One may say that The Open Society and Its Enemies (OS) offered in 1945 the first complete elaboration of the general approach proposed by Karl Popper, namely his ‘critical rationalism’, a bold generalization of the fallibilist falsificationism in the domain of the empirical sciences masterly proposed in Logik der Forschung (1934). The political content of The OS has been critically discussed. Nevertheless, not all people insist on the equally important moral dimension of the book, giving it its unity, I submit. Without morality, no critical discussion, no Reason, no open society, let us say in a nutshell. I would argue that according to Popper, a strictly Christian morality of love would not be the appropriate emotional companion of critical rationalism, but that the less demanding moral emotion of sympathy or compassion is perhaps necessary to give it its force against violence. I give some support to this line of argument. In my view, Popper proposed a somewhat unarticulated critical rationalist ‘emotivism’ of sorts. The emotion of compassion is necessary for triggering our moral decisions and values, which are the ultimate basis of the choice for a Reason against violence.

Modernity theories occupy a vast scope in the literature, representing philosophical, historical-civil, sociological-historical approaches, and sociology of religion. Various analytical methods and theories with specific titles and characteristics have been developed within any of these approaches. The present research started with the assumption that all these approaches in this wide-ranging spectrum revolve around action and reaction concepts on one hand, and self-founded and communicative Reason on the other. By using this framework, the above-mentioned notions can be conceptualized and differentiated as the main focus of this study. Our research hypothesis states that modernity theories began with the self-founded and autonomic action and then were extended to communicative Reason and interaction. It follows that, the theorists’ who attempted to explain the essence of modernity moved from philosophy to sociology in form of a process by which the society was rationalized while conceptualizing Reason made a passage through transcendental to instrumental and then to communicative Reason. The focus of this research is on the exploration of this path by the use of a historical-hermeneutical approach.

Is there any domain beyond Reason that is paradoxical and the oppositeof Reason?This question always makes mysticism face philosophy. Therefore the two domains of Reason and beyond Reason and the relation between them have been always attended to by the Gnostics and students of gnosis and religion in both the Christian West and Islamic East. W.T. Stace maintained that the judgments of the domain of Reason are paradoxical, interpreting a phrase of Meister Eckhart.Mulla Sadra has offered an interesting thesis in this field interpreting Aynolgozat and Ghazalis words. This thesis reveals minute details that have been ignored. In this paper we have used comparative method to show the depth of his view.

Challenge of the mystic with philosopher is one form of opposition to philosophy. Philosophy is attacked throughout history through three regions of religious dogmatists, anti-religious emperisists, and devoted mystics with different intentions. Among most fascinating discussions in the history of human thought is the dispute between thought and intuition, Reason and love, and knowledge and insight. Mystics are pessimistic of power of Reason in the perception of problems of metaphysics and anti-rationality is observed in works of their majority. In such works, Reason is put in opposition to three affairs: heart, love, and perplexity. Intellectuality and recommending impotence and perplexity is the central element of disagreement between mysticism and philosophy. Mystic is enamored of perplexity but philosopher is anti-perplexity. Perplexity primarily seems to be in contradiction to such categories as knowledge, guidance, faith, and belief. the nature of perplexity and expounding its proportion to the said catego.ries is the main object of this research.

The subject matter of this article is not to determine the priority of Reason to heart or privacy of rationality to love, but find out the answers to these questions: what is role of Reason and rational knowledge in attaining mystical intuitive visions? How far does the horizon of rational knowledge extend from perspective of Ibn Arabi? Given the fact that mysticism is arena for esoteric vision and disclosure, is there any room for Reason to play active part? Last but not least, how do proponents and opponents of Reason define the similarities and differences in the subject in question?It is worth noting that Reason is clearly different from rational knowledge but in the present article it is used in the sense of the latter.

