Since the emergence of modernity, and in response to its myriad aspects and potentials, which are constantly unfolding, countless reactions have kept emerging in almost all quarters of the globe. A large variety of anti-modern reactions, the common core of which is perhaps the idea that modernity, in one way or another, is illegitimate, stand out among these responses. According to some of these anti-modern responses, modernity has usurped the characteristics and features of religion, which has been the soul as well as the main shaping force of the pre-modern era and has reproduced it in a corrupted form. Two German-speaking philosophers, Karl Popper and Hans Blumenberg, are among the intellectuals who have defended modernity against the onslaught of anti-modern tendencies. In this paper, I briefly, though critically, compare and contrast the approaches as well as some of the arguments of these two thinkers in defence of modernity.

This paper attempts to enter the fields of history, sociology and political sciences and finds a link between their theoretical and practical bases. Therefore, the main concern in this paper is to find the relationship between Anfal (a historical and socio-political event) and modernism (a political-philosophical concept).It attempts to find out if Anfal or the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds has any relationship with modernism and if it can be considered as a by-product of modernism. By explaining the concept of modernism and highlighting the paradoxes in it, this paper examines Anfal vs-a-vis these paradoxes. To answer research questions of the theory of modernism theory and its critical attitude one has to depend on data analysis and use of the descriptive analytical method.The hypothesis in this study is that Anfal is the product of modernism. Findings of the study show that Anfal is the product of the paradoxes in modernism and modernism while encountering Anfal has shown its dark side. Fatalism is an aspect which has developed as a result of instrumental rationality which in itself is an outcome of modernism.The instrumental rationality has brought with itbureaucracy, army and technology as a result of which government fell in the hands of the Baath Partywhich was the direct product of Anfal.

The history of western thought could be categorized generally into three paradigms of pre-modern, modern and post-modern. It is tried in this article to explore comparatively the worldviews of modernity and post-modernity based on three concepts of epistemology, ontology and anthropology. In other words, the main objective of the argument is to make an in-depth enquiry into the roots and fundamental ingredients of modernity. The question raised is what were the criticisms and weaknesses of modernity which led to the emergence of the school of thought called post-modernism? Hence, three concepts of epistemology, ontology and anthropology are applied as ingredients of comparison between the two paradigms of modernity and post-modernity.

This article analyzes rural housing from a cultural point of view in the past and present. It studies housing as one of the main elements of lifestyle to understand the rural life as a whole. The author, first, studies the effects of modernity on housing culture in the areas such as modernization, rationalization, secularization, globalization, individualization, democratization, urbanization, mediatization, commercialization and bureaucratization. Then, he describes these developments in an Iranian village which is the birthplace of the author using on ethnographical explanation. This study shows that the characteristics of rural housing which were: noncom modification, strong connection with village, being a birth place and somewhere to be nurtured, being mixed with family and historical myths and narratives, coexisting with the nature, lack of privacy have undergone charges. Therefore, we cannot address them by adopting a classical approach considering village as the locus of tradition and city as the locus of modernity. The author believes that a kind of "Iranian rural modernity" has been formed in Iranian villages.

Modernity is the trait of the new world which began from the west and extended to the east. The important question here is that what the essence of modernity is and whether it is in harmony with Islam. In Descartes’s view, the essence of modernity is objectivity and in Kant’s view it is subjectivity. What intended by objectivity and subjectivity in Cartesian and Kantian philosophy is to prioritize human knowing subject by whom the existence of other existences even God is assigned. It is possible for this essence to prove God or have doubt about it or even deny it and in all of these three conditions it is not accepted in the paradigm of modernity that the divine knowing subject deals with the whatness of human being and universe and speak about the quality of their developments. Not only in modernism, but it is the case in postmodernism. All the outcomes of the modern age including philosophy, science, technology and industry, politics, security, spirituality, health, art and architecture, media and communication etc, originated from human self-centered and egoist rationality. While Islam accepts a rationality that is independent of religion, it rejects the subjectivism and emphasizes on the divine knowing subject. This does not mean an objection to all outcomes of the modern age. Islamic rationality helps the religious to deal with modern outcomes with a critical and selective attitude.

