THE STUDY OF COMMUNICATIVE INTELLECTUALITY PLACE/ROLE IN THE EXPANSION OF GENERAL DOMAIN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN THEORISTS OF COMMUNICATION

THE STUDY OF COMMUNICATIVE INTELLECTUALITY PLACE/ROLE IN THE EXPANSION OF GENERAL DOMAIN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MODERN THEORISTS OF COMMUNICATION Maryam Foroughi Mastr of communication. Lgal Mdicin Rsarch Cntr, Lgal Mdicin Organization, Iran mforoghi@lmrc.ir Nassim Majidy Phd Communication, Islamic Azad Univrsity, Thran, Iran. ABSTRACT Th main ida of th lack of a mastr and gnral plan concrning th status of rationality and its volution was shapd as a communicativ rationality in communication scinc. Th communicativ plac rationality in th public domain from th prspctiv of modrnity thorists is th basic qustion in this fild. Procdur of th rsarch is qualitativ rsarch mthod with qualitativ analysis of Max Wbr. Th first stp of th rsarch is an ovrviw of rsarch topic, objctivs, rsarch mthods and Statistical Socity. Th nxt stp is a dp study in th volution of history of ancint Grc, during th dvlopmnt of Christianity and th xplanation of vots in th Christian ra, th Enlightnmnt and th intllctual rvolution. Also, ntris on topics such as th dfinition of modrnism and modrnity that dfin th modrn scintific achivmnts and th consquncs of modrnity and its crisis on modrnity and rationality is studid in this rsarch. Finally, th communicativ rationality and rationalization of th dvlopmnt and diffrntiation and achiv communicativ rationality is dlibratd. This sction is fd mostly by Habrmas's idas and thoughts. Kywords: Rnaissanc; Communicativ Intllctuality; Domain; Prspctiv; Habrmas's Idas INTRODUCTION Rvival/Rnaissanc Rnaissanc in English, or th ra of Rbirth was an important cultural movmnt that bcam th startr/starting point of a scintific rvolution, rligious rforms in addition to an ra of artistic advancmnt in Europ. Th ra of Rbirth is a transit priod in th middl ags and th nw ra. For th first tim, th word Rnaissanc was usd by th Frnch popl in th 16 th cntury. 14 th cntury is known as th bginning of Rbirth priod in th north Italy. This movmnt also covrd th north of Europ during 15 th cntury. Rnaissanc is a 300 yars old volution that was bgun from th Flornc and ndd during th Enlightnmnt priod in th Europ. Th Rnaissanc was startd from Italy in 1300 and sprad in th whol Europ during thr cnturis. It is vry rar that a divrs and historical vnt could occur in such a short priod. Whil ths cnturis ar full of fundamntal changs and grat activitis, th today s world is th aftrmath of such activitis, sinc th Rnaissanc foundd th conomical, political, artistic and scintific pillars of prsnt civilizations in th Europ (Koric, 2005). Th knowldg and th art had brought th grat advancmnts into xistnc in th Italy of 15 th and 16 th cnturis. This cultural rvival has bcom famous as Rnaissanc (i.. Rbirth). Many scholars, composrs and philosophrs mrgd who lookd on th world with th nwr oculus/ys inspiring by th gnuin hritag of Rom and Grc. Paintrs had ngagd in th study of human body and paintd th human body 677

organs with a ralistic mthod. Th Rulrs ordrd th grat artistic works and buildings. Ths frsh blifs suddnly xpandd in th whol Europ. Exprssion of communicativ Viws and blifs during Rnaissanc 1. Grman Emanul Kant (1724-1804): considrs th charactristic of this ra th dsir of human bing to know th rality. 2. Grman Martin Luthr (1929-1968): protstd against th abus/xploitation of church. W s th nlightnmnt of Protstant on its continuation. 3. John Lock (1632-1704): on of th othr pionrs/pathfindrs of this rvolution foundd th intllctual foundation of nlightnmnt through his thoris and writing works. In viw of Lock, all human bings hav th powr of thinking and th intllct itslf shows that all human bings njoy similar natural rights for dsiring th lif frdom and propritorship. 