Occidental Studies

Abstract Introduction
If we consider “the modern" as a phenomenon without a single focus, then we can talk about different types of the modern and, as a result, discuss the "transformation" of the modern. However, if we consider the modern as a single totality that has a single focus, then we can no longer talk about transformation in the modern because the assumption of the "uniqueness" of the modern is in conflict with talking about its transformation; this is exactly the point in which “Metamorphosis” becomes the main category for explaining transformation in the modern. Metamorphosis is a term that has entered the humanities from the empirical sciences and refers to the stages of development of an organism. Therefore, talking about Gestalt Metamorphosis in the modern is primarily about accepting the hypothesis that the modern has a single totality and that its internal Metamorphosis cannot be considered in the sense of ontological breaks. Of course, this Metamorphosis is accompanied by important epistemological breaks. This article shows that in the context of the new-coming Western civilization, we are witnessing the emergence of a new gestalt of the modern, which can be explained within the framework of “reflexive modernity.” Today, it is this reflexive modernity that has created and established a completely distinct gestalt of the modern.
  
Materials and Methods                        
The article recruits the Gestalt theory as its main approach to comprehend metamorphosis in the modern. Gestalt theory connotates a perception that emphasises the processing of entire patterns and configurations, and not merely individual components. However, the Gestalt approach has been used less in sociological fields. While this approach is based on principles that can determine the trajectory of social research and provide a new context for their explanation. For this reason, the present article attempts to explain the process of transformation in the "modern" by using the Gestalt approach and show how the modern has undergone a kind of metamorphosis in the context of the new-coming Western civilization and, as a result, the modern subject has found a different perception of modernity. In order to apply this theoretical approach, we must first understand its fundamental principles. therefore, we briefly explain those principles that play a role in explaining the Gestalt transformation of the modern.
 
Discussion and Result
The economic gestalt of modernity was accompanied by the emergence of a structure called “Society” that emerged as a result of the dissolution of “communities”. Therefore, Western civilization in the period of mid-modernity can be considered a “social civilization.” However, the collapse of this gestalt and the emergence of the reflexive gestalt of modernity were in turn accompanied by a metamorphosis in the civilizational dimension. Today, it can be said with certainty that the newly emerging Western civilization is emptying itself of its “social aspect.” In this midst, we are witnessing the emergence of an “individual-oriented civilization” that has the same essential power as the previous “social civilization.” In fact, reflexive modernity is concerned with the emergence of a new individuality that transforms the social sphere of modernity into an individual-oriented sphere and replaces a subjective perspective with a structured perspective, thus transforming all social relations radically.
 
Conclusion
According to the main hypothesis of this article, the Gestalt metamorphosis of the modern and the emergence of a reflexive modernity occur in the context of a new civilization; a civilization that can be called an “individual-oriented civilization” and distinguished from a “social civilization.” In order to examine this hypothesis, we used the Gestalt approach of perception and based our analysis on a number of key principles of this approach.
According to the principle of “field-form,” which can be explained on the basis of the “pregnancy” mechanism, the individual-oriented Western civilization has become a field in which the form of the modern is perceived. Since this individual-oriented civilization is strongly modernist, it has caused the sphere of influence of the modernist Gestalt dimension of the modern to expand and thus bring the foundations of modernity under its umbrella. This in itself also brings with it a kind of Gestalt metamorphosis in the modern; a metamorphosis that can be explained in its final stage on the basis of the principle of overshadowing.
As we have already mentioned, this principle states that a visual structure as a whole may be composed of a number of smaller gestalts, but the larger gestalt, because it has a stronger prefiguration, ultimately determines the meaning of the smaller gestalts. Thus, with the expansion of the sphere of influence of modernism, the meaning of modernity has been overshadowed, and as a result, the totality of the gestalt of the modern has undergone a metamorphosis; a metamorphosis that concerns both the positive and the negative aspects. Radical Individualization can be a symbol of the negative aspect, and  moderate individuation is a symbol of the positive aspect of this metamorphosis. Radical Individualization reduces the individual to a living being and empties him of content. The individualized individual is only a spectator consumer or a traditional imitator. He is either a slave of dictators or a tool in the hands of the markets. Such an individual is like a termite that eats and rots the tree of modernity from within. Totalitarian governments and unbridled capitalism are two great factories for the production of Radical individualism which alone can implode the order of reflexive modernity.
 
