Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast

In his writings and theories, Kant refers to three imaginations, each of which has a clear definition and a recognized purpose, and which can be considered in their ability for general synthesis. three types of imagination are productive, reproductive, and creative.Based on the method of transcendental analysis, it is shown that there are necessary conditions in the relationship between imagination and ethics. In the first transcendental analysis, it was found that the necessary condition for the moral action of goodwill and the necessary condition for the realization of goodwill is creative imagination. In the second analysis, it was concluded that the necessary condition for the realization of the absolute is the power of imaginative imagination, and in another statement, it was concluded that the necessary condition for the Categorical imperative is the imagination. In the third analysis, it was found that the Categorical imperative is the possibility of the absolute possibility of using the imagination by a thought experiment.Based on the Deductive method, three Deductives were obtained. In the first philosophical Deductive conclusion, it was concluded that for moral education, one must cultivate the imagination. In the second Deductive conclusion was reached that for empathy or any kind of moral education in the sense of the Categorical imperative, one must cultivate imagination. In the third Deductive conclusion, it was concluded that the method of thought experimentation should be used to cultivate the imagination for moral education (moral imagination).

This study aims to critique the concept of active learning in childhood education based on Hegelian Bildung. We have defined childhood education from the perspective of Hegel’s Bildung in The Phenomenology of Spirit. We describe childhood education as a ‘primary Bildung’ having the aim of ‘entering into the conceptual world’. This aim indicates that children can and are required to express their experiences in conceptual language. Finally, we critique the conceptual components of active learning from the Hegelian point of view and suggest three alternative components: ‘child-educator interaction’, ‘understanding historical knowledge’, and ‘addressing concrete-abstract affairs.’ We suggest that the concept of active learning needs to be replaced by ‘Communicative-Interactive Learning (CIL)’. CIL takes both objectivity and subjectivity into account during the process of knowledge formation in education.

This study aims to critique the concept of active learning in childhood education based on Hegelian Bildung. We have defined childhood education from the perspective of Hegel’s Bildung in The Phenomenology of Spirit. We describe childhood education as a ‘primary Bildung’ having the aim of ‘entering into the conceptual world’. This aim indicates that children can and are required to express their experiences in conceptual language. Finally, we critique the conceptual components of active learning from the Hegelian point of view and suggest three alternative components: ‘child-educator interaction’, ‘understanding historical knowledge’, and ‘addressing concrete-abstract affairs.’ We suggest that the concept of active learning needs to be replaced by ‘Communicative-Interactive Learning (CIL)’. CIL takes both objectivity and subjectivity into account during the process of knowledge formation in education.

After highlighting the importance of social mission in Humboldtian university idea, this article will inquire about the relation between this mission and human agency. To do this we employ a more deduction philosophical analysis method. Clarifying the meaning of the social mission of the university, which we use here, will be the first step. According to this criterion, in the second step, we will read out the social mission of this idea. The base for this part is more the Fichte and Humboldt's texts. Finding the main elements of human agency and its relation to this idea of the university will be the main step. In this case, results show, without considering the human agency, the expansion of cultivating in society and promoting the ethical culture of a nation, will be not possible. Furthermore, it seems the main phenomenon of the human agency should be considered in the social mission of this idea, as far as we could say they are too interdependent and linked to each other. Refer to some reasons why this idea is still alive and introduce some dimensions of our society, will be present in the last section.

Examining the logical elements in the social ethics is among the subjects that Ibn Sina has done through the explanation of ethical statements and analysis of its content. He presents society as the origin of the morality and he introduces society as a background which morality derives from it and then in the same background moral virtues are groonded. In the meantime he introduces logic as an instrument for the study and grounding these affairs. The main issue in this study is to determine the moral happiness Ibn Sina pays attention to both in its rational aspects and to its ethical aspects which includes social ethics and regulates the relation of individuals in society and with each others. To specify the limits of rationality and being rational, he presents religion as the framework of law making and by an analysis of moral statements in generally accepted opinions under the topic of dialectics considers different origins for morality. Incidentally, on this basis beside the compatibility with religion, he introduces a criterion of logical appraisal for morality. For by determining the place of moral statements in logic and specifying the value of statement which have categorizal certainty, he presents the criterion for their appraisal from the same area.

