How the reciprocal rights and responsibilities of citizens and the government are one of the most essential topics in the soci​al sciences and politics, particularly in contemporary societies. Parallel to the transformation of political and social structures in societies and the emergence of the modern government, the concept of citizenship and the role of the citizen as one of the most crucial social elements in the modern society, as well as the political and social rights and reciprocal responsibilities of the government and citizens, became the focus of social scientists and political philosophers. In this regard, we will analyze the issue of citizenship from the perspectives of Alasdair MacIntyre and John Rawls as representatives of the two approaches, collectivism and liberalism, and compare Farabi's views to these. Farabi's formulation of relations draws people from Medina with the concept of “Ahal al-Madina.” The comparative study of the terms “citizenship” and “citizen” allows for a more accurate comprehension of the relationships between individuals in civil life. In this study, a descriptive, analytic, and comparative investigation of the fundamental components of the concept of citizenship and its related dimensions in the thought of Farabi, Alasdair MacIntyre, and John Rawls has been undertaken. The findings of this study indicate that Rawls and McIntyre have profoundly different views on the framework of the concept of citizenship. However, in certain aspects, such as the priority of the public good over individual rights and interests, Farabi’s and McIntyre’s ideas are similar and closely related.

To study politics and morality relationship and create interaction between the political and morality foundations are the most important and scientific issues in the field of political philosophy and thought. Reza Davari Ardakani and Alasdair Macintyre are two contemporary political and ethical philosophers. They have two different tradition of thought (Islam and the west) trying to study the coherence of politics and ethics. This research paper ignoring the differences of these two schools of thoughts, and considering the general and common views of these two intellectuals in social and political affairs tries to answer the following question: What is the relationship between ethics and politics in political thoughts and opinions of Reza Davari Ardakani and Alasdair Macintyre? The hypothesis proposed is that Davari Ardakani and Macintyre, according to their epistemology and anthropology systems believe in the unity and relationship of ethics and politics. According to the results and findings of this research, both philosophers have tried to take advantage from explanatory, cognitive and normative implications to approve the positive hypothesis. Research method in this paper is analytical-descriptive and comparative.

MacIntyre, the contemporary Scottish philosopher, in chapter fifteen of his book, Who’s Justice? Which Rationality? (1988), has developed a theory on rationality that accordingly not only the traditions have not been considered as a treat to rationality but also they are the principal constitutes of rationality. On the one hand, he offered some arguments against relativism and perspectivism and, on the other hand, he didn’t take of rationalists. Later, he became nearer to the rationalist camp in Dependent Rational Animals (1999), but not so near that could be called a full blooded rationalist. This article has a review on this modification of his ideas on rationality.

The goal of this article is to explain how the concept of Illumination came to be a source of skepticism in the modern West. In ancient and medieval Christian thought it was essentially tied not only to Plato’ s philosophy, but especially to Augustine’ s invention of the notion that the soul is an inner chamber containing all his knowledge, but also the locus of his encounter with God. The concept of the soul or mind as an inner chamber re-emerged in early modern western philosophy, but it was no longer open to illumination, John Locke having made revelation into an entirely distinct category of knowledge. The set of ocular metaphors of which illumination is a part still has an important place in ordinary language, but can no longer provide for a philosophical theory of knowledge. Thus, different complex metaphors need to be employed. Alasdair MacIntyre’ s account of human reason begins with social practices, and can be described as an extensive thesis reflecting the metaphor Knowing as Doing. With his incorporation of Thomas Aquinas into his account of tradition-constituted rationality, it is suggested that interesting parallels might be found with the work of Mulla Sadra.

Current Exchange opinions and criticism between liberalism and communitarianism as two contemporary political schools of thoughts is an important issue. Liberalism in the modern era, especially now without any doubt one of, if not the only, political ideology is dominant. It can be said that communitarians are strongest critics of Liberalism, and liberals in their turn have some strongest critique about communitarian's ideas. This article aims to express critiques of defenders of liberalism against some communitarian authors like Michael j. Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charls Taylor and Michael Walzer. In short these critiques can be grouped in eight fields: confronting freedom, misunderstanding about liberal freedom, having comprehensive philosophical doctrine, misunderstanding about liberal neutrality, misunderstanding about liberal self, problem of virtue and civic virtues, exaggeration of liberal weaknesses, and impossibility of communitarianism.

Current Exchange opinions and criticism between liberalism and communitarianism as two contemporary political schools of thoughts is an important issue. Liberalism in the modern era, especially now without any doubt one of, if not the only, political ideology is dominant. It can be said that communitarians are strongest critics of Liberalism, and liberals in their turn have some strongest critique about communitarian's ideas. This article aims to express critiques of defenders of liberalism against some communitarian authors like Michael j. Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charls Taylor and Michael Walzer. In short these critiques can be grouped in eight fields: confronting freedom, misunderstanding about liberal freedom, having comprehensive philosophical doctrine, misunderstanding about liberal neutrality, misunderstanding about liberal self, problem of virtue and civic virtues, exaggeration of liberal weaknesses, and impossibility of communitarianism.

The present article tries to study communitarianism as one of the important normative approaches in social science, and present its methodological components in the explanation of political and social developments. However, the question is: what are the concepts and methodological principles of communitarianism in the views of Alasdair MacIntyre? Communitarians select tradition instead of discourse and study five steps of rise, rationality, dialog, crisis and revival of thinking traditions. They are the constructivists of methodological domain. Their analysis is not at macro or micro level, but at local level. Contextual rationality and locality are very important for them. In sociological area, they put emphasis on communities and seek politics in them. Their rise is the result of the gradual fall of mobilizing ideologies such as the left and liberal in the political area, the decline of proletarian movements, the process of depoliticization of Europeans countries and the decline of the Green Party, the supporters of the environment, and the feminist movements. It seems that using this methodology instead of positivistic and hermeneutic approaches can help us develop a local approach for our perception of policymaking in the plural society of Iran and it can be used as an interdisciplinary theory for the humanities.