Nezam Bahrami Kamil's Article on “Self-Grounding” and the Iranian Intellectual

Autonomy means the capacity to make decisions and direct oneself. Autonomy should be seen as a spectrum, at the other end of which lies Heteronomy. An individual, society, or system is more autonomous the more it believes in what it thinks or does and the more stable it remains in the face of external turbulence.

Autonomy is the most important philosophical and axiological component of modernity, having a close relationship and significant overlap with other fundamental components of modernity such as rationalism, humanism (in its two forms of individualism and collectivism), freedom, secularism, democracy, and human rights. Demonstrating the place and importance of autonomy in modernity helps us to better understand modernity, and we must also examine to what extent the Iranian intellectual movement has been familiar with this intellectual and philosophical component and has incorporated it into its theories.

In Kant's philosophy, autonomy means the very maturity of the human being, such that one can think, act, and determine the fundamental principles and foundations of society without the tutelage of others. "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolve and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

That by far the greatest part of humankind, though nature has long since emancipated them from alien guidance, nonetheless gladly remains immature for life, and that it should be so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians, has causes other than laziness and cowardice. Indeed, how easy it is to be a child! If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. Those guardians who have so benevolently taken upon themselves the task of supervision make sure that the greatest part of humankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step to maturity not only difficult but also very dangerous. Having first made their domesticated livestock dumb, and carefully prevented these docile creatures from daring to take a single step beyond the leading-strings to which they have fastened them, they then show them the danger that threatens if they try to walk alone. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk after a few falls; but an example of this kind makes them timid and usually frightens them away from any further attempt." (Kant; 1370: 58) Kant also introduced the concept of "Moral Autonomy" for the first time, which I will address at the end of the article.

"Tzvetan Todorov" in defining autonomy says: "The first foundational characteristic of Enlightenment thought is the preference for what one chooses and decides for oneself over what is imposed by an external power. This preference has two aspects, one critical and the other constructive. One must free oneself from all tutelage imposed from outside and entrust oneself to the guidance of the set of laws, norms, and rules that are the will of those to whom this set pertains. 'Emancipation' and 'autonomy' are the words that designate the two inevitable moments of a single process." (Todorov; 1387: 16) In summary, autonomy means thinking and acting based on what the individual has arrived at through their own reason and will. Such a definition is at the micro level; autonomy at the macro level means that society, institutions, structures, laws, and social norms are constructed based on universal participation and in accordance with democratic principles. Therefore, in addition to democracy, secularism and the avoidance of any kind of ideological system are inherent consequences of accepting autonomy.

In the realm of philosophy, Greek thinkers, especially Plato and Aristotle, by introducing the subject of rationality, and Enlightenment philosophers from Descartes to Heidegger, by introducing the subject of subjectivity, have addressed the topic of self-grounding. The Romantic conception of the individual, seen in the philosophies of existentialism and phenomenology, emphasized the individual's independence from the collective and the necessity of their agency by focusing on the concept of "Authenticity." In this sense, traces of individualism can be seen in both authenticity and self-grounding. In the field of sociology, many thinkers have addressed this topic; Auguste Comte divided the history of societies into three stages—theological, metaphysical, and positive (positivist)—and showed that it is only in the third stage that science and knowledge become the guiding light for societies. Ferdinand Tönnies, by proposing the term society (Gesellschaft) in contrast to community (Gemeinschaft); David Riesman, by proposing the term "inner-directed society" in contrast to "tradition-directed and other-directed society"; and George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, by distinguishing between the "I" and the "Me," were among other sociologists who viewed self-grounding through various lenses. In the field of psychology, the discussion of self-grounding is linked to the theories of thinkers such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Maslow, by proposing the term "self-actualization," and Rogers, by proposing the subject of "becoming a person," connected self-grounding to the stages of personality development.

