During his second career, Roland Barthes concentrates mainly on the criticism of the ‎Evident. He believes what pretends to be natural, universal and evident is in fact an outcome of ‎a naturalization process; a process through which the ideological is finally configured as the ‎Evident. Accordingly, the final result of the naturalization process, according to Barthes is a ‎Doxa which embodies the Evident. Therefore, on his way to criticize the Evident and also ‎reveal the ideological implications of Doxa, Barthes proposes Paradox as the antithesis of Doxa. ‎Paradox is actually a weapon against the intrigues of language, on the basis of which it would be ‎possible to experience a different reading of the text. However, Barthes never provides a clear-‎cut explanation of the semiotic mechanism of Doxa and Paradox. As a result, it may be ‎assumed that Barthes' theoretical reorientation involves with the denial of his former doctrines ‎regarding sign. This article, then, tries not only to analyze the semiotic functions of Doxa and ‎Paradox, but also explain the logical outcome of this viewpoint. It will be finally revealed that ‎Barthes' second approach is basically influenced by the criticism of the hierarchical relationship ‎between connotative and denotative meanings. ‎

The present article examines the writings of Dr. Nasser Takmil Homayoun, a prominent contemporary historian and sociologist, with a special emphasis on his works in the Qajar period. Most of his writings are researches on the history and society of Qajar. Thus the main question of the present article is whether Takmil Homayoun been able to adhere to the principles of historiography and especially sociology in his writings? Despite his specialized education in sociology, he seems to have considered himself mainly a historian and he did not pay much attention to the principles and rules of sociology so that his works in the field of use of sociological concepts, methods and theories, and sociological explanations are devoid of such criteria and even in some of his most important writings, a conflict with sociological methods and explanations is evident. Therefore, the present article evaluates the works of Takmil Homayoun on three levels: definition of concepts and conceptual anachronism, Doxa perspective, and poverty of sociological methods and theories.

In a recent edition of this journal, Mannion and Braithwaite provide a succinct analysis of the emergence, and ultimately limited impact, of what they term the current ‘ Safety I’ movement in healthcare. They describe the arc of this field from denial, through engagement via mechanisms and approaches imported from other industries, to the current situation where, despite ‘ best efforts, ’ error rates remain stubbornly recalcitrant. In examining the failure of system-wide efforts to produce sustained reductions in errors and adverse events, that article exposes the doxa, or what Bourdieu calls ‘ the taken for granted’ which is central to this latest wave of patient safety movement. In this commentary, I would like to take focus on two key elements of Mannion and Braithwaite’ s argument: that harm is caused by misguided but otherwise well-intentioned actions and the ‘ embracing’ of patient safety. I then conclude by briefly considering the implications of these for Safety II, particularly as envisaged by the authors as an evolutionary, and therefore linear progression, from Safety I.

Although Pre-Socratic in 600 B.C founded new research ways in science and philosophy, wrote the first scientific essays, introduced basic conceptions of deduction, and abandoned mythological explanations, all we have of their works is but the fragments in the works of further doxographers, biographers, historians or philosophers who brought their statements between their own words. This would sometimes result in misunderstanding the presocratics’ purposes. Hermann Diels in his Doxographi Graeci raised a new method for dealing with doxography tradition. Diels’ new approach to doxography returned all this tradition to Aristotle’s pupil, Theophrastus. Some scholars like Jaap Mansfield criticized his disregard for the sophists like Gorgias and Hippias, and the successions of philosophers. According to his criticism, some matters like the Sophists’ influence on Plato, Aristotle’s definition of Doxa in the Placita and the influence of the succession and interpretation tradition on doxogtaphy are more noteworthy than Diels has thought.

Abstract Cartesian duality and Kantian transcendentalism widend the gap between philosophy and literature inaugurated by Plato, but literature was not corrupted by any duality, truth or knowledge. Through interdisciplinary studies, the present paper aims to show how Platonic Chorismos beclouded the relationship between these two siblings, philosophy and literature The researcher proposes a new philosophical theory named Fourthmanism and Slippery Subject in which literature rejects any representation or subjectivity. The present study aims to offer an ethical man in literature living in the lowest layers of the society. This man comes to the scene in Renaissance, and, through desubjectification, turns Platonic doxa to episteme. In so doing, Hamlet and Timbuktu are chosen to show Fourthmanism from Renaissance onward.

