---

-

---

The public opinion is a modern conception of the Enlightenment and beyond. this concept, although in its current sense, it was not until the Enlightenment and is not subject to scientific research, but before that also existed and has multifaceted applications. The Prevalence of this conception  and its subsequent scientific review arise from the core of Western societies in the 18 and  19 centuries. And its application to the Iranian society in the 15th and 16th centuries may be  far from reality and contrary to the conditions of that period of Iranian historical life But with a little reflection on this concept Along with its meaning and application in the life of European Societies It can be seen in the preceding Iranian history, including Iran during the Safavid era. After the power of Shah Ismail, one can see signs of social political cohesion such as the formation of central power and national identity based on religious ideology in Iran Which can be called the basic principles of the formation of public opinion. This article is intended to mean public opinion, the public domain or people living in the community. This research is based on a descriptive-analytical method based on library resources . From the point of view of this research, Safavid rule was formed in the realm of social life called the public sphere or people, in which the context of the emergence and formation of a kind of public opinion was provided
 

---

The purpose of this paper is to apply Ibn-Khaldun’s dialectic of Asabiyya to explain the nature of relationship between war and the world order in the modern era via ‘macro structural change’. It is argued here that these changes in the world order in the modern times have a dialectical relationship with war. Here, Ibn-Khaldun’s approach to historical change is applied for the explication of this relationship. Ibn-Khaldun’s well-known historiogarphic enterprise does provide us with an analytical framework of how wars have been interrelated with the distribution of power and change in that distribution. This paper attempts to show the historical significance of war for the formation and the disintegration of world order since the 16th century.

---

Villages in border areas are sensitive and fragile that any types of changes and ovulations can have economical and social effect the border functions not only on this area but also due to the dependency principle and systematic view can affect on other areas in country. Therefore, it is essential that the results and effects of any actions should be examined so that by identifying its strengths and weaknesses the steps to plan for making the borders area dynamic can be taken. Regarding these purposes in the present study, the effects of border closure on economic and social indicators of Kawmirabad rural areas in Marivann by applying 260 people’s view (using Cochran’s formula) and security, disciplinary and rural developing officials has been investigated. The study findings following the analysis by descriptive statistics (mode and mean) and inferential statistics (chi-square and Multiple Linear Regression) showed that both groups believed in border peace , transportation and traffic and sense of security on positive actions, but local people in contrary of officials believe that border closure makes their living situation worse. The Multiple Linear Regression showed that this bad living condition is the most important dimension in rural dissatisfaction from border closure in spite of their consent of other dimensions.

---

Modern Europe witnessed a historical simultaneity as  the result of which , not only Europe ruptured from its  own past, rather a forced  attachment to the non- European's future was also forged. This  historical "development" has been narrated in the "colonial discourse". On the other hand, for the non–Europeans, however, a different historical simultaneity took place.  Hence; the colonized/non -Europeans found themselves forcefully ruptured not only from their own selfhood, but also thrown in an imposed 'state of nature' dispossessed of their identity. This historical experience has been narrated in the "post-colonial discourse". The current paper is an attempt to host a 'meeting' between the colonial and the post-colonial discourses.

---

In his Nichomachean ethics, Aristotle has introduced Friendshiop (philia) as a civic virtue higher than justice. After Aristotle, Latin and Iranian thinkers articulated on the notions of “Amiticia” and “Dusti” as equivalent to Aristotel’s philia. In the modern times, while justice was regarded as legal system protecting individual rights, Friendship was reduced to a personal concern and was confined to private sphere of life. In recent time once again friendshiop has entered the intellectual melieu both in Iranian and German culture.  In this paper three models of Friendship, namely Phronetic, Erfanic, and Phenomenological, are analysed, and, according to what these models pertain to, it is suggested that as regards convergence, it can be brought about by Friendship more than by Justice.