آمار

تعداد نشریات54
تعداد شماره‌ها2,598
تعداد مقالات36,984
تعداد مشاهده مقاله17,446,967
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله7,919,297
Taheri Khosroshahi, Mohammad Hossein, Toussi, Fatemeh, Toussi, Ali. (1401). The Philological Comparison of Semantic Denotation of “Justice” in Western and Islamic Political Philosophies. اسلام و مطالعات اجتماعی, 5(1), 117-147. doi: 10.22081/jips.2023.67186.1040
Mohammad Hossein Taheri Khosroshahi; Fatemeh Toussi; Ali Toussi. "The Philological Comparison of Semantic Denotation of “Justice” in Western and Islamic Political Philosophies". اسلام و مطالعات اجتماعی, 5, 1, 1401, 117-147. doi: 10.22081/jips.2023.67186.1040
Taheri Khosroshahi, Mohammad Hossein, Toussi, Fatemeh, Toussi, Ali. (1401). 'The Philological Comparison of Semantic Denotation of “Justice” in Western and Islamic Political Philosophies', اسلام و مطالعات اجتماعی, 5(1), pp. 117-147. doi: 10.22081/jips.2023.67186.1040
Taheri Khosroshahi, Mohammad Hossein, Toussi, Fatemeh, Toussi, Ali. The Philological Comparison of Semantic Denotation of “Justice” in Western and Islamic Political Philosophies. اسلام و مطالعات اجتماعی, 1401; 5(1): 117-147. doi: 10.22081/jips.2023.67186.1040

The Philological Comparison of Semantic Denotation of “Justice” in Western and Islamic Political Philosophies

Islamic Political Studies
دوره 5، شماره 1، فروردین 2023، صفحه 117-147    اصل مقاله (368.62 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22081/jips.2023.67186.1040
نویسندگان
Mohammad Hossein Taheri Khosroshahi1؛ Fatemeh Toussi2؛ Ali Toussi* 3
1PhD Student in Political Sciences, Political Studies of Islamic Revolution, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
2PhD in Educating the Teachings of Islamic Revolution, University of Islamic Sciences, Qom, Iran
3Assistant Professor in Faculty of Economics, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran; Lyon University, Paris, France
تاریخ دریافت: 29 مرداد 1402،  تاریخ بازنگری: 26 آبان 1402،  تاریخ پذیرش: 16 آبان 1402 
چکیده
The subject of the present article is the linguistic comparison of terms whose semantic foundation is linked with political ‘justice’, and the Muslim and European thinkers have used them in their opinions. This study aims at representing the lexical differences considered in ‘coinage’ and ‘denotation’ of any of these terms, making the status and structure of justice different in any semantic world. Paying attention to this fact can facilitate, and make precise, our understanding of the norms focused on justice as applied by the thinkers in this sphere. The main question is what the distinction between the items of the vocabulary network with semantic centrality of justice is. To answer, by relying on the philology method as a branch of interpretive methodology, we investigated the historical denotation of three words of ‘justice’, ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ and explained the fundamental difference of the perception of the Muslim thinkers of ‘justice’, compared to the semantic world of western thinkers. The results showed that paradigmatic transitions are determinant in our perception of justice. This transition in the West has led the abstract perception of justice to the strategic level and practical equations. However, in spite of the change in political paradigms in the Islamic world and the alteration and evolution of the Muslims’ philosophical system, the Muslim theorists have neglected the social extension of this fundamental concept.
کلیدواژه‌ها
political philosophy؛ philology؛ the theory of justice؛ the theory of Islamic justice
مراجع
Torah

