نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه فیزیک، هسته پژوهشی نقد الحاد جدید و هسته پژوهشی مطالعات میان رشتهای هستیشناختی، دانشکده علوم، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Introduction and Objectives: Many Western thinkers, including Immanuel Kant, Jürgen Habermas, John Searle, Jacques Derrida, and Gilles Deleuze, have lectured and researched the idea of the university. However, Iranian thinkers, due to the novelty of the university concept, may not have felt this necessity and therefore have not explored this issue. Currently, given the quantitative and qualitative expansion of the universities in the country and the production of science by them that has occurred in recent decades, the discussion about the philosophy and idea of the university has become important and is one of the concerns of many experts and managers of the country, and have asked such questions as "What is the concept of a university?", "What is a university like in Iran?" and "How far is an Iranian university from a standard university?" Any answer to these questions will chart a different path for the future of higher education in the country.
Since domestic sources on the question of the “idea of the university” are scarce, some researchers examine the ideas of Western thinkers, which consequently leads to an understanding of their influence. As a result, our universities will essentially serve the modern system and modernity, and their functioning will not align with the sociocultural reality of the country. In such works, it is observed that some of the main points have been neglected, such as the criticisms and objections that Western thinkers have made to each other’s opinions, as well as the substantive objections of modern sciences. Therefore, in addition to the need for the researcher himself to be careful and critical in applying and prescribing Western theories, it is also necessary for others to criticize the ideas proposed by these researchers.
In this study, we examine and critique two ideas related to the university, namely “university deconstruction” (Mesbahian, 2009; Mesbahian, 2019) and “deterritorialization of the education system in the country” (Sajjadi, 2010). The main question of this study is whether each of the two ideas can introduce the idea of the university at the national level.
Method: The research method employed in this study is logical-philosophical criticism. The researcher examines the logical inconsistency, internal contradictions, and philosophical objections of the ideas of “university deconstruction” and the “deterritorialization of the education system”.
Findings: In the deconstruction of history, Derrida addresses the opposition between the values of a historical period and the assumptions of historical texts. The purpose of the deconstruction project is to deconstruct, de-signify, and devalidate past and metaphysical values (Derrida, 2002). In fact, “In popular usage, the term has come to mean a critical dismantling of tradition and traditional modes of thought” (Britannica). With these explanations, it becomes clear that Derrida’s intention of deconstructing the university and the unconditional university is to create a university that resists the assumed values and surrenders to the values of humanism. Of course, Derrida has made many mistakes along the way. This study shows that Derrida’s university deconstruction has internal contradictions and lacks logical consistency, and the proposition “there is no unconditional university” is a kind of error in thinking and invalid reasoning.
To create "creativity" in thinking, it is necessary to replace the educational system in the mirror of geography with the educational system in the context of history (Sajjadi, 2010). Therefore, the discourse in the mirror of geography, in which we see ourselves; that is, see the here and now, has, in the words of post-structuralist philosophers, a “geo” called the student, pedagogy, education, etc., so in this discourse, geography itself should be seen, not other things (ibid.). Attention should be paid to the abilities and nature of the learner, not ideals, religion, and history (ibid.).
Deleuze’s philosophy is constructed based on mathematical and scientific concepts that Western scholars believe he did not understand correctly (Sokal, 2013, Chapter 9). Therefore, Deleuze’s use of these concepts is undoubtedly not without contradictions. Moreover, many of the perspectives on such university ideas are claims without empirical evidence or theoretical proof.
Some of the objections to the use of Deleuze’s philosophy in the critique of national education in his paper (Sajjadi, 2010) arise from the lack of attention to the fact that deterritorialization and reterritorialization are borrowed from the terminology of Deleuze and the West, which believes in the religion of humanism, in which theism has no place. Therefore, deterritorialization is used to change the territory of divine concepts and cannot be used to criticize these concepts. Another important and fundamental objection to his paper (Sajjadi, 2010) is the confusion of concepts in the verbal sharing of words such as “creativity” and “potential”, which have different meanings in each school of thought.
Discussion and Conclusions: In the historical phenomenology of the university in Europe, four university models have emerged from four distinct historical periods: the Christian, the nation-state, idealism, economic globalization, and service to the individual (Mesbahian, 2009). By examining the conflict and dialogue between them, the direction of the university movement is determined (ibid.). In conclusion, the university has always been flexible and affected by social, geographical, economic, cultural, and political situations. By the university deconstruction, Derrida arrives at the "unconditional university", which is unconditional, i.e., unconditional and absolute knowledge, meaning that it is without preconditions and is not affected by political and social conditions. Derrida admits that "the unconditional university does not exist!" (ibid.). In this proposition, the unconditional university has two different senses: i) It finds an external instance in one place with the quiddity of the “conditional with the thing” (corresponding to the nation-state, etc.); it has a mixed quiddity. ii) “with conditional no” quiddity and an abstract quiddity that does not correspond to anything, not even “existence.” This logical-philosophical contradiction is inherent in Derrida’s deconstruction of the university.
In his paper (Sajjadi, 2019), the discourse of the prevailing educational system in the country has been based on historical foundationalism. In this discourse, examining the past and then moving towards the future, building the future based on the past, is the cause of stagnation and lethargy in this system. Therefore, using Gilles Deleuze’s idea of deterritorialization to make creativity in thinking, the educational system in the mirror of geography should be replaced by the educational system in the context of history (ibid.). Because in the mirror, the man can see himself. Therefore, the discourse in the mirror of geography is where we see ourselves; i.e., we see the here and now. In this discourse, geography “itself” should be seen, not other things. It should pay attention to the abilities and nature of the learner, not ideals, religion, and history (ibid.). Some of the objections to the paper (Sajjadi, 2019) are:
One objection to the paper (Sajjadi, 2019) is the confusion of concepts that has occurred in the verbal sharing of words across different schools, such as the word “creativity” in Deleuze’s vocabulary, which has a different meaning from its common-sense meaning. So Sajjadi’s statement (2019), “Creativity has no place in its [Islamic] approach,” contradicts Deleuze’s definition of creativity. Deleuze’s concept of creativity raises doubts and questions about the use of “creativity in the realm of capitalism,” which is one of the victims of this creativity of traditional social codes, religious beliefs, etc. (Jeanes, 2016). The different meaning of “potential” is another example in Deleuze’s and Shahid Motahhari’s vocabularies. In Motahhari’s vocabulary, “potential” is rooted in Fitra, and in Deleuze’s definition, it is rooted in the intellect of the founder. In addition, self-realization, according to Motahhari and Islamic teachings, is based on the same foundationalism and the "pure life" that Sajjadi’s paper (2019) negates and deterritorializes. Generally, human-based reason negates God-based reason, and the two are incompatible.
Another objection in his paper (Sajjadi, 2019) is eclecticism, i.e., evaluating a theory based on the existence of Fitra, with the contradicting theory (humanism) denying it. In other words, in his philosophy, Deleuze has used "immanence" to replace Kantian "transcendence". Now, the question is: “How can Fitra be defined in Deleuze’s philosophy?"
Another objection is limiting concepts. For example, in his paper (Sajjadi, 2010), “narration” is taken to be equivalent only to “history.” Then, foundationalism is considered historical; i.e., “pure life” is viewed as a concept of the past and is no longer relevant today. In other words, in the context of this paper (ibid.), in the present time, types of life have been or can be created by individuals. In the religious view, pure life belongs to Fitra, which belongs to the "now" not to the “past.”
There are other objections in Sajjadi’s paper (2010), which are addressed in this study.
Conflict of Interests: No conflict of interest is declared.
کلیدواژهها [English]
Referecnes
)