The Epistemological Foundations of Modern Humanities

This paper examines the epistemological foundations of modern humanities from the perspective of the Intellectual Modeling Methodology (MANHAJ). It investigates the references, origin points, and conceptual domains organizing selected intellectual projects, and analyzes their effects on meaning production and the direction of cognitive activity. Particular attention is given to the distinction between a priori inquiry, which addresses the foundational conditions and references of knowledge, and a posteriori inquiry, which begins from an established body of knowledge or framework. The paper also examines the problem of generalizing a historical model.

Selected intellectual projects serve as cases for applying methodological examination tools and testing MANHAJ’s capacity to disclose the foundational structure of meaning production. This paper is not a comprehensive presentation of the methodology and does not replace its reference document; it addresses a specific research problem within the project’s broader research program.

This paper investigates the theoretical foundations of modern humanities by questioning the referential conditions through which knowledge is produced, reality and its problems are approached, and paths of interpretation and judgment are directed. Rather than limiting its inquiry to the conclusions or interpretations offered by intellectual projects, the paper examines the origin point, references, and concepts framing the object of inquiry, and asks whether these foundations are themselves subjected to a priori examination.

The paper advances two related hypotheses. First, Western centrality may continue to operate within some modern humanities and intellectual projects, even when those projects explicitly criticize the West or modernity. Second, some processes of knowledge production may involve methodological circularity (begging the question) when the subject under examination, or a conception derived from it, serves simultaneously as the origin point and the standard of judgment without independent examination.

The paper employs MANHAJ as a framework for examining these hypotheses, drawing on doctrinal centrality, origin point, conceptual domain, meaning coordinate, cognitive act, the law of the dual direction of inquiry (a priori and a posteriori), and the law of rightness. The hypotheses are examined through contrasting examples of intellectual projects.

The paper proposes a shift from criticizing the products of knowledge to examining their foundational models. This approach makes it possible to question references that may reproduce dominant epistemic centralities and to identify methodological limitations that may constrain the capacity of some forms of knowledge to explain and address problems.

This paper develops a specific applied investigation of the methodology presented in the reference document. It draws on its conceptual and methodological framework, particularly the relationships among doctrinal centrality, origin point, conceptual domain, meaning coordinate, cognitive act, a priori inquiry, and a posteriori inquiry. The paper is independent in its topic and research problem, but remains grounded in the theoretical reference that frames its application of the methodology and does not replace that reference document.

This paper is part of a series of independent papers developing theoretical and applied dimensions of MANHAJ.

The following are common citation formats for this English version. For citation, consult the linked Zenodo record and DOI to verify the publication metadata.

@misc{messeoud2026manhajhumanities,
  author = {Messeoud, Faouzi},
  title = {The Epistemological Foundations of Modern Humanities in Light of the Intellectual Modeling Methodology (MANHAJ): Posterior Inquiry, the Origin Point, and the Problem of Generalizing the Historical Model},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  type = {Scientific Research Paper},
  note = {Paper 03, Version 1.0},
  doi = {10.5281/zenodo.23558985},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23558985}
}

TY  - RPRT
AU  - Messeoud, Faouzi
TI  - The Epistemological Foundations of Modern Humanities in Light of the Intellectual Modeling Methodology (MANHAJ): Posterior Inquiry, the Origin Point, and the Problem of Generalizing the Historical Model
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/22
ET  - Version 1.0
T2  - Scientific Research Paper — Paper 03
PB  - Zenodo
DO  - 10.5281/zenodo.23558985
UR  - https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23558985
ER  -

Read the full English text in the viewer below, or open the PDF in a separate window or download it from the publication record.

Open or download the PDF

Modern humanities study human beings, society, history, politics, and culture. They interpret human phenomena, explain problems, and propose conditions for change and possible remedies. This paper proposes moving beyond criticism of results and interpretations to question the origin point and references that determine what can become an object of knowledge, how it is understood, which concepts and coordinates are used to examine it, and which standards are used to judge it.

The central problem is whether modern humanities operate within foundational frameworks that treat the origin point and references for interpreting reality as given assumptions, and what effect this may have on Western centrality and the possibility of methodological circularity in knowledge production.

The paper uses MANHAJ as a methodological framework for examining the conditions that precede knowledge production, not as a ready-made substantive theory that imposes conclusions on the cases studied. Examination begins with the reference structure and origin point organizing a project’s questions, then traces its conceptual domain, meaning coordinates, and cognitive acts from premises to conclusions.

Comparing declared positions or conclusions is insufficient because similarities or differences in outcomes do not by themselves reveal the conditions that produced them. Nor does criticism of the West or modernity prove that a project has transcended the references within which it emerged. The question is whether those references themselves have become objects of examination or remain prior frameworks determining the questions and standards of judgment.