The yellow vest movement in France represents a kind of democratic deficit and a crisis of government representation. Perhaps the use of the term "crisis in the symbolic system" is more appropriate to describe the current situation in France. This concept was introduced by Pierre Bourdieu. In Bourdieu's epistemology, social action is formulated in the first place as the dualism of hysteria and doxa, and in the second place as having a class nature. The question now is how did the crisis of the symbolic system lead to the formation of the Yellow Vest movement in France? It can be hypothesized that the weakening of symbolic power cast doubt on Doxa as an element of state legitimacy on the one hand and the emergence of hysteria in society on the other. The result of this process was the yellow vest movement. This research has used Bourdieu's theory of praxeology in the theoretical and methodological framework. According to Bourdieu's habitus, capital and field are the main characteristics of a symbolic system, and the crisis in the system begins among them. After examining these three indicators, it was found that symbolic capital has been weakened in France, and this has affected the government's ability to use symbolic violence. After examining these three indicators, it was found that symbolic capital has been weakened in France, and this has affected the government's ability to use symbolic violence. This shortcoming has cast doubt on Doxa in France, which has manifested itself in the form of neoliberalism and has led to the emergence and continuation of the movement. The method of data collection in this research is library and field study.

The Genesis of theoretical structure of modern human beings is to be found in differentiating between doxa and Truth. In fact this is the distinguishing Truth form doxa in one hand and objectivity from subjectivity in other hand that identifies modern way of thinking from pre-modern thinking one. This is to be identified totally intuitive in its mental layers. Consciousness is something Absolut in the, mystical way of thinking which is completely transits from "self" or an original past. While in modern way of thinking objects are the points of doubt and investigation In mystical way of thinking, only to the extent that it is the object allows objects are known and this is the object that imposes the myth of subjection. It is important to Recognize the later as an illogical pre-systematic mystical way of thinking in Iranian’s Intellectual history. A glance at Iranian intellectuals will disclose an effort to recognize the identity of "themselves" versus "the other”. The present article attempts to recognize and express the relation between the mythical mentality governing Jalal al-Ahmad's idea and his "self" concept and seeks to show that the allegoric mythical mentality in defining "self" versus "another" is a kind of agonistic encounter. In Jalal’s Account of such a relationship The West/"Other" has a deep conflict with "self" that cannot be ignored and, of course, cannot be eliminated.

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) is the most prominent figure in the French sociology that put an end to the hegemony of social action and structuralize theories in the field of sociology. He propounded Structural Constructivist Theory of politics through dialectical relationships between "fields" and "habits". Bourdieu's broad socio-anthropological and interrelation approach to power stands as opposed to the traditional academic political science discipline which emphasizes on the actual and objective operation of the political institutions (one of the legacies of the behavior list school) as well as on the more visible aspects of governing operations (elections, laws, policies, parties, etc). By contrast, Bourdieu as a sociologist and anthropologist approached the topic of power by stressing the social and cultural bases of power at the micro-as well as macro- levels. Naturally, this complicated view may not neglect analyzing electoral and democratic politics as doxa (dominated common belief) in political filed.Based on his critical view to current electoral democracies, Bourdieu emphasizes that delegation of power and political representation, despite the presence of the media and the press, inevitably leads to usurpation and manipulation of democracy. What does Bourdieu suggests as an alternative to representative democracies as a dominated doxa in political field? Bourdieu propounds the idea of "Real Democracy" which includes different dialectical categories as an alternative way to democratization of democracy in current societies.

Plato in Theory of Philosopher-King believes that all of the members of ideal city-state, whether ruler or citizens, will attain happiness if the philosopher is the ruler. But there are paradoxes in the theory and the bases of the happiness are unstable too. In other words, Plato in his theory presents hierarchical dualities (Intelligible/Visible world, Episteme/Doxa, True/Untrue Or Shadow …) but is not bound to their necessities and tries to justify the (philosophical) theory by myth and allegory. Hence, happiness as an important and basic part of the theory has some problems and basically is not attainable.