مطالب

Malaysia and Turkey are progressive, modern Muslim-majority countries. Both have shown strong resolve and capabilities in dealing with issues and challenges both at home and international level. In dealing with COVID-19 pandemic, both countries have adopted various measures and strategies to contain the virus outbreak. Yet, the biggest challenge in executing those is balancing the need to protect the public and maintain economic growth. Hence, this study compares and contrasts the measures and strategies taken by both countries in containing the COVID-19 outbreak as well as ensuring the continuity of economic growth. The time period of this study was from March 2020 until early February 2021 as most of the countries, including Malaysia and Turkey, by then had introduced new COVID-19-related health policies and economic stimulus packages. The finding compares and contrasts the effectiveness of those measures and strategies so that both countries can share and learn from this pandemic. .

The main purpose of this article is to examine how and to what extent Iran-Russia cooperation is effective in ensuring ‘broader’ strategic stability through balancing in the Middle East. Strategic stability and balance of power are interrelated components of the region’s order which have changed following the Arab Spring and the Syrian crisis. The article analyzes Iran and Russia’s impact on these two concepts, with a systemic approach, paying attention to interrelationship of variables at regional and international levels. Although strategic stability has been generally considered an issue at international level of great powers politics, this paper, emphasizing on evolution of international relations, believes in a new, complex and multilayered definition of strategic stability - a ‘broader’ one in the Middle East, which is not necessarily ensured by agreements or balance among great powers. The results indicate that Iran-Russia cooperative balancing in the Syrian crisis against the US and at regional level with emphasis on a broad regional balance system has been effective in providing ‘broader’ strategic stability in the region. Although Russia's policy in this field put some limits on Iran, strategically it serves Iran’s interests.

The emergence of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) in various fields of life is proof that civil society is essential in building a democratic society. NGOs can educate citizens and communities on their fundamental rights to create a democratic state and world order life. NGOs in Indonesia and Egypt have played a significant role in strengthening democratic movements by empowering civil society. This study examines NGOs’ role in democratization in Indonesia during the reign of President Suharto and Egypt under the leadership of President Hosni Mubarak. In carrying out their functions, NGOs take a stand as a balancing force for the state and agents of community empowerment. The NGOs’ elements struggle in producing an ideal democratic society order in these two countries facing their respective challenges. Some NGOs challenge building democratic society such as military domination, party hegemony systems, and robust state control over society. To encourage democratization in Indonesia and Egypt, NGOs have contributed to building democratic practices, improving democratic performance, strengthening civil rights, monitoring elections, and promoting corruption eradication. The strengthening of democracy by NGOs in Indonesia and Egypt has impacted building political openness, awareness of citizens' political rights, and pro-society public policies.

To date, of essential goals in psychiatry and establishment of future medical centers is creating therapeutic environments with the aim of improving clinical outcomes, preventing the progression of personality difficulties to serious psychiatric disorders, increasing self-satisfaction in society, facilitating personal growth and actualization, as well as reducing high medical costs. In this regard, the Personality Modulation Clinic in 2016 in Tabriz University of Medical Sciences was established, with the aim of providing appropriate mental health services for clients who do not fulfill criteria for a specific mental disorder, in the traditional classifications; nevertheless, desiring to eliminate inner obstacles towards mental growth, self-actualization, spirituality and the proper well-being they lack. The services in this clinic provide clients with support in order to seek innovative growth opportunities within themselves, by removing inner obstacles towards personality development. These obstacles are roughly equivalent to the diagnosis of “personality difficulty” in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Moreover, the therapeutic foundation of this clinic is an emerging medical paradigm known as Cosmetic Psychiatry. At the beginning of any new scientific establishment, as usually happens, and was true for this clinic as well, the bond of philosophical concepts are unveiled, and this is the irreversible and undeniable link between science and philosophy. Thereby, important questions appeared, which were approached philosophically.

An obvious feature of the development of the philosophy of science during the past decades is an increasing specialization and fragmentation that have led to reduced impact of philosophy of science outside the sphere of its own discipline. It seems that philosophy of science and scientific research are moving away from each other. The major question of this article is how can reconnect these two?To answer this question I will try to highlight some events especially in the fields of social sciences that researchers are involved in discussions, generally related to philosophy of science, not in an abstract and isolated way, but in a way that is completely intertwined in their research practices.  Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been properly considered by philosophers of science and has remained more as a subject in the field of social sciences, specifically research methodology. It seems that if philosophy of science enters into dialogue with social sciences, we can expect the revival of the philosophy of general science. In this article, I try to show the signs of this phenomenon in cognitive psychology. I will first turn to one of the most influential theories in the cognitive sciences, expertise theory. After reviewing the important theories of expertise and their differences, in the next step I will discuss the seemingly opposing theories in this field and their efforts to find common ground. Then I will review the current movement in cognitive psychology, which I call the “integration model” stream. After a critical review and categorization of these models, I will show that in a broader view in social science, we can realize the meta-theoretical issues that are a good room for a dialogue between philosophy of science and scientific research. In the end, I will point out the horizons that this view opens to the revival of philosophy of general science.

This paper reflects the inversion between the discourse on the Good and that on the khôra in view of the deconstructionist paradigm of the khôral mise en abyme as portrayed by Jacques Derrida and later elaborated on by John D. Caputo. Iddo Dickmann, further describing this paradigm as “lacunal”, schematically illustrates how it can create sameness in difference through reflective repetitions. This schema is used here in a Christian negative theological context and on the accounts of Incarnation and reincarnation to investigate the immanence khôra introduces into transcendence, rendering the Word/Logos as flesh. The present study takes a novel perspective in observing how this self-referential and meta-significatory paradigm can conversely render flesh as the Word, when flesh comes to reflect/interface the Good by negating itself ending up with the elliptical and creative contours that transcribe the Word, and outline a khôral negative-fleshly space that infinitely traces an abyssal “black sun”.

Herman Philipse considers “religious beliefs, faith and religion [to be] incompatible with science or reason”; he defines religion scientifically and specifically rejects religious doctrine. He describes reason “… as the whole of methods of empirical scientific research and critical discursive thinking as they have evolved in the scientific tradition and will continue to develop in the future” and he defines “… the phenomenon of conscience as a mental organ that can be scientifically explained and that makes the religious explanation superfluous …”. Herman Philipse classifies science as the highest in rank, discards religion and sees philosophy, a rational view of the world, as based solely on the sciences. For his subject, Hans Achterhuis “… primarily cites biologists, ethologists and evolutionary psychologists with a philosophical interest” because “they presently have more to offer [him] than do his immediate colleagues”. Furthermore, “… it will be clear that ethologists and sociobiologists are of the opinion that the violent behaviour of human beings must be understood in part from the point of view of the evolutionary history of the sort ….. most philosophers and anthropologists are not aware of this. Their considerations suggest that violence only entered our world together with humankind”. Achterhuis’s choice is a “historic concept of violence”.