Abstract
Among the important philosophical movements in contemporary Iran are comparative philosophy and intercultural philosophy, which, while having points of connection, also have challenges, and sometimes intercultural attitude claims to be an alternative to comparative philosophy. The issue is to compare these trends and evaluate their challenges. The method of this research, while creating a dialogue between them, provides a brief description in the initial processing and presents the perspectives proposed in the relationship between them, including inclusion, opposition, and correlation, in order to reach a final evaluation in the secondary processing and analysis. Findings: the non-identity of the two currents in the perspective of opposition, including defects such as Western origin, ambiguity of nature and method and self-centeredness from the intercultural perspective towards comparative philosophy, and on the contrary, defects such as Eurocentrism under the German tradition, non-philosophy,and relativism have been pointed at intercultural philosophy.But this perspective ignores the points of connection between the two streams, and the problems raised sometimes have a lack of evidence or are double-edged. Conclusion: the perspectives of inclusion and correlation are more helpful in explaining their emergence, continuity, and exchange. Comparing the two currents to the cultural situation of contemporary Iran, it attempts to show their self-awareness and placement in the crossroads and cultural interdependence of Iran, as well as the path of paying attention to unity in diversity as an appropriate cultural policy.
Keywords: Philosophy, comparison, comparative philosophy, Intercultural philosophy, challenges of comparative and Intercultural philosophy, contemporary Iran.

Introduction
A look at philosophy in contemporary Iran reveals important trends in comparative and intercultural philosophy, and paying attention to them reflects an important part of the state of contemporary Iranian philosophy and its lived experience since the Qajar erato the present. Comparative philosophy in contemporary Iran, although it has emerged as a new phenomenon under the French tradition with figures such as Gobineau and Corbin, can be traced back to early and late Islamic philosophers. Contemporary figures such as Allameh Tabatabaei and Dr. Mahdi Haeri have also paid serious attention to comparative philosophy.
The father of intercultural philosophy is sometimes considered to be the Indian Ram Adhar Mall, who founded the first association, or Betancourt or even Professor Abdul Javad Falatowri. In addition, the connection with individuals such as Morteza Ghasempour and Hamid Reza Yousefi at the beginning of its emergence in Germany and the connection and interest of Iranian scholars in this movement led to the establishment of the Intercultural Philosophy Association in Iran. Also, by rereading thinkers such as Allameh Tabatabaei, Dr. Abdul Javad Falaturi, and Dariush Shaygan, this stream tried to maintain its connection to the Iranian cultural body, although it saw problems and obstacles in his path in Iranian and Islamic culture.
The issue of this research is to examine the relationship between these two philosophical trends in contemporary Iran and the challenges between them in criticizing each other and claiming to replace intercultural philosophy with comparative philosophy, which has been formed in academic meetings and discourses and in some cases has also shown itself in written scientific works. In this regard, the need to evaluate and judge between the claims made by the parties in favor of these trends and the situation and needs assessment of Iran's current cultural and social conditions in order to become aware of a comparative and intercultural approach is among the necessities of this research.

Materials & Methods
The method of this research: in the first step, deals with the initial processing of describing the perspectives of the parties and presenting the perspectives raised in the relationship between the two comparative and intercultural streams. In the secondary processing, the explanation and analysis of those relations, arguments and criticisms of the parties are considered so that in the light of the dialogue between them, the relation between them becomes clearer. In the second step, the relation of the two currents with the current and contemporary culture of Iran is examined.

Discussion & Result
After the initial processing in describing the two streams of comparative philosophy and intercultural philosophy, focusing on the non-identity between them, it was determined that three perspectives of inclusion, opposition, and correlation have been proposed by the thinkers of both sides. From the perspective of confrontation, mutual critiques have been raised by the proponents of each approach:
1. Critiques of Intercultural Philosophy toward Comparative Philosophy
The Western origin of comparative philosophy in the French tradition; ambiguities in its definition and methodology; ethnocentrism; the incompatibility of a cultural homogenization policy with the pluralistic and diverse reality of the contemporary world; exclusivist readings; and the limited capacity of Islamic philosophy to address temporal and contemporary questions.
2.Critiques of Comparative Philosophy toward Intercultural Philosophy
Eurocentrism and the emergence of intercultural philosophy within the German tradition; the claim that intercultural approaches do not constitute genuine philosophy; relativism; and the critique of other constituent elements, as intercultural philosophy often occupies an intermediary position, operating in practice under Western and European frameworks.
3.Evaluation of Mutual Critiques

The critiques exchanged between the two currents, from the perspective of confrontation, have been examined. The dichotomous view, understood as pure opposition, not only disregards areas of overlap and points of connection but also neglects distinctions, ultimately dismissing one approach in favor of the other. The arguments and critiques presented by each side are, in some cases, responsive or commensurable from the perspective of the opposing current. Overall, greater intellectual tolerance is necessary to allow the two approaches to engage with each other, acknowledging both similarities and differences. Distinctions in concerns and goals, the epistemic orientation toward truth-seeking or dialogue, and the philosophical status of intercultural philosophy are among the considerations that challenge the notion of substituting intercultural philosophy for comparative philosophy.

Conclusion
By moving beyond the perspective of equality between the two currents in homogeneity and contrast in the perspective of opposition, with the help of the perspective of inclusion and interdependence, their distinction and connection are explained in such a way that comparative philosophy was prior in terms of emergence and, in the continuation of the encounter with the paradigm of culture and cultural diversity in the contemporary world, it has led to intercultural philosophy. In the continuation of their continuity, despite their differences, they are interconnected and have the possibility of coexisting with each other, because they have similarities in their consideration of the principle of dialogue, culture, or the models of Ourseli's analogy and the analogical hermeneutics.
Their relationship with Iran and Islamic culture can also be examined. In fact, Iran's status as a crossroads between East and West throughout its history and the characteristic of its cultural betweenness are compatible with a comparative and intercultural approach. Both currents have found themselves in the history of Iranian culture with their components, and have paid attention to the dynamics of the past philosophical tradition and have tried to pathologize the obstacles to seeing philosophical diversity and self-centeredness. But to transform these movements into cultural politics in the current and contemporary situation, they must be able to stand between absolutism and radical relativism and actively preserve both unity and plurality