political science
Morteza Bahrani
Abstract
The book The Concept of Criticism in the Modernist Movements in the Arab World has been reviewed. The most important criticism of this book is that it has inconsistent claims, while the author intends to discuss the criticism, he forgets that criticism is a modern action and therefore suffers from traditionalism ...
Read More
The book The Concept of Criticism in the Modernist Movements in the Arab World has been reviewed. The most important criticism of this book is that it has inconsistent claims, while the author intends to discuss the criticism, he forgets that criticism is a modern action and therefore suffers from traditionalism and postmodernism. Throughout the book, and in spite of propositions that evoke hope for critique and progress, the author is either caught up in traditionalist retrogression or preoccupied with postmodernist bizarre and pompous gibberish. These two factors have led the author, from another point of view, to consider criticism as matter related to the realm of philosophy of consciousness: as if the Arabs reach a critical stage in their mentality and subjectivity, their societies will also prosper and get progressed. These contradictions are especially evident in the fact that the author does not pay attention to modern values (freedom, happiness, and integrity). Any research on criticism that does not appreciate the practical results of modernity cannot be considered serious and honest research. This is the focus point of this article. In order to critique this cognitive disorder, I have examined the book by the method of hermeneutics of suspicion.
political science
Morteza Bahrani
Abstract
This article is based on a review of Socialism: A Failed Idea That Never Dies (by Kristian Niemietz). Where Niemietz believes that the idea of socialism is still alive despite its successive failures, I will argue that the problem is not that the "ideas" are dead or alive. Human mental phenomena ...
Read More
This article is based on a review of Socialism: A Failed Idea That Never Dies (by Kristian Niemietz). Where Niemietz believes that the idea of socialism is still alive despite its successive failures, I will argue that the problem is not that the "ideas" are dead or alive. Human mental phenomena include ideas, judgments, and wills. Ideas never die; whether it is the idea of socialism or the idea of God or the Idea of the dragon. The main issue is the rightness or wrongness of human will. Accordingly, I have tried to show, in a critical phenomenological way, that socialism is a will to failure. If it is repeated and experienced a thousand more times, it will achieve nothing but failure. On the contrary, and by historical experience, it is capitalist liberalism that has set before us the right and progressive will. For those of us who have stepped forward in the process of progress, the moral imperative is to put aside the socialist temptations of equal distribution. The beginning of our progress is to step on the path of production. Production and exchange of capital are the other words of free exchange and the right to freedom. It is only with this right that we can achieve ourselves in this worldly world.
political science
Morteza Bahrani
Abstract
The future of Iran’s history largely depends on narratives we present from its past. The narratives can lead to freedom and responsibility, or they can impose a kind of retrospective on us that prevents us from progressing. Depending on what approach and values we have in mind, Iran's past will ...
Read More
The future of Iran’s history largely depends on narratives we present from its past. The narratives can lead to freedom and responsibility, or they can impose a kind of retrospective on us that prevents us from progressing. Depending on what approach and values we have in mind, Iran's past will also be different. In this article, by reviewing Iranian Ministry and Bureaucracy (Vezarat & Divansalari) in the Islamic Era (written by Sadeq Sajjadi), I have critiqued our vicious history with regard to the author's approach to validation of the past, and have expressed some critical arguments in a suspicious hermeneutic method. In my opinion, the future of Iran’s progress is first and foremost dependent on the deconstruction of its bureaucratic (Divansalari) relations. This bureaucracy, instead of order and efficiency, and transparency, leads to obscurity. This is the future that is a searchlight for, and the beacon of the past.
