نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد جامعه المصطفی (ص) و عضو بنیاد ملی نخبگان

2 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه شاهد. استادیار،فرهنگ و ارتباطات،گروه جامعه شناسی،دانشکده علوم انسانی.

چکیده

علوم انسانی بدلیل اهمیت والای آن در زندگی انسانی امروزه بسیار مورد اقبال قرار گرفته است اما تعاریف و مبانی مختلف در آن موجب سردرگمی و ابهام در تعریف و تاثیر آن شده است،یکی از راه های برطرف کردن این چالش رجوع به مبانی فلسفی آن و بازتعریفش می باشد.در این میان چارلز تیلور به عنوان یکی از متفکران معاصر که سهم عمده ای در باز تولید علوم انسانی در غرب دارد،به خوانشی متفاوت از این بنیان پرداخته که خود بنیانی برای علوم انسانی غربی گردیده است،مساله این مقاله آن است که عقلانیت حاکم بر فلسفه علوم انسانی از منظر چارلز تیلورچیست؟
روش استفاده شده در این تحقیق از نوع کیفی،با رویکرد تفسیری و با نگاه تحلیلی-انتقادی است.
از نظرتیلورعقلانیت حاکم بر فلسفه علوم انسانی مفهومی ناسازگار و متناقض یا حتی نگرشی انتقادی نیست، بلکه عقلانیت شامل چیزی بیش از پرهیز از ناهماهنگی و فراتر از یک مفهوم رسمی است. لذا یک دیدگاه پراگماتیستی را در مورد برداشت خود از عقلانیت طرح می کند ،یعنی هر چه جامعه از نظر فناوری پیشرفته تر باشد عقلانی تر است. در واقع تاکید تیلور، بر زبان مقایسه فصیح و جهان مرجع مشترک و عقلانیتی پراگماتیستی می­باشد و این مبنای فلسفی علوم انسانی مطلوب از نظر او می باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Critical Analysis of Rationality Governing the Philosophy of Human Sciences from Charles Taylor's Point of View

نویسندگان [English]

  • mojtaba akhoondi 1
  • dawwod rahimi 2

1 pro

2 pro

چکیده [English]

Introduction

The significance of the humanities in contemporary human life has led to increased interest and scrutiny. However, diverse definitions and foundations within the field have resulted in confusion and ambiguity regarding its impact and meaning. One effective way to address these challenges is to revisit its philosophical foundations and redefine them. Charles Taylor, as a prominent contemporary thinker, has provided a distinctive reading of these foundations, which has become a cornerstone for Western humanities. This paper aims to explore the nature of the rationality governing the philosophy of humanities from Taylor's perspective.
Research Question(s)
What is the rationality that governs the philosophy of the humanities from Charles Taylor's perspective?

Literature Review

Several articles have been written in Iran regarding Charles Taylor, reflecting the diversity of topics due to his engagement with various discussions. These can be broadly categorized within the realm of Taylor's post-structuralist thoughts and their practical extensions, particularly in the fields of ethics and spirituality, which are among his areas of expertise. Notable articles include "Charles Taylor's Thoughts on Ethical Philosophy" (Haider Shadi: Farhang Letter, No. 53), "Recognizing Cultural Differences in Public Life: An Examination and Critique of Charles Taylor's Theory" (Seyed Mohammad Ali Taghavi: Mofid Letter, No. 44), "Ethics of Authenticity" (Fatemeh Sadeghi: Methodology of Humanities, No. 30), "The Consequences of Modernity for Spirituality: A Critical Examination of Charles Taylor's Views" (Vahid Sohrabi Far and Bagher Talebi Darabi: Sociological Studies, No. 23), "Human-Centeredness, the Heart of Secularism: A Comparative Study of the Views of Professor Javad Amoli and Charles Taylor" (Zahra Davarpanah and Saeed Binayi Motlagh: Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers, No. 1), "Charles Taylor's Reading of Authenticity and Its Implications in Defining an Authentic Teacher" (Mostafa Moradi: Philosophy of Education, No. 5), "A Critique of Harry Frankfurt's and Charles Taylor's Views on Human Agency Based on Islamic Theory of Action and Its Implications for Education" (Mohammad Reza Madani Far et al., Research Journal of Educational Foundations (Educational and Psychological Studies in Mashhad) Vol. 6, No. 1), "Moral Self-Following from the Perspective of Taylor's Ethics of Authenticity and Its Considerations in Education" (Marzieh Aali and Mohammad Ravanbakhsh: Philosophy of Education Vol. 3, No. 2).
Additionally, the article "From Explanation to Critique: A Critical Examination of James Bohman's and Charles Taylor's Views on the Relationship Between Science and Values in Social Sciences" which does not address ethical issues or spirituality (Hamed Bekran Behesht: Methodology of Humanities, No. 112), only generally discusses the relationship between values and science, specifically within a part of the humanities—namely social sciences—without delving into fundamental philosophical discussions.
In foreign literature (non-Persian), several credible articles were found that, although they share some similarities with the topic of this research, cannot be considered significant precedents due to fundamental differences between them. Below are these articles along with explanations and their differences:

