A Comparative Examination of the Views of Seyyed Ahmad Fardid and Reza Davari Ardakani on the Concepts and Characteristics of Western Modernity

Abstract

Intellectual engagement with the “West” and “modernity” has been one of the central issues in contemporary Iranian thought. Within this context, Seyyed Ahmad Fardid and Reza Davari Ardakani—positioned as teacher and student—have each offered fundamental critiques of the nature of modernity. The present study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the commonalities and divergences in the views of these two thinkers. Their core shared position lies in understanding the “West” not as a geographical or political entity but as a “historical destiny” and an ontological phenomenon whose essence is rooted in “subjectivism” and “nihilism.” Nevertheless, their essential point of divergence emerges in the method of confronting this phenomenon. Davari Ardakani seeks to philosophically critique modernity from within by making use of the tools of “rationality” (even modern rationality), whereas Fardid fundamentally regards discursive/representational rationality as part of the crisis itself and adopts a “confrontational,” “negating,” and “mystical-sapiential” approach grounded in ḥikmat-i unsī (sapiential intimacy). Using Schleiermacher’s hermeneutic method (including grammatical interpretation and technical/psychological interpretation), this study qualitatively analyzes the texts and ideas of the two thinkers. The findings indicate that although both come close to each other in “grammatical interpretation” (shared understanding of key concepts), they diverge in “technical interpretation” (unique mental orientation and intellectual style). Ultimately, the article argues that Davari’s approach, due to its consistent commitment to rational and academic critique, offers more practical dimensions for understanding and engaging with the impasses of modernity.