the materialists have presented a materialistic explanation about the “process of obtaining perceptions”. If we accept it, it means: the traditional philosophers, because of the lack of advanced knowledge, thought that: “the impression of the Big things in small places” is impossible in the “world of perceptions”, in addition to the “material universe”; But today, scientific researches has clarified that “impossibility of the impression of the Big things in small places in the world of sense perception” not only isn’t impossible, but also quite possible and it is scientifically justifiable. This paper prove that the Materialists’ argument is wrong. We do this by comparing these two principles with together: “impossibility of the impression of the Big things in small places in the world of sense perception” and “materialistic process of obtaining perceptions”; we want to prove that the principle of “impossibility of the impression of the Big things in small places” not only is happened in the real world (material word), but also in the “world of sense perceptions”.

Hermeneutical phenomenology is a philosophical approach which is emerged from the compound of two important attitudes in the continental philosophy. Heidegger (1889-1976), who is considered as a founder of hermeneutical phenomenology, makes a conjunction between these two attitudes innovatively. This task is influenced by Husserl's phenomenological requirements concerning the sense and interpretation and his known slogan, toward the things itself. After Heidegger, Ricoeur (1913-2005) who is influenced by the concept of epoche in Husserl's phenomenology, makes such a conjunction in an innovative way. The difference between their views is that Heidegger, in Ricoeur's statement, follows the short route taken for ontological analysis of dasein, and Ricoeur proposes a long detour, starting with semantic considerations within the analysis of symbolic expressions of the human being. The basic thesis for present research is to show that, despite of different approaches in Heidegger and Ricoeur's thought toward this subject, in both views ''understanding'' can be considered as one of the most important requirements of the possibility of this connection. Their common viewpoint about ''understanding'' could be considered as a good reason for this claim. The importance of proving this thesis is that we can then by scrutinizing all the implications of understanding, find a vast area of possibilities in this conjunction that open lots of horizons in hermeneutics, epistemology, ontology and phenomenology which help us toward the way of truth.

The main question is what is pathos and what can it have to do with art? Pathos is one of the concepts that is very important in Aristotle's thought. To the extent that contemporary researches emphasize the importance of the pathos and its fundamental role in the reading of Aristotle's thought. Heidegger was one of the first scholars to pay attention to Pathos in contemporary times. Subsequently, the French phenomenologist Michel Henry has been critical of Heidegger in his relation to Heidegger, and the theoretical origins of this article are rooted in Henry's ideas about Pathos. Michelle Henry has a critical reading of Heidegger and Husserl and calls his phenomenology "Phenomenology of life." He believes that real life is invisible and the secret meaning of life is as a pathos that can only be experienced within. According to Henry, art, especially abstract art, has been able to show this invisible meaning. Unlike Heidegger, he places the essence of art in life, not in the world. In other words, he views the task of art not as an external exposition of the world but an internal expression of the pathos of life. He also sees art as the way to save man from modern worldview. Henry traces the origins of "Pathos" to Greece, but the meaning he derives from it differs from its conventional historical view. In Henry's reading of Pathos, the pain and suffering that comes with Aristotle's work becomes the idea of liberation and pleasure. That is to say, contrary to the popular perception that it has the destructive effect of Pathos and also the "suffering", it does not necessarily have a destructive effect on Henry Pathos and can lead to emancipation. That is, Pathos makes something come true.In the end, he views Pathos as a pain and pleasure that liberates and promotes it and places it at the center of human life, believing that some works of art can best represent it. Henry reminds us that the origin is the work of art, not the world. In other words, for Henry it is the task of the art of expressing the inner pathos of life rather than as Heidegger thought of " disclose the exteriority of the world". For this reason, for an artist like Kandinsky, Henry is someone who looks at the world and phenomena more deeply than other peer-reviewed artists and can reflect on the inner experience in his work. In the end it can be said that the distinguishing feature of Henry's reading of the concept of "pathos" is that it can show the power of the artwork. Because, according to this reading, the work of art reveals what lies in the visible world and forces the audience to look deeper into the world.

