پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 Reconstructing the Sociology of Art through Lukács’s Theory of the Novel: A Critical Reading of Western Modern Aesthetics" بازسازی جامعه‌شناسی هنر از طریق نظریه رمان لوکاچ: خوانشی انتقادی از زیبایی‌شناسی مدرن غربی 1 37 10815 10.30465/os.2026.52101.2062 FA حسین عباسی دانشجوی دکتری جامعه‌شناسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران 0009-0007-8451-6061 Journal Article 2025 10 05 Introduction This article aims to reconstruct the sociology of art through Georg Lukács's theory of the novel and present a critical reading of modern Western aesthetics. The main issue is to explain how art, particularly the literary form of the novel, can be analyzed sociologically not merely as a passive reflection of social content, but as a phenomenon with autonomous aesthetic forms that are simultaneously intertwined with socio-historical conditions. Contrasting purely empirical or formalistic approaches, this research seeks to offer a model, based on Lukács's thought, where the artistic "form" is the site of convergence and crystallization of "social reality." Thus, Lukács's theory of the novel is introduced as a realized paradigm and a methodological model for the sociology of art. Materials & Methods This article is written using a descriptive-analytical method, focusing on documentary research and theoretical content analysis. The primary materials are the works of Georg Lukács in aesthetics, the theory of the novel, and the sociology of art, especially "The Theory of the Novel," "Soul and Form," "The Historical Novel," and "Studies in European Realism." To delineate Lukács's intellectual background, the aesthetic theories of Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel are referenced, and for comparison and expansion, the views of sociologists such as Émile Durkheim, Theodor Adorno, and Howard Becker are cited. The method involves extracting and analyzing key aesthetic components of the novel from Lukács's perspective (such as human development, closure, character, and realism) and demonstrating the dialectical connection of these components to the socio-historical conditions of the modern era. Discussion & Result The present study shows that Lukács, by adopting the concept of "totality" from the Hegelian tradition and linking it with a material-historical analysis, historicizes and socializes aesthetics. From his perspective, the novel, as the paradigmatic literary form of modernity, emerges not from the artist's subjectivity alone, but from specific socio-historical relations characterized by human "alienation" and the loss of meaning-giving totality in modern society. Four key aesthetic aspects in Lukács's theory of the novel are analyzed: Human Development: The novel is the only artistic form capable of depicting the process of human becoming and development within time and in engagement with social structures. Closure (terminus ad quem): The beauty of a work depends on providing a logical and necessary closure that convincingly concludes all narrative details and character development. Character: The character in the novel is a social being who preserves and transforms their "core" through interaction and conflict with social obstacles and structures. Realism: Lukács's realism is not a superficial description of details but a dialectical representation of the "relation between individual and society" and the presentation of the "totality of objects" within a coherent artistic form. The key finding of the article is that by focusing on these aesthetic components and linking them to objective conditions, Lukács effectively provides a "methodological model" for the sociology of art. In this model, the artistic form is understood not as a cover for content, but as the most objectified level of manifestation of social reality. Therefore, a Lukács-inspired sociology of art is a study that traces and analyzes the presence of social structures within the very aesthetic formation of artworks. Conclusion This article argued that Georg Lukács's theory of the novel marks a turning point in the formation of the sociology of art in the precise sense. By synthesizing two intellectual traditions—namely, the formulation of "social fact" in Durkheimian sociology and the recognition of the "cognitive aspect" of art in Hegelian aesthetics—Lukács made possible the sociological analysis of artistic forms. His innovation was to show that a sociological analysis of art must focus on the form itself and its aesthetic components, not merely on the social themes or content of works. The theory of the novel serves as a concrete example, demonstrating how the form of the novel and components such as human development, characterization, and realism are directly rooted in the historical-social conditions of modernity (alienation, individualism, capitalist relations). Consequently, this research offers two practical suggestions: First, any future sociology of art research should focus on analyzing the connection between specific artistic forms and their relevant social reality. Second, Lukács's model can be applied to the sociological analysis of other artistic forms in different historical-cultural contexts (such as modern Persian poetry), provided that the inherent aesthetic aspects of that form are first extracted and then their connection to specific social conditions is demonstrated. جامعه‌شناسی هنر دانشی است که هنر را در نسبت با مناسبات اجتماعی و تاریخی تحلیل می‌کند. در این مقاله، با رجوع به آثار جورج لوکاچ، به‌ویژه نظریه رمان، تلاش شده است مؤلفه‌های زیبایی‌شناختی فرم ادبی رمان استخراج و در پیوند با شرایط اجتماعی و تاریخی ظهور آن تحلیل شوند. برخلاف رویکردهایی که هنر را تنها بازتابی از محتوا یا مضامین اجتماعی می‌دانند، نظریه‌ی لوکاچ بر تحلیل زیبایی‌شناسانه‌ی فرم هنری تأکید دارد و دوگانگی صورت و محتوا را مردود می‌شمارد. نوآوری نظریه‌ی لوکاچ در آن است که با تکیه بر سنت زیبایی‌شناسی آلمانی (کانت و هگل) و نقد آن، امکان تبیین جامعه‌شناختی هنر را فراهم می‌آورد. بدین‌گونه، شکل‌گیری و تکوین فرم‌های هنری نه در سطح ذهنیت هنرمند، بلکه در بستر ساختارهای اجتماعی و تاریخی تحلیل می‌شود. این مقاله نشان می‌دهد که چگونه نظریه‌ی رمان لوکاچ، الگویی برای صورت‌بندی جامعه‌شناسی هنر فراهم می‌سازد که از رهگذر آن می‌توان نسبت فرم هنری و واقعیت اجتماعی را به‌نحو منسجم فهم کرد.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_10815_ec0387f057705a013c09bc5508249ea7.pdf

پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 Theurgy and Aesthetic Experience: The Artistic Configuration of the Sacred in Byzantine Thought تئورگی و تجربۀ زیباشناختی: صورت‌بندیِ هنریِ امر قدسی در سنت بیزانسی 39 65 10853 10.30465/os.2026.53306.2076 FA محسن ساربان نژاد دانش‌آموخته دکتری پژوهش هنر، دانشکده هنرهای تجسمی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران 0000-0002-8319-3850 حسن بلخاری قهی استاد گروه مطالعات عالی هنر، دانشکده هنرهای تجسمی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران 0000-0002-6304-4815 Journal Article 2025 11 01 Introduction In Byzantine philosophical–religious thought, beauty is not understood merely as an aesthetic quality or a subjective experience, but as a mode of sacred presence and an ontological event grounded in manifestation. Unlike modern aesthetic theories that separate art from ritual and metaphysics, Byzantine culture integrates these domains within a unified vision of reality structured by divine epiphany. Within this framework, theurgy functions as the mediating principle between the intelligible and the sensible realms. It is not limited to ritual performance but represents a metaphysical process through which divine energies become perceptible in symbolic and artistic forms. Rooted in Neoplatonic metaphysics and developed within Christian theology, especially in the works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Byzantine aesthetics interprets art as a field of participation rather than representation. Ecclesiastical rites, sacred images, architecture, and music are not decorative expressions but vehicles of divine manifestation. Consequently, aesthetic experience becomes a form of ontological participation in the sacred. This article seeks to clarify how theurgy transforms aesthetic perception into a metaphysical experience and how Byzantine sacred art embodies what can be termed a theurgic aesthetics. The central question of this research is: how does beauty, through theurgy, move beyond sensory perception and become a mode of existential and spiritual participation in divine reality? Materials & Methods This research adopts a qualitative and philosophical–hermeneutical methodology based on textual analysis of primary and secondary sources from Neoplatonic philosophy and Byzantine theology. Core materials include the works of Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus, and Pseudo-Dionysius, alongside modern scholarship on Byzantine aesthetics and sacred art. The method is interpretive and comparative: <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">1. Key concepts such as beauty, manifestation, symbol, light, and participation are analyzed within Neoplatonic metaphysics. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">2. These concepts are then examined in their transformation within Christian Byzantine theology. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">3. Finally, their aesthetic implications are explored through the structure of ritual, iconography, and ecclesiastical art. Rather than providing a purely historical reconstruction, the study aims to articulate a coherent philosophical framework for understanding theurgy as the foundation of aesthetic experience in Byzantium. This approach allows for identifying continuities and conceptual shifts between Neoplatonic ontology and Christian sacramental aesthetics. Discussion & Results The findings demonstrate that Byzantine aesthetics is inseparable from theurgic metaphysics. In Neoplatonism, beauty is understood as the manifestation of unity within multiplicity and as the visible expression of intelligible order. Plotinus interprets beauty as participation in the One through form and harmony, while Proclus conceptualizes it within the triadic structure of remaining (monē), procession (proodos), and return (epistrophē). This structure provides the ontological rhythm of beauty as an event of emergence and return. Iamblichus introduces theurgical practice as a necessary complement to intellectual contemplation, emphasizing that material symbols can carry divine energies and function as instruments of participation. This shift grants matter a positive metaphysical role and prepare the ground for Byzantine sacramental aesthetics. In Pseudo-Dionysius, this metaphysical structure is reinterpreted theologically: beauty becomes a divine name and a mode of God’s self-disclosure. Symbols and rituals are not merely pedagogical devices but loci of divine presence. Light, harmony, and hierarchy organize both cosmic order and liturgical experience. Artistic forms—icons, mosaics, architecture, and chant—thus become manifestations of divine energies within the sensible world. The results indicate that in Byzantine thought, aesthetic perception is inherently participatory. Seeing an icon or hearing sacred music is not an act of detached observation but an encounter that transforms the perceiver. Art operates as a theurgical act that elevates sensory experience into metaphysical contemplation. Beauty functions as a bridge between human perception and divine reality, dissolving the boundary between art, ritual, and ontology. This theurgic aesthetics is grounded in three principles: <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">1. Manifestation (epiphany): Beauty appears as the sensible expression of the divine. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">2. Symbol: Artistic forms mediate rather than represent sacred reality. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">3. Participation: Aesthetic experience involves existential engagement, not mere cognition. Thus, Byzantine sacred art embodies an ontology of presence in which matter becomes transparent to transcendence. Conclusion This study argues that Byzantine aesthetics cannot be understood apart from theurgy. Beauty is not an autonomous aesthetic category but a mode of divine manifestation realized through ritual, symbol, and artistic form. Theurgy provides the metaphysical foundation that unites art, liturgy, and contemplation into a single experiential structure of participation. The originality of this research lies in conceptualizing Byzantine sacred art through the notion of theurgic aesthetics, which interprets artistic creation and perception as acts of ontological communion with the sacred. This framework offers a renewed understanding of the relationship between art and transcendence and challenges modern separations between aesthetic experience