Occidental Studies

Abstract Along with the beginning of the movement of translation, Muslims began to get familiar with the ideas of Greek philosophers. It may be said that more than all other philosophers, it was Socrates who was paid attention to. The earlier Muslim philosophers such as al-Kindi and al-Farabi were familiar with the Greek inheritance, and it is evident that they were influenced by Aristotle in various disciplines like logic, metaphysics, physics, psychology, and ethics. But, it should be noted that politics is the only discipline in which Muslims' familiarity with Aristotle's works is dubitable. Thus, it is difficult to speak about Aristotle's impacts on the development of political thoughts of Muslim philosophers. According to some researchers, impacts of the Greek inheritance on politics in the Islamic age is restricted to those of Plato and some other philosophers before him; in this regard, they deny Aristotle's impacts on the ideas of Muslims thinkers. Since the subject matter of the present writing hinges directly on solving this problem, in the introduction, the author will provide a historical discussion in this concern; and in what follows, accepting Aristotle's impact on Muslim philosophers, he will discuss this impact till the age of Ibn Rushd and some other distinct Muslim philosophers who have somehow discussed politics.
 

Abstract Because of development of comparative linguistics in the 19^th Century and ethnological findings of the 20^th Century, mythology was introduced as a scientific discipline; and, since ancient myths of nations are the most fundamental categories to know various nations, researchers focused on comparative mythology as a way to mutual understanding among nations. Because of this, dialogue and interaction between nations began. Thus, comparative mythology is able to remove grounds of disputes and conflicts between nations- which are mostly products of antipathy and absence of a mutual language; for, focus on cultural infrastructures may lead us to find common features among various nations; and such common features may lead to peace and friendship among them. In addition, researchers may pay attention to various climatic necessities because of differences between myths so that each and every nation may be judged under its own conditions; and such a mutual understanding may hinder enmities between nations.    
It should be noted that in the present article, only western views toward comparative mythology have been discussed and studies.

Abstract The first half of the twentieth century, the disappointments emerged due to the collapse of Christian values as well as the ideal of progress in Europe, which led to a rethinking of the foundations of the Modern age and its relation to the Christian Middle ages. These efforts put the issue at the core of the debate, known as 'Secularization'. About the relation of the Modern age and the Middle ages through the secularization, there are two bases: 'Continuity and Discontinuity', and two important theories about it are theories that, in opposition to each other, the Modern age is 'Secularization of Eschatology' or 'Secularization by Eschatology'. The prominent representatives of these two theories are Karl Löwith and Hans Blumenberg. Accordingly, in this article, by categorizing different positions on the secularization category, we identify Löwith and Blumenberg's positions within this category, then, analyze the arguments of Löwith and Blumenberg.

Abstract Undoubtedly, one of the most important issues in the field of political thought in the public sphere is the relationship between the institution of religion and the public sphere. There is serious controversy among religious and secular thinkers about the nature of this relationship. The epistemological and historical experience of modernity shows that religion is beyond what we can reduce to ideology or to equate with secularism. In today's society, life has no meaning in itself, and one must think about how religious traditions can coexist in the public sphere. The point of this article is what role can institutionalized religion play in this? Can it open the door to dialogue in the public arena or does it prevent it at all? This article presents models of the relationship between institutionalized religion and the public sphere. Then, by examining three perspectives in this field, it tries to present a model that works for Islamic Iran by using the results of a comparative study between the mentioned models. And to free us from the double entanglement that either religion must take over the government or be reduced to the private sphere altogether. The method of this research is descriptive-analytical.

Abstract How to deal with "the other" and then its decisive role in adopting an intercultural approach is of undeniable importance among the philosophers of this field. Bernard Waldenfels, a contemporary intercultural philosopher, considers encountering with "the other" to be a kind of paradoxical encounter that can be referred to as the presence of the absent. This German philosopher has chosen a maximalist opinion regarding the encounter with "the other" and separated himself from others by saying "،the Alien" instead of "the other". While "the Alien" is not a negation of the subject and is rooted in "I", it cannot be reduced to a familiar thing or my property, nor can it be reduced to the previous order.The important theoretical consequences of this attitude with the "phenomenology of the alien" method are in line with the requirements of the contemporary polyphonic world and today's life, and not just today's life, but in general, human life is nothing but a constant movement of In-betweenness, and such a requirement has become possible due to the human body. The intercultural philosophy of Waldenfels is to deal with this issue with all the innovations and to solve the previous problems with an innovative foundation.