Interdisciplinarity approach is one of the newest to the knowledge. One of the contemporary necessities of interdisciplinarity approach to the knowledge is its philosophical explanation. This paper is an attempt to explain interdisciplinarity approach based on Mull-Sadra’s epistemological point of view. Sadra’s epistemology in its depth is unity-oriented, and hence has a capability for preparing an appropriate foundation for interdisciplinarity mode of knowledge. Here, it, primarily, is provided a brief historical overview on the unity of knowledge ideas led to interdisciplinarity as the recent issue of responding to the question of the unity of knowledge. Then MullaSadra’s point of view is followed in four axes; origin, necessity, process, and credibility of interdisciplinary knowledge. Based on the four axes, and as the epistemological foundations of interdisciplinarity of Mulla-sadra’s viewpoint, there are developed five foundations; that is, “grounding understanding on the graded unity of being”, “dependency of understanding to the complexity of universe”, “interdependence of components and whole”, “methodic and epistemic plurality and increasingly unity of understanding”, and “hierarchical discovery of truth”. Finally, we have mentioned some fundamental differences between the current interdisciplinary opinions and Sadra’s views. Sadras viewpoint reflects an original unity approach to universe which in itself has a large distance from the urgent technological unity of modern thoughts.

This paper aims to extract Iran’s philosophy of education from two sources of the constitution and the course of practice in educational institutions. Regarding the first source, it is argued that parallel to the two main threads of the constitution, Iran’s main elements of philosophy of education are expected to be derived from; Islam and democracy. The challenge in front of this feature of Iran’s implicit philosophy of education refers to the seemingly contradictory relation between the two components of Islam and democracy. It is argued that the hard contrast being held between religion and liberal democracy is not defensible and that there could be compatibilities between the two. As for the second source, it is shown that there are concerns about the main trends that underpin Iranian educational institutions. One trend is that the religious education in Iran is at the threat of becoming dogmatic and being overwhelmed by indoctrination. The second trend, referring to the minorities’ education, shows a further challenge regarding recognition of minorities’ right to education. Finally, the third trend is related to the embrace of neoliberalism in Iranian educational endeavors. It is argued that this trend provides a tension in the overall corpus of the country’s philosophy of education.

In this essay Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast argues that, by focusing on acculturation and edification, Richard Rorty has provided a promising view for education because without acculturation, education turns into a destructive endeavor, and without edification, education risks the danger of being repetitive and reproductive. However, Rorty's view is problematic in terms of the characteristics he holds for acculturation and edification, as well as the incommensurable relation he maintains exists between the two. Noaparast asserts that there are three unnecessary dichotomies in Rorty's educational view: sentiment versus argument, solidarity versus objectivity, and acculturation versus edification. In the case of the first dichotomy, Noaparast contends, one should combine sentiment and argument or else embrace arbitrariness in dealing with different frames of reference. As for the second dichotomy, since solidarity is vital in providing us with scientific consensus, it cannot be the alternative to objectivity. Finally, the third dichotomy would make the very idea of edification impossible to realize unless there can be a relation between the two phases of education. Noaparast concludes that Rorty's view on education holds great promise if we can find a way around these dichotomies

The position of the philosophy of education in theoretical or practical philosophy was the main subject of debate between Paul Hirst and Wilfred Carr. In his support for practical philosophy, Carr argues that in order to bridge the theory/practice gap and deconstruct the illusory intactness of philosophy of education from developments in the practical realm, philosophy of education should be assumed as a branch of practical philosophy. Opposed to this argument, Hirst holds that philosophy of education is a second-order activity and a theoretical matter. Even though both viewpoints seem to be reductive, it is argued here that the controversy of Hirst and Carr on theoretical/practical philosophy of education is more a pseudo-problem than a real one. This is because Hirst does not dismiss the reflection on action as a source of philosophical knowledge, nor does Carr in fact avoid a second-order activity in his endeavour in philosophy of education. Nonetheless, it is argued that we should celebrate a moderate dualism in the case of theoretical and practical reason.

