Introduction
The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid is among the most enigmatic and, at the same time, controversial intellectual movements in contemporary Iran. Ahmad Fardid (1910–1994) was a philosopher who became a distinctive figure not only because of his philosophical teachings but also due to his far-reaching influence on Iran’s cultural and political discourse. He is often called “the philosopher of the dark language” and “the father of Gharbzadegi (Westoxication),” since many of the terms and concepts that later became common in Iranian intellectual life were first introduced by him. Yet, the obscure and sometimes mystical nature of his discourse has always led scholars to approach his works with ambivalence.
On the one hand, some of his students and admirers regard him as an original thinker who sought to trace the intellectual and historical roots of the crisis of modernity in the Islamic world. On the other hand, his critics view him as a proponent of an anti-rational and authoritarian mode of thought that, through a selective and distorted use of Heidegger’s philosophy, contributed to legitimizing closed and uncritical ideologies. In fact, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid is less a coherent philosophical system than a constellation of philosophical, mythological, and historical intuitions expressed in his unique language.
The significance of studying Fardid’s thought today lies not only in understanding the past but also in grasping the intellectual roots of many contemporary Iranian discourses—from critiques of modernity to approaches toward the West. Therefore, a critical examination of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid can shed light on the complex relationship between philosophy and politics in modern Iran.
This article will first explore the intellectual and philosophical foundations of Fardid’s thought, then analyze the relationship between his philosophy and politics, and finally, with an analytical and critical approach, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his worldview.
-
The Intellectual Background of Ahmad Fardid and Heidegger’s Influence
To properly understand The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid, one must first consider his philosophical background. Unlike many contemporary Iranian political thinkers, Fardid emerged directly from the realm of philosophy. His central concern was not political power but the nature of being, Westoxication (Gharbzadegi), and the history of thought. However, these philosophical questions gradually extended into the political sphere, giving rise to a distinctive philosophy of history in his discourse.
1.1 Heidegger’s Influence on Fardid’s Thought
Undoubtedly, Martin Heidegger was Fardid’s most important source of inspiration. Fardid was the first to introduce Heidegger’s name into Iran’s academic space and sought to connect Heidegger’s core concepts—Being, time, and the history of Being—with the Iranian and Islamic intellectual tradition. Yet, it is crucial to note that Fardid never translated or systematically expounded Heidegger’s ideas; rather, he reinterpreted them through his own terminology. Hence, many scholars describe the relationship between Fardid and Heidegger as one of “interpretive and indirect influence” rather than “philosophical fidelity.”
For Fardid, the history of Western thought—from ancient Greece to modernity—represented a “forgetfulness of Being.” In his view, the West was not merely a geographical entity or a set of values but a mode of existence in which man perceives himself as the center of being, pushing God or truth to the margins. This understanding of “the West” laid the groundwork for his famous concept of Gharbzadegi (Westoxication), which later appeared in the writings of Jalal Al-e Ahmad. However, while Al-e Ahmad saw Westoxication as a cultural and social phenomenon, Fardid regarded it as a metaphysical and ontological condition.
1.2 Westoxication as a Rupture from Truth
In other words, for Ahmad Fardid, Westoxication signifies the forgetting of the “history of Being.” He believed that the modern Western human being, through reliance on scientific rationality and technology, had become estranged from the sacred and the meaningful. Consequently, all modern political systems—from liberalism to socialism—were manifestations of this forgetfulness. Thus, Fardid’s critique of the West was not merely an attack on industrial civilization or colonialism but a profound critique of the metaphysical foundations of modern thought itself.
From this perspective, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid is deeply entwined with his philosophical view of history. He saw politics not as the realm of party competition or ideological conflict but as the stage upon which truth manifests and declines. Politics, in the Fardidian sense, resembled a kind of “historical destiny” or the “process of the manifestation of divine names in history.” Within this framework, modern humanity is trapped in a dark destiny that distances it from truth, and only a return to existential thought and historical anticipation can offer redemption.
1.3 Connection to the Iranian and Islamic Tradition
Fardid sought to build a bridge between Western philosophy and Eastern wisdom. In his lectures, he frequently invoked the Khosravani wisdom, the mysticism of Ibn Arabi, and Suhrawardi’s Illuminationist philosophy, arguing that the roots of authentic thought existed in the East long before the rise of modernity in the West. On the surface, this appeared to be an attempt to revive an Iranian–Islamic philosophical identity; yet, at a deeper level, it reproduced a dualism between a spiritual East and a materialist West.
For this reason, critics such as Dariush Ashouri and Morad Farhadpour have described Fardid’s thought as a “dangerous synthesis of mysticism and ideology.” In their view, Fardid, by employing a mythic language, turned philosophy into a realm of secrecy and mysticism—not to renew thought, but to justify a closed and backward-looking tradition under the guise of anti-modernism.