Abstract Introduction
 John Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice in a bipolar environment in political relations between countries. This book is based on the ideas of "human rationality" and the monotony of the rational perception of the concept of good and truth, which is a comprehensive theory of liberalism. Gradually and with the emergence of doubts in the validity of metanarratives and the wave of postmodernism, Rawls also went towards justifying his desired principles based on new "foundations". He called this new foundation "political liberalism". In the book Political Liberalism, Rawls was looking for an answer to the question of how, over time, a stable and just society of equal and free citizens, who have been completely separated due to rational and of course incompatible religious, philosophical and moral teachings can it exist? Or to put it another way, how is it possible that comprehensive and of course completely opposite reasonable doctrines can coexist and all of them affirm a political conception of a constitutional regime? What is the structure and content of that political perception that can support such an overlapping consensus? Rawls' answer to these questions is "Political Liberalism". Considering the addition of the adjective of "political" to liberalism and Rawls's claim that his new theory is free-standing, as well as the universality of this conception of liberalism, in this article we try to determine the correctness of Rawls's claim by questioning the meaning of "being political" in this theory from an analytical point of view.
Methodology
 To consider the thoughts of a political philosopher, several methods can be used. Here we can compare the texts produced by Rawls regarding political liberalism with the thoughts of other thinkers in this field; Or the one who examined his thoughts with other presuppositions. It is also possible to consider his thought by analyzing the frequency of the word "political" in his speech; Or he read between the lines of Rawls' thoughts with Strauss's method (esoteric writing). In our opinion, the best way to deal with the thoughts of a thinker whose writings have become one of the classic texts of political philosophy is the Socratic method. Based on this method, we have to find keywords from within the text and analyze the coherence and meaningfulness of Rawls's thought based on them.
Conclusion
 The society resulting from Rawlsian political liberalism is like this: due to ignoring reasonable pluralism, there will be citizens (in the minority or the majority) who are unable to express their opposition to the ideas of political liberalism; Because in this case, they are not considered "cooperating" citizens. They will lose their equality and freedom in this society. This is what Rawls calls acceptance of the consequences of individual decisions. Therefore, the stability that exists in this society is not based on the right reasons but on the false reasons.
According to Rawls' accepted presuppositions, they are put in a no win situation; Because the society is a closed society and they enter it only by birth and they have no other choice; Because it is not possible to get rid of it except by death. This society is also self-sufficient and for that reason it is an efficient society; Because it provides all the tools needed to achieve people's goals. Therefore, the best rational option currently available to people is the society in which they are present. Therefore, the maximum support of the citizens for the political opinion is not based on its modus vivendi, but its modus vivendi is based on three reasons: first, put in a no win situation; Second, having no other solution; Third, the modus operandi of this system. These reasons lead to the acceptance of a superior reason that Rawls sought to avoid; It means that this acceptance is based on accepting the status quo.
We believe that Rawls's theory could not succeed in creating a minimal and universal narrative of liberalism. Paying attention to the idea of ​​basic structure, using ideas such as public reason, overlapping consensus, and historicizing liberalism could not free the theory presented in the book A Theory of Justice from being "comprehensive", even according to Rawlsian criteria. Rather than being "political", John Rawls's Political Liberalism seeks reconciliation between people with comprehensive ideas with current policies in a society that is formed around the theory of liberalism. In the society considered by Rawls, instead of being respected, comprehensive opinions are forced to be criticized and adjusted, and this is the beginning of applying a comprehensive idea of ​​liberalism under the pretext of creating stability in society.
 