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between sophisticated view of induction and science education. Method: This study is a critical review on the relation between philosophical approaches to science and science education. Thus, an analytic method is used in investigating the theories of science and their relationship to science education. Results: Analysing the arguments against induction, we argue that the sophisticated view of induction is not only resistant against the critiques but also inspiring for science education. Conclusion: This paper concludes that the sophisticated view of induction provides the merits of both positivism and falsificationism in science and science education while avoiding their disadvantages. Accordingly, to avoid positivism, science education should reinforce students' imagination and theory development and to avoid falsificationism, it should embrace observation and induction.

There have been some suggestions concerning the subject matter of Islamic psychology. It seems that these suggestions could not overcome the theoretical barrier for providing a subject matter for psychology. Some have considered the divine Spirit (Run) within the human as the subject matter, some others have regarded the Soul (Nafs)and still others, the divine creation of the human (Fitrah) as the candidates for doing the job. However, these suggestions could be challenged in different ways on being able to provide a suitable subject for scientific studies of psychology. The present essay is an introductory attempt to give an alternative. Accordingly, an alternative to the three above mentioned suggestions seems to be the important Islamic concept of Action. We can consider Action as the suitable subject matter for psychology. This is because action is so wide that it could cover all the humans whether believers or non-believers in God, whether their Fitrah is active or silent. An action, as it is used in the Islamic texts, refers to a behavior (being observable or non-observable) that is based on, at least, three kinds of foundations: cognition, emotion, and will. In addition to being a suitable subject for psychology, action is a key concept in referring to the human nature or identity.

What is the main characteristic of constructive explanation? In other words, what is the nature of a construct and, consequently, what kind of relationship is there between constructs and behavior? Kelly stated that a "psychological response is initially and basically the outcome of a construing act."(1955, vol. 1, p. 171) Somewhere else, he asserts it in a more clear way: "Since they construe them differently, they will anticipate them differently and will behave differently as a consequence of their anticipations." (Kelly, 1963, p. 90) The relationship between constructs and "psychological response" could be considered in terms of either 'causation' or 'implication'.

In this essay Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast argues that, by focusing on acculturation and edification, Richard Rorty has provided a promising view for education because without acculturation, education turns into a destructive endeavor, and without edification, education risks the danger of being repetitive and reproductive. However, Rorty's view is problematic in terms of the characteristics he holds for acculturation and edification, as well as the incommensurable relation he maintains exists between the two. Noaparast asserts that there are three unnecessary dichotomies in Rorty's educational view: sentiment versus argument, solidarity versus objectivity, and acculturation versus edification. In the case of the first dichotomy, Noaparast contends, one should combine sentiment and argument or else embrace arbitrariness in dealing with different frames of reference. As for the second dichotomy, since solidarity is vital in providing us with scientific consensus, it cannot be the alternative to objectivity. Finally, the third dichotomy would make the very idea of edification impossible to realize unless there can be a relation between the two phases of education. Noaparast concludes that Rorty's view on education holds great promise if we can find a way around these dichotomies

Traditionalism-as a school established at 20th century by Rene Guenon, Amanda Coomaraswamy and expanding and developing by figures like Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Martin Lings, and Titus Burckhardt…- assumes human as vicegerent of God which has an important role in the universe. In this point of view Egalitarianism isn’t acceptable because human beings are different in respect of sexuality, emotions, talents and races. Differences between races and societies prove the necessity of religious plurality on one hand, and unity of the Reality above the forms prove “Transcendence Unity of Religion” on the other.

Globalization is regarded as a process or a project or a process/project which is most rapidly developing. Globalization, in case of occurrence, will put its impacts on all dimensions of human life including knowledge and practice. Particularly, its impact on epistemology and education would be remarkable. Given that the appearance and development of informational revolution is the most important background for globalization, the first challenge of globalization relates to the nature of knowledge. According to the information revolution, the most important characteristic of knowledge is to be sought in this equation: knowledge = information. This involves reducing different facets of knowledge to quantitative information which leads to knowledge legitimacy crisis. In addition, having a communicational dimension, knowledge will be qualified by means of the shape and characteristics of community in the era of globalization. The viewpoint of virtual community calls us from another side to rethink on knowledge as well as on the problem of identity because in the consequence of virtual community, virtual identity of pupils is being claimed which involves indentity fragmentation. To deal with these challenges, education needs: a) to resist the reduction of knowledge to information and equate knowledge with wisdom rather than information; b) to extend imaginative and creative procedures; c) to develope interdisciplinary studies as an important way of extending imagination; and finally, d) to provide relationship between virtual and real communities of the pupils.