The article includes two discourses: first discourse, discusses about modernity and two of its main foundations; rationalism and humanism, and then explanes their impacts on the formation of the modern world, society and human being. Second discourse, considers the postmodern critical approach to modernity and its principles. Postmodernism, totally rejects the modern reason and deconstructs 'all aspects of intellectual and rational legacy of the Enlightenment tradition and modernity. Finally, the author of the article concludes: negation of modern rationality as an instrument of total domination over contemporary and late modern society by postmodernism denies the dichotomous quality of modern reason and refuses the emancipatory feature of the cultural and communicative reason, and as a results, leads to conservatism and nihilism.

Regarding the way of facing the West and modernity, Ahmed Fardid is among the thinkers who, by adopting a philosophical and judgmental approach, rejects modernity, philosophy, and western civilization in its entirety. Fardid considers modernity and the West to have an inherent crisis and considers any attempt to patch up modernity with Eastern religions or cultures futile. Fardid, who is the creator of the word “Gharbzadegi (Westoxification)”, considers human sciences and Western civilization to be nothing more than the inciting soul vanities and blasphemy. By adopting an essentialist and negative approach towards the modern world, he calls for a complete break from the subjectivism and humanism associated with the modern world and a return to Islamic-oriented philosophy (Hekmat-e Onsi). Seyyed Hossein Nasr, as a traditionalist thinker, rejects Western civilization and modernity as a unified whole. He wants to incorporate modern science and reason and take perennial philosophy. In this paper, via a comparative analysis method, this hypothesis is examined that although Fardid and Nasr are sympathizers in the complete negation and rejection of the modern world, Fardid confronts modernity and its consequent subjectivism using Heidegger’s western thought. This is when Nasr confronts modernity from the perspective of a traditionalist thinker who believes in the foundations of tradition. Nasr considers the return to the perennial philosophy to solve confronting the Western world and modernity, but Fardid faced with the modern world, emphasizes that although modernity is the exposure of self-fulfillment, one must strive to overcome it. It is difficult to return to the past.

In the field of political sociology, the concept of "reflexive modernity" is a new concept that has been the focus of many global thinkers in recent decades, despite this, this concept is less known in Iran, and until now an independent research has been done to explain its theoretical principles. It has not been done. "reflexive modernity" was first proposed by Ulrich Beck, and Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash presented different interpretations of it. Despite this, the findings of these thinkers are connected in one focal point and that is the concept of " reflexivity". This concept shows how advanced or classical modernity has undergone a metamorphosis in nature and form, and as a result, it has changed our experience of the modern. The present article tries to answer two central questions by using the paradigm model: firstly, what are the principles and theoretical foundations of reflexive modernity and secondly, how can Iranian modernity be reread by taking advantage of the new realities of reflexive modernity.

Sign in New Civilizations West to Iran in recent decades has led to different approaches between Iranian intellectuals. Among contemporary scholars have taken the position that the novelty of his ideas is the foundation of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Khomeini (RA)is. Khomeini modernization of the (external) content, as opposed to the trappings of modernity, Islam Vlma knows. But the content of what the West stands Westernization acceptance Vanhtat community knows. This paper is an attempt at using content analysis of documents Khomeini modernity are examined from various angles.

The Present Paper seeks to compare the religiousity among university students and other young people. The rationale is the attention paid by social research on the relationship between modernity and secularism. Although Peter Berger has changed his idea regarding the secularism being the final result of modernity, but it is still claimed that people with higher level of education are less inclined toward religion than others. In other words, university students show lower level of religiousity. The present paper by employing Berger's conceptual framework and taking into account the varions dimensions of religiousity seeks to examine religiousity among these two groups of people. The results confirmed the revised idea of Berger. In other words, no significant difference were found. Yet no single pattern in religiousity is followed by all people. For this reason, it is better to describe the situation as multi-dimensional religiousity.