Abstract 1-Introduction
Hans Diebreder "Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy" deals with the historiography of Islamic philosophy, from the time of publication of the first work by De Boer until our time. He has analyzed the assumptions of Orientalists in the historiography of Islamic philosophy and outlined the history of Orientalist writings about Islamic philosophy and expressed its strengths and weaknesses. Daiber considers the most important features of the Orientalist approach (such as De Boer, Goldziher, Max Horton, etc.) in the historiography of Islamic philosophy to be neglecting the interaction of philosophy with Islamic words, emphasizing Platonic elements over Aristotelian elements, and paying little attention to the religious context. Islamic philosophy and exaggeration about the role of ethnic (Semitic) elements in the development of Islamic philosophy. Sharif, Nasr, Mehdi Khan, Tawfiq Ebrahim and others) believes that these works are more descriptive than critical and historical and in those historical-comparative studies about the Greek background of Islamic philosophy are generally ignored and exaggerated emphasis is placed on the originality of Islamic philosophy. considers it to be the reaction of Muslim scholars to the European-centered historiographical approach to Islamic philosophy. (ibid., xxviii).
2-Materials & Methods
Dr. Davari's reading of Islamic philosophy and its position in contemporary history and culture, whose main paradigm is the modern and Europe-centered discourse, while paying attention to the status and nature of contemporary Western philosophy and culture, tries to explore the possibilities of Islamic philosophy in dialogue with issues and Think about contemporary culture. This attention to Islamic philosophy has existed in different intellectual periods of Dr. Davari, including in books such as Farabi, the founder of Islamic philosophy (1354, first edition) and Maqam of philosophy in the period of Islamic Iranian history (1st edition, 1356) and later in our book and the history of philosophy Islamic (1389). According to Dr. Davari's analysis in his book "Ma and the History of Islamic Philosophy" (2009).
3-Discussion & Result
The survey of Islamic philosophy was directed to the sky rather than to the earth. He quoted Cicero as saying that Socrates brought philosophy from heaven to earth, and that Socrates has two talents: one earthly and the other heavenward. The first talent realized the modernity system and the second talent achieved the return to the sky (p. 25). Philosophy in the west of the Islamic world took the first path with Ibn Rushd, and Asan was placed on the path of Spinoza, Hume and Kant, and the second talent was actualized in the east of the Islamic world, especially in Iran. But now that modernity has fallen into disrepair in its own land and experts are talking about the weakness of its principles, the modernists have taken modernity and its philosophy as their goal and blame the philosophies that did not lead to it. This criticism is caused by an abstract understanding of the wisdom of the Enlightenment period and the desire to achieve it. Every fruit on a tree and every tree has its roots in the land that provides the conditions for planting and harvesting that tree. Philosophy cannot be cut and separated from its own world and it can be taken anywhere and kept fresh there. New philosophy is from that world of modernity and Christian and Islamic philosophy is from that world of Christianity and Islam.The type of metaphilosophy (METAPHILOSOPHY) and the perception we have about "philosophy of philosophy" are decisive in the reading we present of the position of Islamic philosophy in the contemporary world. In Dr. Davari's metaphilosophy, philosophy is not a set of correct rules about the inherent symptoms of existence, but rather a historical thinking. If the philosophers of the Islamic world had interfered in philosophy due to considerations, their philosophy would not have balance, proportion, and order, and it would not find durability and historical validity, but it would be an incoherent set of discussions and issues, which, because it did not have a solid foundation, would be carried away by the smallest wind of opposition. Therefore, the work of philosophy in the Islamic world did not end with the transfer and translation of the works of the predecessor philosophers, but this historical approach to Greek thought with a new interpretation that started from the beginning led to the emergence of another form of philosophy. The philosophers of the Islamic world considered the problems of Greek philosophy with They interpreted new principles and established a philosophy that, like any other form of philosophy, was an absolute and universal philosophy in the eyes of its owners. The division of philosophy according to the Greek, Middle Ages, Islamic and New eras has been done in the new era. In addition to this division, the thousand-year-old philosophy of the Islamic world can be called the Islamic-Iranian philosophy. Islamic philosophy, like the Greek philosophy, which considered the consistency of the just (human) Medina, thought about the place of man and his life in a divine but rational system.
4-Conclusion 
The philosophers of the Islamic world learned from the Greeks the concepts of existence, nature, cause, causality, step, essence, width, change, movement, stillness, civil system, and moral virtues from the Greeks, and to some opinions and thoughts of Alexandrians and in general The debates that took place in the history of philosophy in the five hundred years after Plotinus were more or less accessible. The result of his discussion is that, firstly: Greek philosophy observes the perfection of human existence in Medina and guides the education of the people of Medina. Second: Islamic philosophy. It did not emerge by manipulating the opinions of Plato, Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists, but it is the first great and important intersection between two cultures and philosophies that are connected with the spirit of the Iranian-Islamic world. and it has been with this talent and desire that he has tried and worked hard with philosophy in the field of religious thinking. Fourth: Philosophers of the Islamic world interpreted Greek philosophy with regard to the horizon that was opened with Islam, and of course, in this interpretation, they did not ignore the wisdom of their ancestors in Iran before Islam. Ibn Sina spoke of Eastern wisdom, and Suhravardi considered the essence of his philosophy to have been learned from Khosravani's wisdom, and finally, he was involved in the consistency of philosophy of the Islamic period of ancient Iran, Sufism and mysticism from the beginning, and this involvement and presence gradually reached its peak in Mulla Sadra and his followers. If it is possible to stand somewhere in the current history of the world and have a dialogue with the philosophers of the past, those philosophers no longer belong to the past but are contemporary. The difference between philosophies and science is that science depends on its history in any case. Ptolemy has known history and the world, and for this reason his book is no longer taught, but Plato can be a contemporary philosopher. This ruling is also true for Farabi, Suhrawardi, Ibn Sina, and Mulla Sadra. If we read and memorize the texts of these philosophers and teach them to others, they will repeat the learned words and expressions. It is obvious that the text belongs to the past, but if, as Leo Strauss said, we read the hieroglyphics or, to be more precise, the gaps between the statements and the contents between the lines, and by reading them we reflect on the text, that text comes alive in time and speaks to its reader. All philosophers have unsaid and unwritten things. The task of the successor philosopher is to search for the unsaid of the predecessor. In Islamic philosophy, how should one search for the unsaid when a philosophy has traveled a thousand-year path, what path has it not taken and which words are left unsaid?

Abstract Abstract 3
 Islamophobic sentiments, linking them to security concerns, migration issues, and cultural differences. By identifying recurring patterns in historical narratives, this study provides insights into the mechanisms through which Islamophobia persists in contemporary societies.
Addressing Islamophobia requires a critical reassessment of historical Christian-Muslim relations and a more nuanced understanding of religious and political interactions. The study underscores the importance of interfaith dialogue, education, and media literacy in challenging Islamophobic narratives. By fostering a more balanced and informed perspective on Islam, it is possible to counter misconceptions and promote mutual understanding between religious communities. Ultimately, this research contributes to ongoing efforts to combat Islamophobia by highlighting the significance of historical awareness and cross-cultural engagement in shaping more inclusive societies.
Discussion and conclusion
This study explores the historical roots of Christian fear of Islam, shaped by the "geometry of faith and power," which influenced religious, political, and social interactions. Key factors include the absence of a true leader after the Prophet Muhammad, misinterpretations of jihad, "othering" through dividing the world into Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, and material motivations behind conquests. These dynamics led to Islamic expansionism, confiscation of Christian lands, and retaliatory actions like the Crusades. Restrictive laws for non-Muslims, such as the jizya tax and forced conversions, further strained relations. While periods of tolerance existed, they were conditional and often influenced by political or economic factors. Misinterpretations of Quranic teachings, particularly jihad, contributed to both historical conflicts and modern Islamophobia. Addressing these issues requires critical reflection and revisiting religious interpretations, raising the question: Who truly represents Islam?