The discussion of self-grounding as an independent subject was first raised in 2014 in the book "A Typology of Iranian Intellectuals." As demonstrated in this book, many Iranian intellectuals have sought, by referring to the past and from within Islamic or Zoroastrian sources, and by invoking Ferdowsi, Rumi, Hafez, Ghazali, Suhrawardi, and Allameh Majlesi, to find a solution for overcoming twenty-first-century problems. Although studying the culture and works of predecessors and learning from their experience is essential, if this comes at the cost of forgetting our own independence, ability, creativity, and self-grounding, and does not bring us out of a state of immaturity, it is worthless. Imitation is imitation; it makes no difference whether the source of this imitation is the text of a holy book, the words of a great scholar, the opinion of the majority, or the customs and traditions belonging to ancestors.

1- Self-Grounding and Rationality

As mentioned, self-grounding is a very fundamental presupposition of modernity, present in some form in all of its principles and components. When speaking of the self-grounding of knowledge, only the two sources of “experience” and “reason,” accessible to all, are accepted as sources of knowledge, leaving no room for external sources such as magic, intuition, and revelation. “Self-grounded reason” means reason that, as Kant said, follows only the laws it has itself laid down, not those imposed by an external source. Therefore, Scholastic philosophy, which sees the task and mission of philosophy or the humanities as defending Christian theology, lacks the characteristic of self-grounding; for self-grounded philosophy or sciences consider such presuppositions to be in contradiction with the principle of self-grounding (Bahrami; 2014: 141 & 142). In fact, the difference between traditional rationality and modern rationality was precisely that in traditional rationality, the more remote sources were from human understanding and access, the more transcendent and rational they were deemed. For this reason, myth, revelation, and theories such as Platonic Forms were held in great respect. But the more objective sources and subjects became, the more they lost their importance. Regarding the difference between traditional reason and modern rationality, Bashiriyeh states: “Reason in its pre-modern conception is a faculty that discovers objective, pre-existing truths. It is a revelatory reason that attains knowledge of Forms, essences, or God, whether independently or with the aid of revelation. But reason in the sense of early modernity is a creative concept. Modern man can, with the aid of his reason, cast a new design and move toward unforeseeable horizons. In the Aristotelian conception of change, a transformation from potentiality to actuality is assumed, and thus, a novel matter or a new state is not expected. Likewise, in the religious conception of change and transformation, history is the arena for the realization of God's eternal plan. But in the Age of Progress's conception of history and social change, an unprecedented and unpredictable state is to be expected, and modern reason is considered an important and constructive element in achieving that state. Modern reason has a close relationship with freedom and choice, whereas pre-modern reason is linked with the universal plan and design and the essences of things.” (Bashiriyeh; 1998: 26)

The reason that in religious schools, rarely does anyone author a book, and the norm is that, at most, scholars and professors write commentaries and glosses on previous texts, is rooted in this same traditional, backward-looking rationality. The foundation of Scholastic philosophy was built upon the commentary of others' texts and theories, which solved no important problem. For example, in the seventh century (AH), the jurisprudential book “Al-Mukhtasar al-Nafi'” was authored, or in the eighth century, the jurisprudential book “Al-Lum'ah,” and for several centuries now, others have been writing commentaries and glosses on them. In the church, synagogue, and seminary, the tradition of gloss-writing is the rule, not text-writing. Gloss-writing and looking into and investigating the past to find answers to today's questions is a characteristic of traditional reason; whereas in modern rationality, the past has no importance in itself and is only significant insofar as it contains historical experiences. In traditional society, knowledge is oriented toward the past, and individuals seek to find a solution and formula from the past to answer their present-day problems. Modern reason sets aside this presupposition that the past was better than the present or that it contains a formula whose discovery can solve today's issues. Modern reason does not have faith in the past but rather doubts and criticizes it. The discussion of a concept called reflexivity, raised by various thinkers, emphasizes this characteristic of modern reason. The self-grounded mind seeks innovation and invention, while the other-grounded mind seeks discovery and intuition. For example, if our problem is regulating the tax system, realizing justice, or reducing suicide, the self-grounded mind seeks answers and solutions by resorting to the findings of modern humanities such as economics, law, sociology, and psychology, while the other-grounded mind believes the answers and solutions exist in old texts and sources, and the only task is to clear away the distortions and dust to reach them.