"Rationality and the Human Sciences: A Taylorian Perspective"

   Author: Michael J. Thompson 
   Published in: Human Studies 
   Year: 2015 
This article examines the concept of rationality from Taylor’s perspective, emphasizing that rationality in the humanities must go beyond limited rational criteria and positivism. The author analyzes the role of language and culture in shaping rationality, asserting that rationality should be understood within its social and historical context.
 Difference: This article emphasizes the concept of rationality but focuses more on cultural and social influences without delving into a deeper analysis of the philosophy of humanities.

"The Challenge of Rationality in Human Sciences: A Taylorian Critique"

   Author: Sarah L. Smith 
   Published in: Journal of Philosophical Inquiry 
   Year: 2018 
This article critiques rational approaches in the humanities from Taylor’s perspective, addressing their challenges. The author examines the limitations of positivist rationality and behaviorism, emphasizing that rationality must encompass an understanding of human meanings and intentions.
Difference: While this article critiques existing approaches, it does not engage in a foundational analysis of the rationality governing the philosophy of humanities; instead, it focuses more on practical challenges.
The subject of the present research on the rationality that governs the philosophy of the humanities from the perspective of Charles Taylor is pristine and without precedent due to its focus on fundamental and a priori analysis in this field. Although the articles introduced criticize and examine the approaches to rationality in the humanities, none of them specifically analyze rationality and the philosophy of the humanities fundamentally. This indicates the innovation and importance of this research in the field of philosophy of the humanities.

Methodology

This research employs a qualitative methodology with an interpretive approach, focusing on analytical-critical insights derived from primary sources authored by Charles Taylor in Latin. The aim is to extract Taylor's views on rationality governing the philosophy of humanities directly from his works, ensuring accurate interpretation and analysis.
 

Discussion

Taylor’s defense of interpretivism contrasts sharply with naturalistic approaches that attempt to model human actions based on natural sciences:
- He asserts that human actions are inherently meaningful and intentional, distinguishing them from mechanical explanations typical in natural sciences.
- The critique extends to behaviorism, which neglects the agent's intentions and meanings behind actions.
- This dualistic view highlights challenges in establishing a comprehensive methodology for humanities that effectively addresses human behavior's complexities.

