---

This article, using a sociological perspective, attempts to understand the application of empirical methods in the Iranian-Islamic golden age, especially during 130-500 Hegri. It distinguishes different approaches to rational knowledge and laying emphasis on empirical science in the mentioned period. The theoretical framework of the present paper is the sociology of science, especially the interpretative sociology of science in the Weberian and Mertonian traditions. This framework provides the possibility of studying internal cultural factors, beyond cultural exchange and external transfer of scientific knowledge. The author, through studying the history of natural sciences and humanities at the Iranian-Islamic golden age, shows how applying empirical methodology of science to, for example, historical, geographical, and anthropological knowledge, have been influenced by the social interpretation of prophetic religion. In particular, it is indicated that the cultural elements of social belonging, equality and mutual understanding of Shoobieh ethics influenced the above mentioned areas of scientific endeavor.

---

Finding the rhetoric meaning of understanding process is very important in identifying the meaning of the Qur'anic verses. The importance becomes more apparent when the interpreter tries to translate the meaning of the term "However" into Persian. This word is similar verbs and is one of the terms through with the understanding process can be presented. Without understanding the meaning of the verse and not knowing the interpretation and rhetoric meaning of this word, the translator will misinterpret. The purpose of this article is to examine the rhetorical aspects of "understanding" in the Quran, especially the meaning of "However". For this purpose, we refer to various interpretations and considered their meanings in the context of the verses. Therefore, we chose 10 verses that the word "However" is used. Also, 16 top translation of the Qur'an into Persian were chosen and according to the translation and dictionaries, the meanings of the words in each of the ten verses were reviewed. In this way we try to use the descriptive and analytical approach to critically examine the translations and thus give a more accurate sense of the word. In this paper, we conclude that many Iranian translators of the Qur'an neglected the true meaning of this word because of the lack of attention to the rhetorical role of "However" in its translation. Therefore, we tried to provide a more accurate meaning of this word considering the rhetorical use of "However" and the context of selected verses from one side and referring to the interpretation and understanding of its true meaning on the other hand.  

---

There is an inevitable relation between philosophical hermeneutics and Literary theory, especially Reader-Response theories. It springs from phenomenological approach in philosophical hermeneutics and phenomenological predecessor of these theories. Indeed, in this point of view, philosophical hermeneutics is an Existential philosophy on the interpretation of the text. Philosophical aspect of philosophical hermeneutics is based on the Existentiality of it. Furthermore the Existence that Gadamer and Ricouer consider, is an interpreted Existence; as a result, the interpretation of text, is in the center of hermeneutical views of Gadamer and Ricouer. The difference between their sights is a subsidiary difference pertaining to the main difference which is their ways towards Existence. The most important difference is related to Ricouer's epistemological model and Gadamer’s ontological view in the process of interpretation. The main difference is in fact the base of the other subsidiary differences: temporality; linguistic; dialectical and objectivity. In this article I'm going to discuss the relation between philosophical hermeneutics and literary theory and then describe the views of Gadamer and Ricoeur on text I will compare the interpretation models in Gadamer’s and Ricoeur’s point of views on text in accordance with the four differences mentioned. Finally I will draw a total conclusion form all the discussed matters.

---

Nowadays, we have to rely on experts in many theoretical and practical matters. We consider them reliable and rely on them. To justify many of our beliefs, we have no other reason but the testimony of experts. Nonetheless, to trust the experts, it is necessary to recognize them and know their distinctive characteristics. In doing so, epistemologists proposed some definitions for experts and expertise. In this paper, First, we will explain the truth-based definition and then the justification-based definition and describe the criticisms of it. we show that the best definition is that S is an expert in domain D if and only if S has more understanding and ability than most people in domain D at his time. In the end At the end, we explain the five necessary conditions of belief, coherence, ability, efficiency and time.
 

---

The main problem of philosophical hermeneutics is the problem of understanding. Understanding is determined in what context, how, and by what components. Gadamer explains these influential components by emphasizing tradition and history and emphasizes the plurality of understanding by expressing the ontological characteristics of human understanding. From this perspective, subjectivist and non-pluralist approaches are denied. In this article, we aim to examine, based on the characteristics of the understanding process in Gadamer's hermeneutic approach, namely historicity, pluralism, eventfulness, practicality, and linguistics, its relationship and proportion with political totalitarianism and pluralism, and to assess the possibility of convergence or incompatibility of the foundations of philosophical hermeneutics with political pluralism as a pluralistic political approach and divergence or compatibility of philosophical hermeneutics with political totalitarianism as a non-pluralistic political approach. Although Gadamer cannot be considered a full-fledged political philosopher, it is possible to examine political systems and their epistemological foundations based on his hermeneutic approach and evaluate their relationship.
 

---

Philosophical and linguistic reflections of Gadamer and Ricoeur on how understanding occurs are of considerable significance. Gadamer’s concept of “Fusion of horizons” and Ricoeur’s idea of “Understanding oneself through the other” are among the most important issues in this regard. These two philosophical issues attempt to gain intercultural understanding. The fact is that the dichotomous strategies and approaches of translation as manifested in Venuti’s foreignization-domestication dichotomy, and other similar theories have been unable to pave the way for mutual understanding between cultures. Employing Gadamer’s and Ricoeur’s ideas, this study attempts to tackle the dichotomous issue of translation theories.  Considering the Gadamer’s view that all understanding occurs through language and the Ricoeur’s idea that man enjoys a specific unity despite his great variation, translation is rethought as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon instrumental in creating cultural and linguistic affinity among people and causing a sort of intercultural unity. Therefore, unlike the dichotomous approach of foreignization and domestication, the present study aims to view translation from the view point of philosophical hermeneutics and offer a new approach, which simultaneously considers attention to the two cultures involved in translation and respect for the other culture.