2- Self-Grounding and Humanism

Humanism, or human-centeredness, means that the human being is the principal reference and that the primary priority is respect for his will and interests. Humanism means that nothing is more important than preserving human life, freedom, and dignity, and that the rights of human beings are equal regardless of their sex, race, language, wealth, power, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. “The expression ‘the primacy of the human’ signified the negation of human bondage, which the Church, under the guise of religion and faith, defended and upheld through the submission of man before God, the doctrine of original sin, and sheer obedience to the Church masters and clerical authorities…” (De Santillana; 1345: 5). Therefore, instead of God or nature, the human being must be made the measure for judgment, planning, and action. The humanists’ model is the famous teaching of Protagoras: “Man is the measure of all things.” From the humanist perspective, the true perfection of the individual lies in observing ethical principles and helping others. For this reason, humanists cite human relations and legal systems when comparing the progress and development of societies. Humanists believe that prioritizing God over the human being is merely a tool to cover the private interests of a group that considers itself God’s representatives. A society in which the human being has no value or dignity is one in which God also has no value and is merely a cover for demagoguery.

Although self-grounding is the most important component of modernity, it alone is not sufficient to give it an identity. It is very important that human beings make their own decisions and realize them with their own hands—that is, to arrive at the belief that they themselves must build society; but is every action commendable simply because human beings have chosen it themselves? If human beings themselves decide to deprive a group of people of their rights, has a commendable act been performed? Certainly not. Therefore, in modernity, another important principle called “humanism” is introduced to protect self-grounding from deviation. Todorov says in this regard: “It is clear that autonomy alone is not sufficient to explain the Enlightenment’s way of understanding the ideal of human conduct and action. Although it is better for a person’s guide to be his own will rather than a rule coming from elsewhere, where is he to go? We know that not all wills and actions have the same value. Since one can no longer turn to heaven to decide which of them are good or bad, one must necessarily remain within the framework of earthly reality and move from a distant finality—for example, the Lord—to a nearer finality. Enlightenment thought considers this finality to be humanity itself, and deems good whatever helps to increase the well-being of human beings.” (Todorov; 1387: 91)

In “humanism,” the ultimate goal of the human being and the criterion for evaluating any action are the direct or indirect effects that action has on human beings (in general). Kant, in defining this principle, says: No end is so valuable that a human being may be used as a means to achieve it. It can be said that individuals who consider something other than the human being as the end, or who assign different rights and values to a group of human beings (the working class, believers, men, elites, the wealthy, whites, etc.), have undermined humanist equality as one of the fundamental principles of modernity.

There are two common interpretations of humanism: the first is the “primacy of the individual,” which is theorized in liberalism and in which priority is given to individual rights and the rights of minorities. The second is the “primacy of the collective,” which is theorized in socialism and in which priority is given to the rights of the majority. The first moves from freedom to justice and strives to observe the maximum individual rights and freedoms; but the second moves from justice to freedom, considers the individual within society, and therefore gives priority to society rather than to each and every individual. (Bahrami Kamil; 1393: 149)

Traditionalists, religious conservatives, fascists, and populists are among the most significant opponents of individualism. René Guénon, as one of the traditionalists, states: “By individualism we mean the denial of any principle higher than individuality, and the consequent reduction of civilization, in all its branches, to purely human elements; therefore, individualism is fundamentally equivalent to what was called humanism during the Renaissance.” (Guénon; 1387: 85) Opponents of individualism believe that traditional society, being God-centered, is far more valuable than modern societies that have forgotten God and, by placing man in His stead, have encountered numerous crises. The reality is that, from a political and social dimension, humans have always sought power and their own interests; but it is only in the modern era that they have admitted it. In the past, religious ideologies justified the sacrifice of individuals by placing various gods in a rank higher than man. In the contemporary era, totalitarian communist, fascist, and populist ideologies sacrifice individuals under the pretext of the good of the people, the country, and the nation. On the other hand, and contrary to the claims of opponents of individualism, from the perspective of proponents of individualism and humanism, there is no prohibition against individuals placing God, family, country, or another person above themselves and loving them; what is condemned and unacceptable is the creation of systematic and pervasive structures and methods to bind human beings under the pretext of an existence beyond them.