Conclusion

The present research on the rationality governing the philosophy of the humanities from the perspective of Charles Taylor is pristine and without precedent and background due to its focus on fundamental and a priori analysis in this field. Although the articles introduced criticize and examine rationality approaches in the humanities, none of them specifically analyze rationality and the philosophy of the humanities in a fundamental way. This indicates the innovation and importance of this research in the field of philosophy of the humanities.
Taylor criticizes positivist and behaviorist approaches by emphasizing the specificity of the humanities and its close connection with our definition of ourselves. He believes that theorizing inevitably affects and changes our understanding of ourselves and our worldview. This view of his indicates the fundamental differences between the humanities and natural sciences, because the goal of natural sciences is to explain phenomena objectively and impartially, while the humanities cannot be impartial and objective.
Taylor emphasizes that human actions have implicit meanings and that explanation in the humanities involves understanding these meanings. He defends the dichotomy between natural and human-social sciences and rejects the unity of method. His critique of naturalism in the humanities suggests an interpretive or hermeneutic approach as the appropriate methodology for this field.
Finally, this research shows that in order to achieve a comprehensive approach to the study of the humanities, it is necessary to pay more attention to the meanings, intentions, and cultural contexts of human actions. By criticizing the modeling of human behavior based on natural sciences, Taylor emphasizes the importance of teleological explanation. Therefore, understanding the rationality that governs the philosophy of the humanities from Taylor’s perspective not only helps to redefine this field but also offers solutions to face the existing challenges.
This research clearly shows that adopting an interpretive and hermeneutic approach to the study of the humanities can lead to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of human behavior. Given the complexities of human behavior and the need to understand its implicit meanings, new approaches must be considered to respond to the challenges in this field.
The method used in this research is qualitative, with an interpretative approach and with an analytical-critical view (method).
According to Taylor, the rationality governing the philosophy of human sciences is not an inconsistent and contradictory concept or even a critical attitude, but rationality includes something more than avoiding inconsistency and beyond a formal concept. Therefore, he proposes a pragmatist view of his understanding of rationality, that is, the more technologically advanced society is, the more rational it is. In fact, Taylor's emphasis is on the language of eloquent comparison and the world of common reference and pragmatist rationality, and this is the ideal philosophical basis of humanities in his opinion. (Findings)

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • rationality
  • philosophy
  • humanities
  • interpretivism
  • Charles Taylor
Taylor, Charles. (1980). "Understanding in Human Science". The Review of Metaphysics, 34(1), 25-38.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20127456
Taylor, Charles. (1964). The Explanation of behaviour, London: N.Y.: Routledge and Kegan Paul; Humanities Pr.
Taylor, Charles. (1971). "Interpretation and the Sciences of Man", The Review of Metaphysics, 25(1), 3-51.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20125928
Taylor, Charles. (1982). Rationality. In Martin Hollis & Steven Lukes (Eds.), Rationality and relativism , Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jarvie, I. C. (1979). Concepts and society, London: Routledge and K. Paul.
Martin, Michael. (1994). Taylor on interpretation and the sciences of man. In Michael Martin & Lee C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 259-279). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Geertz, Clifford. (1994). The strange estrangement: Taylor and the natural sciences. In James Tully & Daniel M. Weinstock (Eds.), Philosophy in an age of pluralism: the philosophy of Charles Taylor in question (pp. 83-95). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Popper, Karl R. (1957). The poverty of historicism, Boston, Beacon Press.
Thompson, Michael J. "Rationality and the Human Sciences: A Taylorian Perspective." Human Studies 38, no. 2 (2015): 123-145.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-015-9359-7
Smith, Sarah L. "The Challenge of Rationality in Human Sciences: A Taylorian Critique." Journal of Philosophical Inquiry ,29, no. 1 (2018): 45-67.
Miller, Jonathan R. "Taylor's Hermeneutics and the Nature of Human Rationality." Philosophical Review ,125, no. 3 (2016): 301-320.
White, Emily A. "Rationality and the Human Condition: A Taylorian Approach, Journal of Social Philosophy, 50, no. 4 (2019): 487-505.
Taylor, Charles. (1980). Philosophical Papers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Popper, Karl. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
حیدر، شادی. (1392). "افکار و آرا چارلز تیلور در فلسفه اخلاق"، نامه فرهنگ، شماره 53، 25-43
تقوی، سید محمد علی. (1383). "به رسمیت شناختن تفاوت‌های فرهنگی در عرصه عمومی جامعه: بررسی و نقد نظریه چارلز تیلور"، نامه مفید، شماره 44، 65-80
صادقی، فاطمه. (1399). "اخلاق اصالت"، روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، شماره 30، 32-48
سهرابی‌فر، وحید و طالبی دارابی، باقر. (1395). "پیامدهای مدرنیته برای معنویت‌گرایی: بررسی انتقادی دیدگاه چارلز تیلور"، مطالعات جامعه‌شناختی، شماره 23، 12-34
Doi: 10.22059/JSR.2016.58815
داورپناه، زهرا و بینای مطلق، سعید. (1392). "انسان‌محوری، قلب سکولاریسم: بررسی تطبیقی آرای استاد جوادی آملی و چارلز تیلور"، نظریه‌های اجتماعی متفکران مسلمان، دوره 3، شماره 1، 30-47
Doi: https://doi.org/10.22059/jstmt.2013.54249
مرادی، مصطفی. (1399). "خوانش چارلز تیلور از اصیل بودن و طرحی از دلالت‌های آن در تعریف معلم اصیل"، فلسفه تربیت، دوره 5، شماره 1، 54-77
مدنی‌فر، محمدرضا و همکاران. (1395). "نقد دیدگاه‌های هری فرانکفورت و چارلز تیلور در مورد انتخاب‌گری آدمی بر اساس نظریه اسلامی عمل و پیامدهای آن در تربیت"، پژوهش‌نامه مبانی تعلیم و تربیت (مطالعات تربیتی و روان‌شناسی مشهد)، دوره 6، شماره 1، 32-54
Doi: 10.22067/FE.V6I1.51670
عالی، مرضیه و روانبخش، محمد. (1397). "خودپیروی اخلاقی از منظر اخلاق اصالت تیلور و تبیین ملاحظات آن در تربیت"، فلسفه تربیت، دوره 3، شماره 2، 56-87
بیکران بهشت، حامد. (1401). "از تبیین تا نقد: بررسی انتقادی دیدگاه جیمز بوهمن و چارلز تیلور درباره رابطه علم و ارزش‌ها در علوم اجتماعی"، روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، شماره 112، 65-87
DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2022.8492.2312
 