---

Gadamer under the influence of Heidegger's views on the subject of Dasein's understanding, language, linguisticality, and historicity. , Founded a philosophical hermeneutics. Without reading the text, like his predecessors, Schleiermacher and Dilthey by adopting the method, and focusing on the author in pursuit of the author's intentions, or the reader as the focal point of the subject of understanding and reading the text, Inspired by Heidegger's ontological philosophy Correspondence Subject - subject between the reader and the text, and the Fusion of horizons is the final result of the dialogue between the reader and the text. While one of the most important misconceptions about Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutics in popular research is that it is mistakenly interpreted from the philosophical hermeneutics to hermeneutic reader-centered.This mistake is rooted in such reasons as: the lack of attention to changing the methodological approach in philosophical hermeneutics to the political approach, the wrongly interpretation of the concept of adaptation or application in philosophical hermeneutics, the lack of attention to the concept of play in philosophical hermeneutics, the distinction of subject and object, and the lack of precise attention to The Fusion of horizons in philosophical hermeneutics is a lack of separation between the realm of philosophical hermeneutics and literary hermeneutics and ....The present research studies the roots of this misunderstanding.

---

Language like other inventions was originated to serve human needs in different civilization. Different language was created later. Contextually the importance of translation from one language to another is not only to understand words; as the words are not the elements of translation. Importance and base of translation lies in context to understand it. After getting the content, one should deliver the same idea with the words of the destination language. That is an art of creative reproduction. There is no doubts that ideology in not specific for a special language. Difference in ideologies is originated from human essence and experiences and it is not related to the kinds of languages. Translation is the first and the most important way to convert these concepts and connect people, cultures and civilizations. Therefore it will not be an exaggeration if we say translation is a medium for creating peace.

---

According to Herman Dooyeweerd, understanding the phenomena in everyday life, unlike theoretical frameworks, has a multi-aspectual nature so that none of the aspects is reduced to others. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system includes processes and best practices, which will be transferred to the adopting organization as explicit knowledge. If this knowledge transforms is a part of the end users’ tacit, knowledge may bring success to the system. The end users, in order to do their every day work, have to deal with the system and come to a kind of understanding of the system. In this study, by using Dooyeweerd’s multi-aspectual framework, a model of the end users’ understanding of the system is extracted. This study has been conducted through a quantitative design through which using a questionnaire devised based to the multi-aspectual framework, quantitative data are gathered through a target sampling process. The data are analyzed based on both measurement and structural models and by using the path analysis, the effects of general norms on the system’s success and also the effects of all aspects on general norms are investigated. Data analysis showed that, according to Meeting objectives, User satisfaction and Emancipation as general norms, the ERP’s success in order to be completely realized requires that each general norm is considered as a multi-aspectual criterion. Evaluating ERP success according to end users point of view brings more visibility to some issues, which are usually ignored or missed by uni-aspectual approaches.  Furthermore, utilizing Dooyeweerd’s framework as a life-oriented philosophy for evaluating the ERP’s success is a novel work, which may lead to a kind of  development and enrichment in the ERP success literature.  

---

“Naive imagination is like a dark glass that prevent the shining lights entering the heart, but when is ripe enough become a clear glass that points those lights.” (Ghazali, the Niche of Lights, P.73) Iranian philosopher and educator, Abu Hamid Ghazali (1058-1111 A.D.) is the author of more than seventy books and essays on philosophy, education, mysticism, ethics, jurisprudence and dialectical theology. Throughout his works, one can easily observe that among the tools of acquiring knowledge (i.e., the senses, the imagination, and the intellect), imagination has become subject of special attention due to its capacity in recalling, analyzing, and synthesizing pre-acquired images, concepts and meanings and creating new and noble ones. Because of his unequivocal attention to imagination, instead of intellect, and the great impact imaginative thinking has had on Islamic philosophy of his times, some critics have maintained that “Islam has turned against science in twelfth century.” This article consists of two parts. The first part deals about Ghazali’s perspective the place of imaginative faculty among the other faculties; the external faculties (i.e. the senses), the internal faculties (i.e. common-sense, imagery, memory, estimation), and the intellect and hence; it is observed that the faculty of imagination itself is a part of the internal faculties and links the external faculties with the intellect as well as comprehensive and continuous interaction with other internal faculties. Upon defining imagination, tasks and types associated with it, its priority and superiority over the intellect, the relationship between (1) the internal senses and the imagination and (2) the imagination and the intellect are addressed. In the second part, the authors follow the practical implications of such imaginative thought in Ghazali’s teaching approach. To do so, and because of the comparative analysis pursued in the article (i.e., comparing Ghazali with contemporary western educational thinker Kieran Egan) about children’s education, we concentrated on the “mythic understanding” that Egan has proposed for these ages and then, contrasted it with Ghazali’s works. The results show that as Egan, but not in such a complete and detailed form, Ghazali considered the elements of play, story, binary opposites, rhyme, rhythm, images, gossip, mystery, and metaphor in his approach. But there are no clear and sufficient evidence for other elements (i.e., joke and humor) in Ghazali’s teaching approach.