Ali Akbar Ahmadi Aframjani; Soheila Mansourian
Abstract
Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt philosopher, has tried to redefine the concept of reason from Hegel's point of view. In his different view, he tries to show that the category of cognition and self-consciousness is not possible without addressing the hidden parts of the reason by adding psychoanalysis. He ...
Read More
Herbert Marcuse, a Frankfurt philosopher, has tried to redefine the concept of reason from Hegel's point of view. In his different view, he tries to show that the category of cognition and self-consciousness is not possible without addressing the hidden parts of the reason by adding psychoanalysis. He argues that it is an important part of recognizing desire and has been suppressed by the system of dictatorship in history. For Marcuse, the field of aesthetics and art are the parts in which the psyche is manifested, through which one can recognize the neglected parts and the position of individual desire and approach freedom. A case study of Kamal al-Molk of Iranian culture is a very good example, given all the angles that Marcuse describes. An artist who does not change when he sees change and, on the contrary, resists it and does not happen to achieve the self-consciousness that Marcuse wants. This poses a new complexity to Marcuse's position. This article tries to explore the inadequacy of each of the philosophical and psychoanalytic views according to the given example to say that the desire of the subject involved in the individual subconscious is confiscated long before puberty in childhood. He is barren and incapable of any movement. In this new narrative, it becomes clear that the concept of reason has a recovery beyond the mere realization of Marcuse's intended aesthetics, and that its implications are more serious and profound than what Hegel, Marcuse, and Freud thought.
monireh taliehbakhsh; gholamhossein gholamhosseinzadeh; Alireza Nikouei; mehdi moinzadeh
Abstract
The first trace of the critique of objective truth and the “present-at-hand” tradition can be found in Sufism and Mysticism. Mystics emphasize the outstanding role of uncovering and intuition which implies the desire to leave mediators in order to achieve the truth and reflects their creative ...
Read More
The first trace of the critique of objective truth and the “present-at-hand” tradition can be found in Sufism and Mysticism. Mystics emphasize the outstanding role of uncovering and intuition which implies the desire to leave mediators in order to achieve the truth and reflects their creative approach toward tradition, which, while rooted in tradition, is seen as revival. They considered the truth of their approach to tradition as a Naghd/critique. Naghd, in common terms, is simply translated as the assessment of something. However, in the mystical tradition, it is prior to assessment and refers to calling something that is “ready to hand” existence. Today, the way through this tradition is being inquired about and though about is groundless. Groundlessness is the indicator of the dichotomy of tradition and modernity, whereas the original foundation through the experience of a moment of "negation" is an abyss/ the nothing foundation. This article will begin with two fundamental theoretical approaches in Western thought to understand the foundations of the mystic approach to tradition. The first approach is "Romantic Hermeneutics, Historicism, Fundamentalism, and Traditionalism," which comprehends tradition as it has been spent, and the second approach with titles such as "philosophical hermeneutics, historicity and traditionality" considers tradition as something present now. This article proves that both tradition and modernity adopt the same approach while the second approach implies a different perception of the foundation / beginning, time and existence.