 

Abstract  
In Europe, Modernity begins with the Renaissance and it is generally the result of four developments: a) the replacement of human relative values ​​such as freedom, equality, and individualism for “church religion”; b) the emergence and strengthening of the scientific movement and scientific methods; c) the belief in reason and rationality and the socio-cultural effects of technology; d) the belief in “progress” (Ameli, 2017: 10). Some of the results of these principles are:

Humans will be able to solve all current and future problems of humanity and find answers to all current issues or issues that will arise in the future.
According to principle (a), in modernity the world is meaningless; there is a belief that the existing meanings are meanings derived from Abrahamic or natural religions that must be changed. Therefore, “modern man” must create new meanings.

The above principles have led to the identification of two things in terms of validity and credibility: one is modernization and the other is modernity -which is both a subject in the humanities and social sciences, a historical period (the Modern era), and a set of specific sociocultural norms, attitudes, and practices that emerged in the continuation of the Renaissance, in the "Age of Reason" in the 17th century, and then the Enlightenment in the 18th century-. The postmodern era is the continuation of the modern era, and in this article, modernity is considered.
Reflections on modernity and its consequences take these principles into account. A point that has attracted the attention of Western thinkers since the early 20th century is the difference between modernity and modernization. Modern natural sciences are successful because of current technology and prosperity (modernization), but they have also given rise to sociocultural and normative value problems. In this context, Francis Fukuyama, in an article that deals with the feedback on his book The End of History (1992), acknowledges that the end of history is essentially an argument about the endangerment of the normative basis of modern liberal democracy due to the philosophical “crisis of modernity,” -first articulated by Nietzsche and Heidegger and then continued by postmodern thinkers-; not about the empirical conditions of the world (Fukuyama, 1995). He considers the empirical and technological success and normative crisis, as modernity's main insoluble internal contradiction (logical inconsistency) (Ibid.). In consequence, Nietzsche and Heidegger condemned modernity by calling the modern man a “bewildered human” and an “enchanted human of modernity". Therefore, this essay begins by stating the objections of Nietzsche and Heidegger on the normative values of modernity.
Materials & Methods
In this article, we take a fundamental look at the imperfections of modernity. Thus, the critique of modernity is carried out with the foundations and assumptions of “modernity”. In response to the question of this article, we use a philosophical analytical method to extract the objections of modern science and modernity from Western philosophers' words and the impossibility of making philosophical rules from science.
Discussion & Result
As mentioned at the beginning, one of the main beliefs in modernity is that “modernity” can solve all human problems and this task has been assigned to modern human science. Therefore, one of the goals of modern human sciences is to deconstruction and de-territorialize old concepts (ecclesiastical knowledge or, in the new claims, Abrahamic religions and natural religions) and to produce new meanings and territories using rules derived from empirical and natural sciences. Examining the validity of this claim is the main question of this article. It is necessary to say here that these new and modern concepts appear deceptively logical; in some cases, they even have a scientific and empirical explanation; however, in fact, and contrary to expectations of modernity, they have created insoluble problems for modern societies - from abstract and intellectual problems to behavioral and practical issues in the life of modern man - to the point that in an interview, Michel Foucault announces the "death of man" (Foucault, 1966).
It is impossible to make philosophical rules from modern science. Because, modern natural science theories are often incompatible with each other, also, some new theories contradict old theories. In addition to these objections, modern human science theories have an internal inconsistency due to having more ad-hoc principles in there. An important note is that humans and material beings, in general, cannot be omnipotent, thus they cannot solve all human problems, so an immaterial (metaphysical) being is necessary. In the history of modernity, especially in recent decades, the consequence of modernity in modern society shows that modern science in solving some human and natural problems has created numerous newer ones. Therefore, modern science cannot be an emancipation and solver of human issues.
Conclusion
Perhaps this is the question of many readers: "All this is true, what should be done now?" What is available to us now other than modern science for solving current problems? Although this is the subject of new research. However, it is useful to note that: first, some of the current problems are based on the entry of modernity and the application of modern science in our society. Therefore, we are also involved in the issues of modernity to a large extent. The experience of the last few decades regarding economic problems in our country and the world casts doubt using on modern science to solve them. Second, in countries that modernity has realized, there are many unresolved social, cultural, and economic problems, and the “welfare state” has also faced challenges (Fukuyama, 2014:ch34). Therefore, given the fundamental weaknesses and objections of the theories of modern science, they should not be given meaningful authenticity and should be considered as expressions of how “happenings” are, and nothing more. There is also a need for a deep and fundamental look at the “developing and excellence in the human science”; That is, it should not be reduced to “developing in modern human science.” Of course, the discussion for developing in human science is a detailed discussion and a topic for further research.

