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
Tayebe Domanlou
Abstract
The New Left Thinkers is undoubtedly one of the most controversial and newsworthy works of the late English philosopher, Roger Scruton, which has been published in recent decades as a critique of the new left thinkers. Scruton analyzed, and critiqued the most important contemporary philosophers in the ...
Read More
The New Left Thinkers is undoubtedly one of the most controversial and newsworthy works of the late English philosopher, Roger Scruton, which has been published in recent decades as a critique of the new left thinkers. Scruton analyzed, and critiqued the most important contemporary philosophers in the last decades, aimed to decrypt the new speak of the left discourse. The most common aspect between these thinkers, more than anything else, is the distance from the right discourse. By critical reading, Scruton tried to simplify the idea, complex language, and complicated theories of the New Left. He wanted to show how these ideas were emerged in emotional reaction to the historical events of their time, and actually they were rooted in the human’s need for faith and belief in something. Although criticizing the mainstream of Scruton’s time is a courageous subject, special and scares, and we can admire Scruton for doing this, in final analysis of this work, I must say Scruton argued and criticized the new left in a way that he should be criticized too. In the other word we can criticize Scruton as the same point that he criticized and accused the new left. Regardless of the content of his arguments, as the methodological view, his approach to these texts is selective, unscientific and emotional. By critical reviewing of this book, I try to prove my claim about the selective and emotional approach of Scruton in this article. Without arguing the content of his discussions, as far as possible, I show that the value-based approach and believing in single truth, and anger and hated of the Left and the New Left are the basis of his argument in criticizing the personality of thinkers, selecting and describing their theory and finally Seizure as he desired the argument. He argued in the same way and the same style that he claimed the New Left did it.
Philosophy
Shamsol Muluk Mostafavi
Abstract
In Explaining Postmodernism book, Stephen R. C. Hicks examines the historical and intellectual roots of the postmodern movement and shows the influence of Rousseau, Kant, and other philosophers on its creation and growth. From the position of defending the West and the capitalist system, he attacks hard ...
Read More
In Explaining Postmodernism book, Stephen R. C. Hicks examines the historical and intellectual roots of the postmodern movement and shows the influence of Rousseau, Kant, and other philosophers on its creation and growth. From the position of defending the West and the capitalist system, he attacks hard on the postmodern current. He considers it the first coherent and decisive expression of anti-rationalism from Kant onwards and counts for its consequences such as metaphysical anti-realism, epistemological mentality, getting the feeling in the heart of value propositions, and as a result, relativism in the field of knowledge and value and underestimation of scientific work, and etc. The present article intends to critique Hicks' views while providing a summary of his views. An attempt will be made to show how Hicks's view on the unequivocal acceptance of the capitalist order influenced his report of the origins of postmodernism and the current state of the movement, leading to a reductionist and partisan analysis on his side.
political science
Mohammad Shojaiyan
Abstract
In Spheres of Justice Walzer offers an explanation of the principles of distributive justice based on an understanding of the meanings of the various social good. This explanation of justice is “pluralistic” and based on the idea of “complex equality.” Walzer’s point is ...
Read More
In Spheres of Justice Walzer offers an explanation of the principles of distributive justice based on an understanding of the meanings of the various social good. This explanation of justice is “pluralistic” and based on the idea of “complex equality.” Walzer’s point is that each area of social life has its own criteria for distributing social good, and one area should not be extended to other areas. The opposite of Walzer’s ideal justice is coercion and domination, which means the domination of the standard of justice in one area over other areas of social life. The diversity of the principles of the distribution of social good, the attempt to reconcile pluralism and equality, and the opposition to the domination of capital over the realm of political power are among the highlights of Walzer”s theory of justice. Walzer’s critics, on the other hand, argue that Walzer’s conservative nature makes him unable to take a clear critical stance on the wrong ways of distributing social good. Lack of a clear criterion for understanding the social criteria of the distribution of goods, the relativity of social meanings, and inability to provide a criterion for criticizing incorrect methods in the distribution of social good are among the most important criticisms of Walzer’s theory of justice.