4. Rn Dscarts (1596-1650): was on of th most rspctful supportrs of intllct and usd somthing similar to mathmatical logic to find th rality. A frsh wav of thinkrs and writrs mrgd during th middl of th 18 th cntury whos viwpoint was diffrnt with th oldr spakrs of nlightnmnt movmnt. Ths modrn social critics had no furthr dlusion about intllct. Thy considrd th caus of many social complications in th unlimitd rlying on intllct; svral of th influntial thinkrs and writrs had rol against th intllct whos most powrful is th Jan Jack Russo. Th nlightnmnt priod dspit its abundant achivmnts passd and during th nxt cntury ncouragd th criticisms in th contxt of Vots rights and world opinion. Many of th intrprtrs hav blamd th philosophrs that had causd th activating of rioting forc that dmolishd th traditional sourcs of powr, stability and disciplin. Som of th critics proclaim that th nlightnmnt causd th xistnc of hoplssnss, bing without goal and solitud that is th charactristic of modrn ra. Thy argu that th nlightnmnt has an unlimitd mphasis on th individual rights in plac of th individual rsponsibilitis and social obligations. Bsids this, th philosophrs wr blamd for wakning th rligion powr and trust in God without showing any substitut for rsponding to th spiritual/rligious nds of most popl. Th hritag of nlightnmnt has also mad th nvironmnt supportrs unhappy who say th mphasis on th advancmnt and intllct in th ffctiv matrialistic approach has bn ffctiv in ncountring th natur world. (Machiavlli book and th Rnaissanc thought by Jahanbagloo (1991). INTELLECTUAL REVOLUTION OF DESCARTES On of th intllctual rvolutions was startd by Dscarts; Dscarts rplacd th human intllct in plac of sacrd book and tradition of Pop, church and rulr. Dscarts cratd a grat topic with this stp. Wstrn Europ liminatd th philosophy of Dscarts and th ra of Bright and distinctiv thoughts startd, vrything was masurd and wighd by th critria of intllct; vn th contnts of sacrd bibl in th blif ra gav its plac to th ra of intllct. Th mthod of Dscarts for rsarch on natur was infrntial and suppositional. Modrnity Until now, divrs dfinitions hav bn mad of modrnity and th xtracts of word modrn, howvr ths dfinitions hav in no sns, liminatd th complxity from th actual concpt of ths words, or vn incrasd th intricacy of it. Th word modrn that is qually usd in all Europan languags and many of th othr languags including Prsian, has its root in Latin word Modrnus that is xtractd from th word Modo. In th Latin languag, th word Modo mans, rcntly, latly and vry nar past. A fw of th history writrs suggst that, th word Modrni, was usd by Romans at th nd of 5 th cntury about valus and th nw distrustful blifs; th words which wr in comparison with th ancint accptd blifs which wr spcifid by th word Antiqui. 678

Modrnity that was considrd th intllctualism priod in th world of intuition/obsrvation and disconnctd from th invisibl world with th xploitation goal, scintism, matrialism and th thought of linar advancmnt, has transformd th lif structur, human rlationship as wll as th comprhnsion of th modrn man. (Ahmadi, 1998) Study of modrnity concpt from Jurgn Habrmas viwpoint Habrmas in th dfinition of nw and modrn word mphasizs on its rlation with th past and knows th traditional past and th awarnss rsultd from living in th nw and modrn priod to an ancint pattrn in th past and th ncssity to transit from it as wll as applying th modrn pattrn: th trm of modrn with diffrnt manings and concpts, rpatdly xprsss th awarnss with an ra or a priod that conncts itslf with traditional past so that could rgard itslf th rsult of transit from th old to th nw in othr words, th trm of modrn mrgd and rmrgd accuratly during a priod in th Europ that in which th awarnss in rlation with modrn ra took shap through th rvival of rlationship with th ancint popl (Habrmas (2005), Tadin (2005), Nozari (2002)). Habrmas considrs th romantic soul of 19 th cntury rsultd from th cor of idalizd middl ags that intnsifid th modrnity awarnss and turnd it to a form of radical awarnss. Howvr, h considrs this comparison btwn tradition and prsnt as an abstract comparison. In th words of Habrmas, th intllct rsultd from th nlightnmnt lis in thr domains: first domain is th fild of scinc whos logic is th instrumntal intllct not th communicativ intllct. Scond fild is th domain of thics whos rliability is takn from th norm whil th third domain rlats to th art that is fd by th bauty. From th viwpoint of nlightnmnt thinkrs, ths thr domains can caus th frdom of humankind and rduc th dpth and th xtnt of xisting problms and this is a dfndabl projct. In th viw of Habrmas, bing in lin with th spcializing of ths thr domains, thy dtachd from vryday filds. For instanc, in th domain of art, th art not with