Abstract Introduction:
The impact of modernity on non-western societies has forced them to redefine their traditions and related institutions. Islamic societies have not been immune to the influence of modernity, and Muslim intellectuals have been deeply involved in the concepts of modernity; Concepts such as: rationality, science, progress and secularism, individual freedom, social equality and democracy. Ali Shariati was also in such a field of thought. The main question of the article is what is the relationship between tradition and modernism in Shariati's thought. The hypothesis of the research is that Shariati, like most Islamic intellectuals, was in the confrontation between tradition and modernity. Due to facing the social issues arising from this encounter, he has definitely proposed some ideas regarding these two.
The background of research in this topic is very rich, the most important of which have been reviewed. The article "Analysis of the position of religion in interaction with modernity in the thought of religious intellectuals of the second Pahlavi period" tried to examine the relationship between religion and modernity (case study: Shariati and Bazargan). The article "Shariati, Political Modernity and the Islamic Revolution" tried to "evaluate some modern concepts in Shariati's thought in relation to political modernity and examine its impact on the Islamic Revolution". Also, the article "A reflection on Shariati's political thought; Unsuccessful attempt to combine tradition and modernity" has been searching for an answer to this question: "What is the most important Sharia reason for creating a dialogue between tradition and modernity and what was the result of this attempt?" The article "Meaning of the West and Modernity in Shariati's Thought" tried to explain Shariati's view of the West and modernity. These researches are important works, but they only deal with the political aspect. The innovation of this research is the attention to epistemological dimensions.
Methodology: The methodology of this article is an interpretive approach. This interpretive approach has been textual. But this interpretive approach has been based on a theoretical framework. This theoretical framework has been a critical reading of the relationship between tradition and modernity. This critical reading, by distancing itself from the common theory of the antagonistic conflict between tradition and modernity, has sought to understand the connection between the two. Therefore, the emphasis on the critical reading of Ali Shariati's original texts has been based on that theoretical framework.
Discussion and conclusion:
While Ali Shariati had a deep look at the historical features of the tradition system and was aware of the weight of the heritage of the tradition, at the same time, he also paid attention to the effects of modernity and knew that neither of these two could be ignored. Therefore, he never wanted neither tradition to overcome modernity nor modernity to marginalize tradition. He tried to open a third way by criticizing both modernity and tradition. His third way is a critical reconstruction or in other words a kind of renaissance or religious renaissance. A renaissance that enabled the system of tradition (at the heart of which was the collection of religious teachings) to face modernity and accept it critically. To open such a way, Shariati considers a vital role for intellectuals. Shariati emphatically condemned the fanatical and irrational nature of traditional concepts and expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity based on blind imitation of the West, the spirit of capitalism and modern scientism. With such presuppositions, Shariati criticized the modernity, and by distinguishing between good and bad, he chose what he needed. Then he started the same interaction with the tradition system. Then he puts his selected components together to present a new architecture. Modern building with traditional materials.
Finally, it can be said that Shariati's approach to tradition and modernity was a type of "selective modernity". Shariati saw modernity not as a whole and a unified nature, but as a multifaceted collection that, instead of accepting such a collection at once, should be carefully selected in its parts. It means that Shariati approached the tradition with a critical ruler from the point of view of modernity and its requirements and "selected" the necessary components, and had a "selective" approach to modernity itself. In the end, he passed both of these through the sieve of his critical view, so that instead of "rejecting modernity" (hostility to modernity) or "praising modernity" (immersing in modernity), he chose "selective modernity". In this view, there is neither blind hostility nor unconditional surrender; But a critical and conscious choice!
 

