Critical Theory

One of the most important basic human issues is the education, which has always been considered by many thinkers. The issue of education has gone a long way from the past to the present; so that in the contemporary world, it has entered new realms with the emergence of new schools such as pragmatism and postmodernism. One of the most important of these arenas is the emergence of critical thinking in the field of education. Critical education is a theory in the field of education that emphasizes the development of critical thinking and knowledge of students, and the curriculum elements are designed in such a way that critical knowledge of political, cultural, economic and social developed in it. Thinkers such as Paulo Freire , Henry Giroux, Michael Apple, Jurgen-Habermas and Peter McLaren, who plotted and made their point of view. The present research sought to determine the main elements of the curriculum of critical education based on the views of theorists on this field. Identifying the philosophical and social foundations and determining the main elements of the curriculum, such as the role of school, teacher, student, and evaluation, finding teaching methods and curriculum content in critical education, emphasizing the notion of prominent scholars of this field were among the goals of this research. First, the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and then the foundations and elements of the curriculum in postmodernism and critical education were examined and then the views and ideas of the major theorists of this field were analyzed. The findings of this research made it clear that prominent scholars of this field followed humanists in their philosophical and psychological foundations and to achieve their educational goals, which were critical awareness, propose a problem and in this case, dialogue played an essential role.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the complicated crises that traces back to nearly a century ago. It caused severe challenges and brought about disastrous consequences both for the Middle East region and the conflicting parties. Numerous attempts have taken place so far by different states, organizations and individuals to establish a lasting and comprehensive peace in this conflict, but given the intransigence positions of the conflicting parties, the attempts were futile and still there is no light at the end of this tunnel. The limitations of the realistic viewpoint that dominates the conflict and considers its signs rather than its root causes, made us tackle the issue through a proper, more appropriate approach.. To us, critical studies, particularly the emancipation approach which goes beyond the realistic limitations, deliberates the contemporary and historical conditions together with its nature and tries to remove situations leading to the conflict is a more viable strategy to achieve a lasting peace.

In this article, the author is trying to problematize the concept of critique in Critical Theory by arguing that we need to go beyond the traditional parameters of the Critical Theory Canon as defined by Euro-Atlantic historiographers and critical social theorists. But in order to achieve this goal the author has attempted to demonstrate alternative approaches in conceptualizing complexities of social reality by employing the concept of Istehmar as defined by Ali Shariati. What does Istehmar mean? How does Shariati articulate this concept in sociological fashion? How is this concept different than classical concepts such as anomie, alienation and disenchantment?

Frankfurt School’s critical theory, derived from the ideology of Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas et al. was put forward by Robert Cox,  Andrew Linklater , and Marc Hoffmann into the realm of international relationships. It will be discussed in the framework of the third debate of international relationships. The concepts represented in this theory are highly similar to those in the Islamic theory within international policy and foreign policy. Thus, the question here is the degree to which these concepts can be employed in order to extend the Islamic theory of international relationships. The present paper is going to determine the degree to which such concepts as freedom, knowledge, mutual understanding, hegemony structure, international clampdown, and the like, which are frequently used in the Islamic international policy literature as the foundation of critical theory related to international peace, are comparable. The first hypothesis of this research is that above-mentioned concepts have only verbal similarities and not interchangeable in the level of ontology and epistemology. In order to explain the main concepts of critical theory, this research, sued analytical, descriptive method based on major resources employment. In fact, it answers the question utilizing the major resources being used in the Islamic international relationships literature.

Conducting a special military operation in Ukraine has created a crisis in legal and geopolitical order. Political documents such as ``On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians`` and ``on conducting a special military operation`` cannot be truly re-read except by re-interpreting the geopolitico-theological texts of the Heideggerian theoreticians of the Russian Katechonic identity. By re-visiting the theory of Katechon, this article aims to examine the so-called Katechontic identity of Russia in the geopolitics of crisis and the dimensions of the Russian mindset in intervention in legal rule making in the global state of war. In fact, the main question of this article is how the Katechonic identity of Russia is defined in apocalyptic geopolitics, and theories such as neo-Eurasianism and National Bolshevism, based on theological and philosophical foundations, have worked to prepare an anti-legal order beyond the international legal order? The Russo-Ukrainian War is the main case. This article is in the framework of radical political theology, critical theory in international law and critical geopolitics.

This paper examines the political philosophy of Artificial Intelligence (AI) through three distinct approaches: optimistic positivist scientism, critical middle ground, and phenomenological pessimism. The central issue addressed is the ethical and political implications of AI, specifically how it influences governance, social structures, and human autonomy. The research questions explore how AI can be understood in terms of its potential and risks, how different political philosophies interpret its role, and what governance models can mitigate its negative consequences. The methodology adopted is a comparative analysis of key thinkers and their contributions to the debate on AI. The framework includes positivist, critical theory, and phenomenological perspectives, with a focus on how these paradigms inform the understanding of technology and its societal impact. Key theorists discussed include Francis Bacon, Karl Marx, Yuval Harari, Jürgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, and Hannah Arendt, each offering a unique viewpoint on the nature of AI and its implications for governance and human existence. The findings highlight three divergent views: the optimistic positivist approach sees AI as a tool for progress, advocating for technological innovation and global governance; the critical middle ground emphasizes ethical oversight and regulation to prevent social inequality; and the phenomenological pessimism warns of AI’s potential to undermine human freedom and autonomy, leading to a dystopian, technocratic society. The study concludes that while AI offers significant potential for improving human life, it also raises profound challenges that require careful regulation, ethical consideration, and a commitment to preserving democratic freedoms.

This study aims to examine the philosophical foundations of governance paradigms reflected in the election discourses of Iranian presidential candidates between 2005 and 2025, highlighting how these paradigms shape governance styles. The research employed a qualitative document analysis approach, focusing on primary sources such as campaign statements, election manifestos, interviews, and media reports. A comparative method was used to evaluate the ontological, epistemological, and methodological dimensions of each presidential discourse. Theoretical frameworks from the philosophy of science, particularly regarding positivist, interpretivist, and critical paradigms, provided the lens for analysis. The study found that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s discourse embodied an interpretivist paradigm with positivist elements, emphasizing cultural narratives and measurable developmental policies. Hassan Rouhani’s discourse reflected a hybrid of critical and positivist paradigms, balancing structural reforms with evidence-based governance. Ebrahim Raisi’s approach was primarily interpretivist with critical elements, focusing on revolutionary ideals and social justice. Masoud Pezeshkian’s emerging discourse aligned most closely with the critical paradigm while incorporating positivist techniques for policy development. Across the period from 2005 to 2025, a gradual philosophical shift was observed, moving from symbolic mobilization toward structural critique and pragmatic governance strategies. These evolving paradigms significantly influenced policymaking priorities, citizen participation models, and governance structures in Iran. The philosophical roots embedded in election discourses play a decisive role in shaping governance approaches in Iran. Understanding these paradigmatic orientations offers deeper insights into the evolution of political practices and state-citizen relations. Future studies should further explore the relationship between electoral rhetoric, governance implementation, and the broader socio-political transformations within Iran.