Occidental Studies

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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:
1.                   Key concepts such as beauty, manifestation, symbol, light, and participation are analyzed within Neoplatonic metaphysics.
2.                   These concepts are then examined in their transformation within Christian Byzantine theology.
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:
1.                   Manifestation (epiphany): Beauty appears as the sensible expression of the divine.
2.                   Symbol: Artistic forms mediate rather than represent sacred reality.
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.

Abstract Introduction
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.
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.
Materials & Methods
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.
Discussion & Result
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).
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.
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.
Conclusion
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.
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.
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. 

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.