3- Self-Grounding and Freedom

Freedom is the capacity inherent in every human being to act according to their own will, without being obliged to submit to any constraints other than those necessary for the freedom of others. Such a definition is also seen in the declaration of the French revolutionaries; freedom consists in the ability to do whatever does not harm another. (Article 4 of the 1789 Declaration) This definition, with its positive and negative aspects, encompasses individual autonomy. Because a person must be able to do what they want and must not be forced to do what they do not want. (Bordeaux; 1383: 48-46) “Freedom is not a means to a higher end, but is itself the highest political end.” (Arblaster; 1368: 83) We must be free to pursue our own interests in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain them. (Mill; 1363: 40-41) Of course, freedom is frightening, especially for those who have not experienced it. Erich Fromm, in his book “Escape from Freedom,” says; freedom brings responsibility, and the burden of responsibility is heavy; so individuals flee from freedom to shirk this burden. In fact, one of the reasons humans do not seek the realization of self-grounding is that accepting self-grounding is equivalent to accepting greater social commitment and responsibility.

4- Self-Grounding and Secularism

Secularization means the liberation of public spheres (political, economic, and social) from the dominance of the religious institution. Secularization pushes religion from the public sphere into the private sphere and confines it to the individual (personal) domain. John Locke, after his investigations into the relationship between government and religion, concluded that: Religion is a matter of people's conscience and the relationship between God and creation, and the government should not prescribe a religion for the people. Belief and religion must be free, and religious authorities should not engage in governmental affairs. (Foroughi: 1344; Volume Two, 131) The political consequence of such a belief is that the primary duty of the government is to secure the worldly life of individuals and attend to the welfare and security they desire. The afterlife and guaranteeing otherworldly felicity are not among the duties of the government.

In the twentieth century, secularism, which was one of the foundations of modernity, faced a new threat. In communist, fascist, Nazi, and even nationalist governments, religion was separated from politics; but these governments created a religion out of politics. Todorov says in this regard: From the moment political power tells people what they should believe in, we are dealing with a "political religion" that appears no better than its predecessor. Condorcet adds in this regard: "Robespierre is a priest and will be nothing else." (Todorov; 2008: 65) It is clear that secularism, in the sense of setting aside religious explanations for the natural and social world, is a prerequisite for self-grounding, and without accepting secularism, achieving self-grounding is impossible.

5- Self-Grounding and Democracy

John Locke, by proposing the principle of the "social contract," extended the component of self-grounding from the individual level to the macro-social level. According to this principle, it was no longer necessary to refer to religious and traditional doctrines to manage society; because majority agreement and democracy are a more appropriate solution for establishing and managing society. The self-grounding characteristic of democracy is observed when the members of society have come to believe in principles and values through their own reason and knowledge; if individuals' belief in these principles and values is due to the will and recommendation of an external authority, democracy loses its self-grounding characteristic. For this reason, those who pursue ideas like "religious democracy" or "Iranian republic" have in no way understood the fundamental principle of modernity and still consider people to be minors who cannot make decisions for themselves and need an external source and authority to show them the way. (For further reading, see: Bahrami Kamil; 2017)

According to one definition, democracy means "known ways to reach unknown results." It is clear that the wider the range of these unknown results that have been predetermined, the further we have distanced ourselves from the self-grounding of democracy. For example, a government that says people can give their opinion on anything except declaring war is much more democratic than a government that says people can give their opinion on anything except military and security affairs (which includes war). For precisely this reason, we should not consider democracy like theocracy, or liberalism like communism or fascism, as a type of ideology; because they contain the fewest dos and don'ts and from this perspective are a minimal ideology. Instead of determining results and specifying answers, liberalism is only concerned with preserving the conditions for drawing conclusions and providing answers. For this reason, in a liberal democratic government, an artist must freely create their artwork. But in a communist government, the artist can only express predetermined ideas and values in their work.

