درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Education in the 21st century is experiencing a steady and continuous shift. Learning is no longer confined to classrooms or outdated traditions; instead, it is shaped by technology, globalization, and the demands of modern society. Today, education is less about memorizing facts and more about helping students grow into adaptable, emotionally intelligent, and globally conscious individuals. As an educator, I have seen how digital tools, when used thoughtfully, can inspire creativity and make learning more inclusive. Yet, while technologies like artificial intelligence offer enormous potential, they also raise serious ethical concerns. This means we must prepare students not only to use these tools but also to think critically and act responsibly. The teacher’s role has also transformed. We are no longer simply transmitters of information but mentors and guides who help students navigate complexity. Emotional resilience, ethical awareness, and cultural sensitivity are now central to the learning process, not optional extras. Education today must go beyond preparing students for jobs. It should equip them with the mindset and skills needed to manage uncertainty and contribute meaningfully to their communities. In a rapidly changing world, schools and universities must serve as both a compass and a foundation, supporting personal growth and collective progress. This article, taking a descriptive approach, explores education from multiple perspectives, including curriculum, identity, technology, and the roles of teachers, students, and families. It also reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of past and present approaches, highlighting insights from well-known scholars to better understand the challenges and possibilities of modern education.

The article specifies the human being based on the respiratory cycle, referring to the etymology of the word “spirit”. This word shares its root with the French word respiration (“breathing”) as well as the verb “to inspire,” suggesting breath and animation. Human temporality is made up of organic rhythmicity, from a weighing body that experiences itself as inscribed in time – this is the authentic meaning of the word “to exist”: to come from nowhere, without time, to somewhere, at some time. This article questions the compatibility between the demand for temporal efficiency, characteristic of the modern industrial age and the technophile ideology of communication, and the “service society” which purports to be more “caring” than the industrial one. Highlighting the suppression of the passage of time characteristic of the ideology of communication, where “time” is frozen in a self-reproducing present with no past or future, the author asserts that humane care is radically incompatible with a society that subsumes humanity, inscribed in time and in need of breath, under the ideology of a perpetual present. It is precisely on the basis of what specifies the human, namely breathing and desire, that the author proposes to consider how care might be possible in an ultra-technologized world. Drawing on an imaginary of movement and inspiration/aspiration/breathing deployed in choreographic performances and practices, the author invites the reader, as Simone Weil did, to substitute rhythm for cadence, to insert slowness into speed, and to favor the flow of time in a human reality that has become unbearable by dint of “modernization”. In so doing, we must reconsider head-on the fate that binds us, namely death, which no stasis in a perpetual present can eliminate, and which the metaphor of a risk of social necrosis invites us to reconsider. Accepting the passage of time, giving death back its face, is costly; but it's at this price that time can regain its humanizing value, as a sine qua non component of care.

Contemporary Hegel scholarship either defends a theological metaphysics in which history is a teleological unfolding of cosmic Geist; or, the evolution of Geist represents the absolutization of human subjectivity, which undergoes a Bildung that prescinds from any reliance on metaphysical givens. The dilemma is between presenting Hegel as an absolute monist that is outmoded in light of modernity’s skepticism towards a teleology of history; or, of reducing Hegel to the terms of modernity, as defending the absolute self-grounding of the human subject, in history without ontology. I argue that co-opting Hegel for modernity is a mistake. The post-Kantian interpretation of Hegel, that rejects any metaphysics of the absolute, leaves the human subject in a state of alienation that the dialectic process in Hegel is supposed to resolve. I argue that PKI’s account of the self-grounding subject is too similar to absolute freedom that Hegel views as a dangerous fruit of the Enlightenment. Absolute freedom, having relegated God to deistic irrelevance, and stripped nature of any telos, seeks to make its own categories sovereign over those of reality.

This study seeks to explore the implications of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory (ANT) regarding the integration of artificial intelligence into educational processes. The research employs a qualitative “theoretical essay” methodology, utilizing “document analysis” as the primary tool for data collection. the research data were mainly gathered through primary texts of Actor–Network Theory and secondary texts. Theoretical foundations and relevant literature on Actor-Network Theory were analyzed through a reflective and interpretive approach from an ANT perspective. Findings reveal that agency is no longer exclusive to humans but is distributed across unstable, multi-centered networks; meaning is not transmitted by teachers but is continuously co-constructed through interactions among human and non-human actors; and ethical responsibility no longer rests on any single individual, but is embedded within and interrogated by the opaque structures of algorithmic black boxes. In this context, humanity in education can no longer be defined in opposition to machines, but rather emerges through capacities of negotiation, interpretation, and regulation within technologically mediated networks. In conclusion, this article argues that the future of education lies not in resisting technology, but in consciously redefining the human role not as the sole possessor of agency, but as the network’s regulator, interpreter of meaning, and architect of humanistic values amidst interactions with non-human elements. This perspective necessitates the design of interpretable AI systems, the cultivation of critical algorithmic literacy, and the establishment of multi-stakeholder ethical oversight mechanisms.

In recent quantum mechanics, the notion of hologram plays an important role: the image of an object which catches not only its actual state but also its interference pattern with other options that were lost when the actual state imposed itself. It is very productive to apply this notion to human history, and, perhaps the supreme example of holographic history is provided none other than by Marx. Marx is not an evolutionist, he writes history “top-down,” i.e., his starting point is the contemporary global capitalist order, and from this point he reads the entire history as a gradual approximation to capitalism. This is not teleology: history is not guided by capitalism as its telos, but once capitalism emerges, it provides the key to the entire (pre)history – here enters Marx’s well-known story (in Grundrisse) of linear development from prehistorical societies through Asiatic despotism, Antique slavery, and feudalism to capitalism. There is no teleological necessity in this development, it results from a series of contingent collapses of superpositions