Subjectivism

Kant's demystification is meant to put away any metaphysical and revealed elements from ethics and religion. Kant, fulfilling this, first argues that metaphysical questions of reason, from theoretical aspect, have no certain answers. In practical reason, he establishes his moral foundations, based on own human being without any referring to metaphysical bases. In fact, Kant places human being as the base, legislator and finally the end of ethics, so that the totality of morality is depended on itself him/her and there is no moral reality out of our humanly understanding. Kant, then, by confirming the necessity of rational religion, believes that the age of revealed religions have been expired, since they were belonged to the childhood age of human being’s reason, while in Kant’s rational religion, this is human being’s subjective intellect that defines the nature and function of God. Therefore, for Kant’s moral and rational religion, there is no credibility for affairs like miracles, blessings and prayers, since they indicate religious misguidance. In Kant’s rational pure religion, the religion is relied on human being’s pure reason in which his/her reason is the only criterion of religious beliefs. Therefore, for Kant, religion means recognizing our duties as divine judgments, and that such religion pertains to our mundane life not for worshiping God in order to get his satisfaction or benefitting his grace. In short, Kant’s religion and morality are totally depended on our humanly and earthy rationality and understanding, and that there is no mystery out of our humanly willing. So the mysteries that are claimed by revealed religions are meaningless, since our reason, itself, determines the nature, function and virtues of God, moral axioms and religious beliefs.

''Philosopl!J of History" is one of the Jpecijic terms of the modern age and enlightenment era which has been raised in the philosophical scientific Jpace of eighteen century. This new approach to history based on the human knowledge of things and relation between tbem, and since 1mderstcmding the external things and accidents means fry a priori mode/ of knower, so "tbe history "finds an suqjective aspea and now it would be asked how can to apply this new mean of history to another tradition or even current evolutions? A11d is it possible to definite another sort of Philosophy of history or no?

The present study aimed to compare Heidegger’s and Āl-e-Ahmad’s views on technology; first, the close relationship between subjectivism and modern technology was analyzed based on Heidegger, and subsequently, it was pointed out that Heidegger’s approach towards technology is a critical confrontation based on engagement/disengagement dialectics. Then Jalal Āl-e-Ahmad’s view on technology was analyzed, emphasizing that, unlike Heidegger, with a philosophical, ontological, and anticipatory approach to modern technology, Āl-e-Ahmad took a selective and voluntarist approach towards modern technology by adopting a political and social stance. Āl-e-Ahmad, like Promethean and leading intellectuals and reformers, believed that a Westoxificated society is a society that has not yet achieved technology and is technologically dependent on the West. Therefore, to deal with Westoxification, it should become a technological power by adopting a will-based approach-- a machine must be built and owned; however, at the same time, one should not be got caught by the machine because it is a means and not a goal. Unlike Āl-e-Ahmad, Heidegger considered technology not a mere tool but a kind of ontology and way of thinking that affects all humans’ areas and affairs, so it is not easy to escape modern technology’s grip.