6- Self-Grounding in Nature; Society and the Individual

Self-grounding in the three domains of nature, society, and the individual has differences, and a lack of precision regarding them can lead to fallacies and the conflation of many discussions. In the following, I will briefly compare self-grounding in these three domains.

a. The domain of nature; which includes the subjects of sciences such as mathematics, physics, and biology, whose criteria are reason, logic, and experience. It does not matter if grandfather says iron is more resistant to rust than aluminum. It does not matter if the holy book says the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. It does not matter if the majority says how many teeth a horse has. The criterion for determining the truth or falsehood of these propositions is abstraction and experience. Self-grounding in nature means that scientific and empirical laws are the criterion, and within this domain, one cannot act based on religious teachings or the opinion of the majority. In the natural world, logic and cause-and-effect relationships prevail, which are discovered and examined by theoretical reason. In a cause-and-effect relationship, the effect is necessarily the result of the existence of the cause, and the cause of something happening means making the occurrence of something else impossible. There is no discussion of freedom, free will, or choice in this world. It is clear how much pressure a bridge can withstand; it is clear with what acceleration and speed released objects reach the ground. For this reason, accepting the opinion of specialists, for example, engineers or doctors, whose area of expertise is the natural sciences, does not contradict self-grounding.

B. The Social Sphere; which encompasses the subjects of the social sciences and humanities. Such as whether democracy is better than monarchy. Whether socialist justice is better than liberal justice. Whether the penalty for premeditated murder is imprisonment or execution. Whether cars should drive on the right or the left. Whether a red light signals stop or a green light does.

Self-grounding in society means that the members of a society, through dialogue, interaction, and mutual understanding, choose goals, values, and laws, and build their society based upon them. The members of such a self-grounding society are constantly critiquing and refining each other's views in order to achieve greater persuasion and consensus.

If we wish to speak in Kantian language: in the social world, rational reason must be the criterion for decision and action. The difference between a reason and a cause is that a reason does not eliminate the possibility of things happening otherwise. You stop because the light turned red; but you could continue moving. However, a light turning on generates heat due to certain causal reactions, and as long as the same cause-and-effect system exists, that specific degree of heat will be generated.

As some thinkers have emphasized, preserving self-grounding at the societal level depends on respecting "pluralism" and "tolerance." That is, individuals must listen to each other's reasons and exercise tolerance in the face of disagreements, criticisms, and even decisions that do not align with their views.

C. The Individual and Personal Sphere; which is the realm of individual taste and lifestyle. For example: whether Gheimeh stew is tastier or Ghormeh Sabzi. Whether black pants are more beautiful or brown. Whether pop music is better or traditional. Whether winter is more beautiful or summer.

Self-grounding in the personal sphere means the individual is free from fashion and the opinion of the majority and chooses for themselves what they love from the bottom of their heart. A low-income individual living in a 50-square-meter apartment who buys an 80-inch television because the majority of people in society have bought large televisions is not a self-grounding individual, because they did not make this choice based on their own needs, financial situation, and inner satisfaction.

If we want to illustrate these three spheres and the specific logic of each in building construction, we must look at it from the three angles of "engineering," "architecture," and "decoration." "Building engineering" is a science situated in the domain of rational and empirical propositions. When constructing an apartment, calculations of weight, structural strength, material composition, soil type, etc., determine the maximum distance between columns. In the social sphere, the discipline of "architecture" tells us, considering the temporal and spatial conditions and the urban planning regulations of that area, how many floors can be built, what dimensions the windows should have, how building safety issues should be implemented, and how various boundaries should be observed. Finally, from the perspective of individual taste, "decoration" allows each person to decorate, color, and even define certain uses of the building's interior space based on their own tastes and needs. One person might like to place their microwave in the kitchen, and another in the study. One person might wallpaper the bedroom, and another might paint it.