1.4 Fardid’s Language and the Problem of Obscurity
One of the most distinctive features of Fardid’s thought was his unique and often opaque language. Many of those who attended his lectures admitted that understanding his discourse was extremely difficult. His complex sentences, mixing Persian, Arabic, and even German terms, made his language more akin to a “language of revelation” than one of argumentation. As a result, reconstructing a coherent system of his ideas remains challenging. This, combined with his assertive and often scathing tone in criticizing modern intellectuals, gave the Fardidian discourse a charismatic and performative quality rather than a systematic philosophical one.
To sum up, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid emerges from a philosophical-historical project that sought to break the “metaphysical destiny of the West” and prepare the ground for a return to “existential thinking.” However, rather than opening a dialogue with modernity, his thought often drifts toward the domain of myth and mysticism. Thus, understanding the relationship between Fardid’s philosophy and politics requires a separate analysis of his conception of power and history—an issue that will be examined in the following section.
-
The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid and Its Relationship to Power
To accurately understand The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid, it must first be acknowledged that he was never a politician or a political theorist in the classical sense. He neither wrote a treatise on political philosophy nor produced a coherent political system. Nevertheless, his words and teachings exerted a profound influence on Iran’s intellectual and discursive landscape, particularly during the 1960s through the 1980s. Many of his students later played significant roles in cultural and political arenas, and the concepts Fardid introduced were reflected in the official discourse of the Islamic Republic. Thus, although indirect, Fardid’s political thought had a historical role in shaping a particular form of Iranian political thinking in the contemporary era.
2.1 Politics as Historical Destiny
At the heart of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid lies a concept that may be called “politics as historical destiny.” Fardid believed that human history unfolds according to the manifestation and concealment of the truth of Being; therefore, political and social events are merely outward expressions of this metaphysical process. In other words, politics, for Fardid, is not the sphere of human or rational decision-making but the field in which divine will and the unfolding of the divine names are realized in the world. This conception removes politics from the realm of critique and dialogue, placing it instead within the domain of destiny and mystery.
From this standpoint, modern political systems—whether democracy or socialism—belong entirely to what he called the “era of forgetfulness of Being.” Fardid referred to this period as the “age of nihilism,” arguing that modern humanity, through self-centeredness and scientism, has severed itself from the truth of existence. In such an age, only those who hold faith in “historical expectation” and “return to truth” can pave the way for a new epoch of thought.
For this reason, Fardid distanced himself from modern politics and instead spoke of a kind of historical wisdom in which the philosopher or mystic is not a political actor but the discoverer of destiny. Consequently, he held a critical and often dismissive attitude toward concepts such as freedom, democracy, and human rights, regarding them as products of Western anthropocentrism.
2.2 Connection with the Discourse of the Islamic Revolution
With the advent of the 1979 Revolution, many of Fardid’s concepts—such as Westoxication (Gharbzadegi), the return to the self, and the critique of modernity—entered the core of Iranian political discourse. Some of his students, including Reza Davari Ardakani, Seyyed Hossein Nasr (in the pre-revolutionary period), and several religious intellectuals, sought to adapt Fardid’s philosophical interpretations to explain the new political situation. Although Fardid himself did not directly engage in political power, his language and conceptual framework overlapped significantly with the official discourse of the Islamic Republic.
Moreover, his approach to history and the West provided a kind of theoretical legitimacy for an “anti-Western” politics. By proposing the idea of a “late-apocalyptic age,” he depicted the modern world as an era of spiritual decay and technological domination, one that would end only with the emergence of the faithful and awaiting human being. On a political level, this perspective reinforced discourses that viewed politics not as a field of rationality and dialogue but as a battleground between truth and falsehood.
2.3 Fardid and the Question of Authority
One of the most controversial aspects of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid concerns his relationship with the concept of authority. He explicitly criticized democratic systems, believing that individual freedom and majority rule represented the triumph of nihilism. In contrast, he spoke of a “wisdom of guardianship” (hekmat-e velayi), in which leadership of society is based on genuine knowledge and a connection to the truth of Being. Thus, in Fardid’s view, legitimate authority is meaningful only when it is linked to the “truth of existence,” not to the will of the people or human law.
Critics have regarded this stance as providing a philosophical justification for authoritarianism. When truth is defined as the exclusive property of a select group, all avenues for critique and free dialogue are effectively closed. Dariush Ashouri famously remarked:
“Fardid, with his metaphysical language, shackled the critical intellect and turned mysticism into ideology.”
From this perspective, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid may be seen as a form of authoritarian philosophy in which the philosopher ceases to be a critic of power and instead becomes the interpreter of historical destiny.
