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.

Purpose: The science of interpretation, as the most important science responsible for understanding the Qur'an, needs to be methodized and updated so that the teachings of the Qur'an can be used easily for all classes of people. In the present Study, the meaning of "future research in interpretation" is the ability to create desirable models for more efficient interpretation in the future, by using scientific tools, creativity and relying on the foundations and rules of interpretation and compensating the damages of interpretation in the past.Method: This research, with descriptive analytical method, answers the question, what are the fields and requirements of future research in interpretation? Findings: The results of the current research are based on the fact that special attention to the Qur'an, as the most important source of interpretation, rationality and methodical consideration in interpretation, attention to the prerequisites of interpretation, interpretation based on the requirements of the time, the need to pay attention to thematic interpretation, Studying on the history of interpretation and observing the manners and conditions of interpretation are one of the most important requirements of interpretation in the future. Results: Considering the developments that will take place in the field of knowledge, methods and expectations from science in the future, the interpretation will also change. For this reason, in order not to cause various damages to the interpretation of the Qur'an, it is necessary to pay attention to the various contexts, principles and requirements of the interpretation of the Qur'anic commentators and scholars.

In the present Study, the main purpose is the qualitative Study on garbage collection in Tehran city. It has been done by qualitative research method. Semi-structured interview and purposeful sampling techniques were used in data collection. To do this, 15 people were interviewed and the sample size in the present Study was determined based on theoretical saturation. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Theme analysis was performed at 4 levels of primary, main, central and core themes. A total of 184 initial themes were extracted from all interviews. In the main coding stage, the following 9 main themes were merged. Escape from poverty in the origin and the inevitable choice of inferiority, society's view to garbage collectors, and high stress, strengthening the cycle of academic reluctance and illiteracy, physical and mental torment, unknown horizon and confusion of the Khojies, legal ambiguity and customary definitions and contracts, complaints from relevant institutions, the entry of the mafia and the formation of rent and corruption. Finally, these themes fall into two categories of social harmfulness of recycling and institutional exclusion and illegallity of the status of garbage collectors in the second distrect in the form of the core theme of the structure of socially harmful and institutionally illegal, waste phenomenon explained..

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.

Criminal procedure as a measure of the degree to which criminal justice systems adhere to human rights has long sought to respond to crime. Although the procedure of the criminal procedure has important goals, but the main mission of the procedure is to discover the truth in the cases. Although in the past the process of discovering the truth was simple, with the rise in crime rates and the emergence of white-collar crimes, the discovery of the truth has been challenged; This means that the complexity of the crime has also made the truth-seeking processes difficult. However, due to the mission of criminal procedure as a chapter of hostility, judges try to identify the truth in various ways and, based on that, issue a fair verdict in a fair process. Due to the fact that the public expectation from the penal system is to investigate crimes committed and restore public order, judges have been given privileges according to which they can perform their assigned duties. One of the most important powers given to judges to discover the truth is the principle of freedom of reason; This means that judges, in the position of discovering the truth, can obtain any reason. However, the prohibition of abuse of power and the prevention of arbitrariness of judges has led to the recognition of the principle of legality of the Study of reason in addition to the principle of freedom of reason.