theory

By examining the conditions of possibility and refusal, the present study aimed to answer the main question 'Under what conditions, spiritual civilisation in the contemporary world becomes possible?'. In the timeological assessment of the civilisational situation, referring to the loss of the "Positive Aspect of Modern Civilisation" and its continued bio-negative in the absence of alternative models limitations, it examines the "Modern Position of Civilisation" in terms of universal basis and valuable theoretical framework different from current literature in modern and non-modern research civilisation. By creating a distinct consciousness organisation, do not block the path of spirituality in civil and civilised life, without eliminating science and technology, overlap with the universal needs of the world. And also create different formulations of civilisational actions, structures and relations that make the way of facing the world and science and technology meaningful, distinct and religious. Therefore, systemic Ijtihad and "Divine Verses" present the new spiritual civilisation's conceptual and theoretical organisation. In this context and with a critical approach, it recreates the Islamic Revolution's software infrastructures and civilisation-making organisationware.

Researching is considered one of the functional needs of the scientific community. However, this field of study is faced with a series of issues, such as the dismissal of the concept of critique as only a secondary phenomenon and the lack of a methodological perspective while dealing with the concept of critique. Thereby, after having an overview of the topic of literary and art criticism, this paper will attempt to argue that in the background of the discussion, the elements of “methodic critique” are ignored. Then, to distinguish the characteristics of methodic critique from that of subjective and non-academic critique, the eight elements of methodic critique will be explained in detail, which include: 1. Systematicity, 2. Model-orientedness, 3. Comprehensiveness, 4. Critical perspective, 5. Having philosophical basis, 6. Expert-orientedness, 7. Creativity, and 8. Being ethical. Undoubtedly, reaching a “(comprehensive) theory of critique in the field of humanities” necessitates an explanation of the necessities, definitions, and characteristics of the concept of methodic critique as avoiding the shortcomings of the study of critique in the field of humanities is impossible without a “theory of critique.”

Purpose: Relatively much research has been done into theorizing and its importance. However, the number of studies related to the understanding of contexts is very negligible and so far no framework has been provided including indicators and evaluation methods. This research has been done with the aim of achieving the indicators related to theorizing and subsequently presenting a formula to measure the potential and theorizing capacity of scientific institutes. Method: Library and field methods have been used to collect information. Data were first collected through a checklist and then through the AHP questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed among experts and the AHP method was used to analyze the data. Expert Choice software was used to analyze the data obtained from the AHP questionnaire. Findings: The results indicate that the individual index is 9 times more important than the non-individual index in the theorizing process. Pairwise comparison of individual sub-indices showed that "awareness of theorizing" and "research ability” have an equal portion in theorizing. The "coherence of personality traits" is sextuple as important as the "awareness of theorizing”. "Coherence of personality traits" up to sextuple "research ability" can be considered important in the theorizing process.  Pairwise comparison of non-individual index sub-indices showed that "communication level" is twice as important as "institutional index level". However, the “effect level" is twice as important as the "communication level". The "communication level" is 7 times more important than the "management index level". The "effect level" can be considered 7 times more important than the "institutional index level". "Institutional index level" is quadruple more important than "management index level". The "effect level" is extremely important compared to the "management index level". Conclusion: Although theorizing is done by a researcher or a group of researchers, ultimately, it is a collective matter, or at least, several components are involved in its formation. Theorizing is a coherent, dynamic, purposeful, and thoughtful practice whose results can lead researchers to recognize the credible generalizable relationship between causes and effects. Finally, the formula Tp= (0.9I + 0.1NI) was presented, which can be used to assess the capacity of theorizing in institutes.