goodnss but intrprtd with th rliability of a climax insid its own or art for art only. Thrfor, for libration, th mntiond thr domains should coordinat with ach othr and th modrnity has th powr and ability to b th callr of libration (Habrmas, 1998). Intllctuality and Modrnity Aftr passing th middl ags in Europ and ntring into modrnity, in gnral, an ida was discussd by Dscarts as th main thory of modrnity and this was th ida that in contrary to th middl ags that was th main factor tradition and introducr of world to th mankind, aftr that th man itslf bcam th introducr of world and natur as wll as th concpts around th wstrn socity. This ida bcam th background of all volutions of this ra in th wst. But this was not th only strok to th modrnity thought but aftr a whil th ralitis of th world and th modrnistic look to th world was also challngd by Marx. Modrnity bcam th main discussion of th sociology. Th prvious social thorists dspit that had th mor complx and mor impartial prcptions on human situation. Thy in gnral, had lss absorbd by th invitabl optimistic viws in th human advancmnt through intllctual rationalism (Mohammadi (2001) and (2003)). Modrnization as th During th Rnaissanc th initial signs of modrnity rvald a concpt of xtndd rationalist Hmanism. Th goal was to incras th tolranc and in all aspcts and to achiv this goal thy supportd a ncssary opposition for rol playing. Th tradition could not furthr b a justification for th human acts. Th human world must b considrd in th cntr of focus with crtainty and th main objctiv should b th spculation, th chang of rligious stat and spculating on th rality of Lord and his will. Th nds, powrs and th human intrsts should b th bas and foundation of all valus, and th social lif should b 679

changd basd on ths instancs. Thrfor, th human lif should b organizd only through logic: th movmnt should b towards a socity whr th rul of intllct and logic should rplac th rul of Lord. Limiting th rationalization as th instrumnt to provid mor satisfaction should b sn in th human lif affairs. Th Rnaissanc struggld against th absolut affairs of middl ags calld th absolut skpticism and ncouragd th doubt and misgiving. Th fundamntals and th structurs of mntal proclaim that had advancd in th nlightnmnt procss, its thorist was Marx Wbbr, who objctiv was to dscrib and intrprt th rationalization in th communitis of Europ which had also transfrrd to th othr parts of th world. Wbr rjctd th blifs of th thorists who saw th growth of rationalism as th invitabl rsult of a dirct and global procss of social volution (Pooladi 2004). CONCEPT OF INTELLECTUALITY IN THE THOUGHTS OF MAX WEBER Th targtd mainly by applying th bst possibl undr possssion tool follows its fixd objctivs. Wbbr blivs that this typ of has dominatd th wstrn cultur and th valud has lost its color. Howvr, rgarding ths two typs of intllctualitis dos not tak on sidd stand. Thrfor, w cannot rcogniz Wbbr as th hrald thinkr of and intllctualism. Wbbr with a historical viwpoint tris to analyz th natur of modrn social lif and notics in this framwork that a typ of bing intllctual in th sns of vry instrumntal has influncd th dirction and dimnsion of human socity during th history span spcially in th modrn ra, spcifically in th Wst whr th could com in to xistnc in this form of foundations such as modrn stat (discussd in th framwork of Buraucracy), capitalism conomy and in th formation of modrn rights. Rogr track rightly blivs that th problm, challngs th scholars of social scincs at two lvls, th mannr of undr study individuals is an issu, whil th of th scholars of social scincs is anothr problm (Cook, 1994). If w would hav comprhndd this sparation in right way, th of first typ dats back to th of th actions of actors whil th scond typ of to its standard, as scintist accpt and lov th scintism of social scincs. This is an important sparation; of cours it was also undr considr in th discussion of Knt and Part, and prsntd thir thoris on this bas. Howvr, latr on w would focus a srious attntion to it (Habrmas (2005)). INTELLECTUALITY This concpt has had abundant applications, has bn usd in diffrnt aras. That is why, it has distinctiv manings. Prhaps by inducting th aras in which th word of has bn usd, a comprhnsiv maning could b takn in to considration for it. This comprhnsiv maning