The notion of peace, regardless of theorizations accepted in the field and since the Enlightenment Period, and the era known as Modernism, has, constantly, been one of the challenges of mankind, and also scientists in the field of political sciences and international relations. Contrary to the presentation of the idea of peace and respect to the human rights in some of the foreign policy doctrines of the USA in different periods, this country has had the largest number of cases of application of army rage in its file, during the 20th century. This article sheds a brief look on the moments of the US foreign policy during the years of war with Vietnam, in combination with anti- war cinema introduced by Stanley Kubrick, the famous American film producer. In his movie, “Full Metal Jacket” he criticizes the American politicians, regarding Vietnam War. Although he has not provided a theory of peace, he is wholeheartedly, an antiwar Film producer.

This qualitative article employs an analytical-explanatory approach and is based on library resources to examine the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature through the lens of Comparative Literature. The study aims to clarify the distinctions and connections between these three concepts to better understand the position of Iranian literature within Global Literature. Several questions are raised: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What connections do they share with Comparative Literature?” Some scholars consider World Literature and Global Literature interchangeable. Others view World Literature as comprising outstanding works from local literature that have achieved recognition either through translation or in their original language at transnational and international levels. The findings reveal that World Literature is retrospective, focusing on canonical historical works, while Global Literature is contemporary and a product of modern globalization processes. Additionally, the concept of Cosmopolitan Literature, which emphasizes a sense of global belonging and cultural interactions, closely aligns with these two. Comparative Literature serves as a framework for analyzing these relationships and strengthening the connection between Persian literature and global currents. Extended Abstract 1. Introduction The expansion of globalization processes and the resulting economic and cultural transformations have given rise to several concepts in the fields of literature and culture. Among these is the notion of World Literature, which has been the subject of considerable debate since its inception. It has also sparked fundamental questions, particularly in the context of globalization studies: “Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or are they distinct?” “How do they relate to Cosmopolitan Literature?” “What is the relationship between these latter forms and local or regional literature?” Despite numerous studies on these concepts, significant gaps remain in understanding the relationships among them and their connections to Comparative Literature. Using an analytical-explanatory approach, this article seeks to address these gaps and provide a basis for answering three central questions: Are World Literature and Global Literature synonymous, or do they differ? What is the relationship between these concepts and Cosmopolitan Literature? What role does Comparative Literature play in analyzing and explaining these concepts? Clarifying these relationships may help shed light on the position of Persian literature within Global Literature and contribute to the development of comparative studies in Iran. The study of the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature has given rise to diverse perspectives within Comparative Literature. Goethe introduced the concept of World Literature, emphasizing cross-cultural interactions and the elevation of exemplary national works as a starting point for understanding these concepts. Building on this foundation, Marx and Engels offered a critical perspective, viewing World Literature as a product of bourgeois society, emerging from the processes of economic globalization. This view highlights the material and economic dimensions of literature’s circulation and reception on a global scale. More modern studies suggest that Cosmopolitan Literature, by fostering a sense of global belonging and cross-cultural interactions, serves as a bridge between national and Global Literature. It connects localized literary traditions to broader global frameworks, emphasizing shared human values and cultural exchange. Despite this background, significant gaps remain in analyzing the connections among these concepts through the lens of Comparative Literature. This article seeks to address these gaps, offering insights into their interrelations and providing a framework for further understanding. 2. Literature Review Regarding the relationship between the concept of World Literature and other related notions, particularly Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, several Persian-language studies, in addition to the theoretical sources analyzed in this article, have explored these relationships. Horri (2021) examined the Eastern origins of World Literature from Goethe’s perspective, arguing that "from Goethe’s point of view, World Literature is neither a collection of national literature nor a compendium of global masterpieces; rather, it is a dynamic process of interaction among nations aimed at dismantling the walls of national prejudices that hinder peaceful coexistence” (p. 229). In another study, Horri (2023) explored the interdependence of national and Global Literature, demonstrating that "the richness of World Literature may depend on the richness of national literature, and vice versa; without national literature, there would be little presence of World Literature” (pp. 34-35). Building on these insights, this article seeks to analyze the relationship between World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, offering a comparative and theoretical perspective to clarify their intersections and distinctions 3. Discussion and Analysis One of the key challenges in translating the term Globalization into Persian arises from the lexical similarities between terms like "world" (as in World Literature) and "global" (as in Global Literature), and their equivalents in Persian, which do not have precise distinctions. Furthermore, translators have not consistently rendered these English terms into Persian, leading to discrepancies in interpretation and application. The discourse on World Literature and its relationship with other forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, can be divided into two broad chronological and historiographical categories: 1) Early and Foundational Perspectives and 2) Contemporary and Critical Perspectives. Two influential early views on World Literature stem from Goethe and Marx and Engels. Goethe envisioned World Literature as a means of cultural exchange, fostering dialogue and understanding among nations. Marx and Engels, however, emphasized the commodification of literature within the framework of global capitalism. For them, literature became a bourgeois product circulating within the global economy and subject to the dynamics of production, consumption, and exchange. While Goethe’s focus was more cultural, Marx and Engels placed a greater emphasis on the universal