In Ibn Sina's view, "pleasure" is one of the qualities of the ego. It's conceptual is present perception. In his book, " Al-isharat wa al-tanbihat," he describes pleasure is a perception and achievement to something that is perfection and goodness in the human. Who percept it. Since in this description, contrary to other descriptions, for the description of pleasure he has used the word "Neil", some researchers have conceived that "Neil" refers to the present perception of the essence of evidence in Ibn Sina's mind. whereas that's a contradiction with his philosophy. This idea has been raised by Khaje Nasir al-Din and reflected in new researches. Even some researchers, based on this interpretation, have explained the mistakes of pleasure in the thought of Ibn Sina. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze by descriptive-analytical method his description of pleasure in the book. The results of the research show that basically, the interpretation of the achievement to the present perception as a pleasure of perceptibility is not acceptable.

"Question of Being" is Martin Heidegger's most famous concern throughout his intellectual life. This question, according to his own narrative, has started from the very beginning to the moment of his death, and all of his writings can be traced back to this question. However, understanding the meaning, significant and formal structure of the question of being, is essentially based on an understanding of the way Heidegger use the Phenomenon of "question" and its relation to the essence of human beings. The present paper’s goal is to illuminate Heidegger's approach to this fundamental element by laying down the general meaning horizon of "question" in the history of philosophy, so that the how and why of using “Question” in his early works come to light. To do this, first, the significance, the nature and the central role of the question in the history of philosophy will be briefly examined, and then, after discussing Heidegger's conception of this phenomenon in Being and Time, and his early courses, formulation of Questioning will be provided.

True questioning of Iranian and Islamic Aesthetics is the first step to reach better understanding of this field of study. In interpreting “art” and “beauty” we need to avoid prescriptive approaches, over generalizations, giving unnecessary holy meanings or basing our investigations on finding synonyms of “art” and “beauty” in ancient or classic texts. Normally, discussions on Iranian art and culture’s fundamental principles and theory start with finding synonyms of art and beauty in classic texts, without considering the fact that the meaning of these words have changed during the history, and also there is a fundamental theoretical difference between traditional and contemporary art. In contemporary aesthetics beauty and art is subjective and related to hand made human objects while in mystic approach (traditional one) beauty and art are supposed to be an ontological and existential products of God who creates nothing but beauty. Instead, we need to see the problem realistically through methodologically problem-based approach. The present study is about to avoid the usual starting point for finding the theoretical foundations of Islamic and Iranian Art and Aesthetics; i.e., finding the synonyms of “art” and “beauty” in mystic texts. We should consider the fact that beauty in classic and theoretical texts is considered to be an ontological characteristics of the world in general while in the contemporary world beauty is mostly considered as subjective feature. Iranian art is mostly decorative in architecture, and narrative in painting and illustration, and finally romantic and didactic in literature. Among these arts, we can only find some theoretical discussions in literature regarding the interpretation of beauty and evaluating the works of art (literary texts). Such discussions are gathered under the name of “Elme Badie” that is somehow synonyms with the meaning of rhetoric. Elme Badie is able to describe, and interpret all figures of speech with extended examples and advanced terminology. It seems that this field of study should be revived and used as the first step in aesthetics studies in order to understand the taste of Iranian and Islamic taste of beauty and art. Any investigation in Islamic or Iranian aesthetics ought to start from this first step to be able to formulate the problem realistically and methodologically. In fact, this paper proposes that instead of finding the roots of Persian Aesthetics, i.e., discussions on art and beauty in Islamic mystic texts, we should consider the fact that Persian Rhetoric or Elme Dabie has established itself as a alternative aesthetic theory; however, it remained mainly focused on literary discussions. Persian Rhetoric has long obsessive discussions on defining literary terms and finding proper examples for them. There are number of reasons why Persian Rhetoric never involved with aesthetics as the theory of visual arts like religious barriers, and authoritarian structure of the states who always encouraged conservative romantic and didactic literature instead of visual arts. Therefore, we can surely say that Persian Rhetoric developed to be an alternative theory of aesthetics in a social and political conditions where comprehensive aesthetics theory was not possible.