Some authors have analyzed the Islamic concept of education in parallel to the assumed contrast between Islam and the liberal tradition. Hence, given the latter’s rationalist tendencies, an almost indoctrinatory essence is assumed for the Islamic concept of education. However, we argue that rationality is involved in all elements of the Islamic concept of education. There might be some differences between the Islamic and liberal conceptions of rationality, but these are not so sharp that the derivative Islamic concept of education can be equated with indoctrination. We suggest an Islamic concept of education that includes three basic elements: knowledge, choice, and action. Then, we show that, according to the Islamic texts, these elements have a background of wisdom

Constructive realism (CR) is an attempt to overcome the difficulties associated with naïve realism and radical constructivism. There are different versions for CR. In this paper, I defend a particular version of CR. Complexity of reality, on the one hand, and the impact of human mind, language, and culture, on the other, leads to the inevitable contribution of constructs in knowledge development. According to the CR, even if mental, linguistic and cultural side of constructs could not be avoided in principle, a certain proportion of reality-contact can be considered and defended for the constructs. In this sense, human mind and culture has a constitutive role to play in knowledge acquiring instead of being an innocent means in the process of acquiring knowledge. On the other hand, the role played by the reality in this process cannot be ignored because, according to the CR, knowledge consists after all of knowing 'something' in the real world. On the whole, taking into account both the constitutive role of mind and culture, on the one hand, and the inevitable role of the reality, on the other, shows the difference between the CR and pure realism, pure constructivism, and those versions of CR that do not take the constitutive role of mind into account. There are requirements for the CR in science education. First of all, there must be a constant caution for making sure that our scientific theories have caught the proportion of reality-contact. This point shows the difference between the CR and pure constructivism. This caution should be present in our science teaching as well. Secondly, we should encourage our students to develop imaginative alternative constructs when they are learning sciences. This shows the difference between the CR with naïve realists who ignore the importance of students' imaginations in suggesting alternative constructs. Notwithstanding, while we encourage the students to develop their imaginative constructs, there should be considered a limitation for their over-justification about their constructs. In this way, we as teachers should urge them to take counter-evidence most seriously into account. This is a point in which constructive realists are distinguished from pragmatists too. Pragmatists do not give up their theories in confrontation with counter-evidence but rather look for almost limitless changes in their constructs in order for making the counterevidence compatible with their theories, whereas constructive realists will be ready to take counterevidence more serious and correct their constructs accordingly.

The hermeneutic view, as a constructive approach in social sciences, is revived in last decades; Principles of this view are applied to educational studies as well. In this essay, the application of these principles to the area of research on evaluation of academic achievement is discussed, In this discussion the main point of the hermeneutic view, namely the Hermeneutic circle, is highlighted within the framework of Heidegger's and Gadamer’s views, Accordingly, four steps are suggested for doing research on the evaluation of academic achievement. In the first step, the researcher traces to determine whether the teacher is aware of her pre-understandings in the process of evaluation, This is because evaluation, like any other cognitive activity, is not advanced with an empty mind, In the second step, the researcher deals with the question whether the teacher tries to enter into the intellectual horizon of the pupil In effect, in the third step, the researcher deals with the question whether the teacher confirms or changes the pre-understandings identified in the first step, Finally, in the fourth step, the researcher looks 10 see whether the teacher provides a 'fusion of horizons’; a fusion between the intellectual horizon of hers and that of the pupil's, This is to say that from the hermeneutic view, proper evaluation is far from being a one-directional activity of the teacher