aspects of literature as a product of bourgeois society, linking it closely to the concept of globalization. This commodification of literature, as described by Marx and Engels, underscores its connection to the broader socio-economic processes of globalization. Since the early 2000s, discussions about World Literature and its relationship with other literary forms, such as Global Literature and Cosmopolitan Literature, have adopted a more theoretical and critical orientation. Bugomil (2001) argued that Global Literature is primarily aimed at a general, global audience, while World Literature is more likely to be critically received by a specialized readership (p. 5). In other words, Global Literature enjoys widespread acceptance, while World Literature invites selective and critical engagement. Damrosch (2000) contended that the broad acceptance of World Literature does not inherently conflict with its alignment with critical readerships. While Global Literature often appeals to contemporary sensibilities, World Literature tends to engage with the past, fostering interpretative and intertextual connections across texts. Bugomil succinctly encapsulates this distinction: Global Literature is present-oriented, while World Literature is past-oriented. Ian Baucom (2001) provides a more nuanced categorization of Global Literature, distinguishing between its function as a project and as a method. As a project, Global Literature involves reconfiguring literary studies to focus on what is termed Global Literature. As a method, it involves extending global approaches to specific methods for studying what is broadly defined as literature (p. 162). This distinction highlights the dual role of Global Literature as both a framework for rethinking literary studies and a methodology for expanding the scope of literary analysis. In summary, Global Literature is future-oriented, with an emphasis on contemporary relevance and universality, while World Literature remains past-oriented, seeking to preserve and reinterpret literary traditions across cultures. The commodification and globalization of literature have shaped these distinctions, allowing for the simultaneous coexistence of broad accessibility and critical engagement. This analytical framework sets the stage for exploring the interrelations among these concepts, their implications for understanding literature, and their role in shaping both national and global literary discourses. The relationship between Global Literature and World Literature remains a subject of significant debate. While Bugomil (2001) argues that Global Literature cannot be equated with World Literature due to differences in scope and audience, Hillis-Miller (2011) takes a more integrative stance. He suggests that Global Literature can replace World Literature and proposes the term “New World Literature” instead of the traditional concept of World Literature. Eric Hayot (2013) examines the relationship between World Literature and globalization from two perspectives: method and subject matter. Hayot argues that World Literature cannot be easily equated with globalization, as the latter adopts a scientific-social and positivist approach, primarily concerned with economic and political transformations. This framework, he notes, is largely disconnected from the aesthetic and interpretative dimensions of literature (p. 223). Hayot highlights that literary studies are often shaped by an aesthetic perspective, emphasizing close reading techniques and poetic devices. These studies view literature as a medium for imaginative escape and playful resistance against the commodification and transactional nature of global markets (Hayot, 2013). The connection between World Literature and cosmopolitanism emerges when World Literature—or more specifically, Global Literature—is seen as a product of globalization, which is inherently shaped by external, economic, and global forces. In a globalized world, McLuhan’s metaphor of the “global village” (1994, p. 8) suggests that its inhabitants become global citizens, fostering a sense of cosmopolitanism. From this perspective, literature functions as a means of expressing and reinforcing this sense of global belonging and cultural interconnectedness. Domínguez (2013) delves deeper into the link between World Literature and cosmopolitanism, defining cosmopolitanism as the starting point of a movement toward a “hybrid perspective.” He posits that literature is initially localized (e.g., “European literature”) but gradually transforms into “Global Literature” when it reaches a broader, universal audience (p. 337). Beecroft discusses the connection between cosmopolitanism and what he terms “literature-world” or “literary ecology.” This approach emphasizes the interplay between localized literary traditions and global literary networks, offering a framework to understand how regional and Global Literature coexist and influence one another. These perspectives collectively illustrate the intricate relationships among World Literature, Global Literature, and cosmopolitanism. While globalization serves as a material and economic backdrop for the emergence of Global Literature, cosmopolitanism emphasizes the ideological and cultural dimensions of global literary exchange. The works of Hayot, Domínguez, and Beecroft highlight the evolving roles of literature as both a product of its local environment and a participant in global literary discourse. 4. Findings, Conclusions, and Future Studies This study sought to define and analyze key terms, particularly the four concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, Cosmopolitan Literature, and Comparative Literature, and to examine their distinguishing characteristics. The findings demonstrate that World Literature, along with national, non-national, and local literature, is incorporated into the ongoing and dynamic process of globalization through translation. This globalization process is a tangible and practical phenomenon, emerging from the era of new technologies and heavily influenced by global economic structures. In this framework, globalization transforms the world into a small village—a global village—where its inhabitants, representing citizens from all five continents, perceive this village as their homeland, fostering a sense of belonging. This global sense of attachment is described as cosmopolitanism, reflecting the worldview of global citizens in a tightly interconnected world. In summary, many theorists regard World Literature as the outcome of cultural interactions and mutual understanding, with Comparative Literature serving as a tool for better comprehending these interactions. Simultaneously, perspectives on Global Literature are primarily influenced by economic and globalization-driven dynamics, emphasizing broader accessibility and appeal. In contrast, Cosmopolitan Literature emerges as a result of global interactions and the acceptance of multiculturalism, aligning closely with the ideals of global citizenship. Expanding upon these findings, this study highlights their relevance to Persian literature, emphasizing its significant potential in the global literary arena. By analyzing the concepts of World Literature, Global Literature, and Cosmopolitan Literature, the study demonstrates that Persian literature—enriched by its cultural depth and historical interactions—possesses immense capacity to engage a global audience.