and religious meaning. By rethinking beauty as an event of presence rather than representation, this study contributes to contemporary philosophical discussions on sacred art, ritual aesthetics, and metaphysical participation. It also opens new possibilities for comparative dialogue between Byzantine thought and modern theories of aesthetic experience grounded in embodiment and relational ontology. این پژوهش به تحلیل رابطۀ میان «تئورگی» و «تجربۀ زیباشناختی» در سنت فلسفی ـ دینی بیزانس می‌پردازد؛ رابطه‌ای که در آن زیبایی نه صرفاً مقوله‌ای ادراکی یا هنری، بلکه نحوه‌ای از حضور قدسی و رویدادی هستی‌شناختی است که در بستر آیین و تجلی تحقق می‌یابد. در این چارچوب، تئورگی به‌منزلۀ کنشی آیینی ـ فلسفی، صورت حسی پیوند میان عالم معقول و محسوس تلقی می‌شود و از رهگذر آن، زیبایی به مرتبه‌ای از مشارکت وجودی و شهود قدسی ارتقا می‌یابد. پژوهش با روش تحلیل فلسفی ـ تأویلی و بر پایۀ مطالعۀ اسنادی و متنی انجام شده و رویکردی کیفی و تطبیقی میان متافیزیک نوافلاطونی، الهیات مسیحی و نظریۀ زیبایی در سنت بیزانسی اتخاذ می‌کند. در فلسفۀ بیزانسی، مرز میان هنر، آیین و متافیزیک از میان برداشته می‌شود؛ زیرا هر سه بر مبنای اصل تجلی و نظریۀ هم‌حسیِ کلی استوارند. آیین‌های کلیسایی نه‌تنها مناسک دینی بلکه میدان‌هایی برای ظهور و مشارکت در زیبایی الهی‌اند؛ و ادراک هنری، فعلی تئورژیک است که تجربه حسی را به سطح تأمل و شهود متافیزیکی ارتقا می‌دهد. نوآوری مقاله در تبیین «زیباشناسی تئورژیک» به‌منزلۀ بنیانی فلسفی برای فهم هنر قدسی است؛ رویکردی که می‌تواند درک معاصر از نسبت میان هنر، آیین و امر متعالی را بازاندیشی کند.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_10853_9c36b930df0e0e8b05d4e1fcb4cdef27.pdf

پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 Diodorus Siculus: Theft or Invention in the Ancient West (A Lowly Compiler or the First and Greatest Historian of World History) دیودوروس سیسیلی؛ سرقت یا بداعت در غرب باستان ( گردآورنده‌ای فرومایه یا در مقام نخستین و بزرگ‌ترین مورخ تاریخ جهانی) 67 96 10825 10.30465/os.2026.51983.2042 FA اسماعیل سنگاری دانشیار گروه تاریخ و ایران‌شناسی، دکتری تاریخ، زبان‌ها و تمدن‌های دنیای باستان، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران 0000-0003-2351-4947 Journal Article 2025 09 24 <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; letter-spacing: -.2pt;">Introduction <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Diodorus composed his work in forty books. The Historical Library begins with an account of the creation of the world and concludes with a description of the Gallic Wars (58–51 BC) and the early years of the establishment of the Roman Empire. The work is divided into three parts. The first part deals with the mythical history of non-Greek peoples, including the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Medes, Persians, Indians, Scythians (Saces), Arabs, and Africans. The second part covers the history of the Greek peoples, the Second Median/Persian War, the Peloponnesian Wars, and related events, and ends with the death of Alexander the Great. The third part comprises an account of the history of Alexander’s successors down to the beginning of the Gallic Wars led by Julius Caesar. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Of these forty books, only fifteen have survived. These include the first five books, which deal with the history of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Indians, Greeks, and others, as well as Books Eleven through Twenty, which cover the history of the Greeks, Persians, Carthaginians, Sicilians, Macedonians, Indians, and other peoples. These books have survived almost in their entirety, while the remaining books have been lost, with only fragments preserved. Even these limited fragments, however, contain valuable and useful information about the ancient world of those times. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; letter-spacing: -.2pt;">Materials & Methods <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">This study seeks, through a library-based methodology and by examining the literary and historical evidence found in classical texts, to address the questions raised regarding Diodorus’s writing style and his objectives in composing the Historical Library. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; letter-spacing: -.2pt;">Discussion & Result <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">In composing the Historical Library, Diodorus consulted and made use of the books and writings of many historians. We are aware of the existence of some of these historians only through Diodorus’s own writings; in fact, his work preserves summaries of historical and literary writings by certain authors whose works have disappeared and been lost over time. He incorporated portions of these writings into his books with little to no alteration, critical assessment, or commentary. Diodorus is the only historian of world history writing in Greek whose work has survived in relatively substantial portions, such that fifteen out of his forty books have endured the passage of time and have reached us (Sangari, 2021: 112–113; Diodorus Siculus, 2005: 14). <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">In reality, only a small number of historians before Diodorus can truly be considered historians of world history in the full sense of the term. Diodorus does not regard any of his predecessors as historians of “world history,” since all of them, in his view, fell short of his ideal; he explicitly states that his purpose in writing the Historical Library was to correct the errors of earlier historians. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Although little information is available about Diodorus’s life, his intellectual life, worldview, and understanding of history as an ancient historian can be discerned from his writings. After completing his major work, Diodorus composed a general preface and placed it at the beginning of his first book. This preface is more illuminating than his other writings for understanding Diodorus’s intellectual foundations, as it articulates his ethical–philosophical approach to history and historiography. This preface may be regarded as “Diodorus’s philosophy of history”; however, it has provoked considerable debate among historians and scholars. