Mahdi Golparvar-Roozbahani (مهدي گلپرور روزبهاني)
I am an Assistant Professor at Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic). I received my doctorate degree (Ph. D.) in philosophy from the University of Tehran in 2013. From January 2014 to May 2018, I was with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Qom as a faculty member.
My current research focuses primarily on the intersection of philosophy and history. Broadly speaking, I consider the concept of history, survey the history of what has come to be called philosophy and examine the methodology of its historiography, and then draw implications on the nature of the enterprise of philosophy itself. Earlier in my career, I was interested in the field of logic, and now also return to it on and off.
Among past thinkers that I have worked on extensively are Ibn Sīnā (370/980–429/1037) and Mullā Ṣadrā (c. 979/1572– c. 1050/1640) from the Islamic tradition, and Thomas S. Kuhn (1922–96) and Richard Rorty (1931–2007) from the contemporary West. As evident in my publications, I try to accommodate intellectual projects of these (and other) favorite thinkers of mine into unified frameworks.
Prior to entering the academic world of philosophy, I was engaged in the field of engineering sciences. I hold a bachelor’s degree (B.Sc) from Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic) and a master’s degree (M.Sc.) from the Sharif University of Technology, received in 2003 and 2005 respectively, both in communications engineering.
I can be contacted via email on “m.golparvar [at] aut [dot] ac [dot] ir”.
My current research focuses primarily on the intersection of philosophy and history. Broadly speaking, I consider the concept of history, survey the history of what has come to be called philosophy and examine the methodology of its historiography, and then draw implications on the nature of the enterprise of philosophy itself. Earlier in my career, I was interested in the field of logic, and now also return to it on and off.
Among past thinkers that I have worked on extensively are Ibn Sīnā (370/980–429/1037) and Mullā Ṣadrā (c. 979/1572– c. 1050/1640) from the Islamic tradition, and Thomas S. Kuhn (1922–96) and Richard Rorty (1931–2007) from the contemporary West. As evident in my publications, I try to accommodate intellectual projects of these (and other) favorite thinkers of mine into unified frameworks.
Prior to entering the academic world of philosophy, I was engaged in the field of engineering sciences. I hold a bachelor’s degree (B.Sc) from Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic) and a master’s degree (M.Sc.) from the Sharif University of Technology, received in 2003 and 2005 respectively, both in communications engineering.
I can be contacted via email on “m.golparvar [at] aut [dot] ac [dot] ir”.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (24)
Uploads
Peer-Reviewed Articles by Mahdi Golparvar-Roozbahani (مهدي گلپرور روزبهاني)
Abstract. Historical approaches to Islamic philosophy have witnessed a rise in recent decades and relevant methodological analyses would, therefore, be enlightening for researchers. In this paper, three genres of composing philosophers’ bio-bibliographies, trend-analysis of philosophical thought, and historiography of philosophical problems are distinguished from one another, and their respective characteristics are identified. Rich literature of bio-bibliographies does not go beyond philosophers’ biographies. More importantly, it does not critically consider its foundations of who should be accounted as a philosopher and what should be accounted as a major event in their lives. Trend-analyses of philosophical thought contain by its nature a lot of judgments. Its narration is usually progressive, and put the current status in the vantage point. Very different analyses of trends are possible and all are self-confirming, so acceptance of one would depend upon the reader’s interests. The main feature of the histories of philosophical problems is that they reconstruct past ideas to answer current problems. This genre depends heavily upon trend-analysis for the selection of problems and also main philosophers. Its products, however, would seem obsolete after a while.
Abstract. Anachronism occurs in producing a historical account if the arrangement of story’s events is manipulated and misplaced. The main question of this article is whether avoiding anachronism in the historiography of philosophy is desirable, or even feasible? Some historical methodologists and philosophers, e.g. Quentin Skinner and Murtaza Mutahhari respectively, consider anachronism as a historiographical mistake. This view is formulated under the theoretical framework of “the availability principle,” according to which no epistemic resources are allowed in historical interpretation that were unavailable in the time period under study. Problem-oriented historiography of philosophy would, consequently, face serious challenges. On the contrary, some other thinkers consider certain types of anachronism in historical narrative to be desirable or even inevitable. Among this group are Arthur Danto with his “Narrative Sentences,” and Ahad Faramarz Qaramaleki who makes sense of historical study as “understanding predecessors in the light of successors.” Arguments of the two opposing camps are discussed in this article, together with a number of considerations explored here for the first time. In conclusion, any response to the main question of our inquiry is argued to be dependent on the very conception of history adopted in the meta-historical framework by which the process of historiography is guided.