could b considrd as th complt following of corrct argumntation. It is clar that arguing on on thing has diffrnt ways that is why th rsulting from diffrnt typs of argumnt would also b diffrnt. Intllctuality is dividd into thortical and practical intllctualitis in an initial classification. Th thortical discusss th blifs and world sighting whil th practical considrs th actions and bhaviors. Som hav dfind ths two in this way: th thortical xprsss mor accurat mastry or domination on rality through th abstract concpts whil th practical mans th probably mor accurat calculation of th mans to achiv a goal. Howvr, th thical of man is calld by justic and quality and asks him not to opprss th othrs in pursuing ons goal and don t sacrific thir rights for him. Summarily, this for pursuing th prsonal intrsts spcifis th framwork that is th vry boundary of thical and moral valus. Intllctuality s concpt and bing Normativ 680

A normativ dfinition is mad in dfining th. Intllctuality is an abstract concpt xtractd from th adjctiv of intllctual. W ar complld to invstigat this trait to dfin. Instrumntal Intllctuality Dominant thought in th framwork of basd on th thory of intllctual slction focuss and mphasizs on th instrumntal and th rsult logic. Basd on this approach, th actors think about th rsult of thir slction and dal with th dcision making by analyzing cost and profit. Th instrumntal intllct ordrs that th bst and th chapst tool should b applid to achiv th most profitabl objctivs. If th slction of optimal option in th sns of absolut is not availabl, th choosing of a chapr option is qual to th invitabl limitd. Th critrion of is th succss rat in acquiring th intrsts/profits and dvloping th dsird rsults. This typ of is calld instrumntal. Moral Intllctuality Othr typ of is th moral. Th moral is ncssary with th proportion logic and focusd on th spcification and dtrmination of duty or obligation as wll as dcision making and th appropriat action to it. Communicativ Intllctuality Othr typ of is known as th communicativ. As pr th viw of Habrmas th rlation through tongu ncssarily nds th posing of rliability claim spcifically th rality of truth fact whos situation at th tim of viws diffrnc could only b solvd through convrsation/discussion. Bsids that Habrmas blivs that th nativ of a languag compltly rcognizs th conditions of such convrsation that brings actually th positiv rsults and h has xplaind ths conditions in trms of attributs of justifying and idalistic traits of spch. Th communicativ, implis on this point that th man/humankind has this ability that h ngags in protst in th conditions clos to this idalistic situation ( discours as pr Habrmas trm) and with th goal of accss to agrmnt. Habrmas rlis on th concpt of so that to dscrib this point whatvr is shown by th dmocratic forms of social organization, is mor byond th vry prioritis in th cultural and political tradition. In his viw, th spch action cannot b vn undrstood without adopting th stand rgarding rliability claim that h discusss and this stanc itslf prpars for th convrsation fr from limitation that situation spcifis (this) claim. Thrfor, th social and political arrangmnts can b criticizd, bcaus as pr th outlook of Habrmass, that raching th agrmnt is ithr a goal that is th prsonal objct for human tongu. A sam philosophical program has also bn discussd by Karl Otto Opal; h mor mphasizs on th glorification traits of protst. Habrmass maks clar that th participants in th communicativ action should s th statmnts discussd during convrsation from th viwpoint of thir rliability, and also should hav full cognition in th contxt of appropriat ways to solv th diffrnc instancs on th claim of crdibility as wll as in th contxt of th conditions (that is always against rality) in which th following up of such mthods would actually giv th corrct rsult. For instanc, th pursuanc to imposing th hiddn prssur maks prviously obtaind agrmnt unrliabl, this cognition bcoms mobilizd. Th comparison bas btwn instrumntal and communicativ that indicats th ndavor of Habrmas in th dirction of trating this situation is in th philosophical anthropology which has bn prsntd systmatically in th cognition and th human intrsts (Habrmas 1981). Habrmas suggsts hr that vry socity for its rproduction should b powrful on th xchang of gnrator/producr with natur (in th work form) in addition to th communicativ coordination of th collctiv activitis. Work crats th concpts that xprss th tchnical intrst to 681

