Criticism

Heidegger tried to interpret Kant's "Critique ofpure reason" as the foundation of metaphysics in his "Kant and the Problem of Metapf.?ysics" and to indicate 'the problem of metaphysics' as 'the problem of basic ontology'. But in the preface of the second edition of that book, he asserted, 'on the thinking path of hvenryyearsfro m the first publication, the fatal mistakes andprivations of this stuqy have become so obvious for me that I have given up patching it up ivith complementary notes, an addition, or a postscript. ' It suggests that this book has the same 'mistakes andprivations' as his ''Sein und Zeit", and tue have to pqy attention to the fact that the 'mistakes and privations' are referred in the context of 'the problem of metapf.?ysics'. So I would like to distinguish the three dimensions ofproblems as following: (1) the problem of Kant's thought as the foundation of metaphysics, (2) the problem of metapl?Jsical thinking itse!f, and ( 3) the problem of Heidegger's ivqy of thinking, in which he cn'ticizes metapf.?ysics and Kant's thought. Then I 1vould like to make it clear the meaning of Heidegger's trial to overcome metaphysics and to bring it to fight that of his 'mistakes andprivations' are grounded in his wqy of thinking, which is, contrary to his intention, still in the range of metapbysica! thinking. And from thatpoint of viezv, I would like to reveal the problem of our wqy of thinking in contemporary philosopl?J, iuhicb is ouenuhelmed ry natural sciences.

The present article is intended to analyze the status of architectural education during two periods before and after Cultural Revolution in Iran and in order to interpret approaches and paradigms, methods, and way of its development thereby, it deals with criticism of current situation in the field of architectural education. For this purpose, it has been tried to separate different fields of quantitative and qualitative development of the discussed subject with historical review on formation of architectural academic schools during recent period. The methodology of current research is based on using the relevant information about structure of architectural education in Iran during two major periods, which have been subjected to data- mining by taking an interpretative- historical approach. In addition, the present condition has been criticized with review on the existing theories in this field and afterwards in order to achieve the given result and for conclusion of the contemporary attitudes in Iranian architectural education. Findings have been analyzed according to strategic analysis to disambiguate the process of planning for the future based on internal strong and weak point as well as external opportunities and threats (SWOT) in educational structure of architecture and eventually following to evaluation of today status and position becomes available for access in the future.

Seyyed Morteza Jazayeri in respect to interpretation of some words of the Qur'an, based on the view of the metaphysics of the language of the Qur'an, has specific theories in interpreting the word of the Holy Qur'an. He is one of the scientists who believes in the interpretation of the Qur'an and his aim in interpreting the words of the Qur'an is based on anthropology. He puts his interpretive views on the anthropological axis and interprets the divine teachings and the Holy Qur'an only for the education of human beings and acknowledges that the Qur'an is constantly a book with cultural and educational contents that thus provides human evolution. For this reason, his interpretive approach is based on explaining the cultural and educational aspects and effects of human beings, and this is why he has presented sharp and thoughtful opinions with an interpretive approach, and as a result, his ability to review and criticize his views by thinkers and commentators of the Holy Qur'an needed it. In this article, the basics of interpretation and its examples are first mentioned and then their critique is discussed.

'Post-truth' has become a buzzword for numerous current crises: the fragmentation of the media landscape, the ongoing debate about 'fake news', the loss of trust in science, etc. Although these crises take place in society, it is claimed that the roots of post-truth can be traced back to the history of philosophy. Occasionally, it is asserted that Karl Popper's critical rationalism gave rise to post-truth: His rejection of verificationism has limited truth claims in the realm of science. Given the absence of infallible evidence and certainty, critical rationalism calls for challenging scientific authority. I argue that post-truth is compatible with critical rationalism from an epistemological point of view, considering that both positions are critical of certainty. However, in critical rationalism, fallibilism, responsibility, and the idea of criticism are combined, and in this respect, it offers a possible way to overcome the problems that are associated with post-truth. This treatment of the problems of post-truth results from the recognition of moral responsibility to take action on the basis of a hypothesis that remains open to revision.