Revenge in the Dark

In the history of philosophy, there has been no shortage of thinkers who have spoken of the relationship between various aspects of human life and philosophy. For instance, the question of the relations between economics and philosophy, or the question of the relationship between political power and philosophy, is not an idle one. These questions are inherently philosophical and thought-provoking. And fundamentally, if the philosopher's role is to provoke reflection and stimulate critical rationality, it is fitting that we open the embrace of thought to these questions. The question of politics in philosophy is not an abandoned matter. But far be it from philosophy to enter the service of politicking and malice. I offered this preamble at the outset of the discussion to make clear from the very beginning that philosophy has no relation to naked lumpenism and charlatanism, nor to the violence and arrogance of the arrogant. Whatever name one gives to the affair that has lately befallen Dr. Khosropanah, its name is not philosophy.

A group, acting in concert, has worked themselves into a lather, foaming at the mouth and untying knots from a rancorous heart. The aim here is not the pursuit of truth. They attack Khosropanah with such fury, mixing everything up, as if by disgracing Khosropanah they are taking revenge on history for their own failures and frustrations. Of course, criticism has its own etiquette, adherence to which benefits everyone. Recently, Mr. Khodaparast, a researcher at the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, published a text («انتحال» را بود آیا که عیاری گیرند؟) that is worthy of examination and reflection. I, of course, do not count Mr. Khodaparast among such individuals. What I do know is that the realm of science and philosophy is too lofty to be placed in the service of politicians, even if we dislike certain people. I decided to write a few lines regarding the remarks of Mr. Khodaparast—may his life be long—in the hope that they may be of use to him and others. First, regardless of the validity or otherwise of his views, I wish this text had not been published in these days. These days, the context and atmosphere in which such criticisms are promoted and propagated are, before being scholarly and well-intentioned, politicized and spiteful. Nevertheless, concern for the authenticity of scholarly products and output is a blessed phenomenon. However, if this concern becomes tainted by ulterior motives or lacks clear criteria and standards, it becomes a tool for the trickery of malevolent schemers. So one must be careful to uphold these standards for the sake of the integrity of knowledge production. The argument and accusation that Mr. Khodaparast has directed at Mr. Khosropanah rests primarily on two foundations. And it must be seen whether these foundations have the capacity to bear his claims. I believe that from these premises and foundations, those grave and virtue-destroying allegations cannot be deduced.

His first basis for leveling accusations is the Law on Prevention and Combating of Scientific Fraud, enacted by the Islamic Consultative Assembly. In this law, attributing the work of others to oneself is considered a crime. According to clear legal rules, criminalizing the behavior of others is not an arbitrary or unregulated matter. It is not the case that we can deem a phenomenon a crime if we wish, and not deem it a crime if we do not. In this matter, the final word belongs to the law. If the definition of a crime were left to individuals and everyone had the right to consider whatever they wanted a crime, the existence of law would essentially become pointless. And that is precisely what the esteemed author has done. Based on the single article of the Law on Prevention and Combating of Fraud, which was approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly on 31/5/1396, in the preparation of scientific works, having a scientific work prepared by another as one's own work is considered a crime, and it is fundamentally unclear under what title and by what institution the charge of fraud itself has been criminalized. In this respect, it is unclear on what charge and under what law Mr. Khodaparast has sought the punishment of Mr. Khosropanah.

.But the second basis cited by Mr. Khodaparast is an article published in the journal Javidan Kherad, affiliated with the Iranian Institute of Philosophy, in which the journal's standards and criteria for accepting articles are noted. Among the instances considered plagiarism by this journal is significant copying and repetition from another article, which may be an article by the author themselves. Regarding this reasoning, mentioning a few points is important. Firstly, the journal Javidan Kherad has explained the rules governing its own activities, and the books published by Mr. Khosropanah over the past two decades are fundamentally unrelated to the Institute of Philosophy and the rules governing the journal Javidan Kherad, and any claim by this journal against any author can be pursued in judicial courts based on the country's statutory laws. Secondly, the criteria pertain to the acceptance of articles, not books. In fact, to accuse Mr. Khosropanah, Mr. Khodaparast has both expanded the scope of the journal's internal bylaw and generalized it to other institutions, and broadened the subject of the bylaw, which is articles, extending it to Khosropanah's books over the past 20 years, issuing a fatwa that Khosropanah had no right to repeat his own material in his other books. This is, of course, an unwarranted and unjustified generalization. The issue is also noteworthy from an ethical perspective, what the esteemed author has termed scientific misconduct and considered a sign of academic fraud. Regardless of the fabricated nature of this title in the legal system, in and of itself, it is not only not reprehensible but, depending on circumstances, sometimes necessary and essential. The republication of parts of an author's works in another book is not necessarily considered an abnormal act. Sometimes, due to a change in audience or a change in the work's structure, this repetition may occur. Look at the three foundational cycles of jurisprudence by Martyr Sadr. Or you can compare the evidences of Mulla Sadra with the Asfar. Or take a look at the book

Philosophy in a New Century by John Searle, published by Cambridge in 2008, in which Searle's articles from the past two decades were gathered and republished together. In our country, too, many currently publish their own previously printed articles as collections without citation, and this has been customary in research institutes since the past. Of course, book-making is a reprehensible act, but not every repetition is book-making. But more regrettable is the accusation of plagiarism from the works of others. It is good to take a look at the section on Immortality in New Issues in Theology and Philosophy of Religion. And let us see based on what reasoning and law Khosropanah has been accused of plagiarizing Mr. Akbari. In the Immortality section of the Philosophy of Religion book, Mr. Akbari's book was one of the sources, and the references are clearly and explicitly mentioned in the footnotes. Of course, numerous sources were used in this section. The sources used in writing this section, which includes discourses 14, 15, and 16 cited by Khosropanah, are as follows: The Holy Quran. The Testaments. The Four Journeys (Asfar Arba'ah) of Mulla Sadra. Taqrirat-e Falsafeh (Lectures on Philosophy) of Imam Khomeini. An Inquiry into Bodily Resurrection by Jalal al-Din Ashtiani. Kashf al-Murad by Allama Hilli. Sharh-e Tajrid by Qushji. Theology of the Shifa by Ibn Sina. The Collected Works of Plato. The Path Traversed by Bazargan. Resurrection by Martyr Motahhari, and Immortality by Mr. Akbari, etc. Of course, Mr. Akbari's book received more attention and, as appropriate to its use, was clearly referenced. Plagiarism means attributing the work of others to oneself. Naturally, where the source address is clearly mentioned, the title of plagiarism is baseless and laughable. But regarding copying in the Immortality section, it must be said that the said book mentions three theories of bodily resurrection in light of the theory of resurrection in Transcendent Theosophy, which is a novel and unprecedented matter. And from this perspective, it is worthy of praise, and it becomes clear how baseless and inaccurate is this claim that the author has essentially summarized his material from another source.

Even supposing the esteemed author considers the citations excessive or lengthy in some instances, it remains unclear how the title of plagiarism can apply to these claims. In the cases of citation, the source address is provided. Unless we demand that others submit to our fabricated and self-made titles that have political motivations.

.

---

.

Revenge in the Dark

Dr. Amin Reza Abedinejad

.

---

.