Abstract This article argues that “democracy” does not necessarily guarantee “liberty” and “human rights,” and analyzes the causes of such an inconsistency and the solutions for reconciling them in the ideas of James Madison, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill. The US founding fathers and the Federalist authors, found out the possibility of the emergence of this inconsistency and, following Locke and Montesquieu, proposed a set of “institutional devices” such as “separation of powers,” “a system of representation,” “a system of checks and balances,” and “legal guarantees of minority rights” to defend “liberty” and “human rights.” However, distinguishing “social and cultural causes” from “political and institutional causes,” this article believes that this problem in “democracy” is too complicated to be solved by mere “institutional devices.” It argues that “violating minority rights,” “suppression,” “tyranny of the majority,” and “despotism of the custom” are still possible even in a democratic system, and it is impossible to solve them by mere “institutional devices.” So, using Tocqueville’s observations and argumentations in Democracy of America, his distinction between “mild despotism” and “tyranny of the majority,” and also the concept of “public consent” in Noam Chomsky’s and Edward S. Herman’s Manufacturing Consent, this article analyzes the possible types of “tyranny” and “despotism” in a democratic system, the effect of “mild despotism” on “self-censorship,” “political and social pressures on the dissenters,” and incapability of the mere “institutional device”" in solving these problems. Then, it shows the development of the theory of “mild despotism” in Mill’s theory of “despotism of the custom,” and analyzes his argumentation that it is more dangerous than “political despotism” for “development and welfare in society.” Finally, it analyzes Mill’s theoretical and practical proposals for solving this problem.

Abstract Introduction
The present article attempts to carry out a critical examination of Deleuze's perspective on time, which he presents in the form of three syntheses of time. Deleuze proposes each of these times as syntheses with the inspiration of a specific philosopher, but his overview concerns Kant's notion and definition of time. Furthermore, Hume is also the subject of Deleuze's reference in the first synthesis, which is called the passive synthesis of habit. The second synthesis, which is the active synthesis of memory pertains to Deleuze's reference to Bergson. Kant's definition of time as a pure and empty form, the concept of cut and caesura, and Nietzsche's eternal return are used to propose the third synthesis. Our purpose is to present and articulate the distinctive features and attributes of each of these three syntheses, their interrelationship, and a critical assessment of the mechanism proposed by Deleuze. As far as the authors of the article are aware, so far there is no independent research on Deleuze's syntheses of time in Persian. In addition to the works used in this article, at a global level, we can mention the works of (Roudinesco, 2008), (Hodges, 2008), (Lundy, 2017), and (Roberts, 2006).
 
Methodology
In order to carry out this research work, we will use Deleuze's works, specifically difference and repetition, in order to explain his ideas clearly. Therefore, we have attempted to critique and evaluate his views by utilizing descriptive-analytic methods, relying on commentators' views, and utilizing authentic sources and documents.
 
Finding
The three syntheses of time are actually Deleuze's answer to the Kantian concept of time, according to which time is the condition of all internal perceptions. This means that the relationship between the subject and time is "always" conscious. Deleuze believes that the conscious active synthesis is based on a passive and unconscious synthesis. He calls this synthesis the passive synthesis of habit. Hume explains that our imagination is characterized by the expectation of two phenomena or sequences that always appear together in our experience. This definition describes imagination as a contractile power. Deleuze states that this is not a form of memory, an act of memory, or an act of understanding. Therefore, this process indicates a time synthesis. Time is created only in the primary synthesis that operates on the repetition of instants. The living present is created through the integration of independent and consecutive instants in this synthesis. According to Deleuze, the synthesis is constructive but not active. Deleuze takes the view that the second synthesis, the active synthesis of memory, is based on the passive synthesis of habit. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the foundation and the ground. Therefore, habit is the foundation of time, and memory is the ground of time. Habit is the primary synthesis of time that constitutes the life of the passing present. Memory is the fundamental synthesis of time that creates the existence of the past, which in turn causes the passing of the present time.  Deleuze's account of the third synthesis of time encompasses a range of ideas from philosophy, Greek drama, and mathematics. In the third synthesis, Kant has a revolutionary role, because he considered time as a linear concept, also expressing the gap and fracture that are happened in I through the form of time as a form of auto-affection. Deleuze also refers to Oedipus' interpretation of Hölderlin, in order to clarify the effect that the pure and empty condition of time has on the subject. Hölderlin's concept of caesura is used by him to define the past and future, which are inconsistent and asymmetrical. The concept of caesura finds its mathematical expression in the concept of cut, which was developed by Dedekind, in line with the construction of a merely ideal and static concept of continuity. Deleuze proposes three rules whereby the three major innovations that Kant creates in the notion of time are classified. The first rule is Hamlet's rule that "The time is out of joint". The second rule basically says: “Until today, we considered ourselves obliged to represent the space. Today, it is time to think about time.” The third rule is also from the French poet Rimbaud who says: “I is an Other”. The dissolved "self", God's death, and Nietzsche's eternal return create a concept of time that Deleuze expresses in the synthesis of the future.
 
