A Comparative Study on the Influence of Heidegger's Philosophy on Fardid and Henry Corbin and Its Reflection in the Critique of Modernity, Nativism, and Islamic Spirituality in Contemporary Iran

Introduction
In contemporary Iranian philosophy, the intellectual relationship between Fardid and Corbin has attracted significant scholarly interest. While both philosophers were profoundly influenced by Heidegger, their respective engagements with his thought have not been sufficiently examined regarding their impact on modern Iranian intellectual history. Previous studies, such as those by Beizad Abdulkarimi and Ahmad Bastani, have posited that Fardid can be understood within the framework of Corbin’s philosophy, particularly in relation to Heidegger’s ideas. However, closer analysis reveals that their relationship cannot be reduced to a simple intellectual progression. Instead, their engagement with Heidegger’s philosophy represents a complex and often conflicting intellectual trajectory. This study aims to explore these complexities and tensions, specifically examining how Fardid and Corbin differently interpreted core Heideggerian concepts such as Being, modernity, and spirituality within the broader context of Islamic-Iranian thought.
 
Research Method
The study employs a qualitative methodology with a comparative-analytic approach. In its comparative dimension, it uses a systematic comparative method where:

Each thinker's viewpoints are examined separately
Points of similarity and difference are extracted
The reasons for these similarities and differences are analyzed

In its analytical dimension, the research focuses on analyzing key concepts, arguments, and intellectual foundations of both thinkers (Fardid and Corbin) to clarify their argumentative structures. Data collection was conducted through library research, consulting both primary sources (works of Fardid and Corbin) and secondary sources (research conducted about these two thinkers).
 
Results and Discussion
 
The findings indicate that Fardid and Corbin interpret modernity and Heidegger’s philosophy in notably distinct ways, reflecting their individual philosophical trajectories and the broader socio-political contexts of mid-20th century Iran. For Fardid, modernity is primarily seen as a nihilistic historical condition characterized by spiritual decay and the "forgetting of Being," as Heidegger described. His critique of modernity is radical, rooted in his interpretation of Heidegger’s later works. Influenced by Heidegger’s existential analysis of history andBeing, Fardid perceives modernity as a deviation from authentic Being— linked to Western domination via reason, technological rationality, and secularism. His response is both philosophical and ideological, advocating a return to Islamic and Eastern authenticity to resist Western modernity’s encroachment. Fardid aligns with Heidegger’s critique of technological enframing, viewing it as an existential crisis threatening human existence.
In contrast, Corbin’s engagement with Heidegger centers on spirituality and metaphysics, leading him to develop a more integrative approach to tradition. He interprets Heidegger’s early phenomenology—particularly concepts like Dasein and temporality—as a foundation for spiritual phenomenology that transcends Western intellectual bounds. Corbin expands upon Heidegger’s notion of Being by incorporating Islamic mysticism, especially the ideas of Suhrawardi and Ibn Arabi, creating a synthesis between Heideggerian philosophy and Islamic spiritual traditions. This fusion allows Corbin to conceptualize a universal approach to modernity—one that does not outright reject modernity but seeks to reclaim its spiritual dimensions through reinterpretation of Eastern mystical thought, emphasizing a "spiritual phenomenology." His focus is on transcending the historical limits of modernity to access a deeper, transcendent experience of Being.
The most significant difference between the two lies in their views of history and temporality. Fardid, influenced by Heidegger’s later philosophy, regards history as a "destiny," a metaphysical unfolding of Being that has been corrupted by modernity. Accordingly, he advocates for a radical rupture with modernity, calling for a return to an unmediated spiritual tradition rooted in Islamic thought. Conversely, Corbin perceives history as a continuous, metaphysical process that encompasses material and spiritual dimensions, emphasizing the unfolding of spiritual potentialities accessible through Eastern mystical traditions.
Both thinkers critique modernity’s secular, rationalist worldview. However, Corbin maintains a more optimistic outlook about spiritual renewal within the modern framework, proposing a "spiritual return" that seeks to reformulate and reintegrate spiritual dimensions into contemporary thought. Fardid, on the other hand, adopts a more radical stance, emphasizing the need for a decisive break from Western influence and a rediscovery of authentic Eastern-Islamic identity.
 
Conclusions
The study concludes that, despite sharing a Heideggerian foundation, Fardid and Corbin present fundamentally different philosophical approaches to modernity, spirituality, and tradition. Fardid’s radical critique positions him as an ideological resistor, advocating for a return to an authentic Islamic tradition that rejects Western influences. His thought, deeply rooted in Heidegger’s critique of modernity, becomes a tool for resisting Western cultural hegemony, especially within the post-revolutionary Iranian context. Conversely, Corbin’s spiritual phenomenology promotes an integrative approach, aiming to reconcile Eastern and Western traditions by emphasizing metaphysical and spiritual dimensions of existence. Both significantly shaped 20th-century Iranian intellectual thought, but their legacies diverge: Corbin’s focus on the continuity of Eastern spiritual traditions fostered new discourse on Islam and modernity, while Fardid’s anti-modern stance influenced ongoing cultural resistance, affecting debates on identity and the future of Islamic thought.