Abstract Richard Rorty considers "liberal ironism" to be the best formulation of what the West has been pursuing since the Enlightenment, a position that works out the ideals of enlightenment ethics without relying on a metaphysical worldview. According to him, alongside Dewey and Wittgenstein, Heidegger can be considered one of the most influential figures in achieving such an optimistic perspective. This pivotal role can mainly be attributed to Heidegger's intellectual efforts to depict the finitude of human beings and the contingency of their ultimate vocabularies, an awareness that can dispel any illusion that one’s most important values are eternal and immutable, hanging on something beyond time and chance. Another skill of Heidegger, according to Rorty, is his emphasis on the most elemental words through which each period of human history has its own understanding of being. In a sense, Rorty's pragmatist critique of the epistemology-centered culture of the West owes much to these aspects of Heideggerian thought. However, it seems that Heidegger sometimes overlooks all of implications of acknowledgment of finitude and contingency of final vocabularies and identifies himself as a recipient of a call from Bing that is incompatible with his own facticity; on the other hand, he occasionally has a one-sided judgment regarding the capabilities of modern understanding of Being, alongside its damages and threats:
 
1) Like other ironist theorists, Heidegger constantly tends towards spreading his self-creation project to others and prescribing his own special version for existence, even its political fatal consequences. He believes that the most elemental words he has discovered in re-describing the past - words like "Plato," "Aristotle," "Parmenides," "alétheia," "will to power," and similar ones - should resonate the same for anyone in contemporary Europe because it is these very words that have shaped Europe's destiny.
In addition, it seems that Heidegger considers words such as "ethics," "technology," "striving for the greatest happiness of the most individuals," and similar elemental words as lacking a "constructive force" and discredited in modern understanding of being. However, a liberal ironist can still use them towards the main ideals of enlightenment, namely freedom and equality, even by removing their metaphysical halo.
 
2) Heidegger's strong inclination towards a kind of fatalism and a descending trajectory of human understanding of being can be considered another inconsistency in his thinking. On one hand, he believes that being is revealed solely through the passage of "understandings of being," and therefore, as soon as elemental words of each period are found, one can determine that the understanding of that period is equally revealing of being in its successive revealing and concealing, just like the pre-Socratic understanding for example. On the other hand, he places the Greeks in a better position throughout his works for their relationship with being and considers their understanding to be more primordial. Since according to Heidegger any understanding of being in any historical epoch is a gift of Being itself, it seems that this evaluation accompanied by valuation is only possible through fatalistic reasoning. If we accept Heidegger's fatalism, concepts such as "forgetfulness of being" or "neglecting being" become problems that humans have no possibility to solve.
 
3) According to Rorty, it is possible to interpret the concept of "primordiality" of an understanding of Being as our acknowledgment of the contingency of ourselves and our own final vocabularies, facilitating our readiness to be changed as much as possible. In other words, it makes us more cautious about false self-confidence and the illusion of control over the field of all beings and their possibilities, and strengthens our ability to be skeptical about our final vocabularies and be more sensitive to their potential falsehood. If we accept this interpretation of the concept of "primordiality," then from Rorty's perspective, Heidegger's evaluations of the possibilities of modern understanding of being have been unfair and one-sided because it cannot be denied that human beings have been increasingly eager and deliberatively receptive to alternative possibilities and radical changes in their thinking, actions, and way of life since enlightenment.

Abstract Iranian thinkers, befitting to the time and context, each chose a different approach in dealing with the West and modernity. The purpose of this study is to understand Shariati's attitude towards the West and modernity and by using qualitative content analysis method and quoting his works and based on the theoretical framework of the Frankfurt School, this research seeks to achieve this goal and answer the question: what is Shariati's position and view on the essence of the West and modernity? He seems to have taken a selective and critical look at the essence of the West and modernity, insisting on the need to use modernity properly and maintain an identity against the essence of the West. According to the evidence, Shariati's view of the essence of the West is from the perspective of civilization and colonialism. He was interested in the positive and scientific aspects of Western civilization because of its relevance to Third World societies and had a critical view of colonialism because it imposed alienation on the societies of the Third World. His view of modernity is also divided into two aspects of civilization and modernity. Although he saw civilization as a positive thing, he attacked modernity that imitated and consumed us.

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 Reason is Difference among human and animal that makes human civilization. But creek mythology and philosophy believe that women are imotional and irrational. Modern Philosophers like Kant also introduce women irrational so they are inappropriate to social and political and economical area. But philosophers of feminism criticize the patriarchal approach about rationality. They believe patriarchal approach causes both sexual injustice and other injustices in human civilization. So feminist philosophers are trying for another discourse of reason because of bringing women to social and political and economical area sothat maternal rationality returns kindness and peace to mankind societies. In this article after analyses of modern male rationality and critiques of post modernism, the author evaluates feminist theories and presents rationality standards that don't get in trouble with human confrontation and duality of subject/ object, me/other, main/ subsidiary.

Abstract This essay is on the base of this presupposition that Weber placed in the trajectory of critical approach to modernity that begins with Nietzsche and ends with postmodern thinkers. On this base, the question is that what`s Weber`s approach to political modernity. The hypothesis is that Weber doesn`t accept it. With accounting this consideration that belivers of political modernity belives to preference of autonomy over domination, concrete hypothesis also is that Weber belives to preference of domination over autonomy. With applying of history of ideas as method, findings of this essay signify that three unit-ideas of “preference of domination over autonomy”, “superficiality of democrasy” and “critical approach to liberalism” in Weber`s approach is prominent. In spite of this critical approach, Webber holds that only bureaucratic depoliticisation is reversible. Weber thinks that charismatic leadership in the context of parlementary democracy can removes this shortcoming.

Abstract Rereading the Webber’s works and going beyond Parsons’ interpretation of Weber, Nietzschean aspects in his approach toward modernity are revealed, such that it leads to the promotion of his function as the mediator between Nietzsche and critical approach of postmodern figures such as Lyotard and Foucault. To verify this hypothesis, firstly, we need to have criterion to assessing the similarities and differences of Weber, Lyotard and Foucault. Secondly, the appropriate method for the application of that criterion is needed. The assessment criterion or theoretical framework of this article is Taylor’s three malaises and the method of the application of this criterion, is Lovejoy’s history of ideas. Based on this theoretical framework or method, four unit-ideas are selected as the elements of these three thinkers. Findings of this research indicate that the unit- ideas of ‘instrumentalism’, ‘value- differentiation’ and ‘cultural integrity’ and ‘autonomy’ are prominent in the thought of Weber, Lyotard and Foucault respectively.

Abstract Communitarianism is one of the most important critics of political liberalism. Communitarianism has raised a number of questions, especially about individualism and state’s neutrality in political and social issues. Therefore, this article tries briefly to study this approach. The findings show that communitarianism, unlike liberal individualism, requires state’s interference in political and social issues.

Abstract Islamic Civilization is a subject with great importance, not only concerned with the identity of the Islamic world but also can be an effective factor in establishing it in the time when the Western Civilization beholds nothing equal to itself. But finding ups and downs occurred in the Western Civilization and how important this ups and downs is, are problems that can be a subject for research. Besides, in the discussion of the scientific and social developments in the human history, usually three periods are considered as criterions, that are Hellenic Ages, Middle Ages, and New Age; but this historical division includes mostly the scientific and social history of Europe and the West. This article discusses scientifically how to consider certain periods for the Islamic Civilization as well as its ups and downs during five great historical changes from various points of view. Two of these five periods studied in this article are the decadence and three of them are the exaltation of the Islamic civilization. Now we are in the third period of exaltation and the fifth step of development of the Islamic civilization. It can be a multilateral critical and comparative look at the history and development of the Islamic Civilization as compared with those of the Western Civilization.

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.

Abstract Abstract: the basis of dualism in western philosophy, that flourished in modernity, was built upon the opposition between reason/intuition, heaven/earth, spirit/body, pleasure/morality. Foucault extends the criticism of this dualism to its final station in favor of intuition/earth. This paper will consider Foucault’s thought, his separation from philosophical/political discourse of modernity. Modernity started with humanism, but Foucault regarded the transition to modernity not as a transition to freedom and liberty, but as a transition from an observable domination to an unobservable one and takes all truth claims and general principles special formulation of hegemonic relations and power technologies.

Abstract The article seeks to criticize Jalal Al-ahmad's conceptions, in particular in contrast to Iranian contemporary thinker, Ahmad fardid's profound insigts, of the concepts of the West and Westrnizaton, his understanding of social, historical causes of Westernization and also his realization of tradition and necessity of return to it, which have had a very basic role in the formation of the paradigm of Iranians' social thought in contemporary history. It is worthy to mention that Al-ahmad's social thought paradigm has domination in Iranaian recent social sphere yet after about the past of half a century from being written his Westernization.

Abstract To revive man's values which were lost in the Medieval Age under hierarchical despotism of the Church, the humanist movement in the European Renaissance found the golden age of ancient Greece as the best example for dignation of man. To design the western modernity, it made many uses of mythical literature, and, influenced by the Greek myths, shaped the humanist foundations of the modern West. The present article, will trace some humanist aspects (epistemology, psychology, and theology) of the western modernity back in myths.