Discussion and Conclusion
It is important to note that Deleuze takes many different concepts from philosophers, poets, and other thinkers and combines them into an amazing concoction. If Deleuze allows such a thing, then the question will arise that, basically, Can we separate a concept and even a poem from its original context without changing its meaning? We also have to take into account the fact that the type of combination of concepts is not clear. In other words, it is unclear if what Deleuze is talking about is metaphysical, real, or something like a chemical compound. Deleuze insists that these concepts must maintain their differences from each other. If that's the situation, then one must question how, despite their differences, they can come together in the ultimate process.
As a result, Deleuze deserves praise for his initiative in establishing or discovering the passive synthesis of time. This was not present in Kant. It should not be forgotten that the use of these different concepts of Deleuze is entirely dependent on a specific interpretation and reading. Changes in the meaning of one of these adapted concepts can lead to serious difficulties for Deleuze's explanation.
 

Abstract Introduction
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were a period of fundamental transformation in the relationship between theology and philosophy. In England during this era, traditional Christian theology sought to present faith as a rational system, consistent with logical necessities. In contrast, a skeptical and naturalistic tradition was emerging, with figures such as Thomas Hobbes representing its most prominent voices. Hobbes, through teachings such as materialism, moral relativism, and the denial of natural religion, paved the way for new approaches to religion, while simultaneously provoking the anger of ecclesiastical authorities.
David Hume grew up in this intellectual environment and developed his philosophy both in continuation of, and in critical response to, the rationalist and natural theological traditions. Drawing inspiration from Locke, Berkeley, and Hobbes, Hume established his radical empiricism and, by analyzing concepts such as causation, substance, the self, and God, demonstrated that much of traditional theological doctrine lacked a solid epistemic foundation.
In reaction to this approach, early critics labeled Hume an atheist, skeptic, and destroyer of religion. However, interpreters such as Ernest Mossner, Kemp Smith, Passmore, Gaskin, and Paul Russell in later centuries have shown that Hume’s skepticism had a constructive dimension, and that his aim was not the negation of religion but rather the clarification of the limits of human knowledge.
Nonetheless, a fundamental question remains: what was Hume’s actual stance regarding God and religion? Should he be considered an atheist or an agnostic? This article argues that both characterizations are inadequate, and that the most accurate description of Hume’s position is God indifference. In this view, the question of God is not a central issue, but rather a topic outside the core domain of human epistemology and ethics.
The term God-indifference in this article is neither equivalent to Apatheism nor to theological Indifferentism; rather, it is an interpretive term proposed to accurately represent Hume’s perspective on religion. In this sense, Hume is neither a denier nor a defender of God; instead, by focusing on human psychology and ethics, he removes the question of God from the center of philosophy and reinterprets religion in light of human experience.
Materials & Methods
This research employs a conceptual-hermeneutical method grounded in historical-philosophical analysis. The study integrates three levels of investigation:

Textual Analysis: A close reading of Hume’s primary works—A Treatise of Human Nature, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, and The Natural History of Religion—to identify his treatment of divine and religious themes.
Contextual Interpretation: Examination of the intellectual and theological milieu of early modern Britain, including responses to Hobbes, Clarke, Butler, and other figures of natural theology.
Conceptual Reconstruction: Introduction of the term God-indifference as an interpretive tool to describe Hume’s stance toward the divine, distinguishing it from related notions such as indifferentism (a theological neutrality) and apatheism (a psychological or practical indifference).