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; letter-spacing: -.2pt;">Conclusion <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Although more than five centuries have passed since the emergence of the West’s romanticized or imaginary Orientalism, which appears to present a thoroughly distorted image of the real East, Occidentalism has yet to truly begin in the East, and in the more specific sense of the term, in Iran. It remains, as it were, in an embryonic state. Bringing an end to indifference toward Occidental studies in Iran is the only way to initiate forward movement in understanding the interaction and confrontation between these two civilizational entities, and the pervasive slogan of the “vague and dark West” must be set aside. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">In the preface to his work, Diodorus eloquently and clearly sets forth his purpose in writing the Historical Library, expressing his desire to employ the best and most flawless method of historiography in his work. What he states in this preface is, in its entirety, correct, rational, and the product of a genuine philosophical outlook. Like others, he seeks through the writing of history to render a great service to humankind; yet it is evident that this brilliant preface appears far superior to the work as a whole. It may be said that Diodorus’s thought, at the time he composed this preface, was strongly influenced by the intellectual currents of his age. <span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Diodorus aspired to write the history of the entire world, recounting all historical events from the creation of the world down to his own time. In his view, the justification for this undertaking lay in the moral and political benefits that any reader could derive from reading such a work. Ultimately, although Diodorus’s Historical Library represents a fine example of the prose and literary style employed by the intellectuals and scholars of the late Hellenistic period, his prose cannot be placed on an equal footing with that of the great historians of the ancient world. In the Historical Library, one finds no trace of the elevated narrative style of Herodotus, the profound and penetrating perspective of Thucydides and Polybius, or the refined and dignified language of Xenophon.<span style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> چکیده نویسندگان، مورخان و فیلسوفان متون کهن‌بنیاد دنیای باستان از جمله هرودوتوس هالیکارناسوسی، ارسطو آتنی، دینون کولوفونی، پوسیدونیوس آفامیایی، پولی‌بیوس آرکادیایی، کونتوس کورتیوس روفوس و بسیاری دیگر درباره تاریخ و جایگاه آن در شئون زندگی، هریک به فراخور شرایط سیاسی و اجتماعی دولت-شهرها و دوران خویش، فصول مشبعی از آثار خود را به این مقوله اختصاص داده‌اند. از ارسطو که در سدۀ چهارم پیش از میلاد، تاریخ را پست تر از شعر می‌شمارد تا دیودوروس که تنها یک سده و نیم بعد، تاریخ را والاترین سبک ادبی می‌شمارد، نظرات بی‌شماری ارائه شده است. در این میان، کتابخانۀ تاریخی دیودوروس سیسیلی که از چهل کتاب وی، پانزده اثرش(کتاب‌های 1-5 و 11-20) از گزند روزگار محفوظ مانده، دارای جایگاه ویژه‌ای نزد مورخان و پژوهشگران متون کهن بنیاد یونان باستان است. در این میان، برخی از آن‌ها نظیر بوئلر او را گردآورنده‌ای فرومایه از میان مورخان جهان یونان فرهنگی دانسته اند؛ اما آیا واقعا جایگاه دیودوروس برازنده آن چیزی است که بوئلر خطابش می‌کند یا بنا به نوشته خود دیودوروس در مقدمۀ کتاب نخست‌اش، ا

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_10825_c0a3eab00393c89313e8109bb6504a68.pdf

پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 The Analysis of the Ontological Structure of the Self and Self-understanding in Heidegger in the Light of Ricoeurs' Theory of Metaphor تحلیل ساختار وجودی "خود" و فهمِ خویشتن در اندیشه‌ی هیدگر در پرتو نظریه‌ی استعاره‌ی ریکور 97 125 11697 10.30465/os.2026.52729.2065 FA سیده اکرم برکاتی استادیار، گروه فلسفه و حکمت اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران. 0000-0003-4634-5891 Journal Article 2025 08 13 Introduction In this study, we will examine the views of Heidegger and Ricoeur on the subject of the self and self-understanding, in the field of hermeneutics and phenomenology. Despite the differences in their views, we will try to express the common aspects. We will show that how self and self-understanding, in the views of both philosophers, are realized in the context of language and the relationship with the other, and through these horizons have metaphorical character. In explaining self-understanding, Ricoeur emphasizes the long route of semantic analysis of language and interpretation of human actions and works, rather than the short path of ontology of Dasein that Heidegger proposed. By establishing a connection between the interpretative feature of metaphor in the domain of meaning and language, with the existential structure of the self and self-understanding, we can 1- speak about the ontological foundation of the possibility of semantic interpretation of Dasein and 2- show how Heidegger's ontology can respond to hermeneutical problems in the light of attributing the metaphorical feature to the existential structure of Dasein. Materials and Methods The research method in this study is comparative, analytical, interpretative and critical. By referring to specialized philosophical texts, including the works of the two philosophers, as well as texts by commentators and critics, an attempt has been made to collect materials related to the subject. Then, based on the latest interpretative perspectives on the issue, we have tried to adopt a new approach and take a step forward in solving the problems related to it. Discussion and Result 1- Heidegger and Ricoeur on Metaphor: In Ricoeur’s idea, metaphor is not just a form of metonymy through which the polysemy of words is expanded and transformed. The act of metaphor is the finding of similarity among differences, by which new meanings are created. Although Heidegger also welcomes the semantic ambiguity resulting from metaphor, he considers metaphor to be inherently metaphysical and in conflict with the essence of language. However, according to Ricoeur, Heidegger has constantly used metaphor in his texts. Ricoeur does not accept Heidegger's opposition to metaphor and places metaphor in relation to ontology. 2-Realization of the self and self-understanding in the horizons of language and the relationship with others: In the analysis of "self" and "self-understanding", Heidegger's emphasis is on ontology, and Ricoeur's emphasis, while respecting Heidegger's ontology, is on epistemology and semantic analysis of language. In Ricoeur's idea, self-understanding and the relationship of the self with others would be realized through the interpretation of actions and personalities in narrative. But in Heidegger’s thought, Dasein understand itself through being and others, in a direct and immediate way, and within the horizon of language. If we show the metaphorical nature of language and the metaphorical nature of our relationship with the other, in the thought of both philosophers, then due to the semantic interpretability of metaphor, we can also speak of the long path of self-understanding in Dasein. 