![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The present paper is an attempt to explore the impact of Karl Popper’s ideas on the views of a number of intellectual groups in post‐revolutionary Iran. Throughout the text, we have tried to make use of original sources and our own personal experiences. The upshot of the arguments of the paper is that the Viennese philosopher has made a long‐lasting impression on the intellectual scene of present‐day Iran in that even those socio‐political groups which are not in favour of his ideas, especially his model of critical rationalism, have felt the urgent need to make themselves familiar with them. Moreover, many of Popper’s ideas have directly or indirectly influenced the thinking of the decision‐makers in Iran since 1978.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their warmest gratitude to Professor David Miller at the University of Warwick, who kindly read an earlier version of this paper and made invaluable comments for its improvement. Our thanks also to an anonymous referee of this journal for their constructive comments, which we have gratefully incorporated into our text.
Notes
[1] Throughout the text, we use the abbreviation ‘Pr. Tr.’ for ‘Persian Translation’. Details of each translation can be found in the References.
[2] In the course of our research for a paper on ‘Habermas in Iran’, an Iranian political scientist, Dr Seyyed ‘Ali Mortazaviān, explained to us that in 1974, Hushang Nahāvandi, the then Chancellor of the University of Tehran, had suggested that Popper’s Open Society and Its Enemies, along with a number of other books, be translated into Persian and published by the University of Tehran Press. According to Dr. Mortazaviān, Nahavandiān himself interviewed a number of prospective translators for this task and at the end offered the contract to Dr. Mortazavian’s younger brother, who was then a student at the Department of Political Science at the University of Tehran and is now a professor in the United States. Seyyed Hossein Mortazaviān, according to his elder brother, translated one chapter of the book. However, he was persuaded by the head of the Department of Political Sciences, Dr. Hamid ‘Enāyat, to abandon the project. Apparently, Dr. ‘Enāyat, who had studied at Oxford and was a first‐rank political scientist with left‐wing‐religious tendencies, as well as being one of the best translators of philosophical texts into Persian, had indicated to his student that he should not spend his time on a book with right‐wing undertones. Interestingly enough Enāyat himself in an essay on History has advised his readers to read Popper’s The Poverty of Historicism in order to get a critical view on the doctrine of Historical Determinism (Enāyat Citation1972).
[3] The above account of the development of philosophical and intellectual thought in Iran, as one anonymous referee of this journal has commented, “is a limited evaluation excluding part of the Persian intellectual tradition, especially ‘divine philosophy’ or ‘theosophy’ (hekmat‐i elāhai).” This philosophical system combined both the rational and intuitive aspects of the mind in order to acquire wisdom. The architect of this system was Shehab ad‐Din Sohravardi (killed in 1191) whose ideas were developed by the School of Işfahān, particularly by its founder Mir Dāmād (d. 1631). Other important figures such as Mollā Şadrā (d. 1640) developed the ideas of this school, which have remained influential in the intellectual life of Iranians. Despite the pressures inserted by Fuqhah (the Jurists) who were against philosophy, Persians remained interested in philosophy. Several attempts at reconciling and combining philosophy with mysticism, and later with Shi’ism, testify to the development of philosophy through the medieval period up to the twentieth century. Two of the key figures in this reconciliation were Ibn Turka Işfahāni (d. c. 1432) and Ibn Abi Jumhur. For an account of the development of philosophical thought in Islam and especially its latter evolution in the context of Persian‐Shi’i thought, see Henry Corbin (Citation1964, Citation1974).
[4] For background information on the circle of the Traditionalists, its prominent members, and their views, see http://www.traditionalists.net.
[5] The following books by Illich were translated into Persian during the 1970s: Deschooling Society, Energy and Equity, Limits to Medicine, and Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health.
[6] One rather famous left‐wing writer commenting in the mid‐1970s in an influential Persian weekly, Ferdousi, on Popper’s report that at a young age he had joined the communist party and then shortly afterwards left it, said rather scornfully: ‘This is an age most kids spend their time in the playground, it is too soon to be joining a political party.’