Conclusion

A self-grounding human being and society means a human being and a society in which thought, speech, action, laws, and institutions are, above all, the product of the rational deliberation, choice, and spontaneous action of the individual and society. As has been shown, self-grounding is the most important component of modernity and is interwoven with other components of modernity such as rationality, humanism, individualism, freedom, secularism, and democracy. Furthermore, self-grounding also has an impact on other important categories such as "science" and "ethics," the consequences of which many Iranian thinkers have not considered.

A. Self-Grounding and Science:

Self-grounding in the sciences means relying solely on human reason and experience. This is why rationalists and empiricists are regarded as the two major schools of the Enlightenment, one relying on reason and logic, the other on human experience and observation. In any case, for any discovery, invention, prediction, or acquisition of knowledge, the most reliable path is to trust human reason and experience, even if these tools have their flaws and shortcomings. With this brief preamble, it becomes clear that something called “Islamic humanities” is devoid of the attribute of self-grounding. In Islamic humanities, by delving into Islamic texts, we seek to discover Islam’s view on a given issue or subject; for example, we want to know what the definition of justice and the means of its realization are from the perspective of Islam, or what is the appropriate age of marriage for girls? Obviously, if we arrive at an answer, since this answer is sacred, the matter is settled, and we must then seek Islam’s answer to the next question and subject. But in the modern view of the sciences, which possesses the characteristic of self-grounding, the validity of answers, from whatever source or authority, is contingent upon rational and empirical confirmation. For this reason, if, from the perspective of proponents of Islamic humanities, it were hypothetically determined that the appropriate age of marriage for girls is 11, the matter is settled and this answer must be obeyed. But in modern humanities, discovering this number is only the beginning, and if biologists and psychologists, with the aid of their human reason and experience, conclude that the appropriate age of marriage is not 11, it must be set aside. (For more information, see: Bahrami Kamil 1394)

B. Self-Grounding and Ethics:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said in the eighteenth century: “The true citizen is one who can act on the basis of moral principles grounded in his own judgment.” In the same century, Immanuel Kant demonstrated in detail that without freedom and the use of self-grounded reason, moral judgment of actions is impossible. Only individuals whose actions are rooted in their own self-grounded will can act morally or immorally. Someone who performs an action out of fear, compulsion, pleasure, or on another’s recommendation—their action is not subject to moral judgment, because they were not free in performing it and did not do it based on their heartfelt belief. As can be seen, Kant ties the discussion of ethics to the discussion of freedom, free will, rationality, and self-grounding. Actions that an individual performs by invoking the reason and will of another are heteronomous, lack the characteristic of self-grounding, and cannot be considered moral.

Kant says in the preface to the book Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone: Morality, insofar as it is based on the concept of “man” as a free being... needs neither another being above man to recognize his duties, nor another being besides himself and the law to fulfill his duty. Thus, morality, for its own sake, in no way needs religion, but rather, by virtue of practical reason, is independent of it. (Körner; 1380: 284) “Perhaps the spirit of Kantian moral philosophy can be summarized in this sentence: Dare to be free and accept responsibility for it.” (Bahrami Kamil; 1393: 19)

Now, if we consider that Kant’s discussion of ethics has many consequences for other domains, such as the political and legal system of society, we can understand how neglecting the discussion of self-grounding has led to the forgetting of vast dimensions of these issues. Kant says: The legal system of every civil society must have a moral foundation. (Sullivan; 1380: 25) This is why Kant’s commentators believe that the more rigid laws are enacted in a country, broadening the definition of crimes or linking the basis of legal laws to religion, the more difficult the possibility of performing moral actions becomes. Similarly, guru-worship and mysticism oriented toward a person contradict the performance of a moral act. In Kant’s view, if a person acts fairly to gain more customers and money, or out of fear of legal punishment, or because their spiritual guide and leader told them to, they have not performed a moral act; for an individual’s action must be performed by invoking the two famous human principles, namely: “Man is not a means” and “Put yourself in the place of others.”