instrumntal control, whil th nd to agrmnt crats th framwork of distinctiv catgory and practical intrst to th hrmnutic undrstanding (Habrmas, 1988). Habrmas rplacs th thory of discoursing rality with th thory of conformation rality. Whil, th scond thory was challngd by th Cartsian scinc of criticism s subjctivity and th txt fr. Habrmas claims that th first thory which rfrshs itslf with vry communicativ action can sav us from th morass of rlativism. Habrmas applis th intrprtation of gnral domain in attributing to th social ara in which th individuals produc th stancs and valud and normativ orintations through mutual undrstanding and argumntation basd on thinking and in th conditions fr from vry typ of prssur, forc and undr qual conditions for all sids of participants of bhavior collction, stands and valud as wll as normativ orintations. What has causd th attracting of Habrmas viw to th topic of gnral domain has bn th importanc of this titl as th criticism bas of socity, basd on dmocratic principl. Th gnral domain is th ara in which th individuals gt togthr to participat in th opn and fr discussions. In viw of Habrmas, th gnral domain in th accurat sns of words is an ara that no limit and constraint would hav bn nactd on its activity. Th gnral domain is th intllctual, fact finding and rality making domain of th socity. Habrmas is following th rvival of gnral domain by crating and xpanding th thory of communicativ action. Th intllct discussion (convrsation) fr of domination and th linguistic damags and agrmnt and consnsus is th vry local typ that is appropriat for gnral domain. In th viw of Habrmas, th thory of communicativ action can b applid as th fundamnt of gnral principl. Th communicativ action has a social situation. In th communicativ action th agnt/oprant prson has no wapon xcpt logical argumnt. Human bings can accss th agrmnt and corrlation mor frly and asily without dirct distrss and indirctly th ncssary matrial problms in a procss of viw xchanging. Th objctiv of such social action is th cognition of all and accpting th sam ralitis. This domain in fact is a social idal. Answrs ar not rady in priory but th popl slct thir ways by viw xchanging and criticizing thm. In th communicativ action, th participants xcd thir coopration and thr ar no mor mathmatically dry calculations as wll as th pr-xisting prssur but popl try to slct th ways for agrmnt through discussion and convrsation. This action is librating intrinsically, bcaus it accompanis high actions. This libration could matrializ in a bad and ground in which th slf rcognition would b possibl through discours. (Habrmas, (1976)) Habrmas blivs that th thory of bing intllctual of Wbr njoys significanc to undrstand th modrnity that is th fundamntal issu. W follow th modrnity issu/problm through th works of Max Wbr sinc his rrors/ mistaks ar considrd th visualization of intllctual and practical indignc/hlplssnss in facing our own priod. On th othr hand, w ar fully satisfid that transit from th traditional socitis to our prsnt socitis is qual to librat from magic and sorcry, and has bn from svral typs of sacrd drad that providd th arrangmnts to invstigat th blifs, unhappy nd of Galilo as wll as th Sorcrrs of Salm, this advancmnt is known as intllctual progrss alongsid th scinc volution. Wbr nams this advancmnt th procss of incantation and d-hallucination. On th othr hand, whn w look on our own priod with kn ys, undoubtdly w s vrything compltly diffrnt. All of a suddn th advancmnt changs to th growth of indpndnt half of scinc 682

