مطالب

This research explores the complex relationship between changing environmental conditions and political dynamics in India, concentrating on The Ministry of Utmost Happiness, A Novel by Arundhati Roy. The research attempts to disentangle the complex aspects of eco-political changes in the Indian context by critically examining the story. The novel provides a literary framework for examining the intricacies of environmental transformation, encompassing matters such as resource exploitation and land use, as well as the effects of development strategies on underprivileged groups. Using ideas from the Anthropocene discourse, the study looks at how characters and settings respond to and reflect environmental issues, illuminating the wider socio-political ramifications of these changes. Through a critical engagement with the text, this study advances our understanding of the complex interplay between political power structures and environmental change in modern India. To disentangle the intricate relationships between nature, power, and identity that the narrative portrays, the research draws on ecocriticism and political ecology. In the end, it makes the case that literature is a potent tool for comprehending and tackling ecological and political concerns.

This article aims to indicate how Akhavān-Sāles- the greatest defender of Nimāei poetry- introduced Nimāei poetry as the superior poetry and norm against the rival and sometimes contradictory poetic currents of his period. Our approach is based on the theory of discourse analysis by Laclau and Mouffe. By analyzing how discourses are articulated in literary works, we examine the influence of broader social, political, and cultural elements on the creation and reception of literature. This approach will enrich our understanding of critical literary works and demonstrate the power of interdisciplinary research to provide a deeper understanding of the social and political contexts that influence literary texts. The results show that Akhavān, with his mastery and sufficient knowledge of Persian poetry and a tendency towards socially committed literature, deconstructed and rejected other poetic discourses by expressing their structural (aesthetics) and content flaws. By introducing Nimā’s method as a mythical approach, free from other poetic discourses’ defects and shortcomings, Akhavān endeavored to convince Nimā’s opponents and revealed the superiority of his poetic style and its distinction from other poetic currents. Akhavān’s embracing of classical poetry and thought and his attempt to adapt the intellectual and formal themes and roots of Nimā’s innovations with classical poetry’s style is the secret of his success in reconciling the traditional and modern thought in the world of poetry.

Mullā Sadrā interprets “correspondence” in the correspondence theory of truth as the identity of quiddity (ʿayniyyat-e māhūwī) between mental existence (wujūd-i dhihnī) and external existence (wujūd-i khārijī) of a known object. However, this view conflicts with his principle of the primacy of existence (aṣālat al-wujūd), which posits that mental and external existences occupy distinct existential ranks, making identical quiddities impossible. To resolve this, Sadrā proposes the theory of correspondence of existential realms (tatābuq-i ʿawālim-i wujūdī), arguing that the quiddity of external existence is identical to that of mental existence, and their correspondence arises from the identity of their higher and specific existences. This article argues that while Sadrā clearly explains the identity of quiddity, his theory of existential correspondence fails to resolve the inconsistency. For true knowledge of an external object, the mental form must distinguish it from other objects in a conditioned (bi sharṭ-i lā) manner, not merely through indeterminate, unconditioned (lā bi sharṭ) knowledge of its qualities. Thus, knowing an object’s qualities abstractly does not equate to knowing the object itself, as distinguishing it requires specific, conditioned knowledge, undermining Sadrā’s resolution of the conflict between his theories.

Background: Throughout history, humans have consistently developed groundbreaking technologies, from fire and the wheel to modern computing, showcasing their ability to innovate and control their creations. The rise of artificial intelligence has sparked renewed concerns about whether machines might eventually surpass human intelligence and autonomy.Aims: This study aims to critically assess AI’s role in human society, particularly addressing concerns that it may surpass human control and agency. It seeks to demonstrate that while AI is a powerful tool, it lacks autonomy, self-augmentation, and intentionality, making it unlikely to replace human decision-making. Additionally, the paper examines historical technological advancements, showing how humans have always adapted and controlled new innovations.Methodology: Employing a historical-comparative methodology, this study traces the evolution of computing technologies from early tally systems to quantum computing. It incorporates philosophical analysis through the works of Hubert Dreyfus, John Searle, and Michael Tomasello, assessing AI’s limitations in replicating human cognition.Findings: The study finds that despite AI’s rapid advancements, it remains fundamentally dependent on human input, lacks true understanding, and is incapable of independent self-enhancement. The historical trajectory of technological progress demonstrates that while new technologies can disrupt societies, humans have consistently adapted and maintained control. Philosophical critiques of AI further reinforce the argument that intelligence is not solely computational but deeply rooted in embodiment, intuition, and shared intentionality—qualities that AI lacks.Conclusions: Concerns about AI overwhelming human agency are largely misplaced. Just as humanity has managed previous technological revolutions—including writing, mechanization, and computing—AI will be integrated and regulated according to human needs and ethical considerations. While vigilance is necessary, the myth of AI autonomy is exaggerated.