[7] An interesting exception was Ayatollah Haeri Yazdi, an eminent cleric, who was an expert on Islamic Philosophy and had studied modern philosophy in America, where he had obtained his Ph.D. in the 1970s. Although he had read Carnap and Quine, however, as he told one of us (Paya) in the mid‐1980s, in the period in which he was working on his dissertation he had never come across Popper’s name. In our meeting, he showed me a copy of the American edition of A Pocket Popper (Popper Selections, edited by David Miller) that he had recently bought to make himself familiar with Popper’s ideas.
[8] There seems to be one odd case which perhaps goes against the general point stated in the text. A leading Iranian intellectual, Abdulkarim Soroush, has told us that while he was working on the unpublished manuscripts of Ayatollah Moretzā Moţahhari (one of the most prominent contemporary Iranian thinkers and a key intellectual figure in the Islamic Revolution, who was murdered by a terrorist shortly after the Revolution), he noticed that the Ayatollah had used Popper’s key question concerning the issue of running the state. According to Soroush, the Ayatollah had approvingly sided with Popper, without mentioning his name, that the most important problem is how to change undesired rulers without bloodshed, and not who is the best ruler.
[9] Those lecturers who were familiar with English were, to a large extent, engaged in teaching themes from the classic to early modern periods or topics from the Islamic System of Thought.
[10] There was a rather advanced book on symbolic logic written by a mathematician, Gholam‐Hossein Moşāhab (Citation1960). However, few readers seemed to show any interest in this book. One possible explanation for this lack of interest could be that its content was perhaps beyond the reach of those who were only familiar with the classic Aristotelian logic.
[11] In referring to the religious intellectuals of the period under discussion, it should be borne in mind that most of these intellectuals had left‐wing/socialist tendencies, and many (though not all) of them were sympathetic to Marxist ideology. For a fuller account of the divisions of the religious intellectual groups during the period specified above, see Paya (2005).
[12] This course was presented for one semester, before the temporary closure of the universities in 1980–1981. However, Soroush resumed his academic activities after the re‐opening of the universities.
[13] Lārijāni, who is now an influential member of two powerful conservative bodies, the Assembly of the Constitution’s Experts—a body that chooses and appoints Iran’s Supreme Religious Leader—and the Council of Guardians, which is in charge of checking the conformity with the Shari’ah and the Constitution of the bills passed by the elected Parliament, makes use of his familiarity with Popper’s views to produce arguments against the more liberal‐minded Muslim intellectuals and reformers.
[14] In recent years the Heideggerians have tried to remedy this defect by producing Persian translations of a number of Heidegger’s books and shorter treatises.
[15] The most comprehensive exposition of Fardid’s views so far, which are mostly based on edited transcriptions of his lectures delivered at the University of Tehran shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, has recently been published in Tehran (Fardid Citation2003). Recently a number of Fardid’s followers have created a website for providing information on all aspects of Fardid’s life and works. The site also contains an impressive list of the works by other writers in various languages including Persian, Turkish (both sympathetic and critical) of his ideas can be found. The site address is as follows: http://www.ahmadfardid.com.
[16] At a meeting in Tehran in December 2000, a few months before his death at the age of 90, Dr Yahyā Mahdavi, the founder of University of Tehran’s Department of Philosophy, told one of us (Paya) that Fardid could not obtain his Ph.D. degree during his stay in Europe because he was not systematic and methodical in his approach to philosophical issues. It also seems that Fardid’s short period of stay in Europe was not enough for seriously getting involved in studying philosophy in depth.
[17] The term ‘westoxication’ has enjoyed a large degree of notoriety among Iranian intellectuals and the public since the 1960s, thanks to a book with the same title written by one well‐known Iranian intellectual, Jalāl Āl‐e Ahmad, who was a member of Fardid’s Circle during the 1960s. The same author, later on, with encouragement from Fardid and another Iranian philosopher, Mahmood Hooman, produced a translation of Ernst Junger’s Crossing the Line (Junger Citation1951, Pr. Tr., 1968).
[18] For a critique of some aspects of Fardid’s views, see Barahani (Citation1991) and Nabavi (Citation2001).
[19] Recently, one of Fardid’s disciples has published the edited script of Fardid’s tape‐recorded speeches which were delivered at the University of Tehran shortly after the victory of the Islamic Revolution (Fardid Citation2003).