Self-grounding in ethics, especially medical ethics, has sparked many discussions. For example, the limits of patient choice and physician action in a matter such as “Euthanasia” is one of these discussions.

Self-grounding also has its critics; the Stoics, Epicureans, and Cynics were the first pre-Christian philosophical schools that, instead of employing human reason and experience, advocated taking refuge in nature and surrendering to fate and destiny. In the eighteenth century, the Romantics, who were anti-rational, subjectivist, intuitionist, and holistic, replaced reason and experience with religious faith, human feelings and emotions, public passion and excitement, and the tranquility of taking refuge in nature. In other words, they considered a return to religion, innate nature, and the natural world as the cure for the anxiety and distress of modern man. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that taking refuge in nature and a primitive life was far more peaceful and honorable than being submerged in the corruption of modern life. Schiller and Novalis recommended knowing oneself in order to know the world. Søren Kierkegaard, in his book Fear and Trembling, considered the highest mode of "existing" to be the attainment of spiritual faith. Goethe, Herder, Schopenhauer, and Fichte also emphasized the importance of instinct and feeling over science and rationality. In the twentieth century, thinkers such as Adorno and Horkheimer, under the pretext of Nazi crimes, raised the banner of opposition to modernity and instrumental rationality, and in the second half of this century, Derrida, Lyotard, and other postmodernists continued this path. Communitarians like Michael Sandel believe that the liberal interpretation of self-grounding is incomplete because it forgets that humans act amidst and upon social values and commitments. Psychoanalysts also consider self-grounding an illusion that ignores the role of emotional and social factors and pressures on action and exaggerates the power of individual will. Similarly, feminists believe that self-grounding contains a masculine myth at its core and overlooks the place of feelings, emotions, and affection in individual action. The contemporary thinker Emmanuel Levinas views self-grounding as our selfishness, which causes us to forget the desires and wishes of others. He values heteronomy above self-grounding because in heteronomy we commit ourselves to others. Although Levinas rightly speaks of the necessity of respecting and accepting the "Other" and believes we must not ignore the alterity of the other and dissolve them into ourselves, it seems that Levinas's criticisms of self-grounding are raised without considering Kant's two moral principles and by reducing self-grounding to individual selfishness.

In conclusion, it must be said that Iranian thinkers have not yet engaged with the issue of self-grounding and its philosophical and social consequences in a detailed and independent manner. Of course, some intellectuals of the Constitutional era, such as Akhundzadeh and Malkam Khan, raised this issue, but it was not pursued by the intellectuals of subsequent generations. In this context, the writings of Aramesh Doustdar and Seyyed Javad Tabatabai are considered exceptions. These two thinkers focused on the issue of the impossibility and the conditions of the impossibility of thought in Iranian culture and demonstrated that religious culture and historical conditions have been the cause of this rejection of rational inquiry and questioning. However, nativist intellectuals, religious reformists, and those afflicted by ideology were oblivious to the consequences of understanding and accepting this concept, and the issue has only been raised in passing in the works of some thinkers of the Constitutional era. Of course, most Iranian intellectuals, perhaps in the negative phase and in their critique of tradition, superstitions, fatalism, and Westoxification, rightly opposed fate and imitation and took a step towards self-grounding; but in the affirmative phase, they replaced it with a far worse form of imitation. Jalal Al-e Ahmad's "Return to the Self," Ali Shariati's religious mythologizing, Imam Musa Sadr's "Islamic Economics," Bani-Sadr's "Tawhidi Economics," and the "Islamic Democracy" of religious intellectuals had no relation to self-grounding. On the other hand, some Iranian intellectuals, by taking refuge in Western critics of modernity such as Heidegger, Adorno, and Horkheimer, engaged in a critique of rationality and the Enlightenment; others, by taking refuge in Ghazali, invoking Rumi, or playing the tune of Stoic, Gnostic, Buddhist philosophies, etc., have criticized rationality and modernity and paved the way for the dominance of anti-rational currents. Of course, the critique of self-grounding, rational inquiry, modernity, and democracy is useful in the West because it refers to an objective and tangible situation that people have experienced and have the possibility of fairly judging the criticisms raised and the proposed alternatives. It is precisely for this reason that, despite numerous criticisms of modernity and its values, these critical currents have always been on the margins, and society has not accepted their alternative proposals and has, for the most part, used them to reform the existing situation. In this regard, Travis says: "Philosophical romanticism never progressed beyond a so-called hiccup in the history of Western philosophy." (Cohen; 1393: 220)

