درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

This research, employing a conceptual-interpretive analysis, investigates the educational implications of Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy of "the Other" to identify a pathway for escaping the subject-centered and individualistic (Egological) paradigms of education. The central question of the study is: How does Levinas’s transition from ontology to ethics reshape conventional paradigms of learning and the teacher-student relationship? The findings reveal that Levinas’s critique of Socratic maieutics (inwardness) and testimony epistemology invites a redefinition of learning—not as "recollection" or "information transfer", but as the revelation of the Infinite and encounter with the teacher’s "Height". Based on this, the article proposes a novel concept, "educational passivity", which challenges the classical dichotomy of "authoritative teacher/passive student" or "facilitator teacher/active student". In this model, both poles of the relationship engage in "infinite education" through the acceptance of “the virtue of openness” and the rejection of self-centeredness. The results indicate that implementing this approach requires transforming the teacher’s role from "Facilitator" to "Disturber", designing polyphonic curricula, and shifting the evaluation system toward "response-based" assessment. The goal of such education is not to empower the subject, but to transform it into a sensitive and responsible being in the face of the Other.

In the 21st century, educational philosophers face critical responsibilities, including theorizing, analyzing, and evaluating educational issues, while determining educational approaches and reassessing goals for conceptual clarity. The present study undertakes a comparative analysis of the roles and responsibilities of Iranian and non-Iranian educational philosophers through qualitative interviews. This qualitative study involved interviews with a selection of Iranian and non-Iranian educational philosophy professors. Entry criteria required participants to be professors with at least five years of teaching experience, while exit criteria allowed participants to withdraw from the study at any time. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify core resposibilities and influences shaping their educational philosophies. Additionally, literature on educational philosophy in both Iranian and non-Iranian contexts was reviewed to derive emergent themes illustrating similarities and differences across the two settings. Findings indicate that while the responsibilities of Iranian professors align with those of their global counterparts, their perspectives are influenced by local cultural contexts, especially religious values, and a strong sense of Iranian identity. This reflects a meaningful intersection of global educational philosophy and distinctive local contexts. The study highlights the necessity for educational philosophers to tackle contemporary challenges by diagnosing problems, analyzing issues, and proposing effective solutions. It emphasizes the importance of training future educational philosophers to recognize cultural and religious influences and cultivate skills to effectively address educational issues in a global context.

This study aims to examine the philosophical foundations of governance paradigms reflected in the election discourses of Iranian presidential candidates between 2005 and 2025, highlighting how these paradigms shape governance styles. The research employed a qualitative document analysis approach, focusing on primary sources such as campaign statements, election manifestos, interviews, and media reports. A comparative method was used to evaluate the ontological, epistemological, and methodological dimensions of each presidential discourse. Theoretical frameworks from the philosophy of science, particularly regarding positivist, interpretivist, and critical paradigms, provided the lens for analysis. The study found that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s discourse embodied an interpretivist paradigm with positivist elements, emphasizing cultural narratives and measurable developmental policies. Hassan Rouhani’s discourse reflected a hybrid of critical and positivist paradigms, balancing structural reforms with evidence-based governance. Ebrahim Raisi’s approach was primarily interpretivist with critical elements, focusing on revolutionary ideals and social justice. Masoud Pezeshkian’s emerging discourse aligned most closely with the critical paradigm while incorporating positivist techniques for policy development. Across the period from 2005 to 2025, a gradual philosophical shift was observed, moving from symbolic mobilization toward structural critique and pragmatic governance strategies. These evolving paradigms significantly influenced policymaking priorities, citizen participation models, and governance structures in Iran. The philosophical roots embedded in election discourses play a decisive role in shaping governance approaches in Iran. Understanding these paradigmatic orientations offers deeper insights into the evolution of political practices and state-citizen relations. Future studies should further explore the relationship between electoral rhetoric, governance implementation, and the broader socio-political transformations within Iran.

