This paper is an examination of Robert Nozick's argument in The Nature of Rationality that INSTRUMENTAL rationality is defective, and that the defects of INSTRUMENTAL rationality can be understood through a careful appraisal of the significance of Newcomb's paradox and the prisoners' dilemma.In both Anarchy, State and Utopia and in The Nature of Rationality, Nozick considers the question of why we should be rational, and concludes that the call of reason issues from the fact that we value what we are. Rationality is so important to us that it becomes a duty because it is in terms of and by means of rationality that we understand who we are. Our worldview is an artifact shaped, at least in part, by our evaluative standards of cognitive assessment.Nozick goes on to ask why we should value that. And to answer the query, he considers the functions that rationality may have, beginning with INSTRUMENTAL rationality. To be INSTRUMENTALly rational is to pursue one's goals and desires in the most efficient and effective way. Hence, prudence and self-interest commend INSTRUMENTAL rationality, or, what amounts to the same thing, INSTRUMENTALity commends itself. Being prudent is itself prudent. However, Nozick concedes that the value of rationality goes beyond what can be explained in terms of a purely INSTRUMENTAL rationality.Even if we were to begin with a purely INSTRUMENTAL view of rationality, we might come to value it for its own sake, and so it may come to have intrinsic value. We should be rational because we value being that way. The endorsement given by reason to INSTRUMENTAL rationality, however, is not the issuing of a blank check. INSTRUMENTAL rationality itself will counsel that we not put too much time and effort into developing the skills of INSTRUMENTAL rationality, for beyond a certain point the amount gained in overall efficiency will not be worth the lost opportunities for other pursuits. Nozick argues that actions could acquire value not only because of the consequences which can be expected to follow from them, but because of what Nozick calls their symbolic utility. Some, but not all, cases in which one decides to perform an act because of its symbolic utility appear to be rational. All of the convincing cases of rational action performed because of symbolic utility offered by Nozick are cases of action performed in accordance with principle. Consideration of the sage provides the occasion to introduce additional means by which value may accrue to an action, in terms of which we may judge the performance of the action to be rational. There is no harm in considering these means as independent elements of symbolic utility, provided we bear in mind that these elements may be quantitatively incommensurable with those derived from accordance with principle. Rules or principles provide only one way in which actions may be guided. Another way is by consideration of consequences. A third way in which actions may be guided is with reference to virtue. Sometimes the appeal to virtue will be personified in an exemplar. We acquire skills by imitation of the actions of teachers. We may attempt to acquire virtues by acting in ways that are typical of the virtuous exemplar. This mode of practical guidance plays an important role in various traditions, from those of the ancient Greeks to those of the Abrahamic religions.While Nozick argues in favor of an expanded notion of INSTRUMENTAL rationality, I counter that the notion of practical rationality should be expanded beyond that which can be considered as INSTRUMENTAL rationality.

The Saqifa incident after the Prophet’ s departure was a starting point in the formation of new arrangements of political power in the traditional context of the religious society in that era. In that political struggle (i. e. Saqifa), Ali bin Abi Talib was ignored and, afterwards, other Imams were not much directly present, if at all, in the political and governmental sphere, except for the presence of Imam Ali and Imam Hassan as caliphs and Imam Reza’ s presence as vicegerent or crown prince. The swing of Imams’ entering the sphere of political power and their withdrawal had numerous reasons, among them one can refer to the violent governance and behavior of the ruling power, Imams’ approach to the political power and the government as well as explaining it in its subject matter and its creed. Meanwhile, the sphere of social power was open to them and spread before them. The social power was the best channel through which Imams could rightly explain the religious thought in theory and practice. The present study attempts to answer the question of “ how was the Imams’ approach and performance in the two spheres of political and social power? ” and investigates it assuming that the power was a subject matter and creed for Imams. In this regard, to explain the study better, we have used the political sociology and political sciences, including Parsons’ theory on political and social power to theoretically explore the issue.

Aggressive driving is perceived by many users as one of the most important problems in driving. Aggressive driving is a crucial problem in Iran and also in many other countries. The purpose of this study is to analyze the driving aggression conceptual model and the assess effect of the theory of planned behavior subsets on the aggressive driving behavior questionnaire and determine the index for aggressive driving behavior. Drivers’ behavior is assessed with a questionnaire that included 54 questions and was randomly distributed among 400 drivers. Confirmatory factor analysis, Structural Equations Model, and regression are used to analyze the data. Demographic variables, theory of planned behavior, and Shinar’s model variable are considered in this study. Fitness indicators such as Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), respectively equal to 0.98 and 0.93, pointed out that the model is reliable. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) also indicates that the model is suitable and its value is RMSEA ≤ 0.08. The comparative fit index value is greater than or equal to 9.0 and in line with other indices, confirming the model is good. In this way, the model presented in the study has proper and consistent indicators (X^2=81.9 p <0.000, AGFI=0.93, GFI= 0.98, RMSEA =0.064), theories and other factors are able to explain aggressive behavior. The PERSONALITY traits do not play a role in explaining the drivers’ aggressive behavior. The subjective norm, and perceived behavior control are related directly to the drivers’ aggressive behavior. Drivers’ demographic characteristics are analyzed with regression and they do not play any role in aggressive behavior. Also, attitude has the greatest impact from which it can be stated that the theory of planned behavior has an indirect effect on aggressive behavior. The present study identifies that the theory of planned behavior components is directly associated with aggressive driving behavior>