The paper distinguishes foundational inquiry from the question of rightness. The first identifies the reference, origin point, and relations organizing the domain; the second asks whether the cognitive transition from premises to conclusions is sound under the relevant methodological conditions. This distinction prevents predetermined classifications or sweeping judgments unsupported by evidence.

The origin point is central because it establishes the reference in relation to which relationships are organized, facts understood, and standards of comparison and evaluation selected. It may be explicitly stated in an intellectual project or operate implicitly through concepts, questions, and assumptions that are not treated as objects of examination.

The origin point must be distinguished from doctrinal centrality. The task is not to assume that they are identical, but to examine the relationship between the reference structure and the determination of what counts as knowledge and how it is interpreted. Identifying an origin point requires more than locating a central concept; it requires analyzing the role that concept plays in organizing the domain, directing inference, and producing standards.

When the object itself supplies the standard by which it is judged, the process must be tested for methodological circularity. If a standard derives its validity from an unexamined assumption and is then used to prove that assumption, circularity may arise. This cannot be established from the question alone; it requires tracing the relationship among the reference, object, standard of judgment, and available evidence.

The distinction concerns the position of examination within knowledge production. A priori inquiry addresses the referential and foundational conditions that make an object identifiable and intelligible, including the origin point, conceptual domain, concepts, and standards organizing research. A posteriori inquiry begins from an established domain and works within its coordinates to analyze facts, interpret them, and develop conclusions.

This does not mean a posteriori inquiry is valueless or that every study beginning from prior knowledge is mistaken. The question is whether the conditions establishing the domain are open to examination or treated as fixed premises. A project may reach precise conclusions within its domain while leaving the domain’s own references outside inquiry.

Neither the subject matter nor a declared critical stance is enough to determine the direction of inquiry. One must analyze whether the project examines the references organizing its coordinates and questions the standards it uses to describe and evaluate reality. This connects the dual direction of inquiry to examination of the origin point and the rightness of the cognitive process.

This paper does not use Western centrality as a ready-made label for every project using modern concepts or tools that emerged in Western contexts. It asks a more specific question: does a prior reference continue to organize the domain and its coordinates within some projects, even when they explicitly criticize the West or modernity?

Testing this possibility requires distinguishing criticism of a domain’s outputs from criticism of the conditions that established the domain. A project may expose biases, representations, or political and epistemic effects without examining the origin point that determines what counts as knowledge, which questions are acceptable, and which standards judge reality. Conversely, dependence cannot be inferred merely from using concepts or tools that emerged in a Western context.

Western centrality is therefore a hypothesis to be examined in each case. Judgments should rely on analysis of references, concepts, evaluative standards, and derivational direction, distinguishing evidence of a continuing reference from indications insufficient to establish it. Findings from a single case should not be generalized to all modern humanities.

The paper examines whether the subject to be explained or judged, or a particular conception of it, may serve simultaneously as the origin point and standard of judgment. Begging the question is not established merely because a standard is used; evidence must show that the standard derives its validity from the very subject it judges, without independent examination.

The procedure identifies the reference structure and origin point, traces the conceptual domain, meaning coordinates, and cognitive act, and examines the direction of inquiry and the rightness of the transition from premises to conclusions. Conclusions must be related to the project’s explicit claims and implications, distinguishing what the evidence establishes from what requires further support.

The paper applies common examination questions to different intellectual structures, including Edward Said, Abdallah Laroui, and Taha Abderrahmane. Said’s case concerns the relationship between criticizing a domain and criticizing its foundational conditions; Laroui’s case concerns historical diagnosis and the criterion of backwardness; and Taha Abderrahmane’s case concerns re-grounding thought and examining the conditions under which a domain is established.

The comparison does not treat intellectual affiliation or a declared reference as decisive evidence. It directs attention to the origin point, domain, standards, and path of derivation, assessing each case according to the evidence that can be established.

The comparison underscores the need to distinguish the hypothesis that a prior central reference remains operative from the hypothesis of methodological circularity. One may be supported in a case without the other being supported, and neither may be established. The common basis for comparison is the application of shared questions concerning the origin point, conceptual domain, meaning coordinates, cognitive act, and rightness of derivation.

The paper distinguishes findings specific to the cases examined from general claims about the humanities as a whole. A limited number of cases cannot justify generalization to an entire field; broader conclusions require additional evidence and a wider examination of the projects and references under study.

The paper proposes shifting attention from criticism of knowledge products alone to examining the foundational models organizing them. Criticizing reality or deconstructing its structure does not automatically amount to criticizing the reference that determines the coordinates through which reality is viewed. Methodological conclusions must remain limited to what the evidence establishes.