3-The Metaphorical Character of Language and the self: In Ricoeur's thought, we will discuss "metaphorical nature of language" based on the process of understanding and imagination; and in Heidegger's thought, based on three concepts: 1) Riss, 2) logos, and 3) naming. The unity of identity and difference, and semantic creation are two important features of metaphor. Ricoeur considers imagining and reasoning as a metaphorical and linguistic process. In addition, he refers to the relationship between metaphor and narrative; but, when he discusses narrative identity, does not mention metaphorical identity. We showed the metaphorical characteristic of identity by clarifying metaphorical nature of language. Heidegger shows the joining-separating nature of language with the word Riss. Riss gathers disparate elements while maintaining their differences. Heidegger, also, regards “naming” as a metaphorical process and in his idea every name is a metaphor. He considers logos to be the essence of understanding and language. Logos allows something to be seen “as” something else. This structure of seeing something as something else (as if) expresses the metaphorical feature. 4-The metaphorical character of the relationship with the other and the self: In Oneself as Another, Ricoeur suggests, from the outset, that selfhood implies otherness. Therefore, in answering the question of how the "other" can penetrate the sameness of the "self," it must be said that it is precisely the metaphorical structure of the self that can disclose the unity of sameness and difference. In Ricoeur's view, humans are united and connected with others through the function of logos. And the metaphorical feature of logos can well justify the unification and universalization of language as the horizon in which the relationship of the self with others and with the world takes place. In Heidegger's thought, Dasein, find itself within the world and in relationship with others. language, which has a metaphorical character, is the horizon in which Dasein interrelates with others. The nature of this relationship is also metaphorical. Moreover, the sameness of a thing with itself while distinct from other beings, can show the metaphorical essence of things. Conclusion We have shown that, based on Ricoeur's theory of metaphor, the structure of the self and "self-understanding" within the horizons of language and the relationship with the other, has metaphorical feature. By considering the power of creativity and innovation in metaphor, we can justify the dynamism and continuous change in them. This creativity would affect the world of reality in various ways. It also can define the origin of freedom and the possible nature of human being. In fact, self-understanding is always a kind of self-construction and self-realization. If we attribute metaphoricity to the structure of Dasein’s existence, then we can consider a mechanism for Dasein’s direct intuition of existence and of itself. In this way, by considering the structure of Dasein as metaphorical, we have established a unity between the short and direct path in Heidegger’s ontology and the long route in Ricoeur’s epistemology. The dialectic between these two approaches in the discussion of self-understanding, would represent a hermeneutical circle between the two realms, which constantly continue until their boundaries fade. هیدگر و ریکور، هریک ازمنظری متفاوت به‌مسأله‌ی خود (self) و فهم خویشتن پرداخته‌اند. ریکور با هرگونه هستی‌شناسی مستقیم مخالف است. به‌نظر وی هستی‌شناسی تنها از طریق تأویل نمادها و نشانه‌های زبان ممکن می‌شود. او معتقد است که درهستی‌شناسی هیدگر، ما می‌توانیم به‌سوی مبنا و اساس به‌عقب برویم، اما این امر ما را درمسیر بازگشت برای حل مسائل معرفت‌شناختی یاری نمی‌رساند. باوجود دیدگاه‌های متفاوت دو فیلسوف درمباحث "خود" و "خودفهمی"، تلاش می‌کنیم جنبه‌های مشترک را بیان نماییم و میان دو دیدگاه پیوند برقرار کنیم. نشان می‌دهیم که چگونه خودفهمی در نظر هردو فیلسوف درافق زبان و رابطه با دیگری، تحقق می‌یابد. سپس مدلل خواهیم کرد که بنابر نظریه‌ی استعاره دراندیشه‌ی ریکور می‌توان زبان و رابطه با دیگری را درتفکر هردو فیلسوف دارای ویژگی استعاری دانست. بابرقراری پیوند میان ویژگی تأویلی استعاره درحوزه‌ی معنا و زبان، با ساختار وجودی خود و خودفهمی، می‌توانیم 1-از بنیان هستی‌شناختی امکان تأویل معناشناختی خود یا دازاین سخن بگوییم و 2-چگونگی امکان پاسخ‌گویی هستی‌شناسی هیدگر به‌مسائل هرمنوتیکی را درپرتو نسبت دادن ویژگی استعاری به‌ساختار وجودی دازاین نشان دهیم.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_11697_6fc3d5c19d1dce101093e77b0bb4a365.pdf

پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 From Archeology to Geneaology: The Problematique of Rupture/Continiuty in Foucault’s Methodology از دیرینه‌شناسی تا تبارشناسی: بحث در مشکله گسست/تداوم در روش‌شناسی میشل فوکو 127 154 11856 10.30465/os.2026.53737.2088 FA سید محسن علوی پور دانشیار پژوهشکده مطالعات سیاسی و روابط بین‌الملل و حقوق پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی 0000-0001-7996-0538 رضا استوار مسعود کارشناسی ارشد علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس Journal Article 2025 11 12 Introduction: This study examines a major transformation in Michel Foucault’s methodology: the shift from the archaeological approach to the genealogical one. Initially, Foucault focused on archaeology to uncover the hidden rules behind the formation of knowledge, discursive structures, and fundamental concepts of each historical period. Rather than focusing on the subject or consciousness, this approach emphasized the structures that determine what qualifies as “knowledge.” Key concepts such as episteme, discourse, and archive are central to this approach. Foucault demonstrates that history is not linear and continuous but is shaped by epistemological ruptures. However, in the mid-1970s, Foucault realized that archaeology was insufficient to explain the role of power in the formation of knowledge and subjectivity. Thus, influenced by Nietzsche, he turned to genealogy. In this new approach, rather than focusing solely on