""Kelly’s constructive epistemology needs to transcend its background of instrumentalism arising from Dewey’s influence. What enables us to well avoid instrumentalism is a notion of truth that incorporates both coherence and correspondence. If we were to abandon coherence, we would have to embrace the naïve conception of realism, while by abandoning correspondence we would have to embrace instrumentalism because we would have to consider the workability of a theory or a construction system and its coherence with previously successful ones as constituting the truth of a given theory or construction system. Such a realistic constructivism provides a more satisfactory conception of personal constructs. According to this view, we no longer think that personal constructs are either true or false, rather they are divided into true and false in accordance with the grasp of reality reflected in our best theories. In other words, having provided a theory of truth, we are ready to compare different personal constructs with the grasp of reality involved in the theory in terms of their correspondence with that grasp. Furthermore, this conception of constructivism makes it possible to talk of the approximation of personal constructs to reality. Having provided a conception of correspondence, not only have we avoided instrumentalism, but also talking of approximation makes more sense. This is because our best theories provide an account of the world with reference to which we can talk of more or less approximate personal constructs. In this sense, more valid personal constructs are those that are more approximate, that is, more correspondent to the reality.

Asking about the place of religion in a democratic society refers straightforwardly to the kind of pluralism we adopt. Given that intra-societal tensions mark out a democratic pluralistic society, then it seems that there is no doubt that there should be a place for religion and religious people in it. What is crucial for a democratic society is taking a suitable view on pluralism. There could be, at least, two versions of pluralism: Incommensurable or radical and commensurable or moderate. It is argued that the incommensurable account of pluralism confronts with serious problems both theoretically (like the impossibility of outer critique) and practically (like replacing persuasion with force). Rorty advocates a commensurable pluralism based on pragmatic conventions or "know-how" skills without any meta-narrative or translation manual among the doctrines of rival views. However, along with Davidson, it is stated that some kind of translation among the rival views is inevitable. In addition, it is argued that commensurable pluralism could not be limited to merely know-how skills and it needs some know-that insights. This view of pluralism not only opens the door of dialogue, but also provides a basis for removing superficial differences or conflicts between the rivals. Real differences, however, could remain and should be tolerated.

This essay concerns a philosophical examination of the nature of mind and the relevant implications for mental health. Traditionally, realism and constructivism are regarded as two contrastive positions in explaining the nature of mind. While realists take discovery of reality as the main function of mind, constructivists regard it as creation of reality. Hence, epistemologically, realists emphasize on correspondence to reality as the criterion of validity or truth of the mind's contents, whereas constructivists regard the inner coherence of constructs as the main criterion. inner coherence of constructs or resolving inner conflicts; capability of constructs for adaption to problematic situations; and correspondence to reality as an ideal in the long run are the discussions and aims of this paper.

Comparative studies among cultures, particularly Western and Eastern ones, are vital and necessary. In this essay, we are presenting a comparison between Western and Islamic views. The focus of this study is on action-oriented educational research based on Charles Clark’s view as a more recent action-oriented view on educational research. The comparison between Clark’s view and the one we suggest that is inspired by the Islamic view of human action and shows that there are considerable commonalities between the two views as both of them avoid the mechanistic orientation and take human action into account. There are also differences between the two views regarding the distinction between fact and value, as well as the relation between means and ends in research.

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between sophisticated view of induction and science education. Method: This study is a critical review on the relation between philosophical approaches to science and science education. Thus, an analytic method is used in investigating the theories of science and their relationship to science education. Results: Analyzing the arguments against induction, we argue that the sophisticated view of induction is not only resistant against the critiques but also inspiring for science education. Conclusion: This paper concludes that the sophisticated view of induction provides the merits of both positivism and falsificationism in science and science education while avoiding their disadvantages. Accordingly, to avoid positivism, science education should reinforce students' imagination and theory development and to avoid falsificationism, it should embrace observation and induction.