[20] Some of the better known of such works are Al‐e Ahmad (Citation1963), Shayegān (1970), and Dāvari (Citation1978).
[21] These claims have been strongly disputed as unsubstantiated by some of the Iranian scholars. See, for example, Khurramshāhi (Citation1987), Ashouri (Citation2004).
[22] Fardid, in a Heideggerian vein, argued that from an etymological point of view, the Greek god Zeus (Theos), which in Latin is called Deus and in Sanskrit Deva, and in ancient Persian Daiva, is the same as Taghot in Arabic and in Qur’ānic usage. However, the validity of these etymological claims has been contested. See Khurramshāhi (Citation1996), Ashouri (Citation2004).
[23] Given the theological connotations of Heidegger’s views, it is not difficult to draw parallels between the two systems. What needs to be done is simply to replace Heidegger’s ‘Being’ with Hekmat‐e Unsi’s God. The similarities, of course, go further than that. Fardid and his students are very fond of ‘arguments from etymology’. Moreover, like Heidegger, their method of philosophizing is description and hermeneutic interpretation rather than logical analysis and critical evaluation. In fact, in line with Heidegger, as noted earlier, they are totally dismissive of all analytical trends of thought.
[24] The articles that appeared in this anthology had all been written few years before the revolution.
[25] The first translation, minus the ‘Notes’ that comprise almost half of the book, by ‘Ali Asghar Mohājer, was initially published in the US in 1984–1985, and subsequently reprinted in Iran (Inteshār Co., Tehran, 1985). A young member of the moderate Islamic party, Nehzat‐e Azādi (The Liberation Movement), ‘Enāyat Ettehad, wrote a long introduction on this edition introducing Popper’s ideas to the Iranian readers. The second translation, a complete and definitive one, plus Popper’s 1961 and 1969 addenda, by Ezzatollah Foulādvand, were published in 1985 (Volume 1) and 1999 (Volume 2) by Khwārazmi Publications. A third translator, Amir Jalāl Ud‐Din ‘Alam, who had translated and published in 1999 the first volume of the book, has since abandoned the translation of the rest of the book.
[26] Professor Miller has pointed out to us that Popper himself talks about ‘an irrational faith in reason’, when he might better have said ‘arational’.
[27] Kamāly, prior to the publication of his Persian translation of Popper’s LSD, had published a translation of Popper’s introduction to LSD in an academic quarterly, Farhang (Kamāly 1988).
[28] A second translation of The Lesson of this Century appeared in 2001.
[29] The papers, translated by some of Soroush’s students, were ‘The Aim of Science’, ‘The Bucket and the Searchlight’, and ‘The Logic of the Social Sciences’.
[30] ‘Aliābādi, on another occasion, delivered a talk at the same institute in which he critically assessed Heidegger’s notion of technology. Unfortunately, the texts of his talks are not yet published.
[31] Some of Foulādvand’s other translations of works by or about Popper are listed in the bibliography.
[32] The above English title appears on the cover of the book itself; however, the correct translation of the Persian title seems to be A Critical Examination of Karl Popper’s Philosophy.
[33] The bibliography also contains extra information on other Persian translations of Popper’s works or Persian translation of works on Popper or other Persian books or articles on Popper that have not been mentioned in the text. However, the present bibliography is by no means exhaustive.
[34] The present authors are working on a project entitled “Occidental Thinkers and Iranian Intellectuals”, in which the impact of the ideas of various Western thinkers on the views of various intellectual groups and individuals in contemporary Iran is being explored. A number of papers and books are expected to be published as a result of the above project. The second paper (in English) in this series, “Habermas and Iranian Intellectuals” (Paya and Ghaneirad Citation2006) and a Persian book with the same title will appear shortly.
[35] Upon encountering scientific ideas from various established civilizations that were very attractive to the Muslim public especially the youth, some of the early Muslim scholars resorted to the creation of quasi‐scientific or even pseudo‐scientific views, claiming to be authentic sayings (traditions) of the Prophet. See Behbudi (Citation1985).
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112447/MPU-L1HU.png"})