RESEARCH LETTER OF POLITICAL SCIENSE
Year:2010 | Volume:5 | Issue:4 (20)|Papers Count:9

Semiotics is the science of studying signs and signs systems (such as language, codes, etc), and a research tools to understand the underling facts in cultural signs, codes, signals and symbols. In the realm of political research, this science studies the referential essence of political propositions and the relation of these propositions to the trutht. In other words, focusing on the functions of signs, a political semiologist would discuss meaning production and the process of meaningfulness of the human being’s political living world through their system (signs). In this point of view, there is no doubt that political phenomenon alone would be meaningless, they are situated in a network of meanings and posses a cultural framework. Semiotics helps to study politics by studying this framework and cultural background.

Explaining the ancient Iranian intellectual system and political thought, namely Ideal king in Cyrus period, and through analyzing the socio-political structure of the preferred system, this article seeks to reveal how and why the four reinterpreted pillars of philosopher-king of Plato in Republic namely, wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, as presented by the author of Plato’s Beautiful City and the Ideal King in Ancient Iran, have been the main intellectual portrait of Iranians in Cyrus period, religiously and politically. On the other hand, surveying a domestic cement for an ideal socio-political order consistent to the religious and political identity of the ancient Iran, and by analyzing texts and their historic background, this article seeks to study the spirit of socio-political sovereignty governing the Iranian society in this era, while examining Fathollah Mojtabaee’s theory and adjusting the Cyrus period with Platonist elements.

Human history is punctuated with sweet and bitter experiences, and hostility, violence, and bloodshed are among the most prominent bitter experiences. “Ethics” and ethical principles are major rules which may somehow control such atrocities and the wrath which underlies them. All religions, in general, and Islam, in particular, have promoted ethics and it has been stipulated that Prophet Mohammad (S) has been assigned to prophethood in order to complete the best ethical principles. The main question of this article is, “what ethical rules and principles have been determined by Islam in the situation of political hostility for different parties, specifically Muslims?” Islam, here, means a collection of Quran, Sunna and the practices of Imam Ali (AS). Hostility has been discussed here in two general levels of politics. First, is the internal level or the domestic politics and second, is the external level or the international politics. Hostility in internal level means hostility in a country among political parties or groups or between parties and groups, on one side, and incumbent politicians and statesmen, on the other side, and among the statesmen governing various sections of the state or the collection of all the above mentioned. By the external level of hostility we mean hostility among independent political entities or between these entities on one side and international organizations, on the other side. Hostility is categorized into two classes of “cold hostility” and “violent hostility” in any one of the above-mentioned levels. In cold hostility, there is no bloody conflict and dispute involving the use of firearms and physical violence while it happens in violent hostility. “Dissidents” are, naturally different from “enemies” and they are not alike. This paper focuses on the ethics of hostility. Every discussion here also includes dissent and dissidents and they have been differentiated from animosity and enemies.

Exploring Naser Khosrow’s -the eminent theosophist of the fifth decade A.H- neoplatonism basics of Imamology, and comparing it with some fundamental assumptions in Greek thought reflected in Plotinus philosophy as the founder of Neoplatonism philosophy, this article attempts to reach to some conclusions regarding the Islamic thought. Therefore, our main perspective in this study is rather a political perspective than a theologico-philosophical one. On this account, emphasizing the political aspects of Naser Khosraw’s thought, we attempt to explain his Imamology. This study reveals that despite the fact that Naser Khosraw’s Imamology has borrowed from the Neoplatonist philosophy, Naser Khosraw’s Ismaili thought has fundamental incompatibilities with this philosophy, incompatibilities which bear the utmost importance in terms of discussing political thought. Posing no claim on a-priori authority of The Neoplatonist philosopher, the Neoplatonist philosophy stresses on the civil virtues as the initiating stage of attaining salvation and happiness. It is while the Naser Khosraw`s Ismaili Imam, has a unique specificity, e.g. the esoteric knowledge through which he posses both the worldly and heavenly authority. On the other side, there is basically an Eastern or in a sense, Iranian, concern lied behind Naser Khosraw’s Imamology and that is the essentiality of an individual bringing about both human and divine salvation and happiness.

In the discourse of Iranian intellectuals, Shaygan is named "Culture philosopher" by virtue of his opinions. Shayegan has always considered “Cultural Iran”: whether in his book titled ”Hinduism and Tassavof” in which he compares cultural Iran’s capacities and opportunities to impact as well as embrace Hindu culture (referred to as The East or Islamic Iran), or when it talks about another invasion and foreign culture in his book titled “Asia confronting the West” and inevitably risky signs for the cultural Iran and Iranian identity (referred to as the Islamic Iran tolerance), or when in his book titled “The Broken View” introducing the cultural schizophrenia and pointing to a split of this culture and identity and finally when in his book titled “New Mysticism” in which he talks about the quantity of identities and the combination of identities and cultures due to globalization (may be referred to as West Iran). Authors of this article discuss the issue of Cultural Iran in old and new Shaygan`s Thought. The emphasis in old Shaygan is on the importance of the Cultural Iran and the essentiality of protecting it with all the past inheritance still in an ideological direction, while the emphasis of the new Shayegan is on the combination of cultures and necessarily the role played by the Iranian culture in a global arena. Here we are not faced with a pure Cultural Iran, but a culture that is Iranian as much as it posses Western, Chinese and Indian components. Expanding this approach in the opinions of this important philosopher, the present article will point to his theoretical shortcomings and problems, as well.

This article is an attempt to show how Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Ghazali was influenced by the political philosophy of ancient Iran. Subconscious is originally a psychological concept now entered into politics. It is a source that manifests itself in a nation's attitude and philosophy unconsciously. Political subconscious is rooted in social imaginary. This article has recourse to Debray theory of mediology to prove that the fundamental concepts of political philosophy such as the unity of religion, state and the virtuous ruler were once preserved in Iranians` social imaginary and reproduced once again in the beliefs and opinions of the philosophers of the next eras through political subconscious. Al-Ghazali, the philosopher of the 5th century A.H who lived in a time different from that of Sassanid dynasty, with four centuries distance, has revived at the notion of the unity of religion, state and the virtuous ruler once again in his political opinions and accordingly his political opinions were under the influence of the ancient Iran.

Neutrality and Kantianism are the key features in Rawls’ theory. Basing his theory on “Kant's concept of personhood”, he presumed that he has presented a neutral interpretation of liberalism which suits all societies and cultures. However, he faced some criticisms questioning his claim on neutrality in theory. Hence, reconsidering his theory, he shifted from “kantian concept of the person” to “political concept of the person”. Still the problem of neutrality in his theory seems to be persistent.