For Edmund Husserl, the crisis of the modern sciences consists in the reduction of beings and the world to the mathematically measurable. Yet the lifeworld with its things that we fashion and use with our hands is no less real than the objects of science, and the scientific attitude is always nested within this lived world. Martin Heidegger by contrast finds the major source of our crisis in the Cartesian conception of subject and world. This has culminated in Nietzschean theory of the will to power, which in its unity with technology has despoiled our environment. In all of this Heidegger retains a tenderness for the small-scale products of human handiwork, which are preferable to machines and machine tools. In his own philosophy of technology Gilbert Simondon shares some of these concerns, whilst contending that technological objects have untapped potentials in relation to those who invent, use and develop them. Common to all these philosophies is a worry about abstract theory and mechanization reducing our direct engagement with things. This worry is compounded by a sociocultural tendency identified by Matthew Crawford, a tendency to denigrate a career in the practical trades. Drawing on Crawford’s experience of manual engagement in the world, I argue that a revalorization of such skilled work and of caring and repairing would help to ameliorate the climate and pollution crises and improve our lives. Many of our problems come from the discarding of things through our carelessness or through planned obsolescence by their makers.

Robert Pippin was for decades among the most outspoken American Hegelians, defending Hegel’s idealist legacy not only against the post-Hegelian turn towards non-discursive or non-notional reality but also rejecting Heidegger’s treatment of Hegel. So it comes as a shock when,in his new book The Culmination (Pippin, 2024), he endorses Heidegger’s characterization of Hegel’s thought as the culmination of Western metaphysics, as the full deployment of its basic premise that being equals logos, i.e., that the truth of everything that exists (or that can exist) can be articulated in the form of discursive judgments, so that the full system of logic is at the same time a full ontology, the description of conditions that everything that exists should meet. In all probability, Heidegger’s answer would have been that capitalism is just one among ontic organizations of the technological disclosure of Being – as he put it, Soviet Union and the US are “metaphysically the same.” To this we should insist that capitalism is not simply an ontic phenomenon, one of the possible versions of technological attunement: capitalism is not just a social phenomenon, it also has a transcendental-ontological status. It is not modern science and technology as such which push us to continuous domination over and exploitation of nature – they function like this only within the frame of capitalism with its permanent propensity towards expanded self-reproduction. So, Pippin is right here: it is not enough to mention technological disponibility as the source of the disappearance of Meaningfulness – one should add the word “capitalism” never used by Heidegger. Here Marx surprisingly meets radical conservatives: Patrick Buisson, the French ultra-conservative, was right in claiming that “le grand deconstructeur, c’est le capitalisme.”

A Reviving Rationality Theory offers a knowledge-based and practical framework to rebuild rational thinking in response to the complex crisis of our time. This crisis comes from the limits of traditional rationality, modern instrumental rationality, and postmodern relativism, which have led to stagnation, alienation, environmental destruction, and theoretical paralysis. Reviving Rationality defines rationality as an evolving system of knowledge and action based on three principles: coherent epistemic pluralism, constructive criticism, and evolutionary responsibility. Using multilayered critical realism, it examines reality at four levels (empirical, event-based, structural, and evolutionary) and draws knowledge from five sources (logical reasoning, empirical experience, practical intuition, social dialogue, and historical wisdom). By solving the paradox of fallibilism through distinguishing between the content, method, and purpose of knowledge, and emphasizing human dignity as a core principle for both knowledge and action, this theory moves beyond classic dualities like structure versus freedom or individual versus society. It systematically critiques instrumental rationality, postmodern relativism, and static traditionalism, proposing a three-stage process (analysis, synthesis, decision) and four criteria (logical coherence, alignment with evidence, practical effectiveness, and ethical consistency) to evaluate beliefs and decisions. Reviving Rationality is not a return to traditional or modern rationality, nor a full acceptance of postmodern critiques; instead, it provides an evolutionary, responsible, and inclusive framework that combines the strengths of scientific methods and logical analysis with diverse knowledge sources and ethical considerations to tackle complex issues like climate change and social inequality. This framework is a theoretical tool for rational and humane thinking, open to critique and improvement.