Philosophy
M.R. Amiri Tehrani
Abstract
The individual-community relationship has always been one of the most fundamental topics of social sciences. In sociology, this is known as the micro-macro relationship while in economics it refers to the processes, through which, individual actions lead to macroeconomic phenomena. Based on philosophical ...
Read More
The individual-community relationship has always been one of the most fundamental topics of social sciences. In sociology, this is known as the micro-macro relationship while in economics it refers to the processes, through which, individual actions lead to macroeconomic phenomena. Based on philosophical discourse and systems theory, many sociologists even use the term "emergence" in their understanding of micro-macro relationship, which refers to collective phenomena that are created by the cooperation of individuals, but cannot be reduced to individual actions. "Emergence" theories attempt to explain the nature of society as a complex system by examining how individuals and their relationships lead to the creation of integrated and macro-social phenomena such as markets, educational systems, cultural beliefs, and shared social practices. As a prelude to activity, every researcher has to answer the question from the methodological point of view, how is it possible to study the behavior of social groups and how can we gain knowledge about the laws related to social groups? Anyone who deals with humanities and social sciences or any reality and phenomenon that affects human beings, inevitably deals with the reality that is emerging. In fact, emergence occurs when one level of reality emerges radically from another level. Examples of emergent levels of reality include how the mind emerges from the body; or the way society emerges from human beings. Therefore, when there is an emerging factor, different scientific disciplines should be used, because it is inevitable to talk about social affairs, psychology and neurobiology, as well as physical and even chemical.
Philosophy
M. Mardiha
Abstract
Like philosophy of natural sciences, philosophy of social sciences begins with questioning of the meaning of science and the criterion of scientific explanation. Although in the former, just similar to the latter, the epistemological abstractive discussions are divergent, the practice of science is not. ...
Read More
Like philosophy of natural sciences, philosophy of social sciences begins with questioning of the meaning of science and the criterion of scientific explanation. Although in the former, just similar to the latter, the epistemological abstractive discussions are divergent, the practice of science is not. But in the sphere of social sciences the practice also lakes convergence and the community of scientists does not share the same scientific criteria of scientificity. The problematic of this article is that, in the realm of social sciences, what exactly scientists are pursuing and searching for when they are producing science. Usually, there are, at least, three responses to that question: cause, reason, and meaning. Describing, analyzing, and criticizing those epistemological positions, each of which is a well-known school in philosophy of social sciences, I will try to demonstrate that none of these criteria is able to pretend an absolute dominance in scientific explanation. However, this does not mean that they have all the same value and weight. The hypothesis is that, in theoretical analysis as well as in scientific practice, causal explanation, investigation of reason, and inquiry concerning meaning, are respectively more important and functional in scientific explanation in the area of social sciences. In many works of the most prominent social scientists, we can find some sort of combination of these different points of view that reflect this hierarchy of criteria.
Interdisciplinary
M. Sepehri
Abstract
Ninian Smart, a distinguished contemporary pioneer of religious studies, moving away from traditional religious studies known as theology, considers his studies to be historical, comparative (in his favorite term cross-cultural), interdisciplinary as well as phenomenological and empathic, and presents ...
Read More
Ninian Smart, a distinguished contemporary pioneer of religious studies, moving away from traditional religious studies known as theology, considers his studies to be historical, comparative (in his favorite term cross-cultural), interdisciplinary as well as phenomenological and empathic, and presents his model as an analytical one. His model offers seven interconnected dimensions for the religion: rituals, experimental, mythological, doctrinal and philosophical, ethical and legal, social and institutional, and material. On the other hand, mystical theology in comparison with the Smart’s view, through a model developed by Seyyed Haider Amoli (720 - after 787 H.), offers a type of spiritual-subjective and intuitive way that creates a phenomenological distance – to stay away from presuppositions and prejudices – and has the ability to show essentialist empathy in religious studies. This empathy, in the modern non-mystical phenomenology, does not go beyond mere mental and emotional empathy. Although Smart’s model introduces pluralistic dimensions of religion, and is broader in the analysis of worldviews and religions, it is not able to deeply analyze dimensions of religion as compared with the mystical-unitary model. The shari’a-tarighat-haghighat mystical model in its tripartite structure involves the metaphor of »the way» while providing a deep relationship between the dimensions of religion; this metaphor has a symbolic importance for the analysis of religious traditions as the manifestations of trans-historical realities in a historical and temporal path.
Philosophy
sayyedbagher sayyednejad; Parviz Amini
Abstract
This study explicates the two theories, regarded the epistemological and ontological problematics caused by the incompatibility of “realism and constructivism” in the orthodox narratives of the theories of international relations -- as an entry into contemplation over the philosophical reconstruction ...
Read More
This study explicates the two theories, regarded the epistemological and ontological problematics caused by the incompatibility of “realism and constructivism” in the orthodox narratives of the theories of international relations -- as an entry into contemplation over the philosophical reconstruction of constructivism theory in international relations. In the course of exposition and categorization of the old and new perceptions and conventions of the theory of conventions (I’tibariat), the study contends that under an interactive approach, the two concepts could be compatible in a way that its referent is not “relativism” and “social determination of knowledge” or “denial of any subsistence or determination in the outer world”. Ultimately, the study moves away from both “raw realism” and “pure constructivism” approaches, and takes into account a consequent definition in the theory of constructional perceptions that is not anti-realistic while it “denies the external equivalent of conventions”. At the same time, cognitivism would not lose its true meaning either. The outcomes of the study are considered more significant because in parallel with the decline of philosophical and political realism during the recent decades and the epistemological confusion resulting from “the incommensurable bipolar epistemological views in the field of international relations, namely the positivist majority on the one hand and a remarkable minority of post-positivists on the other hand”, the contemporary theorists of international relations have been guided to the constructivist theories that the “social theory of international politics” indicates its conventional and social approach, during which and in the efforts to reduce the epistemological importance of constructivism, the proposed solution is to resort to positivism and preference for the ontological aspects of constructivism.