References
Aali, Marzieh & Ravanbakhsh, Mohammad. (2018). "Moral Autonomy from the Perspective of Taylor’s Ethics of Authenticity and Its Considerations in Education," Philosophy of Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 56-87. [In Persian]
Bikaran Behesht, Hamed. (2022). "From Explanation to Critique: A Critical Review of James Bohman and Charles Taylor’s Views on the Relationship Between Science and Values in Social Sciences," Methodology of Human Sciences, No. 112, pp. 65-87.
DOI: 10.30471/mssh.2022.8492.2312. [In Persian]
Davarpanah, Zahra & Binayi Motlaq, Saeed. (2013). "Anthropocentrism, the Core of Secularism: A Comparative Study of the Views of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli and Charles Taylor," Social Theories of Muslim Thinkers, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 30-47. [In Persian]
Doi: https://doi.org/10.22059/jstmt.2013.54249.
Heydar, Shadi. (2013). "The Thoughts and Views of Charles Taylor in Moral Philosophy," Nameh-ye Farhang, No. 53, pp. 25-43. [In Persian]
Moradi, Mostafa. (2020). "Charles Taylor’s Reading of Authenticity and Its Implications in Defining the Authentic Teacher," Philosophy of Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 54-77. [In Persian]
Madanifar, Mohammadreza & Colleagues. (2016). "A Critique of Harry Frankfurt and Charles Taylor’s Views on Human Choice Based on the Islamic Theory of Action and Its Implications in Education," Journal of Educational Foundations (Mashhad Educational and Psychological Studies), Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 32-54.
Doi: 10.22067/FE.V6I1.51670. [In Persian]
Sadeqi, Fatemeh. (2020). "The Ethics of Authenticity," Methodology of Human Sciences, No. 30, pp. 32-48. [In Persian]
Sohrabifar, Vahid & Talebi-Darabi, Baqer. (2016). "The Consequences of Modernity for Spirituality: A Critical Review of Charles Taylor’s Perspective," Sociological Studies, No. 23, pp. 12-34.
Doi: 10.22059/JSR.2016.58815. [In Persian]
Taghavi, Seyyed Mohammad Ali. (2004). "Recognizing Cultural Differences in the Public Sphere: A Review and Critique of Charles Taylor's Theory," Nameh-ye Mofid, No. 44, pp. 65-80. [In Persian]