Articles
Journal of Philosophical Investigations (22517960)(37)pp. 682-708
With no exaggeration, Martin Heidegger is one of the most prominent thinkers of the twentieth century, who critically examines the 2,500-year history of the West as a manifestation of subjectivism and technological rationality, and places his efforts on the foundation of the paradigm of knowledge. The modern world collapsed and turned to ontology. The premise of this paper is based on the principle that if modern politics is based on the will to power, the gap between subject and object, and the dominance of technological rationality, Heidegger intends to break away from politics by turning from epistemology to ontology. Based on the relationship between master and slavery of the modern world, and introduce a policy based on ontology, which ensures the elimination of the gap between subject and object and the openness of man to himself, the world and the other.
Journal of Philosophical Investigations (22517960)18(48)pp. 249-260
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-eAhmad 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. © The Author(s).
Journal of Philosophical Investigations (22517960)17(45)pp. 283-299
Regarding the way of facing the West and modernity, Ahmed Fardid is among the thinkers who, by adopting a philosophical and judgmental approach, rejects modernity, philosophy, and western civilization in its entirety. Fardid considers modernity and the West to have an inherent crisis and considers any attempt to patch up modernity with Eastern religions or cultures futile. Fardid, who is the creator of the word “Gharbzadegi (Westoxification)”, considers human sciences and Western civilization to be nothing more than the inciting soul vanities and blasphemy. By adopting an essentialist and negative approach towards the modern world, he calls for a complete break from the subjectivism and humanism associated with the modern world and a return to Islamic-oriented philosophy (Hekmat-e Onsi). Seyyed Hossein Nasr, as a traditionalist thinker, rejects Western civilization and modernity as a unified whole. He wants to incorporate modern science and reason and take perennial philosophy. In this paper, via a comparative analysis method, this hypothesis is examined that although Fardid and Nasr are sympathizers in the complete negation and rejection of the modern world, Fardid confronts modernity and its consequent subjectivism using Heidegger’s western thought. This is when Nasr confronts modernity from the perspective of a traditionalist thinker who believes in the foundations of tradition. Nasr considers the return to the perennial philosophy to solve confronting the Western world and modernity, but Fardid faced with the modern world, emphasizes that although modernity is the exposure of self-fulfillment, one must strive to overcome it. It is difficult to return to the past. © The Author(s).
Journal of Philosophical Investigations (22517960)16(41)pp. 373-385
Soren Kierkegaard, as one of the leading anti-philosophers of the school of existentialism, employs an ironic and groundbreaking approach to find fault with rationalism, abstract thinking, heteronomy, ethics and pluralism developed from the ideas of thinkers such as Kant and Hegel. Instead of valuing society, government, and conventional ethical and moral norms, he supports de-familiarization, creativity, autonomy, activity, individuality, and singularity. Kierkegaard argues that there are three stages on life’s way or three spheres of existence on the path to self-realization. He believes that the highest realm of human life is the religious sphere in which Abraham, as a believer in the realm of faith, decides to sacrifice his son Isaac to God with the aim of saving his agency, individuality and singularity from the clutches of moral, governmental and public systems. Kierkegaard argues that the leap of faith is making a decision in the very moment of madness, and considers it as a kind of gambling and risk-taking. He believes that faith is a belief in the impossibility, irrationality and paradoxicality. In this sense of faith, on the one hand, Abraham is willing to obey God’s command regarding the sacrifice of Isaac, and on the other hand, he believes in his heart that Isaac will be returned to him in this material world by God’s command. The present paper, accordingly, examines the following hypothesis: Although Kierkegaard is against the official government policy based on sovereignty and pluralism, his leap of faith, which implies standing on the boundaries and suspending the moral and the general, can lead to the emergence of a political event and, consequently, the birth of an active and autonomous subject. © The Author(s).
