List of Articles Historicism

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Discourse Analysis: Ideology or Method? Reflections on the Philosophical-Ideological Foundations of Michel Foucault's Discourse Analysis
  Mari Eftekharzade Farhad soleiman-nezhad
  In this paper, it will be argued that, contrary to the prevailing practice in Iran from the mid-1990s to the present, Michel Foucault's Discourse Analysis (FDA) cannot be used separatelyas a mere method in various fields of humanities andwithout considering its philosop More

  In this paper, it will be argued that, contrary to the prevailing practice in Iran from the mid-1990s to the present, Michel Foucault's Discourse Analysis (FDA) cannot be used separatelyas a mere method in various fields of humanities andwithout considering its philosophical-ideological bases. FDA stems from his particular ideological perspective of the course of modern times from the renaissance to the end of the enlightenment (14th to the 18th century) and derives from particular philosophical and ontological sources that Foucault deeply believed them. In other words, there is an organic unity between FDA, as a method, and its philosophical content, and the fact that Foucault turned to Discourse Analysis and adopted it as a seemingly new method in analyzing the history of the new age was notarbitrary but a deliberate choice. In fact, it came from his own philosophical logic; alogic that is consistent with G. W. F. Hegelian historicism, which Foucault ostensibly opposed.Hegelianism, with its deterministic logic, develops an organic view of history that is consistent with Foucault's structural and institutional view of power. . On the other hand, Hegelian historicism does not place importance on the role of humans in the formation of historical events, and this feature is also fully compatible with Foucault's theory of the subject's death.Thus, one can use Foucault's discourse analysis only as a method of analyzing various subjects if one firmly believes in its ideological foundations, such as the death of man. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - An Interpretation of the Dialogue of Laws from the Viewpoint of Leo Strauss Based on Fārābī’s Treatise of Talkhīṣ al-Nawāmīs
  Havva Jami Seyed Mohammad  Hakkak Qazvini Ali Naghi  Baghershahi Shervin Moghimi Zanjani
  Presently, historicism is the dominant approach in interpreting philosophical traditions. This approach considers each science, particularly philosophy, to be in some way related to the specific lifetime of thinkers. Within this framework, historicist interpreters exami More

  Presently, historicism is the dominant approach in interpreting philosophical traditions. This approach considers each science, particularly philosophy, to be in some way related to the specific lifetime of thinkers. Within this framework, historicist interpreters examine Plato’s works in relation to four different periods, with the dialogue of Laws belonging to the latest period of his life, indicating a change in his approach. However, in opposition to any kind of historicist view, Leo Strauss disagrees with this division and believes that there is no change of direction in Plato’s overall philosophy – from the first to the last dialogue – and all of them address philosophical problems from a specific standpoint. We encounter this comprehensive approach also in Strauss’ reading of the dialogue of Laws. In fact, Strauss believes that, in order to grasp a real understanding of the dialogue of Laws, one must follow his method and consider Fārābī’s interpretation of this work in Talkhīṣ al-nawāmīs as a basis. Strauss also maintains that it is the only way through which one can go beyond the limits of historical interpretation. While providing a brief discussion of the historical interpretation of the Laws, the purpose of the present study is to examine Fārābī’s interpretation of the dialogue of Laws, Strauss’ critique and view of this interpretation, and the most distinctive features of Strauss’ innovative interpretation of this dialogue. Manuscript profile