2.4 Politics and the Language of Mystery
Another crucial factor in Fardid’s relationship to politics was his distinctive and deeply enigmatic language. His discourse was not only difficult but profoundly ambiguous. He employed terms such as “forgetfulness of Being,” “dominion of the misguiding name,” “historical nihilism,” and “non-predestined existence.” This vocabulary was impenetrable to most listeners, yet it carried a peculiar charismatic appeal. Many young intellectuals of the 1970s and 1980s were drawn to this aura of mystery, seeing in it a form of “authentic Iranian thought” that stood in opposition to the cold rationality of the West.
However, this very obscurity eliminated the possibility of rational critique. When concepts are articulated within an aura of mysticism, the distinction between philosophy and faith, between thought and myth, dissolves. As a result, the Fardidian discourse, instead of fostering critical thinking, contributed to the reproduction of closed and self-referential modes of thought.
2.5 Influence on Iranian Intellectual Life
The influence of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid on Iranian intellectual life has been both dual and paradoxical. On the one hand, he inspired a new generation of thinkers to approach the issues of the West and modernity from a more philosophical perspective. He was the first to introduce the notion of a spiritual crisis in the age of technology into Iranian public debate. On the other hand, his excessive emphasis on mystery and destiny effectively blocked the path to reform and social transformation. Consequently, some of his later students—such as Reza Davari Ardakani—sought to present a more moderate and academic interpretation of the critique of modernity, distancing themselves from the ideological dimensions of Fardid’s thought.
In sum, although The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid appears philosophical and anti-ideological on the surface, in practice, it became one of the intellectual foundations of ideological discourse in Iran. For Fardid, politics was not a realm of human action but a manifestation of historical destiny. By rejecting modern rationality and democracy, he paved the way for a sacred and authoritarian conception of politics. Although his intention was to revive authentic thought, the practical outcome was the strengthening of discourses in which truth replaced reason and philosophy became a tool for legitimizing power.
-
A Critical Analysis of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid
The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid is a multifaceted phenomenon that moves along the boundaries between philosophy, myth, and ideology. Understanding and critiquing it requires a multilayered approach, for Fardid was not only a philosophical thinker but also the creator of a particular language and mode of thought in contemporary Iran. This section examines the main criticisms directed at his ideas from philosophical, linguistic, political, and sociological perspectives.
3.1 Philosophical Critique: The Absence of a Coherent Conceptual System
The first question to ask is whether The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid can, in the strict sense, be called “political philosophy.” Many scholars—among them Dariush Ashouri and Mohammad Reza Nikfar—believe that Fardid’s thought lacks a systematic theoretical structure. He never wrote a book; rather, he conveyed his ideas primarily through speech, lectures, and informal gatherings.
Thus, his thought resembles more a collection of “intellectual and linguistic experiences” than a philosophical system. In fact, Fardid relied less on reasoning and logical analysis than on illumination and linguistic revelation. This feature led his philosophy to drift away from rationality, turning it into a form of “philosophical mysticism”—a mysticism that claimed to interpret the history of Being but lacked any tool for critique or verification.
As a result, when Fardid spoke of concepts such as “Westoxication,” “the history of Being,” or “the divine names,” these notions lacked clear and measurable definitions. Consequently, a scholarly critique of his thought becomes difficult; whenever asked for clarification, he would often reply that “understanding this belongs to another historical destiny.” In other words, through his metaphysical language, he blurred the line between thought and faith.
3.2 Linguistic Critique: Ambiguity, Complexity, and the Elimination of Dialogue
One of the most essential components of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid is his language. Fardid’s language is not only difficult and unconventional but also deliberately constructed so that only the “initiated” could understand it. He blended Arabic, Persian, and German terms within his own syntactic structures, coining new expressions that were almost impossible to comprehend outside his intellectual circle.
Critics such as Morad Farhadpour and Aramesh Doostdar argue that this mysterious language was not a sign of profundity but rather a means of exercising authority. When language becomes inaccessible to the public, thought itself exits the public domain and turns into a tool of intellectual hierarchy. Therefore, Fardid’s language, instead of fostering dialogue, hindered it.
From this standpoint, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid was articulated in a language that was inherently “non-democratic,” since it relied on mystery and faith rather than clarity and persuasion. This in turn led, in the political realm, to the reproduction of an authoritarian mode of discourse—one in which the philosopher or mystic is the bearer of absolute truth, while the people remain silent recipients.
3.3 Political Critique: From Critique of Modernity to the Legitimation of Power
Another crucial issue concerns the relationship between Fardid’s thought and political power. On the surface, he appeared to be a critic of modernity, liberalism, democracy, and secularism. Yet in practice, his critique of the West led to a rejection of rationality and freedom. Rather than proposing an alternative model for political order, he spoke of a “historical wisdom” in which only the mystic or spiritual leader could guide society.
