خلاصة:
Jürgen Habermas is one of the last philosophers of the Frankfurt School, whose thoughts on social sciences are world-famous. Using descriptive-analytical method as well as "critical analysis" of Habermas's cultural theory, this study has explained the possibility of policy-making based on Habermas's cultural theory and its policy-making implications in the form of three questions. Then it has challenged these implications in the form of two more questions. This critique is presented from two perspectives: Firstly, cultural sciences and policy-making; secondly, religious position with emphasis on the Qur’an and hadith and interpersonal communication approach as one of the outstanding communication patterns in the Qur’anic and hadith knowledge. The research results show that although Habermas' cultural theory is capable of producing cultural policies at the conceptual and analytical level, these policies are very abstract and far from reality at the efficiency and implementation level because they have no performance guarantee and their realization is not reachable. The proposal of this research is to improve the social relationship between humans and the public domain based on the correction of intrapersonal communication in the private domain, and the correction of this relationship depends only on sincere relationship with God.
ملخص الجهاز:
1. Background of the Discussion Some studies have been conducted on the critique and evaluation of Habermas's theory of culture with an Islamic approach, which are introduced below along with the differences between the current essay and those studies: The article "Comparing Communicative Rationality with Revelatory Rationality (Based on the Views of Habermas and Allameh Tabataba'i)" (Khanmohammadi, 2012), compares "rationality," which the author calls "revelatory rationality," with Habermas's view of rationality, which is "instrumental rationality," and has extracted and introduced the foundations and requirements of each, the final results of which are introduced by the author in the following table: Revelatory Rationality, Communicative Rationality, Axes of Comparison God, Human, Centrality of the Universe Connection, Disconnection, Relation of the lifeworld to the natural world Source of inspiration, Silent, Critique of nature in legislation Philosophical-Existential, Philosophical-Phenomenal, Level of Analysis Oriented towards felicity, Oriented towards self, Teleology Meaningfulness, Myth-demystification, Interpretation of nature Essential and dialogical, Dialogical, Social facts Experience of reason and hearing, Experience and reason, Tool of cognition Reason and hearing, Self-founded, Interpretation of reason Text-oriented, Procedural and dialogical, Relation to previous foundations Path-based, Behavioral, Role of the majority Promotion of truths through dialogue, Promotion of the procedure of dialogue, Mission of intellectuals Restricted to revealed truths, Restricted to the freedom of others, Measure of freedom of expression Practical commitment to laws, Practical commitment to laws, Commitment to laws Religious belief, Eschatology, Text-orientation, Truth-seeking / Realism, Essential goodness and ugliness, Essential justice, Fitra (human nature), Naturalism, Freedom of expression, Avoidance of Taghut, Freedom, Participation, Dialogue, Discussion, Dialogical ethics, Dialogical justice, Core concepts Table 1: Comparison of the schema of two types of rationality based on the research findings (Khanmohammadi, 2012, p.
(
, 
, 
)