and tchnology, taks control of our rign and crosss us through a path that Habrmas, th procss that pulls us dirctly to th iron cag of rcnt capitalism. Th problm lis hr; Habrmas tris to giv a compromis btwn two procss of sorcry and dhallucination in a singl thory of modrnity and th modrnization. To do this in appropriat way, it is ncssary to rconstruct th thory of Wbr, th rconstruction that could analyz th thory in sparat componnts and collct it in a modrn form to rach th goal th thory accpts for itslf in a complt way. In th modrn sociology, four typs of hav bn introducd by modl making of Max Wbr s thory. Ths four spcis as pr Klbrg ar as follows: thortical, practical, intrinsic and xtrnal (structural). In contrary, Habrmas prsntd th nw classification of. H suggsts that w fac two catgoris of, first th instrumntal that in his words, all ndavors of Wbr had bn passd in xplaining such typ of. Othr, is th cultural-valud focusd on th goals of actions. Th cultural-valud watchs th corrction of communicativ actions; this procss is possibl through indpndnt and logical discours (Habrmas, 1988). Habrmas idntifid two typs of in th Wbr works: on th cultural-valud and th othr, official or instrumntal. Habrmas blivd that th cultural-valud rmaind incomplt in th thoughts of Wbr; howvr, th instrumntal has bn much xpandd in th thoris of stat, conomy and Buraucracy. Habrmas tris to xplain th first procss of. At th sam tim, h ss a dialctical rlationship btwn ths two procsss of. Th valud cultural lis in th cntr of spcial typ of action that is intrprtd as communicativ action by Habrmas. In th communicativ action of discours or th spch rlationship that is accomplishd by mans of tongu, idntifid as th charactristic of intllctual concpt among th actors. Habrmas bfor introducing th communicativ action xplains two typs of actions i.. instrumntal action and stratgic action in a siz that hlps th xprssion of communicativ action. Ths two actions li undr th umbrlla of instrumntal that follows a rasonabl instrumnt to rach th givn objctiv. Though, th instrumntal action is intllctual but considrd as individual that rsmbls th practical. Contrarily, th action is a collctiv stratgy that is followd by social structur or organization. Buraucracy or th structur of modrn socity is administrd basd on th stratgic action that is th vry xampl of high instrumntal. Habrmas, in contrary to ths two, puts a communicativ action that is social firstly; scondly it is intllctual in trms of goal and nd; bcaus, th goal choosing in this action taks plac basd on discussion and fr discours, as wll as intllctualism that has bn frd from all typs of structural and political domination. Contrary to th rasonabl and targtd action whos main orintation is formd by accssing th opportunistic succss, th communicativ action and communicativ hav th orintation of undrstanding. Thrfor, th actions of th rlatd prsons, ar coordinatd not through opportunistic succss calculations, but through th comprhnsibl actions. So, th ngagd popl in communicativ action ar not rstrictd to prsonal succss but follow thir goals undr th conditions in which thy could coordinat thir action plans basd on a dfinition of common succss. Habrmas dfins th action and th communicativ action in this way: th communicativ action implis th intraction of at last two factors which ar abl to spak and stablish th prsonal rlations. H nams th Wbry rationalism as instrumntal. This could b said on th viwpoints diffrnc of ths two: Th valud of Habrmas is focusd on th corrction and rconstruction of th goals and socital valus; whil, th instrumntal is focusd on optimizing th mthods and th mans. 683

Th Wbry oftn notics th individual actors as wll as th sharp action of thm, whil th valud also mphasizs on th social and structural dimnsion. In th instrumntal only th rasonability and bing targting of action has importanc whil in th valud, th communicativ action and th distortr/falsifir factor is also undr considration. In viw of Habrmas th is a norms giving instrumnt, obligatory and arising from th social systm spcially in th form of formal that is imposd on th actors. Whil th is a valu basd on fr discours and far from domination and its rsult is th common and collctiv agrmnt. (Adorno and Horkhimr, 1944). FALL OF GENERAL DOMAIN AND COMMUNICATIVE INTELLECTUALITY Howvr, th Habrmas rfrs to th attnuation mannr of gnral domain and blivs that th stat intrfrnc, part politics and th manipulation of mass mdia wakns th gnral domain and th gnral domain and th communicativ changs to an idological lmnt. Habrmas blivs that th caus of th gnuin dmocratic dbat s fall is considrd a rol playd by th monopoly mass mdia in kping th gnral public unawar and optimist. If th gnral domain gos undr th domination and th control of a numbr of organizations and th powrful giant stablishmnts, this domain would chang to a man and instrumnt for manipulating th gnral intrsts and th minds and ach and vry particular bnficiary