linguistic rules of knowledge, Foucault emphasized power struggles, embodiment, subject formation, and the entanglement of knowledge/power. In genealogy, concepts like “truth” are not seen as absolute but as products of power structures. Furthermore, genealogy does not seek origins but investigates the diverse and contingent conditions of emergence and transformation. A central question that arises here is the relationship between these two methodological approaches. Some argue that the transition reflects a rupture. In their view, Foucault abandons archaeology due to its inadequacy in explaining social experience and the discursive formation of the present. In such understanding, the centrality of power/knowledge in Foucault’s later works marks a radical and critical turn toward political engagement. Others contend that genealogy is not a denial of archaeology; but rather its evolution: an enriched methodology that adds new dimensions to the earlier approach, making it more robust and strategic. Among these perspectives, Gilles Deleuze offers a unique interpretation with his concept of folding. He suggests that the shift occurs internally: archaeology and genealogy are intertwined and mutually reflective, like two sides of a woven fabric. Thus, speaking of a strict methodological rupture is inadequate. Materials & Methods: This study is explicitly methodological and requires a conceptual framework. Core concepts from both archaeological and genealogical approaches are extracted from Foucault’s various works. Since Foucault often avoids giving clear definitions, preferring to elaborate through archival and historical research, the study employs an interpretive approach to derive reliable definitions from his writings. Discussion & Result: Ultimately, it is argued that archaeology and genealogy should not be seen as distinct and disconnected; rather, they represent different levels of a unified project. One describes the discursive mechanisms, while the other analyzes political power and subjectivity. Folding is the key concept that reveals how external rules of knowledge are internalized within the subject, shaping processes of subject formation and vice versa. This approach provides a deeper understanding of Foucault’s intellectual project and offers a way to grasp history, power, and truth as dynamic and intertwined phenomena. Conclusion: The study concludes that contrary to the view that this methodological shift represents a rupture, it is actually a deeper continuity within Foucault’s intellectual project. While genealogy introduces more politically engaged tools, Foucault’s fundamental concern remains the analysis of power and truth. Deleuze’s concept of folding illustrates that this is not a break but a continuous interplay between power, knowledge, and subject formation. He identifies three methodological axes in Foucault’s work—knowledge (archaeology), power (genealogy), and subject formation (later period)—not as separate stages but as interconnected processes of internalization and reflexivity. مقاله حاضر به بررسی تحول روش‌شناختی در اندیشه فوکو، از دیرینه‌شناسی‌(archaeology) به تبارشناسی(genealogy) می‌پردازد. فوکو در ابتدا با رویکرد دیرینه‌شناختی، ساختارهای معرفتی و گفتمانی دوره‌ها‌ی تاریخی را تحلیل می‌کرد. در این رویکرد، تمرکز بر کشف قواعد ناپیدای تولید دانش، اپیستمه، و ساختارهای زبانی بود که حقیقت را ممکن می‌ساختند. اما به‌‌تدریج فوکو دریافت که این چارچوب از تبیین نقش قدرت در شکل‌گیری سوژگی عاجز است؛ از همین‌رو، با تأسی به نیچه، به تبارشناسی روی آورد که بر ستیز قدرت، سوژه‌سازی، و درهم‌تنیدگی دانش/قدرت تاکید دارد؛ در این تحلیل، مفاهیمی چون بدن، سوژه، و «تاریخ اکنون» به مرکز توجه می‌آیند. اما نکته‌ای که در این میان قابل تامل است، نسبت این دو رویکرد روش‌شناختی در اندیشه فوکو است. برخی بر این باورند که رابطه میان دیرینه‌شناسی و تبارشناسی از نوع گسست، و برخی بر تداوم و تحول روش‌شناختی فوکو تاکید دارند. مقاله حاضر بر آن است که با بررسی این دیدگاه‌ها، با بهره‌گیری از انگاشت ظرافت‌مند ژیل دلوز از اندیشه فوکو، به این بحث بپردازد که رابطه بین دیرینه‌شناسی و تبارشناسی نه گسست بلکه «تاخوردگی» است؛ یعنی یک پیوستار روش‌شناختی که در آن قدرت، دانش و سوژگی درهم‌تنیده‌اند.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_11856_ef77022c7b788c29c95a72a87414cd96.pdf

پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 The Mathematics of the Minor versus the Mathematics of the Major: A Deleuzian Reading of the Ontological Shift in Geometry ریاضیات اقلیت در برابر ریاضیات اکثریت: خوانشی دلوزی از گذار هستی‌شناختی در هندسه 155 183 13314 10.30465/os.2026.53392.2080 FA شهاب الدین قناطیر دانشجوی دکترای هنرهای تجسمی دانشگاه هنر اصفهان 0000-0001-8722-7379 Journal Article 2025 10 13 Introduction: This article offers a Deleuzian reading of the shift from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry in order to show that this transition is not merely a technical modification within mathematics, but a profound philosophical transformation in the ontology of space. Traditionally, Euclidean geometry presents space as fixed, homogeneous, and governed by universal and stable coordinates. By contrast, non-Euclidean geometry—especially in its Riemannian form—introduces a conception of space that is variable, differential, and relational. From a Deleuzian perspective, this shift can be understood as a movement from an axiomatic and majority-based model of thought toward a problem-based and minority-oriented one. In this framework, mathematics is not simply a formal system of measurement; it becomes a mode of thinking that reveals different ways of constituting space, identity, and relation. The central question of the article is how Deleuze’s distinction between the mathematics of the majority and the mathematics of the minority can clarify the philosophical significance of this geometrical transformation. The article argues that the passage from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry should be read as a “Copernican revolution” in spatial ontology, because it replaces the idea of space as an absolute container with the idea of space as a dynamic field of singular relations. This shift also affects the concept of individuality: instead of being understood as a fixed essence, individuality emerges as a process shaped by singularities, variations, and connections. Materials & Methods: The article employs a descriptive-analytical method. Its approach is primarily philosophical and theoretical, combining a close reading of Deleuzian