Seyyed Hamidreza Zakaria; Alireza Mollaiy Tavani
Abstract
The aim of the present research is to reveal Kasravi’s ontological presuppositions in History of the Constitutional Revolution of Iran and Eighteen-year History of Azerbaijan and then to criticize the epistemological results of these presuppositions in Kasravi’s historiography based on the ...
Read More
The aim of the present research is to reveal Kasravi’s ontological presuppositions in History of the Constitutional Revolution of Iran and Eighteen-year History of Azerbaijan and then to criticize the epistemological results of these presuppositions in Kasravi’s historiography based on the Concept of Heidegger’s Historicity. According to this, the main question of the present research is, how and on what basis does Kasravi define the subject of his historiography? The research findings show that the subject of Kasravi’s historiography is not the Historical Matter as a Shaping Verb. Kasravi’s historiography includes the Anti-historical Concept of Repetition. The Concept of the Traditional is absent in his historiography, Hence, the New Matter has become something groundless and this means Kasravi has not been able to understand the Dialectic of Discontinuity and Continuity hidden in the Historical Matter and to discover the Concept of Historicity. In other words, Kasravi has no basis for define the subject of historical question and research.
masoome mirsaeedi; malek Hosseini; Shahla Eslami
Abstract
It seems that objective historiography and the question of the real referent in photography do not have a clear relation, as can be seen in most of the contemporary essays on the relation between history and photography which are based on new definitions of representational capacity of photography and ...
Read More
It seems that objective historiography and the question of the real referent in photography do not have a clear relation, as can be seen in most of the contemporary essays on the relation between history and photography which are based on new definitions of representational capacity of photography and have no attention to past currents of historiography although all of them, in criticizing the photographic representation refer to works of Roland Barthes and his contemporaries, as the classical texts on photography. But a point that has been almost ignored is that Barthes' attention to the problem of the referent in photography goes beyond mere structuralism. His works on these two seemingly distinct areas namely history and photography show that his critical attitude toward the tradition of objective historiography, through all his intellectual life, from structuralism to poststructuralism, has been present in different areas including photography. What Barthes looks for by analyzing the problem of referent in photography is indeed the problem of objective historiography and its relation to reality, which he believes is not representable. Doubting the possibility of objectivity in historiography, Barthes challenges within semiotic framework the notion of ”photo is equal with reality” and therefore criticizes the realistic approach in history and photography.