The aim of the present study is to examine the image of women in Persian mystical verse literature up to the 15th century CE. The research method is descriptive-analytical and is based on library sources. The findings indicate that throughout a woman's life, she embodies symbols of delicacy and beauty. In girlhood, she represents purity, emotion, and sentiment. Upon marriage, she becomes a symbol of affection, love, and compassion; and when she becomes a mother, she turns into an icon of sacrifice, selflessness, and devotion. Referring to mystical literature, beauty in women is sometimes depicted as external and at other times as internal. Woman is a symbol of light. From the perspective of the Sufis and mystics, the woman is at times introduced as a symbol of human attributes and even characterized by divine-like qualities, while at other times she is assigned a demonic position or status. Sometimes she embodies virtuous traits, and sometimes she is marked by reprehensible and undesirable attributes. Women in mystical narrative poems occupy the highest ranks. After these mystical works, women in Bustan by Saadi are portrayed in a way that only acknowledges the guardianship and unquestioned dominance of men.

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.

Literary and artistic works are the mental and spiritual products of human beings. Since human beings are Social and educational in nature, he will inevitably reflect his educational and biological impacts in his works. Among common people, types of behaviors, acts and reactions and social interactions stem these peculiarities and among the men of letters and artist, these peculiarities and realized more delicately in their artistic manifestations and their systematic thoughts. There for, the relationship between society and art or literature and society is an inevitable phenomenon. Accordingly, we can trace most of the concepts or literary and artistic creativities in the heart of the concepts of society. The present article tries to seek the social objective from different angles through the use of expert’s achievement.

In the thematic classifications of Persian poetry, we encounter a type of literature whose subject is the struggle against the tyranny of rulers and those in power. In recent times, this type of literature has been referred to as protest literature. In mystical poetry, protest literature can be seen separately and alongside other literary genres. So far, the connection between this genre and the mystical literature has not been studied much. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the aim of the present article is first to classify mystical and Sufi poets from the perspective of protest and then to express the reasons for the opposition of protest literature with mystical poetry in different periods. The results show that due to the spirit of indulgence and deep tolerance, mystical poets do not have a suitable ground for protest and criticism and despite a handful of examples, most mystical poets have been reluctant to address protest themes. Also, the results of the research indicate that due to their intellectual principles, deterministic view, complete reliance on God, surrender to God's will, and sometimes due to severity of the rulers or interacting with powerful people, the mystical poets refused to protest.