concepts with a conceptual analysis of geometrical ideas. Rather than treating geometry as a purely formal or historical discipline, the study examines how geometrical structures can be interpreted as expressions of broader ontological and epistemological assumptions. The method involves comparing Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries through the lens of Deleuze’s philosophy. Euclidean geometry is associated with a stable, centralized, and axiomatic order, whereas non-Euclidean geometry is approached as a minoritarian and problem-centered formation that destabilizes the assumptions of classical spatial thought. Particular attention is given to concepts such as manifold, curvature, and point of view, because these notions make it possible to understand space not as a static given, but as a structured multiplicity defined by internal differences and relational dynamics. The article also extends this analysis toward contemporary physics, especially gauge theory, in order to indicate that the philosophical implications of non-Euclidean geometry continue beyond mathematics into the broader field of scientific thought. Discussion & Result: The discussion shows that Euclidean geometry corresponds to an ontology of space grounded in uniformity, measure, and fixed reference. In this model, space is conceived as static and universal, and objects are located within it according to stable coordinates. Such a conception aligns with what Deleuze would call an axiomatic or majority-based system: a system that regulates difference through identity, hierarchy, and centralization. Non-Euclidean geometry disrupts this model. In Riemannian geometry, space is no longer assumed to be homogeneous or globally fixed; instead, it is understood as a manifold whose structure depends on curvature and local variation. This means that spatial properties are not simply imposed from outside, but arise from differential relations internal to the space itself. As a result, the ontology of space changes from static extension to dynamic relationality. Space becomes something that is produced, differentiated, and transformed through its own internal conditions. From a Deleuzian standpoint, this is philosophically decisive. Deleuze’s mathematics of the minority is not reducible to numerical smallness; rather, it designates a mode of thinking that begins from problems, singularities, and non-totalizable relations. Non-Euclidean geometry exemplifies this mode because it does not simply replace one formula with another. It reconceptualizes the very conditions under which space is understood. The “point of view” becomes crucial here: no position is absolutely central, and spatial reality is always grasped from within a field of relations rather than from an external, universal standpoint. This shift also redefines individuality. Under Euclidean assumptions, identity tends to appear stable and self-identical. Under the non-Euclidean-Deleuzian framework, however, individuality is constituted through singularities and their connections. A singular entity is not what it is because it reflects an essence, but because it occupies a position in a network of differential relations. In this sense, the article argues that non-Euclidean geometry resonates with contemporary physics, particularly gauge theory, where relational structures and variable fields replace classical notions of fixed spatial order. Conclusion: The article concludes that the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry, when interpreted through Deleuze, marks a fundamental philosophical shift in the understanding of space. This is not simply a mathematical evolution but a transformation in ontology: space is no longer conceived as a stable, universal container, but as a dynamic, relational manifold shaped by curvature, difference, and singularity. Deleuze’s distinction between the mathematics of the majority and the mathematics of the minority provides a powerful conceptual framework for explaining this transformation. Ultimately, the article shows that non-Euclidean geometry has implications that extend beyond mathematics. It challenges classical assumptions about identity, centrality, and fixed structure, and it opens the way toward a process-based ontology in which relations precede stable forms. Through this lens, geometry becomes a philosophical event: a reconfiguration of how space, individuality, and reality are thought. این مقاله با خوانشی دلوزی، تقابل بنیادین بین دو شیوه صورتبندی ریاضیات را بررسی میکند: «اصل‌موضوعه‌محوری» (ریاضیات اکثریت) در برابر «مسئله‌محوری» (ریاضیات اقلیت). هدف، تحلیل گذار از هندسه اقلیدسی به نااقلیدسی نه به عنوان یک پیشرفت فنی، بلکه به مثابه یک «انقلاب کوپرنیکی» در هستی‌شناسی فضا است؛ جایی که تقدم از راه‌حلِ ثابت به سوی خودِ مسئله و «تفاوت دیفرانسیلی» منتقل می‌شود. پرسش محوری این است: چگونه تمایز دلوز بین «ریاضیات اکثریت» و «ریاضیات اقلیت» می‌تواند این گذار را به عنوان دگرگونی در هستی‌شناسی فضا توضیح دهد؟ با روشی توصیفی-تحلیلی و با بررسی مفاهیم دلوز و هندسه، یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهند که هندسه نااقلیدسی ریمانی – با مفاهیمی چون خمینه، انحنا و دیدمانگاه – هستی‌شناسی ایستای اقلیدسی را به یک هستی‌شناسی پویا و رابطه‌گرا تبدیل می‌کند. در این هستی‌شناسی جدید، فردیت نه به عنوان هویتی ثابت، بلکه به عنوان فرآیندی مبتنی بر «تکینگی‌ها» و ارتباطاتشان تعریف می‌شود؛ تحولی که در فیزیک معاصر، به‌ویژه در نظریه پیمانه‌ای، تبلور یافته است.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_13314_5410e4439f038b0cb96884b2700faad4.pdf

پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی ومطالعات فرهنگی غرب شناسی بنیادی 2383-0581 16 2 2026 01 21 The Meaning of Being a Teacher According to Wittgenstein معنای معلّم بودن با تکیه بر نظر ویتگنشتاین 185 208 13515 10.30465/os.2026.53593.2083 FA محمد نیک سرشت دانشجوی دکترای فلسفه دین دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی 0009-0007-9416-0978 Journal Article 2025 11 28 Introduction Ludwig Wittgenstein is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, whose ideas profoundly shaped philosophy of language, epistemology, and educational thought. While his philosophical contributions have been extensively studied within the framework of analytic philosophy, his practical experience as an elementary school teacher in rural Austria has received comparatively less attention. Yet this period of teaching was not merely an episode in his life; it played a constitutive role in the transformation of his philosophical outlook from the early philosophy of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus to the later philosophy of the Philosophical Investigations. Through his engagement with teaching, Wittgenstein came to realize that learning is not primarily a matter of acquiring definitions or abstract propositions, but rather a process grounded in practice, participation, repetition, and the mastery of rule-governed activities. These insights later became central to his concepts of language-games, forms of life, and rule-following. The present study seeks to explore the lessons that can be derived from Wittgenstein’s philosophical reflections and teaching experience for understanding the nature of teaching. It argues that Wittgenstein’s experience in the classroom provided not only practical insights into education but also the experiential foundation for some of the most important themes of his later philosophy. Materials & Methods This study employs a descriptive-analytical methodology based on extensive library research. Primary sources include Wittgenstein’s major works, particularly Philosophical Investigations, On Certainty, The Blue Book, and The Brown Book. These texts are examined alongside contemporary scholarship on Wittgenstein’s educational thought and historical studies of his years as a schoolteacher. The analysis focuses on several key concepts in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy—language-games, forms of life, family resemblance, rule-following, trust, and understanding—and investigates their implications for educational theory and pedagogical practice. Rather than attempting to reconstruct a systematic philosophy of education, the study adopts an interpretive approach aimed at extracting educational insights from Wittgenstein’s philosophical method and lived experience. By situating his philosophical ideas within the context of his teaching career, the research seeks to illuminate the reciprocal relationship between his educational practice and philosophical development. Discussion & Result The findings indicate that Wittgenstein’s teaching experience played a significant role in shaping his later philosophy and offers valuable insights into the nature of teaching. First, learning is shown to be grounded in practice rather than in the mere transmission of definitions or abstract explanations. Understanding emerges through participation in rule-governed activities, repetition, and guided practice. Consequently, the teacher’s role is not simply to convey information but to initiate students into meaningful forms of activity. Second, the study highlights the fundamental importance of trust in education. Drawing on Wittgenstein’s reflections in On Certainty, learning is understood as beginning with a pre-reflective trust in teachers, language, and established practices. Such trust provides the necessary background against which questioning, reasoning, and understanding can develop. Third, Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblance challenges universal and fixed conceptions of teaching. Educational situations are diverse and context-dependent; therefore, effective teaching requires practical judgment and sensitivity to particular circumstances rather than strict adherence to predetermined methods. Finally, the analysis reveals a close affinity between teaching and philosophizing. Both activities aim to overcome misunderstandings and guide individuals toward clearer forms of understanding. In this respect, the teacher resembles the philosopher by facilitating insight rather than merely delivering knowledge. Moreover, Wittgenstein’s example presents the teacher as a continual learner who engages in self-reflection and shared inquiry with students. Taken together, these findings suggest a dynamic conception of teaching centered on practice, trust, contextual judgment, and mutual learning. Conclusion The examination of Wittgenstein’s teaching experience and later philosophy reveals a rich and distinctive conception of teaching. For Wittgenstein, education is not primarily the transmission of information but participation in a form of life through which meaning, understanding, and competence emerge. Teaching involves guiding students in the acquisition of practices, cultivating trust, attending to the particularities of concrete situations, and fostering the development of judgment. His classroom experience led him to recognize that meaning is grounded in use, understanding is manifested in action, and learning occurs through participation in shared human activities. Consequently, the teacher is best understood not as a mere dispenser of knowledge but as a facilitator of understanding, a guide to practice, and a fellow participant in learning. Moreover, the study demonstrates that many of the central themes of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy were deeply rooted in his experience as a teacher. Teaching was not a peripheral aspect of his life but one of the most significant contexts in which his philosophical transformation occurred. Wittgenstein’s reflections continue to offer valuable insights for contemporary philosophy of education by presenting a dynamic, relational, and human-centered vision of teaching, one in which education becomes a shared journey toward meaning, understanding, and intellectual growth. لودویگ ویتگنشتاین به عنوان یکی از فیلسوفان مهم قرن بیستم با تجربه‌ای که از معلّمی دارد و با توجه به اینکه این تجربه نقش بنیادینی در شکل‌گیری نگرش متأخر او داشته‌است، می‌تواند در خلال نظریاتش راهنمای دیگران برای معلّم شدن باشد. ویتگنشتاین در تجربه‌ی تدریس دریافت که معنا و فهم نه از طریق تعریف، بلکه از راه کاربرد، تمرین و نمونه‌دادن شکل می‌گیرند و این دریافت بعدها به هسته‌ی نظریه‌ی او درباره پیروی از قاعده و بازی‌های زبانی تبدیل شد. معلّمی برای ویتگنشتاین صرفاً شغل نبود، بلکه نحوی هماهنگی در عمل بود که او آن را هم‌سنگ معنویت می‌دانست. فهم معلّمی به‌مثابه تشخیص و اجرای قواعد در بستر موقعیت‌های متغیر، با تکیه بر شباهت‌های خانوادگی، نقش بنیادین ایمان و اعتماد در یادگیری، توجه به جزئیات زنده‌ی کلاس درس، هم‌سنگ دانستن معلّمی کردن و فلسفه‌ورزی و در نهایت یادگرفتن در کنار یاددادن از جمله آموزه‌هایی است که ویتگنشتاین در مورد معلّم بودن به ما می‌دهد. در مقاله‌ی پیش رو تلاش برای آن است تا آموزه‌هایی از فیلسوف بزرگ قرن بیستم برای معلّم بودن ارائه شود.

https://occidentstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_13515_bfb7adf7a99438807f685ad24c7dd7fd.pdf