Hobbs and Locke are two of the founders of modem philosophy. Though both are widely known as political philosophers, Hobbs' "Leviathan" and Locke's "An essay concerning human understanding" are among the most important epistemological works in the 17th century and the beginning of the modem era. Rousseau was not an epistemologist, but, under the influence of Locke's epistemological philosophy, founded a specific type of anthropology that dominated the social contract political philosophy. What kind of relationship can be established among epistemology, anthropology, and political philosophy in these scholars? The present paper is to answer the question based on the hypothesis that Locke's epistemology prepared the grounds for Rousseau's anthropology and that both of them, though with deferent degrees of clarity, strengthened a thesis that may be called concealed anarchism. Later, Marx reinforced the idea and, thus, it turned into an integrated part of competing philosophies such liberalism and socialism.

Current Exchange opinions and criticism between liberalism and communitarianism as two contemporary political schools of thoughts is an important issue. Liberalism in the modern era, especially now without any doubt one of, if not the only, political ideology is dominant. It can be said that communitarians are strongest critics of Liberalism, and liberals in their turn have some strongest critique about communitarian's ideas. This article aims to express critiques of defenders of liberalism against some communitarian authors like Michael j. Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charls Taylor and Michael Walzer. In short these critiques can be grouped in eight fields: confronting freedom, misunderstanding about liberal freedom, having comprehensive philosophical doctrine, misunderstanding about liberal neutrality, misunderstanding about liberal self, problem of virtue and civic virtues, exaggeration of liberal weaknesses, and impossibility of communitarianism.

This is an essay to review and rethink of anarchism and to explain the transfer of anarchism from left to the right thoughts and raising the new capitalistic anarchism.The essay first by explaining the ideas of anarchism, examine in details the theory of anarchism and its objects, and then it notes to political thought of neo-liberalism and categorizes the main anarchists.

Epistemologically, It seems the most important of  preoccupation of scientists interesting to democratic life is related to finding a firm and steady base for democracy in recent centuries. This is almost the feature of all developmental theories. Meanwhile, one of the most prominent these attempts is of theoretical anarchism. This school attempts to reject all kinds of machines of dominants and repressions – especially scientism and technocracy – and to show a factual and true for a free society. This theoretical attempt and the study of its possibilities is on the center of the article.

Iranians’ moral is one of the issues researched in recent decades. However, it has been studied with a binary approach in all studies. In this article, we have tried to show that the Iranians’ moral is fuzzy and cannot be addressed with a binary approach. Therefore, in this study, we tried to use a fuzzy approach to deal with the Iranians’ morals in Reggie contract. The results of the study showed that in the Reggie incident, people gained membership scores in charactristics such as collectivism, anti authoritarianism and anarchism. In the case of collectivism, people gained a fuzzy membership score of 0. 92 due to their participation in protesting against the Reggie contract, in the case of antiauthoritarianism, people gained a fuzzy membership score of 0. 81 due to struggling until achieving the goal, and in the case of anarchism, people gained a fuzzy membership score of 0. 06 due to threating the lives of Muslims and foreigners. Based on the obtained results, it can be said that the fuzzy approach to the Iranians’ morals can give more appropriate results than the binary approach.

Inspired by Machiavelli, Carl Schmidt considers politics to be the realm of reality, not ethics. Therefore, he observes the basic concepts of modern state theory in a historical context: the theological concepts have become secularized and replaced the omnipotent transcendental God with the absolute Sovereigns. Later, the modern wisdom with the ideal of the“ rule of law” displaced the absolute rulers from the throne of the throne, and replaced the plural and degenerate pseudo-diviners. Pseudo-diviners who are sometimes bladed against themselves. And all the controversy is the same: the modern state guarantees the order and stability of society. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain it and not to blade against itself. Here the Schmidt's claim to describe "what the ruler is" finds a prescriptive aspect: if the political is tied to the absolute ruler, he must "restore the personal character of sovereignty and make it indistinguishable again. " But what presuppositions and implications the retrieval of this sovereign would have for international politics and how much its worldview is successful in explaining the facts of contemporary international law? We believe that "Schmitt's success in explaining the contemporary international law bares its Hobbesian foundations. At the same time, the only way to abandon Schmitt's ingenious doctrines is to leave his realistic playground and move from the point where he escaped, namely, ethics. "

Political obligation implying that citizens are morally obliged to comply with laws in general and obey the laws of the government under which they live in particular, for they are considered as members of a political society, is justified, explained, and analyzed on distinctive theoretical foundations. The theories of political obligation can be classified under two categories: theories that reject or negate political obligation and those that affirm political obligation. Anarchic theories and analytical philosophy maintain that there is no political obligation whatsoever and those who advocate the theories based on voluntarism, deontology, and teleology are the three mainstream theories that affirm political obligation. The latter groups have taken different approaches to the issue in question.This article seeks to take into account the criticisms and observations levelled against each of the theories on political obligation.

Social anarchism sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism is generally considered to be the branch of anarchism which sees individual freedom as being dependent upon mutual aid. Social anarchist consideration generally emphasizes community and social equality. Society in the modern period is in a critical situation of not only economy and social system, but also in the remarkable aspects of the very existence of human beings. Unless one finds a reliable approach to prevail calamity, its social life is bound to be lost. How did humankind fall into such a critical state -a state that endangers its social life? The present study aims at exploring a chance to clarify the loss of social identity and the crisis beyond it.

Criminal law and criminalization is the arena of confrontation between government authority and the rights and freedoms of citizens; various theories, assuming the legitimacy of the government's authority, as an accepted institution for establishing, implementing and dealing with the implementation of the law, defining the crime, determining the punishment and applying it, as well as the implementation of the criminal justice system, have been examined by the thinkers of this field in explaining and justifying criminalization and punishment. Paying attention to the emergence of problems that this attitude creates on the issue of criminalization and sentencing, as well as examining philosophical and criminological reflections outside the circle of accepting the existence of the state, considering the basic rights of citizens, it is necessary that with a view based on aversion to authority, with an anarchist approach and based on the negation of the concept of the state. In this way, in addition to what we find out, from this point of view, criminalization will not be possible, but it is necessary to take help from the school of restorative justice, which seems to lead nowhere in the space of government authority, but in the space of escaping from authority, it can open the way and be effective.

Blockchain technology has been one of the most emerging and one of the most politically challenging new information-communication technologies. The structure of the Blockchain is such that it can at least theoretically overshadow some of the functions and capabilities of governments and, as a result, challenge their legitimacy. This technology has features that can become a factor of legitimacy or at least reduce the crisis of legitimacy of states by further empowering governments or assisting in the processes of strengthening democratic representation. In this article, we try to discuss the possible effects of this technology on the legitimacy of modern governments in the four areas of governance, political trust, efficiency, and democracy, by separating the two main approaches to the relationship between politics and the chain of forms (techno-politics: the chain of forms)