The methodology of this research combines historical and philosophical analysis, aiming to reconstruct the structure of Hume’s thought and to determine the place of his philosophy in the development of modern philosophy of religion.
Discussion & Results
The analysis reveals that Hume’s position cannot be adequately captured by the dichotomy of belief and disbelief. In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, while Hume’s characters debate the teleological and cosmological arguments, none provides a conclusive proof of divine existence. Even the possibility of a “supreme cause” is left as a mere hypothesis, lacking moral or existential significance. Hume thus neither affirms nor refutes God’s existence; he simply regards the question as lacking epistemic value.
Similarly, in A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume dismantles metaphysical concepts—such as causality, substance, and the self—that traditionally underpinned natural theology. His critique of causation, for instance, undermines the logical structure of the cosmological argument. If causal inference rests merely on habit and not on rational necessity, then no argument from the world’s order can lead to a necessary divine cause.
Moreover, Hume’s moral philosophy reinforces this perspective. By grounding morality in sentiment rather than divine command, he redefines the basis of ethics as natural, psychological, and social. Religion, in this view, is a byproduct of human imagination and emotional need, not an outcome of rational proof.
This interpretive shift culminates in what the present study calls God-indifference a philosophical posture that neither rejects nor affirms divinity but de-centers it. Unlike apatheism, which denotes emotional or practical unconcern about God, Hume’s God indifference is epistemic and philosophical: the belief that the question of God’s existence simply does not matter for human knowledge, ethics, or happiness.
Such an interpretation clarifies why labeling Hume as an atheist or agnostic is misleading. The atheist seeks to deny God; the agnostic withholds belief but continues to treat the issue as central; Hume, by contrast, shifts the axis of philosophy altogether—from divine ontology to human experience. Religion thus becomes, for Hume, an object of empirical and psychological inquiry rather than a domain of metaphysical speculation.
This reading also explains the constructive side of Hume’s skepticism. His purpose was not to destroy belief but to redefine its limits, showing that meaning, morality, and social order can arise independently of theological foundations. Consequently, Hume’s philosophy paves the way for a new, human-centered philosophy of religion—one that interprets faith as an expression of emotion, imagination, and the search for meaning rather than as a system of proofs about divine reality.
Conclusion
In light of this analysis, Hume’s religious philosophy should be understood as a form of God-indifference—a reflective detachment from metaphysical claims about God that reorients philosophical inquiry toward human life and experience. He does not advocate atheism, which would still involve a kind of metaphysical commitment to the nonexistence of God, nor does he adopt agnosticism, which continues to treat the divine question as an unsolved problem. Instead, Hume marginalizes the entire issue, regarding it as secondary to the study of human nature, sentiment, and morality.
This stance has profound implications for modern philosophy of religion. It challenges the assumption that religious thought must center on belief in a deity and opens the door to a non-theistic but meaning-oriented understanding of faith. Hume’s philosophy thus anticipates later existential and humanistic trends that interpret religion as a function of human emotional and moral life rather than as metaphysical speculation.
Ultimately, God-indifference encapsulates Hume’s enduring legacy: a redefinition of the relationship between philosophy, religion, and human experience. In his framework, the divine ceases to be the axis of intellectual inquiry, and human nature—its perceptions, passions, and search for meaning—takes center stage. This transformation marks a pivotal moment in the history of Western thought, moving from the theology of being to the philosophy of living, from metaphysical proofs to existential understanding, and from the question of God to the reality of humanity.

Abstract In his seminal work, Of Grammatology, Jacques Derrida puts forward the notion of arche-violence. In Derrida’s view, the physical acts of violence all originate in a general, abstract violence which Derrida calls it the “first violence.” He claims that violence, in all its forms and manifestations, begins with language. This originary violence is an indispensable part of language functions by bringing difference into play, which in turn constructs oppositional poles. These differences and oppositions by influencing all interpretive systems establish violence in society as we understand it. The aim of this paper is to draw on Derrida’s arche-violence and the feminist discourses being inspired by his theories in order to explore the root causes of violence and oppression against women. Accordingly, the main concern of the present study is that violence against women has its root in language and the culture originating from that, and investigating individual cases of violence from a psychological perspective actually hinder finding the proper solution to this individual and social issue.

Abstract The main aim of this paper is to describe and analyze one of the most significant criticisms of classical utilitarianism in the Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition. This criticism, called the “integrity criticism,” was put forward by Bernard Williams in 1973 and, along with the so-called “justice criticism” which was put forward by John Rawls in 1971, is counted as the most significant criticism of classical utilitarianism. It argues that utilitarianism threatens the agent’s “integrity” and “autonomy,” and brings extensive “alienation” from her considered moral judgments and friendly and lovely relationships. This paper describes Bernard William’s criticism of classical utilitarianism and its various guises. Then, using Roger Crisp’s, Julia Driver’s, and Timothy Chappell’s interpretations, it analyzes it from various perspectives. Analyzing the “integrity criticism” in its various guises enriches our understanding of “utilitarianism” and helps us to find out how and why its different forms have been put forward.

Abstract This essay intends to explain the meaning of nothingness in the Heidegger's thought. In ‘What is metaphysics?’, Heidegger focuses on the question of nothingness. According to Heidegger, understanding the meaning of ‘nothingness’ as the ‘complete negation of the totality of being’ is not epistemologically possible. In order to grasp the meaning of nothingness we should adopt an existential approach. Dasein experiences Nothingness through the fundamental mood of anxiety. By discussing the experience of nothingness as complete negation of the totality of being Heidegger is looking for Dasein’s transcendence and freedom through releasing Dasein from anxiety caused by being surrounded by beings which impede its fundamental freedom. We will show how Heidegger, through the meaningful questioning of being and nothingness, enables us to take a fresh look on our being, beings, and life as a whole.

Abstract Wir leben in einer Welt, in der eine doppelte gegenläufe Bewegung von Globalisierung und Regionalisierung vor sich geht. Die Religion ist in einem noch vor wenigen Jahren unvorstellbaren Ausmaß wieder präsent. Das sichtbaste Anzeichen einer Änderung war Islamismus. Eine der wichtigen Kulturen, die sich als religiöse Kultur aufzeigt und darüber viele Mißverständnisse gibt, ist Islam. Etwa 1,2 Milliarden Muslime leben zu Beginn des dritten Jahrtausends auf der Erde. Wir haben in den letzten Jahrzehnten einen wachsenden Interesse an dem Islam miterleben, das mit jedem globalen Ereignis unter den Namen Islam, iranische Revolution (1979) oder Zunahme der islamische Bewegungen in Palästine usw. gesteigert. Diese steigende Interesse steht seit dem tragischen Ereignissen des 11. September 2001 auf einem nie der gewesenen Nieveau.

