One of the questions raised in recent political philosophy is relation  Between power, subject and body, This is that power how constitutes the subject and it body. Michel Foucault is a great thinker that to answer these questions, not only explores the Genea of the modern subject, But also He speaks of  technology of Self, Means A set of mechanisms through which The Self Dose exercise of power on and in itself. So how technology of self , makes the modern subject and it bodies? What are the consequences of such a situation? Foucault's solution for the emancipation of the modern subject of this situation, is including what lessons for our society today?. It seems that in the political thought of Foucault, The subject And his body takes shape In the process of monitoring and punishment mechanism panopticism and internalized. Perhaps the most important consequence of this situation is self-alienation of the subject and body. It seems, Foucault proposed the two solution of joined together to release subject of alienating: 1- Resistance and refusal permanent, 2- Parrhesia (telling the truth). means on Foucault ,the one hand, Invites of  we to have a permanent resistance against the relations of knowledge / power / truth not only in the outside world but also within (The negative form of Foucault solution), On the other hand, invites of  Us for have to Being frank, risk and to reconstruct of self  based on creative narratives(The Positive form of Foucault solution).

This paper tries to explain the historical stauts of man and it is inspired by Heidegger's "postmodern" conception of ecstatic time (man's actions are always entangled in temporal determinations which provide him with the chance to transcend). According to Heidegger, the thought of death helps him to free himself from the selflessness of "the They" and makes his decision authentic. Such circumstances cannot uncover the object man's decision. In order to do this, requires man to go back to his past in which a number of possibilities are given. Philosophical thinking and the great philosopers also belong in this tradition. When going back to his past, man repeats his heros. Iranian man can also look at the possibilities of the Iranisn Dasein in its philosophical past. In the authentic view of history, what counts is not what Dasein has acoomplished or has failed to accomplish, but what is at issue is Dasien's possiblities, what he could do but did not and the possibilities which still exist. The great philosophers of our tradition, Avicenna, Suhrawardi, Mullasadra, Zakaria Razi, Birooni and Avereos have made the thing which counts as our history. With an understanding of their time and age we can understand the difference between our tradition and the modrn and postmodern situation. This way we can open a way out of Western metaphysics, which Heidegger is also trying to accomplish.

The way that human being has gotten up to now in ethics, is regarded by Nietzsche not as a positive evolutional process, but as a history of long-lasting human mistakes and as the cause of his terrible fate. Thus he criticizes intensely the ethics which was considered as a historical heritage and evaluable achievement of human being. He thinks that all aspects of human life, even his question of being are influenced by values and these values have made some struggles and crisis for him. He entitled himself as an anti-ethic and rejects all moral systems. In criticizing ethics he wants to find the real foundation of ethics to illustrate its position and function and to recognize the human evaluating mechanism which forced him to do moral acts. Underlying all subversive comments and thoughts of Nietzsche, there is a noble and new though integrated idea. He does not intend to found a system similar to what he criticized and destroyed. Superhuman is the paragon of this new idea. Looking at his critics on ethics this article assesses his negative view on ethics.

Berlin, by emphasizing on Incommensurability and Incomparability of ethical values defends a kind of value pluralism. He believes that there are no general categories and common criterions to judge with in morality and therefore there is no way to determine and evaluate the right actions from the wrong ones.  On the other hand it seems that relativism also, by refusing any objectivity in ethics, and by emphasizing the lack of general standards for judgment rejects moral monism, and by relaying on differences between cultures, attains to common borders with pluralism. But Berlin tries to separate his own valve pluralism from relativism. In first half of this article we will SURVEY Berlin's value pluralism and in the second half it will be shown that Berlin's efforts for distancing from relativism is not so successful.

Nietzsche thinks Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his greatest book and the doctrine of eternal recurrence is the “most Abysmal Thought” of this book. Why has this doctrine such importance in the philosophy of Nietzsche? Although there are differences between eternal recurrence in The Gay Science to Zarathustra, but always remains a few characteristics. First, Nietzsche's eternal recurrence is a measure for revaluation of all values. The eternal recurrence is against the ressentiment and the ascetic ideal. Second, although Nietzsche in The will to power, sometimes has some sentences that imply to cosmological interpretation of the doctrine of eternal recurrence, but most interpreters have emphasized the practical implications of this doctrine, although about the modality of these implications there are disagreements among them. The problem that arises is that if eternal recurrence requires that we say yes to everything, including unfavorable affairs, and even the "amor fati" implies to love pains, how to say yes to pains is compatible with to say yes to life? The answers to this question clarify new dimensions of Nietzsche's thought and the doctrine of eternal recurrence. This doctrine causes "creativity", "choice", "decision" and "activity". Eternal recurrence completes and leads nihilism to its peak and this is also desirable for Nietzsche.

In this article, it is a matter of expressing (analyzing) the Hegelian reading from Aristotelian ethics under two fundamental concepts, that is, "happiness" and "virtue" and also the implications of this reading. According to Hegelian Interpretation, two above concepts have more social functions than Aristotelian and classical one. Moreover they have also subjective objectify through which Individual and community in dialectical process in a virtual framework can receive the only Good, that is, freedom. Originality and in a sense priority of the political thought in Hegel's philosophical system requires an ethical system that can act beyond Aristotelian moral naturalism and explain external relations and the requirements of social and political life. Thus in Hegel's thought, happiness and virtue have however the unique important such as Aristotle's ethical system, their roles go beyond the education of people. This study demonstrates that Hegel, by employing the two fundamental concepts of Aristotelian ethics, happiness and virtue, in the general framework of his thinking, provides the basis for the transformation of their meaning