Seyed Mohammad Reza Amiri Tehrani
Abstract
With regards to the inefficiencies and uncompromising situations within the humanities and social sciences field in Iran, the challenge of problematizing these sciences is inevitable. So far, numerous research analyzing humanities and social sciences’ problems in the Iranian academic system have ...
Read More
With regards to the inefficiencies and uncompromising situations within the humanities and social sciences field in Iran, the challenge of problematizing these sciences is inevitable. So far, numerous research analyzing humanities and social sciences’ problems in the Iranian academic system have been published. Considering the important role of humanities and social sciences in the modern Iranian society, we attempt to suggest a theoretical framework for the problematization of humanities and social sciences in Iran. The exploration of the main challenges facing humanities and social sciences in Iran from the community, academy and administration point of view, sparks three hypotheses. First, humanities and social sciences’ theories and teachings are not applied accurately. Second, the humanities and social sciences’ schools of thought are not chosen properly according to Iranian circumstances. And third, there are metaphysical differences between axioms and presupposition of humanities and social sciences having western origins and those with Islamic-Iranian culture.
Parisa Saatchi Fard; Keyvan Alasti
Abstract
In all periods of history, human has been trying to "understand". In order to understanding the natural world, scientists first observe samples and then classify them based on similarity. To figure out the actions of people, the matter seems different. To achieve this, we need to understand the intentions ...
Read More
In all periods of history, human has been trying to "understand". In order to understanding the natural world, scientists first observe samples and then classify them based on similarity. To figure out the actions of people, the matter seems different. To achieve this, we need to understand the intentions of people. Because intention has psychological nature, there is always a concern from empiricists that it may not be perceptible by third-person people. To some extent, many human actions are perceptible from a third-person point of view, and this causes them to be the subject of scientific investigations (with common scientific methods). However, there are cases that show the understanding of human activities from the third person of view has limitations.Stephen Grimm introduces a type of understanding and believes that by realising the specific goals of the person being understood as a desired action, we will achieve a deeper understanding. In this article, an attempt has been made to clarify the discussed issue first by proposing and interpreting Stephen Grimm's point of view, and then by proposing the problems and explaining the ambiguities of Grimm's idea, as an alternative formulation, we will show that the agent's decision for understanding or not understanding the actions of others, plays an important role. Empathy is known as a psychological capacity that can be understood in a different way by simulating the structure.Investigating and looking deeper into this issue will help us to judge it better as a method or an idea in social and human sciences.
saeid zibakalam
Abstract
In a previously published short article, I had simply remarked that in the extremely complex and fluctuating political arena, political scientists, political philosophers, political activists and politicians have never been able to reach a tentative trans-historical and trans-social consensus about criteria ...
Read More
In a previously published short article, I had simply remarked that in the extremely complex and fluctuating political arena, political scientists, political philosophers, political activists and politicians have never been able to reach a tentative trans-historical and trans-social consensus about criteria of “correctness” and “rationality”, nor can they. In this paper, I want to go further to explain why they, along with sociologists and economists, have never been able, and will never be able, to reach such a trans-historical and trans-social consensus. To do so, I have raised and tried to critically analyze the following questions:- What factors or causes have prevented social scientists and political philosophers from reaching, even tentatively, a trans-historical and trans-social consensus about criteria of “correctness” and “rationality”? - Do social scientists and those active in the socio-political realm typically encounter the question of what the epistemological criteria of “correctness” and “rationality” are?- Why do social scientists have typically no clear and articulated conceptualized understanding of the criteria of “correctness” and “rationality”?
