The use of human experiences cannot be considered negation of religion

According to Mehr News Agency, Mehdi Jamshidi, a member of the Faculty of Culture Studies Department of Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute, wrote in a note:

(the first). In general, the use of human experiences is desirable and cannot be considered negation of religion; Except where the necessity of such use is to ignore the rules and teachings of religion, which means to put aside religion and refer to human experiences. Based on this theoretical and basic approach, it is possible to take advantage of the experiences and reserves of Western societies in the field of humanities policy; However, we must be careful not to adopt the ideological strains and themes of their policies and not to get caught up in apparently scientific and neutral, but in fact, secular thoughts and ideas. There is another important consideration that should not be neglected, and that is that we are not at the point and stage of the science production process that Western governments are at, nor are we following the goals and objectives that they demand. During the last several centuries, Western societies have produced a multitude of theories in the field of human sciences and have established and strengthened their position in the world arena; Now that we are in the initial steps. In other words, the western governments are seeking to fatten and broaden the existing human sciences and their expansion and evolution is on their agenda, but we intend to cross this threshold of human sciences and The problem We are the transformation in humanities, not the evolution of established and current humanities. Policies related to human sciences in Western governments and other Western societies, aimed at groundbreaking And not making fundamental changes in the humanities, but for them, The problem It is to apply the existing humanities in order to solve the problems and challenges of their society. Therefore, our epistemological program is not in line with the epistemological program of western societies, and it never has maximum compatibility with it, although perhaps some points and nuances of it can be useful to us as well.

(Second). Contrary to the idea that Western governments are neutral in the field of humanities and do not interfere in the affairs of universities, the reality is that they are officially and openly in charge of the politics of humanities. Such policies give direction to researches and studies and direct them to certain paths. This is where it becomes clear that the neutral government is nothing more than a myth. Western governments not only have the research budget, but in the related ministries, they also make decisions about how to spend them and put these decisions in front of the universities in the form of scientific strategies. In fact, Western governments do not want to direct research in a direction that is incompatible with the needs and gaps of governance and society. however, The problem It is that even in Western governments, it is not like the government doesn't interfere in research and leaves it to arbitrary choices and individual or group tastes, but they consider it their duty to make directive and sovereign policies in the field of humanities and act on it.

(Third). Another point that can be obtained from the study of the relations of Western governments with humanities is that although the governments are in charge of research policy, they do not interfere in the field of how to allocate funds, but have left this matter to scientific working groups. These scientific working groups are intermediaries between the government and researchers; So that they communicate the research policies established by the government to the researchers, and decide which researcher will be selected and how much funding will be provided. These scientific working groups have a direct relationship with the government and are under the control of its executive arm. It should also be added that scientific working groups communicate with researchers sometimes directly, and sometimes through universities and research institutes. Therefore, it is possible for researchers to communicate directly with scientific working groups, and it is not necessary for them to act through universities and research institutes. These scientific working groups are useful and efficient in several ways: firstly, because they claim to be non-governmental and are somewhat distant from the government, the government is immune from the accusation of interfering in the human sciences, and there is resistance among researchers towards the government's policies in this field. , does not form or is minimized; Another thing is that unlike government ministries that have an administrative and bureaucratic atmosphere and are made up of people who are employees and do not have the authority to interfere in the human sciences, scientific working groups, from your weight have scientific and theoretical knowledge and can have a scientific conversation with researchers and convince them scientifically; And finally, unlike governments that change, scientific working groups are more stable and durable, and thus, with the change of governments, the research space does not undergo political and party rethinking and revisions.

(fourth). Based on research policies in field The humanities, which have been determined by the western governments, are financially supported by researches that look at the current realities and major to be society; It means to respond to the needs and challenges that the society is dealing with and to break the deadlocks and in practice to comeNot that they have nothing to do with real and current issues and are prominent and important only in the researcher's mental world. Even among such issues, priorities are identified, and certain issues are introduced to the researchers so that the researchers' ability and wealth are in the same direction. about A series of specific and integrated problems should be concentrated and condensed. Such a situation causes problems to be solved and answered in the short term, and due to the fact that many and varied answers have been presented, it is possible to choose the best among them.

(the fifth). advantage and the point Another lesson learned is that institutions and research centers are very agile and in line with their goals; This means that they are very sensitive in spending the budget; Because your sidelines costly And the fattening of the internal structure and the multiplicity of parts and elements are kept away. thereforeMost budget They are used for research and the rest financial assistance Postgraduate education and non-scientific and administrative affairs are allocated. Therefore, what has the main and major importance is research and nothing else is comparable to it. That is why the budget spent on research the distance Many have other expenses. the point Another consideration is that in rank After research, training of human resources is a priority. This is also a correct strategy; Because research requires the presence of researchers, and in addition to relying on current researchers, we must train human resources and create researchers for the future. The rule of this kind of view humanistic In research institutes and centers, it makes the research not interrupted and continues.