Book Reviews by Mahdi Golparvar-Roozbahani (مهدي گلپرور روزبهاني)
Abstract. Afsāniʹhā-yi Ārāmʹbakhsh (‘Tranquilizing Myths’) is a newly published (Spring 1396 Sh./ 2017) research work by the contemporary Iranian philosopher Saeid Zibakalam. It is composed of eight essays entitled, respectively, “The myth of free irreligious outlook”, “The myth of the universal Rationality”, “The myth of free-thinking”, “The myth of the Nature of Argument”, “The myth of the [Quranic] advice for ratiocination”, “The myth of impartiality”, “The myth of humanity’s expectations from religion”, and “Some myths concerning theory and theory-construction”. A number of prevalent ideas, especially among the philosophers, are investigated in the essays to show that each of them is either entirely fictitious or lack a widely accepted, unique meaning. The present piece of writing is devoted to a general review of the work, some contextualizations of its content, hints to various challenges that it rises, and also several critical points. My overall assessment is that the Afsāniʹhā-yi Ārāmʹbakhsh is one of the most serious intellectual/ philosophical works in Persian that has appeared in recent decades, and a careful engagement with it is strongly recommended for anyone who wants to be acquainted with the latest development of Irano-Islamic thought in its frontline.
Translations by Mahdi Golparvar-Roozbahani (مهدي گلپرور روزبهاني)
Peer-reviewed Papers in Conference Proceedings by Mahdi Golparvar-Roozbahani (مهدي گلپرور روزبهاني)
Abstract. Historical approaches to Islamic philosophy have witnessed a rise in recent decades and relevant methodological analyses would, therefore, be enlightening for researchers. In this paper, three genres of composing philosophers’ bio-bibliographies, trend-analysis of philosophical thought, and historiography of philosophical problems are distinguished from one another, and their respective characteristics are identified. Rich literature of bio-bibliographies does not go beyond philosophers’ biographies. More importantly, it does not critically consider its foundations of who should be accounted as a philosopher and what should be accounted as a major event in their lives. Trend-analyses of philosophical thought contain by its nature a lot of judgments. Its narration is usually progressive, and put the current status in the vantage point. Very different analyses of trends are possible and all are self-confirming, so acceptance of one would depend upon the reader’s interests. The main feature of the histories of philosophical problems is that they reconstruct past ideas to answer current problems. This genre depends heavily upon trend-analysis for the selection of problems and also main philosophers. Its products, however, would seem obsolete after a while.
Abstract. Anachronism occurs in producing a historical account if the arrangement of story’s events is manipulated and misplaced. The main question of this article is whether avoiding anachronism in the historiography of philosophy is desirable, or even feasible? Some historical methodologists and philosophers, e.g. Quentin Skinner and Murtaza Mutahhari respectively, consider anachronism as a historiographical mistake. This view is formulated under the theoretical framework of “the availability principle,” according to which no epistemic resources are allowed in historical interpretation that were unavailable in the time period under study. Problem-oriented historiography of philosophy would, consequently, face serious challenges. On the contrary, some other thinkers consider certain types of anachronism in historical narrative to be desirable or even inevitable. Among this group are Arthur Danto with his “Narrative Sentences,” and Ahad Faramarz Qaramaleki who makes sense of historical study as “understanding predecessors in the light of successors.” Arguments of the two opposing camps are discussed in this article, together with a number of considerations explored here for the first time. In conclusion, any response to the main question of our inquiry is argued to be dependent on the very conception of history adopted in the meta-historical framework by which the process of historiography is guided.
Abstract. Afsāniʹhā-yi Ārāmʹbakhsh (‘Tranquilizing Myths’) is a newly published (Spring 1396 Sh./ 2017) research work by the contemporary Iranian philosopher Saeid Zibakalam. It is composed of eight essays entitled, respectively, “The myth of free irreligious outlook”, “The myth of the universal Rationality”, “The myth of free-thinking”, “The myth of the Nature of Argument”, “The myth of the [Quranic] advice for ratiocination”, “The myth of impartiality”, “The myth of humanity’s expectations from religion”, and “Some myths concerning theory and theory-construction”. A number of prevalent ideas, especially among the philosophers, are investigated in the essays to show that each of them is either entirely fictitious or lack a widely accepted, unique meaning. The present piece of writing is devoted to a general review of the work, some contextualizations of its content, hints to various challenges that it rises, and also several critical points. My overall assessment is that the Afsāniʹhā-yi Ārāmʹbakhsh is one of the most serious intellectual/ philosophical works in Persian that has appeared in recent decades, and a careful engagement with it is strongly recommended for anyone who wants to be acquainted with the latest development of Irano-Islamic thought in its frontline.