Language and the problem of interpretation in the intellectual opinions of Abdul Karim Soroush
Subject Areas : Political Developments in Iran
Anoosheh Darbandi
1
(
Department of Political Sciences, Khuzestan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran. Department of Political Sciences, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
)
Aliakbar Amini
2
(
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
)
Hamed Ameri Golestani
3
(
Department of Political Science, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
)
Keywords: interpretation, language, Soroush, intellectualism,
Abstract :
Religious intellectuals after the revolution, by turning towards some European philosophical schools, such as analytical philosophy, adjusted their intellectual opinions based on them. Although their main discussion was to pay attention to religious categories such as "religious knowledge", "dynamic jurisprudence" and, in the political dimension, "religious government", their extra-religious attitude and headed by Abdul Karim Soroush were based on those schools. The two categories of language and the issue of interpretation are important components of this extra-religious view. The present study, with the aim of knowing these two components in the intellectual opinions of Soroush, based on what has been raised in the thought of philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Gadamer, deals with the question of what language and the problem of interpretation, in the thought of Wittgenstein and Gadamer, is a reflection in the intellectual opinions. Did they have a drink? By using a philosophical component of language and interpretation, Soroush pays attention to redefining the relationship between reason and religion in his intellectual views, and in the interpretation of holy texts and also religious foundations, he takes advantage of new exegetical achievements and the three categories of "religious knowledge", "jurisprudence" It offers "dynamic" and "religious democratic government" and it can be said that it does this with a kind of "dialogue" between the foundations of religious knowledge and the two categories of "language" and "interpretation".
_||_