Consequently, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid unintentionally contributed to legitimizing religious and ideological forms of authority. If truth belongs only to a select few, while the masses live in “forgetfulness of Being,” then the right to political decision-making is denied to them. Thus, Fardid’s thought, instead of liberating humanity, called for submission to destiny.
The subtle irony here is that Fardid considered himself an opponent of ideology, yet his thinking effectively turned into one. He sought to free thought from the grip of modern ideologies such as liberalism and Marxism, but through his metaphysical interpretation of history and truth, he created a new metaphysical ideology—one that, in the name of opposing the West, served structures of power and authority.
3.4 Sociological Critique: Charisma, Master, and Disciple
From a sociological perspective, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid provides an intriguing example of “charismatic thinking” in Iranian society. Through his passionate lectures and intense oral performances, Fardid gathered around himself a circle of devoted disciples. In this environment, thought was shaped less by reasoning than by personal devotion. Fardid’s words possessed a kind of sacred magnetism, and his listeners were often more captivated by his presence and tone than concerned with the content of his ideas.
In other words, within Fardid’s intellectual sphere, faith replaced critical reflection. This dynamic weakened the tradition of philosophical dialogue in contemporary Iran and replaced it with emotional and personal bonds to the thinker. For this reason, some cultural sociologists have described Fardid’s thought as an instance of “the return of religious charisma in the guise of philosophy.”
3.5 Historical Critique: The Rupture from Modernity and the Dead End of Return
Historically, Fardid’s project can be described as a “return to the historical self.” Yet a crucial question arises: return to what self? He rejected modernity without offering a viable path for living within the modern world. In essence, Fardid sought to escape the West, yet his entire intellectual framework rested on Western philosophical concepts—especially those of Heidegger. This internal contradiction left his thought in a state of suspension.
As a result, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid produced no indigenous alternative but instead confined itself to a wholesale negation of modernity. He offered neither an ethical system for politics nor a rational path for religious thought. Consequently, many later thinkers sought to move beyond this impasse and to initiate a constructive dialogue between tradition and modernity.
In summary, although The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid appeared to aim at restoring meaning to politics, in practice it became trapped in the dead ends of language and destiny. Through metaphysical concepts, he launched a radical critique of modernity but failed to provide a clear alternative. The result was that his thought, rather than being emancipatory, reflected the identity crisis of a society caught between tradition and modernity.
In other words, Fardid mirrors the crisis of Iranian thought in the twentieth century: on one side, the desire to return to roots, and on the other, the inability to engage with the modern world. His language, though philosophical in tone, ultimately turned into a form of myth-making. Thus, the true value of his thought lies not in the answers it provides but in the questions it poses: How can one live meaningfully in the modern world without losing touch with truth? And does the critique of the West necessarily imply the rejection of reason, or can a reconciliation between reason and faith be achieved?
Conclusion
An examination of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid reveals that he was one of the most influential yet controversial figures in modern Iranian philosophy—a thinker regarded both as the founder of the critique of the West and as a symbol of a certain anti-rationalism. He sought to rediscover a new meaning for history and politics within philosophy, but his project remained suspended at the intersection of philosophy and mysticism.
Fardid attempted to demonstrate that modernity is the result of the forgetfulness of the truth of Being and that all modern political structures are founded upon this forgetfulness. Hence, he viewed politics not as the domain of human will but as the field for the realization of historical destiny. While this perspective appeared to offer a profound critique of the West and modernity, in practice it eliminated the possibility of rational critique and dialogue. In effect, by criticizing modern ideologies, Fardid himself fell into a new ideology—the ideology of destiny and expectation.
Put differently, The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid was an effort to overcome the crisis of spirituality in the modern world, yet this effort led not to the renewal of thought but to a retreat from rationality. Rather than reinterpreting and reforming modernity, he rejected it entirely, leaving no room for dialogue between tradition and the modern world.
At the same time, Fardid’s influence on Iranian intellectual life and post-revolutionary political discourse cannot be ignored. Many of the concepts now used in critiques of the West and modernity trace their roots to his thought. However, the central question remains: can these concepts still function meaningfully in an age of dialogue and globalization?
Therefore, to undertake a critical re-reading of The Political Thought of Ahmad Fardid, one must go beyond Fardid himself—moving from obscurity to clarity, from mystery to dialogue, and from destiny to reason. Only then can we draw upon his intellectual experience not as a model to imitate but as a historical warning—a warning against any philosophy that seeks to provide final answers instead of open questions.
Ultimately, Fardid’s intellectual legacy in the history of Iranian thought has two faces: on one hand, an awakening of our cultural self-awareness regarding the crisis of Westoxication, and on the other, a reminder of the persistent danger that haunts our thinking—the danger of sliding from philosophical reflection into ideology.
