درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

SUBJECT AND OBJECTIVES : This article is to explain Machiavelli's view on the criterion of moral action and its evaluation based on the anthropological foundations of Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi. METHOD AND FINDING : The method of this article is descriptive-analytical and the findings of this article are: Machiavelli is a power-oriented philosopher who presented his moral opinions in the form of his political views. He believes that any kind of behavior and action can be used to achieve the goal of human power; But Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi believes, to determine the standard of goodness and ugliness of human actions, one must first gain a correct understanding of man, his existential dimensions, his happiness and misery, his perfection and ultimate goal. CONCLUSION : Machiavelli considers the main goal of life to be human power and considers human actions moral if they enable humans to achieve material power. From his viewpoint, power has inherent value and man can use any means to acquire it. On the other hand, Ayatollah Misbah Yazdi believes in acquiring spiritual and moral life. He believes that the goal does not justifies the means, and to attaining the human power strength, you cannot use any behavior and action to achieve the goals.

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, and as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions and decisions to be read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been.  My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of science. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure and inter-relations of the social institutions of science, or offer a politics of science in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open and closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the non-members; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority and leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical and rational approach and his insistence on openness and intellectual honesty are still important today.