The question before this article is simple: What is the relationship between the thought of Gilles Deleuze - Felix Guattari and postmodernism? What benefits or can postmodernism benefit from these two? If we accept Frederick Jameson’s definition of postmodernism as the cultural logic of late capitalism, then is Deleuze - in Slavoj Zizek’s terms - one of the ideologies of digital capitalism? And in what sense is it an ideology? Our attempt in this article is to show how Deleuze (aesthetic politics, schizophrenic politics, or Deleuze and Guattari ethics) adapts to today’s postmodernist world and loses its revolutionary character. In this article, we have assumed the reader’s previous acquaintance with Deleuze and Guattari, and our attention is more focused on the critiques of Deleuze and Guattari and review of them, because there is not much time here to pay detailed attention to their views.

Nowadays dealing with theorization is the most necessary aspect of art discussions, something that doesn't have a long history in our culture. Our art has declined since late Safavid, and the causes have several inner and outer relations to art. Lack of creativity is the most important inner cause. This is why theorizing about creativity is necessary. This essay is based on the mythology of Gilbert Durand. Mythanalyse is chosen as method and works of Sohrevardi as case study. The results shows that the source of creativity is truth; the artist surges strongly in perceptual levels that he reaches to rational perception and understanding the truth, so with the help of this he is capable of creativity. Beauty is the glory of truth, as according to Sohrevardi beauty and perfection are the same and creativity, the result of perfection, if get in to action properly the result will be beauty.

Despite Agamben’s assertion that his project somehow corrects or completes Foucault’s political thoughts, it seems that there are some deep and fundamental differences between them. Foucault rejects any kind of theory of power and believes that the analysis of power in the contemporary world should be freed from juridical-theological presuppositions. In contrast, in Agamben’s thought we come across some obvious elements of the classical understating of power and its theological presupposition so that political theology is a basic constituent of his theory about sovereign power. Though Foucault’s aim is mostly to analyze power’s mechanisms according to a micro-politics, he never thinks about the role of a person or state and his/her or its decision as a foundation for political situation. In contrast, he regards such a point of view as the feature of the classical theories about power. For him power is a Nietzschean concept which is the foundation of everything. Agamben, following Schmitt, regards power as the sovereign power. He believes that there is a logic for our contemporary political situation called “the state of exception”, that is the result of sovereign decision. This article tries to analyze the meaning and mechanism of biopower and biopolitics in both thinkers and explain the way that Agamben’s political theory can be said to be rooted in Foucault’s analysis.

The concept of time is integral to the discussion of Bergson and Heidegger. As Bergson observes, time is not a spatial quantity but an inner quality and it constitutes the "duration" comprising the modes of the individual's consciousness and confirms their change and variety. Similarly, Heidegger explores the origin of authentic time within Dasein's consciousness and attaches Dasein's originality and authenticity to the originality and authenticity of his "temporality". To Heidegger, Dasein's perception of his future and his death constitute the most significant elements of his "temporality". But the two philosopher's emphasis on the individuality of the origin of time jeopardizes the relation between authentic time and presence of the Other. To put another way, as Bergson and Heidegger both claim, the truth of time is merely obtained in solitude and the time experienced in Other's proximity is essentially spatial, public, and objective. Are we, therefore, to concede that ethics and the truth of time are essentially asynchronous? The present study pursues the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas for an answer. To Levinas, understanding his philosophy of ethics depends upon understanding time in its authenticity and originality. Nevertheless, the understanding of time Levinas calls original fundamentally defies that of Bergson and Heidegger. As he maintains, time does not evolve in solitude but in relation with the Other. Attempting to observe the most crucial differences between Levinas' understanding of time and Bergson's and Heidegger's, and also trying to illuminate the ambiguities of the relation between temporality and alterity in Levinas' thought, the present research attempts to clarify how the latter's innovative attitude has shed a new light on the relation between time and otherness.