Introduction In criminal law, balancing individual and social rights is a kind of justice that must be taken into account in criminal proceedings. In modern criminal law, requirements such as avoiding violations of physical rights, etc., are governed by ways and means of obtaining and collecting evidence, all of which are rooted in the principle of the legitimacy of Reason. But in the meantime, there are a number of contexts that influence these requirements and cause authorities to take advantage of methods that more likely to depart from the norms of principle of the legitimacy when collecting evidence of crime. The present paper examines the aforementioned contexts. Methodology Documentary and library methods were used to study the subject. Accordingly, the criminal law doctrines that have been written in the field of proof of the criminal case in various books and articles which surveyed the principle of the legitimacy of Reason and the legitimacy of Reason have examined; They were analyzed and described without using statistical indices with descriptive-analytic method. Findings Despite the use of illegitimate Reasoning methods and incompatible practices with our ethical, religious and legal foundations, but existing facts, such as the lack of specialized crime discovery facilities, lead Reason gaining to use these methods; In a way, the criminal prosecutor knowing that the police have used unauthorized methods to obtain evidence and cites the evidence presented in this way. Conclusion In criminal law, the principle of the legitimacy of Reason gaining is one of the most important and fundamental principles of protecting, guarding and supervising criminal proceedings in order to fulfill their individual and social security. however, there are a number of contextual contexts in the criminal justice system that lead Reason obtaining authorities, including the police, to depart from the principle of Reason legitimacy. Predicting systematic and systematic laws for the study of the cause will remove the problem of personal and social security.

In some contexts, philosophical debate can be rancorous even when the volume is kept low. In other contexts, certain stripes of “evangelical apologetics” can be equally adversarial and inimical in tone. In the name of preserving a professional, if not an irenic spirit, some unspoken ground rules have been adopted for interreligious dialogue. First is the demand to avoid all appearance of circular Reasoning, which is to say avoid making any rhetorical moves that depend upon metaphysical presuppositions about the reality of God. Second, it is understood that (supposedly) unimportant theologically-laden details are to be left off until the (supposedly) prior task of establishing God’s reality is achieved. Such ground rules put philosophical theologians at a distinct disadvantage in interreligious dialogue as they sideline the very voices that have the highest stake in the conversation. William Wainwright offers the concept of “passional Reason” as a way to counter the ground rules. Wainwright has shown that charges of circularity and subjectivism fail in the cases of such thinkers as Jonathan Edwards, John Henry Newman, and William James. Read in one way, Wainwright’s work may be taken as a strategic defense that prevents antagonists from excluding religious voices from philosophical conversation. I argue that there is an even more fruitful way to read Wainwright. Simply put, Wainwright’s recapture and rehabilitation of “passional Reason” for philosophy of religion simultaneously opens the door for more constructive approaches to interreligious dialogue than an agonistic-styled philosophical debate can allow.

The reader of the Masnavi finds it hard to grasp the notion of Reason at the outset. According to what sect has this notion been defined? Is it that of philosophers, ethicists and Sufis, each of whom has his own definition of the term, or is it something else? What are the different kinds of "Reason" cited in the Masnavi, and what are the characteristics of "Reason"? Rumi has made contradictory statements about "Reason", praising it at one time and disapproving of it at another. How can these contradictions be made sense of? This article aims to provide answers to the above questions to the extent possible.

Popper and Derrida are two influential philosophers of different schools of thought in the second half of the twentieth century. In terms of epistemology, Popper belongs to the critical rationalism school and Derrida to the deconstruction approach. Both of them intend to question any philosophical, social, political, and linguistic fundamentalism. They aspire to go beyond the duality of realism and idealism, and to this end, each offers his own definition of Reason’ s essence/substance and its domain. Popper distinguishes between the affirmative and negative aspects of Reason. He counts the affirmative aspect of Reason as fundamentalism that must be abandoned and the negative aspect of Reason as the faculty necessary to explain any scientific Philosophy. On the other hand, Derrida questions the totality of Reason from a critical perspective toward logo-centrism in the Western metaphysics of presence. The article goes on to compare Popper's and Derrida’ s approach in the Philosophy of science and explains the essence /substance of Philosophy of deconstructive science.

There has been a conflict between heart and Reason among some my sties, and they have poured their scorn upon Reason in their works. They have introduced heart as the main instrument of knowledge, while Reason has been enrolled in the works of philosophers and in religious sources. This apparent contrast is very tedious for the student of knowledge and scholars who paved the path of truth Considering this paradox, it is revealed that there is no real difference between true mystics and godly philosophers regarding this conflict. Some times the literal similarity between particular and universal Reason, and some times the different stage of knowledge, and some times the lack of Reasoning among some of the followers of mysticism have developed this conflict.