درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

After the Soviet Union fragmentation, the Caspian basin, containing considerable resources especially oil and gas reserves, has gained more geopolitical importance. Iran enjoys a distinguished position in the Caspian region, while deprived from advantages of this position. US tends to isolate the Islamic Republic of Iran because its anti-dominance struggle prevents Iran from enjoying its geo-strategic and geo-economic privileged op-portunities including its unique transit situation. Iran's energy diplomacy in the Caspian basin has failed because of Iran-US antagonism and US efforts to reduce Iran's geostra-tegic position by exerting pressure on the Caspian states to transport energy from routes other than Iran.In this article, we intend to examine which of these two are more impor-tant and influential. The hypothesis we are going to discuss in this paper is: The discre-pancy of Caspian states’ diplomacy and discourse has been one of the main factors of the failure in Iran’s energy diplomacy. Therefore, the main question is: Why Iran's energy diplomacy has not been successful in Caspian Basin?

The importance of modernity is because of man's place as the axis of all beings and existents like God and the World, and they get their meaning and validity in the light of him. Although man has reason and freedom and he is the noble master of all creatures, in the meanwhile, he has many defects in his existence, and his accomplishments have been gradually increased during the centuries. Hence, we can say that man actually and absolutely does not have any perfection, and he cannot get his achievements perfectly. However, with changing in the relationship between man, God, and the world during the modernity age, the whole of man's approaches to God and the world changed, and this brings about some basic problems and crises. In this process, man gained and acquired a kind of genuineness and principality towards God and the existents of world that their place and importance, especially divine truths like God, were defined in the light of human epistemic abilities and their validity were depended on human knowledge. Hence, the place of divine truths was lowered to the limits of human understanding, which I call it the humanization of divine truths. On the other hand, because of his weakness for understanding the divine truths, man has gradually put them aside from his philosophical thought, and has recognized them meaningless. In the meanwhile, he has tried to understand the empirical world and its managing without considering what is beyond it. I call this demystification of the existents by the other areas such as ethics, politics, and even science, which all of them have been depended on the human being. Consequently, certainty and truth became humanistic, that is, man became as the axis of certainty and truth, which the most important result of that is the relativity of certainty and its restriction to human knowledge, will, and ability. This paper tries to discuss the above subjects, considering some of the important thinkers of modern and postmodern philosophy like as Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger. It also attempts to show that although Heidegger complained to subjectivism and modernistic approach of truth, his effort to redefine truth and certainty was not successful and could not rescue it from a crisis. That is because he could not go beyond human understanding to reach a holy and absolute certainty and truth, while – according to this paper – the only real way is paying attention to divine certainty, revelation, and God.

Investment is seen as one of the most important and influential factors in economic growth and development. It is directly affected by managers' approaches to decision-making because identifying the best investment opportunities to achieve ideal returns is one of the expectations that shareholders and stakeholders have of managers to reduce agency gaps. However, the emergence of managers' overconfident behavior as a foundation for psychological bias can deepen the agency gap due to overestimating project cash flows compared to their real values under inflationary conditions. This study aims to examine the effect of inflation uncertainty on the impact managerial overconfidence has on overinvestment. The statistical population consists of companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE). One hundred five companies were selected as the sample size by systematic removal sampling reviewed in 2011-2018. Due to its dichotomous dependent variable, this study uses probit regression to test the research hypotheses. The results indicated the significant positive effect of CEO overconfidence on overinvestment. It was also noted that inflation uncertainty strengthens the positive effect of CEO overconfidence on overinvestment. Based on these results, the CEO's decisions as a decision-maker in charge of any company, especially under inflationary conditions, can play a substantial role in future corporate investment levels. Thus, with an increase in behavioral bias, it can be assumed that the company will confront grave competitive challenges under economic conditions.