understanding

Language like other inventions was originated to serve human needs in different civilization. Different language was created later. Contextually the importance of translation from one language to another is not only to understand words; as the words are not the elements of translation. Importance and base of translation lies in context to understand it. After getting the content, one should deliver the same idea with the words of the destination language. That is an art of creative reproduction. There is no doubts that ideology in not specific for a special language. Difference in ideologies is originated from human essence and experiences and it is not related to the kinds of languages. Translation is the first and the most important way to convert these concepts and connect people, cultures and civilizations. Therefore it will not be an exaggeration if we say translation is a medium for creating peace.

Sometimes the audience's understanding of God's word in the Holy Qur'an is different, and sometimes a person's understanding of the divine revelations changes over time. The question is, what is the origin of the diversity and transformation of understanding of the verses of the Holy Qur’an? In this article, which has been done by descriptive and analytical methods, some of the various origins and changes in understanding the verses of the Holy Qur’an are the talent of endless research of the Holy Qur’an, human scientific capacity, evolution of human sciences and insights, differences in audience mores, differences in human needs in the face of the Holy Qur’an, considering or not considering the social bases of verses, taking a group of seemingly different verses and interpreting another group in front of it, differences in perspective, destination-oriented view to verses, using reason in understanding verses, interpretation of verses due to different narrations, differences in the principles of authenticity of appearances of the Holy Qur’an, referring to symmetry or not referring to the symmetry in obtaining the appearances of the verses, differences in recitation and differences in the Iʿrāb.

The product resulting from the design process can be depicted as a text carrying the meaning whose readers are its users. Among the prominent theories dealing with the category of the meaning in the text, the reception hermeneutic in epistemology, and the experience approach in design, have been discussed in this research. This study aimed to find out whether it is possible to compare the author with the designer, after assuming the product as a text. It also addressed the type of interaction with the user from a reception hermeneutic perspective in the experience design approach. In this regard, subjects such as understanding, reception, and generally, interpretation of the product have also been studied using library sources and the descriptive-analytical method. The results indicate that the phenomenon of the text reading in the reception hermeneutic approach is comparable to the experience at the thinking level in the process of user-product interaction. In other words, text reading can be equated with product experience.

In this article, we inquire into the concept of meaning in pedagogy through Heidegger’s philosophy. Since metaphysical systems reduce the Being of humans, due to the dominance of subjectivist and worldlessness views, they tend to suffer from the crisis of nihilism, which has made its way into various ontological sciences, especially pedagogy. In this article, we tackle the elements that culminated in such meaninglessness in pedagogy in terms of dualism, worldlessness, absence of existentials, and finally the posteriority of Eros and Pathos to Logos. Now, since the philosophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger extensively deal with the issue of meaning, and in particular, Heidegger in Being and Time grapples with the concept of the meaning of Being by analyzing existentials , here we decided to discuss meaning by drawing on the existentials of understanding and attunement , and from this perspective, we look for a way out of the crisis of nihilism in pedagogy. Discussion of the meaning of being-in-the-world and the prior precedence of Eros over cognition and Logos is also helpful for overcoming the crisis of nihilism in pedagogy. That is, if pathos, eros, and the existentials of understanding and attunement are taken seriously in pedagogy, then pedagogical meaninglessness might be resisted by appealing to worldlessness and subjectivism. In fact, the revolution that sparked in Heidegger’s philosophy, in which pathos was deemed prior to logos and the question of meaning was rendered possible by turning to existentials, opened the way for a pedagogy based on existentials.

I argue in the essay that the conceptualist understanding of the mind-world relation ultimately leads to the kind of view that Panayot Butchvarov calls conceptual or linguistic creationism. According to this view, “there is nothing we have not conceptualized”. In addition to being an antithesis of metaphysical realism, which maintains that there is a reality independent of us, the term refers to the kind of thinking that sees human cognitive experience (and reality itself) as thoroughly constituted according to our concepts. While it might be easy to attribute this kind of position to Kant as well, especially when read through a conceptualist lens, I argue that such a position is not in accord with Kant’s philosophical intentions. Using the Deduction and Schematism chapters of the Critique of Pure Reason as examples, I also argue that on the conceptualist understanding of the mind-world relation too much is read into Kant’s idea that sensibility and understanding must be cognitively compatible with one another.

Hans-Georg Gadamer, in his work Truth and Method, raises a controversial and thought-provoking argument regarding language and its relation to Being. He states that “Being that can be understood is language.” Despite his subsequent efforts in some works following Truth and Method to elucidate what he considers to be self-evident in the meaning of this expression, various interpreters have continued to derive various interpretations from it. Some have focused on its ontological dimension within Heideggerian context, while others have emphasized its epistemological aspect within the Kantian tradition. In this paper, we aim to clarify the meaning of the Gadamer’s expression and explore the grounds and reasons for the emergence of conflicting interpretations, while also referencing such interpretations and relying on a descriptive-analytical approach based on Gadamer’s relevant texts. Overall, it seems that the ambiguity in Gadamer’s position regarding language and its relation to being boils down to the fact that he seeks to reconcile Heidegger’s phenomenological perspective with his own philosophical hermeneutics. Thus, Gadamer sometimes emphasizes on the being itself and sometimes on our linguistic understanding of being.

Drawing upon the hermeneutic basis that understanding and interpretation of a text is conditioned by the reader’s preunderstanding, this article examines ʾAllamah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s interpretive preunderstandings. In so doing, the article first, will explore ʾAllamah’s constitutive and non-constitutive preunderstandings. As the foundation of his Qur'anic interpretation, the constitutive category is divided into three subcategories: text-specific, interpreter-specific, and interpretation-specific. The non-constitutive category is studied under the following two subcategories: the imposed and non-imposed preunderstandings. Although the article studies ʾAllamah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s interpretive preunderstandings, this categorization can be applied in studying any scriptural hermeneutic discourse. The contribution of this article to the field, is not limited to Allamah Ṭabāṭabāʾī’s interpretive preunderstandings. The method applied in this study can be used in the study of any scriptural hermeneutics.