AbstractPurpose: The velocity of change in the surrounding world has forced them to identify those factors which impact their change capacity. The present study was conducted to identify and prioritize influential factors on organizational change capacity.Methodology: In terms of purpose, this was explorative and applied research. Its population included ten familiar experts with research subjects in a research and training center. By reviewing the literature on change capacity, relevant, influential factors were identified, and they were concurred by the fuzzy Delphi technique, and then they were ranked. After recognizing influential factors, a pair comparisons questionnaire was distributed among ten experts, and after gathering the questionnaires, effecting factors were ranked using the Expert Choice11 Software package and AHP technique.Findings: Results show that organizational culture, structure, and style of leadership were the main factors that impacted change capacity.Conclusion: The influential factors can be divided into three categories: environmental, content, and structural elements. Environmental factors include environment and innovation; content factors include team working, intellectual capital, leadership, political behavior, and human resource management; Structural elements include strategy, structure, organizational policies, information technology, knowledge management, and technology. Value: This is the first time in the literature that the influential variables affecting the change capacity were recognized and categorized in a conceptual classification that has not been seen in the previous research.

Nature has aesthetics of its own, what can provoke the human mind into better recognizing the concept of beauty via mental perception. As such, human mind can interact with the nonverbal expressions of nature only to better his/her primitive aesthetic knowledge and reach a more novel recognition of aestheticism via the practice of interpretative deduction. This article has been the result of a series of discussions and dialogues between the authors on the nature of aesthetic geotouring and exploring the natural phenomena based on the Dialectical Method of Socrates and modelled after the Platonic dialogues. The outcome of this dialectic study brings to light the fact that touring in nature through providing the due opportunity for mental perception of aesthetic phenomena can provide a clearer definition of ‘beauty’ in its rich variety. Aesthetic search as such will culminate in forming a more illuminated mental concept of beauty in mind, what can influence human rationale for aesthetic judgment and enrich even more the texture of human aesthetic creation. Such aesthetico-interpretative endeavor might lead to a higher potential for creating more original works of literature and art and culminate in a better judgment about such aesthetic creations.

Dialectic is one of the most important and fundamental principles not only in the Plato's system of philosophy, but also in the whole history of philosophy.The purpose of this paper is to consider the evolution and change of this concept in the Platonian dialogues.This paper shows that the whole meaning of dialectic can be represented in one meaning, that is, logical meaning based on the method of collection and division, and also upward movement and transition.

Much recent discussion of the epistemology of religious belief has focused on justification of belief in the existence of God. Religious belief, however, includes much more than belief in God. In this paper, it is argued that the justification of belief in God is best seen in the context of other interrelated religious beliefs and practices. Philosophers of religion argue about whether religious belief requires evidence and on the sorts of arguments that have been presented. In this paper, a dialectical approach to the justification of religious belief is suggested that draws upon Hegel, Peirce, and W. E. Hocking. Rational reflection on the nature of experience that provides the solution to the problems of skepticism and solipsism in the Hegelian tradition, a tradition self-consciously developed by both Peirce and Hocking. If reason itself is only manifest in social exchanges, then the rationality of religious belief cannot be a private affair restricted to the subject of experience; rather it is the process of communicative interactions in accord with the overlapping norms of those who participate in them. Finally, some implications of this approach for the problem of religious diversity are sketched.

Discourse of emancipation as an important part of discussion on social change has a special place in contemporary political thought. Connection of 'emancipation' with philosophy of history over the last two centuries mostly related to Hegelian tradition, has made it dependent on fundamental elements of this tradition. 'Dialectic' with different philosophical aspects is the main axis of such connection. This article studies the relation of dialectic with emancipation and difficulties which emerged from such relation, and tries to illustrate the necessity of criticism and transition beyond dialectic in order to attain more efficient theories to make emancipation possible.

In the present article, the author tries to comparatively study capacities of two Asian and European philosophical systems concerning a particular issue i.e. the faculty of reason-; and, in this way, to contemplate the possibility of a dialogue among philosophical traditions as an inexorable priority of the present time. Though no limitation was recognized for reason in the space of Enlightenment (Aufklarung) and by the Newtonian physics, and in Kant's critical philosophy, unity and complementarity of understanding were provided by reason; limitation of reason and its realm is emphasized practically. "Fallacies", antinomies, and ideal of the ”pure reason” were proclamations of failure of the reason in three fields of knowledge of the truth of Soul, Nature, and God, ' and" transcendental dialectic" was introduced as a critical situation stemmed from transcendence of the reason The inevitable result of such approach was dualiry between subject and object, noumenon and phenomenon, understanding and reason; and Kant's successors had to overcome such duality.In Islamic philosophy- and in particular in Sadrian philosophy- "Reason" contains, on the one hand, levels of knowledge and in fact levels of "Being", and on the other hand - unlike Aristotelian and Kantian traditions- there is no conflict between levels of knowledge; thus, "Reason" is introduced as a form of levels of Being and as corresponding to these levels. Though, lately in the 18th Century and early in the 19th Century, Kant's successors-and in particular Hegel-focused their attempts to remove duality between subject and object and noumenon and phenomenon, no philosophical system based on traditional metaphysics managed to overcome the difficulty of critical philosophy. (It was only in the mid-20th Century that a new window was opened by the help of Husserl's Phenomenology and Heidegger' s Hermeneutics).In the present article, through a comparative study between philosophical system of Kant and Mulla Sadra, the author is trying to open a road to dialogue and critical exchange of ideas between two great philosophical traditions in the West and East.

Although the concept of wandering has not been applied popularly in Iran, it could explain many cultural phenomena. The present article first outlines the history of wandering and it’s used meaning. Then, it describes a form of wandering as the distinctive lifestyle of urban subordinate groups in the shopping centers. The result of this article has been obtained by employing qualitative methods and through interviews and observation.The authors believe that shopping centers create a certain lifestyle for urban middle class people through the purchase and consumption of goods. At the same time, wandering in its used meaning in Iran has formed the lifestyle of lower class groups.

Gadamer regards understanding as a dialectical action brought about by the fusion of the horizon of the interpreter and horizon of the text. In contrast to the Enlightenment approach, the dialectical understanding is non-methodical and unpredictable. That is why Gadamer considers understanding as an event or accident. Accordingly, understanding is no longer the passive discovery of an object over a subject; it is the interaction of one subject with another during the process of dialog. Therefore, truth is not a pre-existing phenomenon, only discovered by the subject. Truth is created in dialog and through dialog. The structure of dialog is based on questions and answers. The interpreter embarks on asking questions about the text in order to solve his modern questions, making the text speak for itself. Rising out of and carrying tradition, the text questions the hermeneutic condition of the interpreter through its answers. The dialog leads to the opening of the text towards the interpreter and the opening of the interpreter towards the text. It ends in the fusion of horizons, elevating the interpreter to a wider understanding and horizon.