Subject

Reaching out to history and subject in terms of meaning variation, Kristeva could show that language cannot simply be a Saussurean sign system. Rather, she went on to delineate that language, beyond signs, is associated with a dynamic system of signification where the ''speaking subject'' is constantly involved in processing. Julia Kristeva, a French critic, psychoanalyst, theoretician, a post-structuralist philosopher of Hungarian origin, dwells upon ideas from linguistics, psychoanalysis, sociology while representing text analysis, sign and subject from emotional and motivational perspectives.  She believes that processing language structure and subject depend upon semiotic and symbolic domains that emerge in the scope of ''signifiance'' process whereby the semiotic domain processes and primary structures against the symbolic realm. In Kristeva''s view, the sign Chora, while being the milieu for energy, dynamism, and motility, shows the internal and signification drives of the language, and will involve changes in signification mutation of subjectivity.  

One of the main characteristics of the philosophy of Descartes which marked the starting point of modern philosophy and was continued by English empiricism and German Idealism is a special attention to the subject instead of cosmos, being or God. But what caused such a turn to subject? With a historical linguistic approach it can be shown that the replacement of old languages of philosophy namely Greek, Arabic and Latin language by modern European languages namely French, English and German can be one of the causes of that turn in the history of philosophy. It seems interesting that the change in modern European language occurred exactly at the same time the modern philosophy appeared. In this research we will concentrate on the word order and the possibility of the omission of the subject in the sentence. In modern European languages there is a insistence on the subject to appear at the beginning of the sentence. This can lead to a special attention to the subject in philosophical aspect. It may seem interesting that old languages of philosophy are null-subject languages in the sense that in these languages the subject can be omitted. In these languages the subject sometimes comes after the verb or even will not appear in the phrase. That may seem why in those languages a philosophy similar to modern philosophy did not appear. Finally it will be shown that the change in language did not confine to mere language and has important philosophical implications.

The Persian morpheme ra has attracted the attention of many linguists including Karimi (1989), Dabir-Moghaddam (1990) and Ghomeshi (1996) among others. Karimi takes ra as the accusative case marker, the presence of which on subjects and objects of prepositions render the sentence ungrammatical. According to Ghomeshi (1996), it marks DPs functioning as VP-level topics. Dabir-Moghaddam (1990) analyzes ra as the secondary topic marker in the Halidayian Functional grammar framework. In none of these analyses, this morpheme appear on deep subjects. In this article, it is highlighted that ra may also mark subjects, just in case it occurs in the right grammatical configuration. More specifically Persian has the category of small clause in which an NP marked with ra is the subject of the small clause rathar than object of the matrix sentence. This is an unprecedented hypothesis in Persian linguistic literature. I also present a minimalist account of the construction in question.

There are at least three elemental parts in Brouuer's philosophy ef mathematics that mqy have their origin in Kant. These three parts are (1) the intuition ef time, (2) the synthetic a priority of mathematical kn01vledge, and (3) the inter-suf?jectiviry ef mathematical constructions. Brouwer borrowed the notion ef the movement eftime as an a priori intuition ef time, explicit!J expressed, from Kant. In Brouuer's philosophy ef mathematics, the intuition ef time is the on/y a priori notion, on wbicb the whole ef mathematics is built. Houeuer, their notions o] the "intuition eftime" are not the same in the genealogy ef mind As far as the second item is concerned, Brouwer believes that all ef mathematical kn01vledge is a priori and synthetic. His arguments are differentfrom Kant's arguments. The concept of ''inter-suf?jectiviry" ef mathematics in Brotouer's philosophy is very involved, and there is no reference to Kant in this respect. One mqy interpret it f?y the Kantian transcendental subject or even the Husserlian transcendental phenomenology. Both interpretations seem to be consistent. My suggestion is to read Brauner ry himse!f.

In accordance with Emmanuel Levinas’s ethics, the interconnection between the subject and its Other is equated with the master-slave relationship, which is not by any means absolute. This article aims at illustrating an oscillating state of master-and-slave relation with regard to Levinas’s ethics in Margaret Atwood’s MaddAddam trilogy. The Face of the Other becomes a ‘poor master’ who needs help and yet gives a serious order to the subject, one that he should obey. Subsequently, the Other deprives the subject of his/her wealth, thus overcoming its own poverty; therefore, the Other as a ‘poor master’ and the subject as a ‘wealthy subject’ constitute an ethical relationship. Founding the argument on the above-mentioned Levinasian principles, this paper approaches the altruistic intentions of Atwood’s post-apocalyptic characters, and inspects how the post-apocalyptic world of her MaddAddam trilogy is ultimately orientated towards, if not also predicting, a return to now bygone humanistic, ethical and communal society.

Badiou offers a concept of the subject that is completely intertwined with event and truth; in his view, the subject is not an isolated and secluded entity that is supposed to contemplate the world only, rather it is linked to the event, and as a faithful element, initiates the process of truth. Every human being is not necessarily a subject, but in the face of an event and the acceptance of its occurrence, the person in the situation can become the subject. For Badiou, the subject is only part of the process of truth, and this reduces the subject to a part of a material process that has no existential independence. He explicitly states that the subject subordinates to the truth and considers the subjectification of some members of the situation as the result of the occurrence of an event and the beginning of the process of truth. The authors are of the view that Badiou's theory of the subject eventually leads to the relativity of the subject and makes it impossible to provide any explanation about the existence of the subject. He considers truth to be not general but dependent on any particular situation in which the event takes place; again, in his view, truth has a general proclamation and address. But in the authors' view, his type of explanation of the subject also makes the generality of the proclamation of truth relative and so, the truth cannot be generic anymore.

The present study compares the elements and main elements of the sentence (subject, predicate, and linking verbs) in Persian and Arabic languages to prove the hypothesis of many rhetorical similarities in the science of semantics of these two languages. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the researcher directly goes to the contents and expresses them, then concludes by analyzing these direct data. The main goal of the research is to answer the question of what is the main structure of the sentences and the position of the subject, and the predicate from the point of view of the semantics of Persian and Arabic languages. Further, it proved the hypothesis of the plurality of rhetorical commonalities. In general, what can be stated as the final and summary result of all the discussions in this paper is the correctness of the hypothesis of a large number of rhetorical correspondences in the discussed subject in Persian and Arabic languages; however, sometimes, differences are observed in the topics or existing materials. Also, in this research, the writer discusses issues such as article and indefinite article, addition, and omission, position and different forms of subject and predicate in Persian and Arabic languages, along with their commonalities and differences.