group by accssing th mass mdia mans, tris to dmonstrat its spcific intrst as th gnral intrst that this confusing ffct taking is considrd as on of th traits of autocrat and authoritativ govrnmnts which asily turn th popl to th tractabl hrds. Thrfor, th intrfrnc in gnral domain is on of th pillars of powr sking govrnmnts. (Habrmas, 1988). Habrmas undr Critics From th vry bginning of insrting and rsulting of communicativ thory of Habrmas, this thory and its thorist wnt undr th fir of a numbr of critics that th following instancs could b namd in this rgard: 1. Th moral thory of Habrmas in th ral sns is a monologu. Th rason is that th mntiond crdibility giving convrsation th convrsation moral rlis on is an idalistic dialogu, not a ral convrsation. In th ral lif, th idalistic situation of spch as wll as th spch of Habrmas nvr matrializd compltly, and possibly would nvr b matrializd in th futur, vn if its rason is its tim limitation. Bsids that, th group of popl who ar xposd to th ffct taking of a norm thy must agr upon it, possibly includs th popl who hav not still born in this world. Thrfor, it is always possibl for Habrmas that h dos not accpt th agrmnt conditions that hav bn obtaind in th ral dialogu. If w ar st to put th dialogu moral in practic, th moral factor can only conclud that which typ of agrmnt is achivd in th idalistic dialogu. Such thing is only th arrangmnt of discovring and xploring that could only b usd in th mmory of a scholar i.. in th monologu form (Nozari, 2002). 2. Habrmas uss th psychoanalysis as a modl to xprss th concpt of librating social scinc; howvr th tratmnt rlation is diffrnt from that of actual social condition. In th tratmnt rlation, on on sid th voluntary rlationship obys th othr, but in th social contradictions w always ncountr th situation of two sidd rsistanc. 3. This shaping of Habrmas is of limitd significanc from th sociological viwpoint. Bcaus it not sufficintly gnral and has its roots in th awarnss philosophy mor than ndd and has bn tid with a pictur of an individual and sol spakr and listnr and dos not includ th oral socity. 4. Finally, whthr th communicativ of Habrmas is byond th instrumntal, i.. not an appropriat slction as mans-goal. Finally, th dialogu is also a mans for achiving a givn objctiv. 5. Th shaping or formulating of intllct in th world of humanitarian scincs rlying on th using mthods of mpirical scinc is includd in th discussions that hav bn undr srious and grav 684

critics of Habrmas. On on hand, passing through th instrumntal positivistic and targtd forms, towards th communicativ and concptual that is basd on th sound and librating human actions. On th othr hand, th xit or th Go out from th dgnracy (iron cag) of capitalism s is considrd as th thortical approach of this political thinkr/philosophr. 6. Opal prfrs th trm of lofty pragmatics on global pragmatism of Habrmas for th gnral thory of communicativ skill. Th main diffrncs btwn Opal and Habrmas, dats back to thir attitud on th possibility of Ltzt bgrundung (last argumnt) for moral and combativ/jihadist stanc. Apl (1990) in a critical articl statd that Habrmas mistaks who undrstimats th (lofty diffrnc) btwn th rconstructions of communicativ skill that has th ability of mpirical tst and philosophical dlibration, th dlibration that rvals th unconditional crdibility of som basic prsumption of protst. Summarily and gnrally, w hav compild th thoris infrnc of th thorists rgarding th in th form of a progrssiv tabl. Thorist Attitud and typ of blif to Undr study lmnts Modrnizati on Kant Luthr Lock Dscarts/D scart Russo Wbr Rvald th initial signs of modrnity for vast humanism concpt of rationalism Intllct and mind/brain hav prior molds, th snsing xprincs of it ar insrtd in it and intllctualism shapd considring th structur and cultur Contradiction of by fully accpting It in all issus spcially th rligion All humankind hav intllct ability and th intllct itslf indicats th njoying of similar and natural rights of human bings Intllct should b th commandr/rulr in plac of Pop, tradition and Church Humankind advancmnt without morality and cration of unlimitd powr Blivs in thr typs of intllctualitis: valud, targtd and instrumntal intllctualitis. by applying th bst tool bst goals ar accssibl Approa ch (positiv, ngativ ) Matrial/non matrial viwpoint Humanism Non matrial (tolranc along with ) Fact finding Matrial (print) Rligion and positiv Non matrial (Rligion protstant) Natural rights positiv Matrial, frdom dmand, propritorship Mathmatical logic Morality in plac of Instrumntal Ngativ positiv Non matrial (rplacmnt of intllct in plac of Sacrd book) Matrial. Bliving in natural frdoms and snsational and instinctiv Matrial (bing profssional, work 685