In this book, the words ‘science’ and ‘social science’ are used in their limited sense that refer to experience-based knowledge. This should not indicate that experience is being used in a positivistic sense. Rather, the important insights of all kinds of post-positivist views are embraced to give an extensive meaning to experience. However, the most important characteristic of experience and science that should never be excluded is its dependence on observation and observational evidence. Thus, when ‘science’ is used in combination with ‘religion’, it should not be confused by religious knowledge. The latter might refer to, perhaps, a certain kind of knowledge that could be found in religious texts and might be different from other kinds of knowledge. However, when the phrase of ‘religious science’ is used, it refers to a scientific knowledge, even though because of its religious presuppositions it is called religious. And this relation between religion and science is exactly the point that is at issue in this book. On one hand, the issue of religious science raises challenges on the ground that the contemporary science has been explicitly non-religious or perhaps in some cases anti-religious. Objectivity of science is usually understood in a way that it does not permit to combine ‘science’ with ‘religion’. Thus, in the first step, the phrase of religious science is considered as nonsense. On the other hand, as far as religious people are concerned, the issue of religious science is enthusiastic. These people sometimes think that a real religion should include all scientific truths. Thus, facing the issue, they immediately verdict that there are or should be religious sciences. However, neither that strong challenge with the possibility of any religious science, nor this hot enthusiasm could be in congruence with the spirit of scientific endeavor. As far as social scientists are concerned, the possibility of religious science should not be rejected a priori. This possibility should not be necessarily considered as a threat for science, rather the plausibility of its being a chance for the development of science should also be taken into account. On the other hand, as far as the religious people are concerned, they should not necessarily consider the possibility of talking about religious sciences as a chance for spreading their religion, rather the plausibility of its being a threat for their purpose should also be considered. This is because entering of a religion into a job which is not relevant to it could be dangerous. Far from these two kinds of biases, it is attempted in this book to deal with the issue in a reflective manner. It seems that thinking about ‘religious science’ requires us to take three steps. In the first step, we need to think about the nature or characteristics of science. In the second step, we need to think about the nature or characteristics of religion. And finally, in the third step, it seem necessary to think about the combination of them. These three steps show the direction of the discussion in what follows.

The position of the philosophy of education in theoretical or practical philosophy was the main subject of debate between Paul Hirst and Wilfred Carr. In his support for practical philosophy, Carr argues that in order to bridge the theory/practice gap and deconstruct the illusory intactness of philosophy of education from developments in the practical realm, philosophy of education should be assumed as a branch of practical philosophy. Opposed to this argument, Hirst holds that philosophy of education is a second-order activity and a theoretical matter. Even though both viewpoints seem to be reductive, it is argued here that the controversy of Hirst and Carr on theoretical/practical philosophy of education is more a pseudo-problem than a real one. This is because Hirst does not dismiss the reflection on action as a source of philosophical knowledge, nor does Carr in fact avoid a second-order activity in his endeavour in philosophy of education. Nonetheless, it is argued that we should celebrate a moderate dualism in the case of theoretical and practical reason

Considering three philosophers – Ghazali , Hume, and Kant – we perceive that they were at grips with skepticism and each had a different attitude towards it. While Hume remains in a skeptical sphere, Ghazali and Kant offer solutions for skepticism, although their solutions differ largely. Criticizing Aristotle’s view on essential necessity, Ghazali expands Avicenna’s emphasis on experimentation and, in effect, negates the necessary relation between cause and effect. Ghazali preceded Hume in this regard for some 6 centuries and put forward Hume’s main idea. In order to overcome skepticism, Kant appealed to rationality and it’s a priori backgrounds, while Ghazali put forward God’s will and put the emphasis on the inner direct experience. It will be argued that God’s deeds, rationality and faith should be compatible in principle.

Philosophy for Children' program that Mathew Lipman and his colleagues have developed is now known in our society and has led to thinking and research in this regard. Thus, to consider the challenges that are in front of this program can lead to the richness of these researches. Three challenges are in front of this program: philosophical, psychological, and educational. The philosophical challenge is due to the point that philosophy is mainly dependent on the history of philosophy and thoughts of preceding philosophers. This dependence should of course be along with critique, but this dependence cannot be denied anyway. Hence, philosophizing cannot be reduced to the methods of thinking. Psychological challenge is rooted in the approaches of developmental psychology that emphasize on phases in human thinking. Accordingly, abstract methods of philosophizing cannot be used in the period of childhood. Educational challenge is related to basic cultural values that might be shaken in the process of philosophical interrogations. The philosophical challenge requires that teaching philosophy to children emphasize on an amalgamation of method and content. The psychological challenge makes us cautious as to looking for more investigations on the periodical characteristic of thinking. And finally, the educational challenge requires that criticizing cultural values, being necessary in active education, is not started from foundational issues of culture. The period of childhood can only be fitted to interrogation of low level cultural issues and values and leave the foundational cultural issues to philosophizing in higher ages.