Abstract We have seen that Islamophobia is said to be an ‘unfounded hostility towards Islam’. It is some researchers’ contention that they need to rethink this definition, and see Islamophobia not as ‘unfounded hostility’, but a hostility for which reasons may exist. They argue that, it is important to acknowledge that Islamophobic attitudes are rooted into a complex socio-political ideology. Plus in order to engage with the key arguments that shape the conflictual and dialogic models of analysis, one should be familiar with classic texts and contemporary works related to explanatory frameworks. In this article, Clash of Civilizations as one of the most important of these conceptual frameworks will be discussed in detail. First, we talk about theory of Clash of Civilizations and two well-known spokespersons for it i.e. Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. Then, we’ll explain how this thesis became the main root and foundation of Islamophobia in 2000s and why western media and politicians welcomed this explanatory framework and helped Lewis and Huntington to propagate their theory in public discourse in the last two decades.

Abstract There is a perplexing transition in Dr. Reza Davari's thought, when he problematizes the relation between Iranian and Western history/cultures, on which this paper is focusing. The interprative objective is to clarify this transition on the basis of the implicit relation between the two most fundamental concepts in his earlier and later thought respectively westernization and underdevelopment. Although, by this transition, the level of discussion transits from an ontologico-philosophical to an intellectualist one. So, there are two different levels of problematization in his thought which differ deeply. Therefore, we are not just dealing with the substitution of fundamental concepts, but with different problematizations and different levels of discussion. Obviously, there will be new problems arising which are not just conserning with the justification of the transition but with the problematization of westernization itself. Finally, it's been concluded that in order to clarify these new problems, we should step back to the level of philosophical discussion, and first of all to the clarification of the I-not-I relation which has been neglected thouroughly in the whole project.   

Abstract In the contemporary era, the Western scientific capabilities in the field of technology and her political domination have been two important issues for other societies. The idea Iranians have of the West, because of her colonialist character, is mostly accompanied by some oversimplifications. In this regard, a proper view to the West requires accurate, fundamental, deep, and comprehensive knowledge of her.  In the non-western countries, some manifestations of the West have appeared in the form of ideas and views as well as emphasis put on the western thinkers and their works in their civilizational era. Iran is one of these countries which has been, in the contemporary era, subject to such manifestations. In this concern, and while knowledge of West is still a serious issue, [study of] the history of Iranians' familiarity with the western manifestations, in their historical and intellectual terms, is among necessary duties. One of the vigorous scientists and researchers who discusses studies of the West done by Iranians is Karim Mojtahedi. While doing this, he introduces the West; and, through this introduction, Iranians may know themselves in a better manner. His work shows the ideas of an Iranian of the West in his own time; and, at the same time, it discusses the ideas of other Iranians of the West which, in the present article, more emphasis has put on it. Knowing from a philosophical point of view, on which Mojtahedi puts emphasis, is important since he thinks that the contemporary civilization of the West has been founded on philosophical foundations.
The present article discusses and processes ideas of Mojtahedi, views of Iranians to the contemporary modern time of the West, [western] influential thinkers, and works done by Iranians in this field.
The methodology employed in the present article is a descriptive-analytical one. Findings show that, concerning the West, some works have been done by Iranians such as Malkom, Akhundzadeh, and Hosseinqoli Aqa which had some sympathy toward the West. Also, some works have been performed by Iranians like Sayyid Jamal and Mulla 'Ali Zunuzi who were of the opinion that the West's achievements should be employed. Also, the article shows that not only Iranians knowledge of the West has not been a proper one, but also it has been false and accompanied by some misunderstanding; and, as a result, it has been of no use for Iranian society.

Abstract Existentialism is one of the philosophical schools which covers a great part of the contemporary philosophy. Existentialist philosophers reflect upon man's being in a way other than the being of other entities; and accurately label this distinction of man's being as "existence". They are seeking to show the difference between man's being or existence in this world and [being of] other entities. Inevitably, they have to research in the way and form that man is in this world as well as his states and Existential issues. Though this approach has been focus of the thinkers of that time and after it, Soren Kierkegaard, with his basically religious reflection as opposed to logical philosophy and rational principles of Hegel, may be called the founder of Existentialism; and Gabriel Marcel, Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Jean Paul Sartre may be enlisted as its main representatives.
The notable point is that philosophers of existance avoided systematization and did not provide a systematic philosophy. Though philosophical ideas in this extensive field are so diverse that it has produced some misunderstandings, because of the common way of philosophizing and their emphasis put on man instead of nature, they are classified under "Existentialist" category.