Rogr Track Knt Kindrsly Fuchou Prato Bowdon Marx Hosrl Hidggr Hgl Habrmas Nitzsch (Wbbrs is usd as th axis of historical volution) Intllctuality problm should b studid basd on th mannr of individuals and invstigatd basd on th of th scholars itslf H blivs that man is an ntity, sntimntal, intllctual and with arguing powr; h has dividd th morality idas of human advancmnt into 10 lmnts and assignd th 10 th ra to Blivs th mrgnc distinction btwn intllct and non intllct (blivs in Wbry intllct) Blivs in th concpt of Epistm: is a st of rlations that units th charactrs of xisting discours, knowldg, scincs and intllctual systms Bhavioral and or communicativ is that in which th goal of subjct is rlatd to th rquird goal of rcivr/accptor and blivs that th intllctual action is an action that should njoy similar and sam maning in trms of objctivity as wll as and mind. H blivs that som short trm intllctual actions bcom non intllctual during long priods Svrly attacks th modrn, h blivs up to som xtnt to th Dscarts and blivs that intllct causs th domination/control Agr with bing Nihilist of modrn and bcam closd to th Nihilism Usually blivs in th rquird by Hosrl Blivs intllct volution during historical stags and what is th fact and matrializd is th and what is intllctual is a rality H as wll as blivs in th Wbry and on th othr hand th from his viw is diffrnt in th Hgl s concpt H was Dsirous of radical and fundamntal criticism of modrn Individual and activ Improvmnt and morality Scintific/knowl dg insanity Intllctual Viw with th contxt of scincs contxt Logical Domination of intllct Nihilist Ngativ Ngativ distribution) Non matrial Non matrial Matrial (objctivity giving to discours) Matrial Wbry Matrial (Wbry ) non matrial non matrial Dirction changr Ngativ non matrial Rality matrial Communicativ and communicativ action Domination of slavry on moral Ngativ non matrial non matrial 686

Dltai as wll as modrn civilization; th criticism that shapd from insid and considrd as most fundamntal critics Is void of modrn ; sinc h also criticizs th dscarts-kanti s. From th prspctiv of Dltai th intllct of Dscarts and Kanti ar non-historical and blivs that th modrn wants to undrstand all things in th framwork of objctiv classs/catgoris Intrprting mthod Ngativ non matrial REFERENCES Adorno, T.W., Horkhimr, M., Dialctic of Enlightnmnt, London: Vrso, 1979. Ahmadi, B., puzzl of modrnity, Thran, Markaz publication, 1, 1998. Apl, K.O., Transformation dr Philosophi., Sprachanalytik, Smiotik, Hrmnutik. Das Apriori dr Kommunikations gminschaft, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Vrlag, 1976. (Toward a Transformation of Philosophy, London: Routldg 1980, rprintd by Marqutt Univrsity Prss 1998.) Apl, K.O., Is th Ethics of th Idal Communication Community a Utopia?, In: S. Bnhabib & F. Dallmayr (d.): Th Communicativ Ethics Controvrsy, Cambridg, MIT Prss 1990, 23-60. Brandon, H., Th rtrat of Amrican powr, Translatd by Tadin A., Hormoz publication, Thran, 2005. Cook, M. Languag and Rason: A Study of Habrmas Pragmatics, Cambridg MA: MIT Prss, 1994. Habrmas, J., Ein gnalogisch Btrachtung zum kognitivn Ghalt dr Moral, in: Di Einbzihung ds Andrn. Studin zur politischn Thori, Frankfur, Suhrkamp 1998, 11-64. Habrmas, J., Kommunikativs Handln und dtranszndntalisirt Vrnunft. Stuttgart: Rclam 2001. Habrmas. J., Thory of communicativ action, translation by Kamal Pooladi, Thran nwspapr publications: Thran, 2005. Koric J. A., Rnaissanc translatd by: Azita Yasai, Thran: Ghaghnous publication, 2005. ISBN 964-311- 323-X Mcyawli, M., Book of and Thought of Rnaissanc by Ramin Jahanbugloo, Markaz publication, 1991. Mohammadi R, study on sociology of, Baz publication, Thran, 2001 Mohammadi R, prlud on th sociology of, Baz publications, Thran, 2003. Nozari, H., Rviw of Habrmas, Chashmh publication, Thran, 2002. Pooladi M, History of political thought in th Wst, 20 th cntury, Markaz publication, Thran, 2004. 687