Now the question arises: to what extent does trumpeting the thoughts of anti-rational thinkers such as Heidegger, Adorno, Horkheimer, Derrida, Lyotard, Laclau, Agamben, Badiou, etc., help increase our understanding and solve our problems? Philosophers whose greatest art was playing with words, ambiguity, bombast, and giving depth to nothingness. Philosophers who trampled upon the primary characteristic of knowledge, namely its communal nature, with their non-transferable intellectual apparatus and intuitive system-building. Philosophers who were generally enemies of individuality and property, yet had an insatiable thirst for inventing words and terms of which they themselves were the individual owners.

.

---

.

References

Arblaster, Anthony (1368) The Rise and Fall of Liberalism - Translated by Abbas Mokhber, Nashr-e Markaz

Bashiriyeh, Hossein (1377) Consultation, Traditionalism and Modernity, in a Survey of Scholars - Naqd va Nazar Journal, Year Five, No. 17-18

Burdeau, Georges (1383) Liberalism - Translated by Abdolvahab Ahmadi, Nashr-e Ney, Second Edition

Bunge, Mario (1395) Philosophical Dictionary - Translated by Alireza Ghasemi, Akhtaran Publications, First Edition

Bahrami Kamil, Nezam (1393) A Typology of Iranian Intellectuals - Kavir Publications, First Edition

Bahrami Kamil, Nezam (1396) The Iranian Republic: Opportunity or Threat - Iran-e Farda Monthly, No. 40, March 1396

Bahrami Kamil, Nezam (1394) The Self-Grounding of the Humanities - Iran-e Farda Monthly, No. 19, January 1394

Todorov, Tzvetan (1387) The Spirit of the Enlightenment - Translated by Abdolvahab Ahmadi, Nashr-e Agah, First Edition

Sullivan, Roger (1380) Ethics in the Philosophy of Kant - Translated by Ezatollah Fooladvand, Tarh-e No Publications

De Santillana, Giorgio (1345) The Age of Enlightenment - Translated by Parviz Daryoush, Elmi va Farhangi Publications

Foroughi, Mohammad Ali (1965) The Course of Wisdom in Europe, Vols. 1, 2, and 3 – Zavar Bookshop Publications

Kant, Immanuel (1990) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals – translated by Hamid Enayat, Kharazmi Publications, first edition

Kant, Immanuel (1991) What is Enlightenment? – translated by Homayoun Fooladpour, Kelk Magazine, No. 22

Körner, Stephan (2001) Kant's Philosophy – translated by Ezzatollah Fooladvand, Tehran, Kharazmi Publications

Cohen, Martin (2014) Philosophy – translated by Mehdi Shafaghati, Avand Danesh Publishing, third edition

Guénon, René (2008) The Crisis of the Modern World – translated by Hassan Azizi, Hekmat Publications

Mill, John Stuart (1984) On Liberty – translated by Javad Sheikholeslami, Scientific and Cultural Publications, third edition

.

---

.

The Book Culture, Society, and Self-Grounding – Nezam Bahrami Kamil; Pouyeh Eshragh Publishing, Autumn 2019 – Pages 109 to 124

.

---

.