Abstract Austria has had some important philosophers which the greatness of their thought, led some to speak of the existence of an Austrian school in the philosophy. And since these philosophers had important role in the history of analytic philosophy, some, pursuing the first group and relying on their idea, believed in an Anglo-Austrian version of analytic philosophy, and of course they confronted some opposition. Beside English philosophers^, contribution to the analytic philosophy, they defend of Austrian philosophers^, contribution to it, while their opponents defend of German philosophers^, contribution instead. In addition to the Anglo-Austrian and Anglo-German versions of analytic philosophy, there is a third version, named Anglo-American version which because of its neglecting Austrian and German philosophers^, contributions is not considerable. This paper aimed to express specifications of Austrian philosophy at the first, then to assess the Anglo-Austrian version of Analytic philosophy and some of criticisms against it.

Abstract End-of-history theory as an important idea of ​​the last decade of the twentieth century spoke of the end of several centuries of ideological conflict. A conflict between various human ideologies that claimed the discovery of the rule of history. This conflict had been going on since the Enlightenment. Theoretical Philosophy or Speculative Philosophy of History as an "ontological" knowledge seeks to understand the existence of history, its evolution and the discovery of meanings hidden in the general trends and events of history. An ontological understanding helps us to discover the rule of history. Of course, if there is such a rule. In the philosophy of history, we are faced with three fundamental questions; the aim of history; Stimulus of history and stages of history. Despite the many theoretical controversies that have arisen since the end of Fukuyama's history and continue to exist, there has been no critical reflection on the main questions of the philosophy of history.. The purpose of this research is to think critically about Fukuyama's theory of the end of history from the perspective of philosophy of history. It seems that examining Fukuyama's idea from the perspective of the above three questions can seriously challenge many elements of Fukuyama's theory. Elements that stand together to defend the universalism of liberal democracy.

Abstract This article investigates and evaluates models of the unity of science in 20^th century. In general, the models of unity of science could be divided into two parts and investigated separately. The first group are models which defend reductionism and eliminativism by relying on physicalism. The second group are the ones that by relying on methodology try to guarantee the unity of science. In evaluating the first group on the works of Thomas Nagle and William James it is argued that these models not adjusted to different ontological fields. The various methods of scientific research and different function of the values of preferring a theory in different contexts of comparison also undermine the claim of scientific unity in the second group models. Anyway, for avoiding the harmful result of the being incommensurable, relying on holism the possibility of giving a model of the unity of science could be defended which has provided possibility of interdisciplinary cooperation and defies any attempt for reductionism or ignorance of the plurality of methods.

Abstract Edmund Husserl was the principal founder of phenomenology that carried new and special meaning to word of phenomenology‌‌‌‌‌‌.‌‌‌‌‌‌ With his intellectual movement he developed a revolution in Western philosophy that had far-reaching effects on it‌‌‌‌‌‌.‌‌‌‌‌‌ Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology is systematic and methodological and at the crisis time of the science and philosophy in Europe his phenomenology is seen as the only way to solve the crisis and build a new foundation of knowledge on a solid basis‌‌‌‌‌‌.‌‌‌‌‌‌
Husserl's Phenomenology introduced pure consciousness, describes the acts of consciousness and its organization‌‌‌‌‌‌.‌‌‌‌‌‌ In general, his world is the world of consciousness that is shaped by intentionality and transcendental reductions‌‌‌‌‌‌.‌‌‌‌‌‌ Heidegger introduced the whole history of Western philosophy as the history of ignorance of Being and introduced his philosophy as a question of existence’s the concept of Being.
For Heidegger, the origin of consciousness in Husserl's intellectual system has led it to the development of subjectivism and the separation of Being and Heidegger believed that it is the continuance of the tradition of Western idealism‌‌‌‌‌‌.
Heidegger's hermeneutic and philosophical phenomenology is aimed to clarification and correction of Husserl's intellectual system that he thought is not persuading‌‌‌‌‌‌.‌‌‌‌‌‌ In his view, human being is distinguished from other beings because of openness and transcendence so he called it as Dasein, that Consciousness is a sign of his existence and its consequence‌‌‌‌‌‌.
Despite of the common intellectual philosophical systems elements among two philosophers, there are some differences in their principles that the article tries to deals with this issue‌‌‌‌‌‌.

Abstract Occidentalism is a science that deals with the knowledge of the west. In this knowledge, the "West" is identified as the "other" so that after this knowledge, they can better manage and regulate their interaction with the West than before. Another cognition, due to the coexistence of man and existence, requires an interdisciplinary / transdisciplinary approach. Without an interdisciplinary / interdisciplinary approach, a comprehensive and accurate view of the West cannot be found. Thirteen disciplines have been considered in regional studies related to "Western studies" so far. The most important sciences are in the form of four central disciplines: "Language and Literature", "History", "Political Science", and "Anthropology". Interdisciplinary studies in this field are classified into two types of theoretical critical interdisciplinary. Significant bias is observed in the first species. Theoretical interdisciplinary is the latest type of study to examine the real world and current living societies. Sample-based studies and meetings with an interdisciplinary approach are the most important categories of these studies. This type can be considered as the most complete group of interdisciplinary researches on western studies.
 

Abstract One of the main topics in Dr Davari’s thought is the problem of west and westernization. For him, we can’t accept something from west but reject something another. He believes that westernization is inevitable but what does matter is that we must take seriously its foundations and basis. From this point of view, democracy, liberty and development are noteworthy. He criticizes western democracy not on the ideological basis but with the hope of appearance of spiritual thinking.