  1. Bailey, H.W. (1943). Zoroastrian Problems in the Ninth-century Books: Ratanbai Katrak Lectures. The Clarendon press.
  2. Beiser, F. (2005). Hegel (Trans. Husseini, M.). Tehran: Qoqnus.
  3. Carlquist, J. (2017). Philology as Explanation for Historical Contexts. In: h. Lönnroth, Philology matters!: essays on the art of reading slowly. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
  4. Collins online dictionary. URL: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/english/justice.
  5. Davari Ardakani, R. (1387 SH). “Muqaddama” in Naẓariyya ‘Idālat, Rawls, J (author). (Trans. Sarvariyan, M. K. and Nahrani, M.). Tehran: Research Center of Cultural and Social Studies.
  6. Dilthey, W. (1989). Introduction to the Human Sciences (Trans. Saneꜥi Darrabidi, M.). Tehran: Qoqnus.
  7. Dilthey, W. (1996). Hermeneutics and the Study of History (Trans. Saneꜥi Darrabidi, M.). Tehran: Qoqnus.
  8. Dilthey, W. (2002). The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences (Trans. Saneꜥi Darrabidi, M.). Tehran: Qoqnus.
  9. Dilthey, W. (2010). Understanding the Human World (Trans. Saneꜥi Darrabidi, M.). Tehran: Qoqnus.
  10. Encyclopædia Iranica. URL: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/data.
  11. Fleischacker, S. (2004). A Short History of Distributive Justice (Trans. Amini. M.). Tehran: Markaz Publications.
  12. Haji-pur, F. (1391 SH). “‘Aqlāniyyat wa Farhang: Barrasī ‘Aql (bi Mathābih Abzār Irtibāṭ Nasl bā Jahān) dar Si Farhang Yūnān, Mudirn wa Islām” in Sura Andīsha, 6766, pp. 150-153.
  13. Hall, S. and Gieben, B. (1993). The Formations of Modernity (Trans. Mutahhid, M. et al.). Tehran: Agah Publications.
  14. Heidegger, M. (1976). Gesamtausgabe (Trans. Shahabi, Z.). Tehran: Mino Kherad.
  15. Hinz, W. & Koch, H. (1987). Elamisches Wörterbuch. Berlin.
  16. Janicki, K. (2006). Language Misconceived: Arguing for Applied Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  17. Khaki Qaramaleki, M. R.; Sadeqi Marasht, A.; and Taheri Khosroshahi, M. H. (1400 SH). Falsafa Ḥarakat Islāmī. Qom: Tamaddun Nowin Islami Publications.
  18. Mayrhofer, (1968). Die Rekonstruktion des Medischen. Vienna: Böhlau.
  19. Mir-Baqeri, M. M. (1399 SH). Guftimān ‘Idā Qom: Tamaddun Nowin Islami.
  20. Online Etymology Dictionary. URL: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/ dictionary/english/justice.
  21. Safari, Q. (1387 SH). “Arasṭū wa Bunyānguzārī Tabʾīn ‘Ilmī” in Pazhūhishhāyi Falsafī, 2(203), pp. 103-134.
  22. Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (Trans. Khkbaz, A.). Tehran: Now Publications.
  23. Sharifi, A. and Hajiyan-nejad, ‘A, R. (1399 SH). “Fīluluzhī wa Sunnat Fīluluzhīk dar Sharqshināsī Ālmānī Zabān (Dowra Islāmī)” in Pazhūhishhāyi Īrān-shināsī, 10(2), pp. 115-137.
  24. Sherratt, Y. (2006). Continental Philosophy of Social Science: Hermeneutics, Genealogy, Critical Theory (Trans. Jalili, H.). Tehran: Ney Publications.
  25. Smith, W. (1880). A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. London: John Murray.
  26. Torab-zada, M. S. et al. (1399 SH). Naẓariya Islāmī ‘Idālat Ijtimā‘ī. Tehran: Imam Sadeq University.
  27. Wa‘ezi, A. (1401 SH). “Arkān Naẓariyya Arzish Akhlāqī Farāgīr wa Khudbasanda ‘Idālat” in ‘Ulūm Siyāsī, 25(98). Pp. 6-25.
  28. Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: a Defense of Pluralism and Equality (Trans. Najafi, S.). Tehran: Thalith Publications.
  29. Watkins, C. (1990). What is Philology? Comparative Literature Studies, 27(1), pp. 21-25.
  30. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol.4, Böckh, Philipp August. URL: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_ Britannica/B%C3%B6ckh,_Philipp_August.
  31. Zamiran, M. (1379 SH). Guzār az Jahān Arastū bi Falsafa. Tehran: Hermes.
  32. Zarshenas, Z. and Rashno, M. (1396 SH). “Īzad Rashan wa Jāygāh ū dar Dīn Zartushtī” in Zabānshinākht, 8(1), pp. 107-124.
 

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 435
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 220


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب