بررسی مقایسه ای دیدگاه احمد غزالی و ژان لوک ماریون درباره عشق (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
این نوشتار با روش توصیفی تحلیلی به مقایسه اندیشه احمد غزالی و ژان لوک ماریون درباره عشق می پردازد. با وجود تفاوت های بین این دو اندیشمند در زمینه فکری و زمانه، محتوای اندیشه آنها از جهاتی شباهت دارد. غزالی در نگارش سوانح العشاق از روش تأویل برای کشف رموز صوفیه استفاده می کند و ماریون نیز با بهره گیری از پدیدارشناسی هایدگر، زوایایِ پنهانِ رویدادِ عشق را بیان می دارد. برحسب اینکه برخی مستشرقین مثل هانری کربن، روش پدیدارشناسی در سنت غربی را با روش تأویل گرایانه یا کشف المحجوب عرفای مسلمان در یک راستا می دانند، به نوعی هم افق کردن رویکرد پدیدارشناسانه ماریون و تأویل گرایی غزالی توجیه می شود. این دو متفکر از اشتراک معنوی مفهوم عشق سخن می گویند و عشق را به مجازی و حقیقی تقسیم بندی نمی کنند؛ بنابراین، غزالی و ماریون عشق را، خواه در ارتباطات انسانی و خواه در ارتباط با خداوند، به یک معنا می دانند. هدف اصلی ماریون، فراروی از غلبه متافیزیک بر الهیات و نفی نگرش مفهومی و بُت گونه درباره خداوند است و غزالی نیز با تأویل تجربه زیسته عارفان، از حصار تنگ مفاهیم فلسفی عبور و از زبان تمثیل و رمز برای تبیین موضوع عشق استفاده می کند.A Comparative Study of Ahmad Ghazali and Jean-Luc Marion's Views on Love
This study compares Ahmad Ghazali and Jean-Luc Marion's thoughts about love using a descriptive-analytical method. Despite the differences between these two thinkers in terms of thought and time, the content of their thoughts is similar in some ways. In writing Savaneh al-Oshshaq , Ghazali uses the method of esoteric commentary to discover the mysteries of Sufi, and Marion uses Heidegger's phenomenology to explain the hidden angles of the love phenomenon. According to the fact that orientalists like Henry Corbin consider the method of phenomenology in the occident tradition to be in line with the esoteric commentary (Revelation of the Veiled or Kashf al-Mahjoub of Muslim mystics), the comparison of Marion's phenomenological approach and Ghazali's interpretation seems logical in a way. These two thinkers talk about the univocality of the concept of love and do not divide love into metaphorical and real aspects. Therefore, Ghazali and Marion consider love to have the same meaning, whether in human relationships or in connection with God. Marion's main goal is to refute the metaphysical dominance over theology and negate the conceptual and like idol attitude about God, and Ghazali interprets the lived experience of mystics, crosses the narrow fence of philosophical concepts, and uses the language of allegory and mystification to explain love. Keywords : Ghazali, Marion, Love, Saturated Phenomenon, The Event of Appropriation. Introduction Ahmad Ghazali is a Muslim mystic and theologian of the fifth century and Marion is a contemporary Christian theologian. These two thinkers are different from each other in terms of methodology and religious beliefs. In this study, the common and comparable themes between Ghazali and Marion are mostly discussed. Ghazali's distinction from many previous mystics was due to the centrality of love in mysticism. So far, no research has been done on the comparison of Marion's and Ghazali's views on the subject of love. According to Ghazali, the truth of love is one of the issues that cannot be obtained except with sapiential knowledge. He is a follower of spiritual intoxication (Sokr), and although love is an important feature of his mysticism, he calls people to follow religious law (Sharia). Marion, as a postmodern theologian who is influenced by the Neoplatonic tradition and Heidegger, examines the components of earthly love with a phenomenological approach and wants to provide a model for the romantic relationship between man and God. Ghazali also takes help from esoteric commentary in dealing with love and in this way explains the mysteries of the love relationship between man and God. In this research, to approximate Marion and Ghazali's methodological explanations, we will have a brief reference to Corbin's point of view for finding a nexus between Western Phenomenology and Muslim mystics' Kashf al-Mahjoub . It seems that, from the historical point of view, common foundations can be found between Marion's and Ghazali's thinking. In this perspective, the common basis of Marion and Ghazali's thought can be found in the Neoplatonic tradition. Materials and Methods The method of this research is based on the descriptive-analytical method. Before starting this type of research, the researcher has studied the theories, opinions, or results of previous studies on the research topic. By examining the thoughts of Ghazali and Marion about love, despite the difference in the intellectual background and era of these two thinkers, the researcher has found similar thoughts in some aspects, for example, the univocality and the ineffability of love. Research Findings Both Ghazali and Marion believe in the hierarchical character of love, in such a way that no boundary can be drawn between earthly love (eros) and divine love (agape). These two types of love are so united that there is no difference between them at all. In Marion's opinion, love does not only belong to God or man, but it is a general concept and widespread that can cover even erotic love. Ghazali considers love to be an existential truth that cannot be divided into metaphorical and divine love; rather, all that counts as gradations of love refer to one thing. According to him, love is the absolute truth and the essence of unicity, and returns the difference in the levels of love to their commonality. These two thinkers believe that absolute love cannot be described or explained, but its characteristics can be expressed. Ghazali considers love to be a disaster and mishap in which comfort is unstable. He calls love a swallower of people (Mardom-Khar) because it destroys all the comfort, tranquility, and peace of the lover. Marion also sometimes describes love as a saturated phenomenon and a wonderful light that goes from extreme brightness to darkness. In this case, what happens is a single phenomenon through which other phenomena, even love, can be understood and intuited. Discussion of Results and Conclusions The phenomenon of love is the basis for comparing the thoughts of these two thinkers. Love is the most important mystical approach of Ghazali. Marion, referring to the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Neoplatonic tradition, considers the best name for God to be good or love. Marion explains love using philosophical concepts, but Ghazali uses cipher, allegory, sign, and symbolic images to express his thoughts. Ghazali has used the method of esoteric commentary in writing his works, especially the Savaneh , and has been trying to give a mystical interpretation of the mysteries of Sufi, but the method that Marion uses in analyzing his material is phenomenology. The possibility of bringing Ghazali and Marion's thinking closer should be sought in Henry Corbin's thinking, which adapts the phenomenology of the West to the revelation of the veiled ( Kashf al-Mahjoub ) as a hermeneutics of Muslim mystics. Ghazali tries to go beyond the surface and reach the inner meanings of the verses by an esoteric commentary of the Qur'an and Marion is also trying to get to the depth of the meaning of divine unfoldment as an event of appropriation, by passing the appearance of theology and breaking the conceptual idols about God. Both thinkers believe that love is a single truth, unit, and commonality of meaning which is rooted in the influence of both of them from the Neoplatonic tradition. In the Neoplatonic tradition, reality has a gradual increase in intensity and there is no leap in it. Therefore, there is no precise demarcation between human love and divine love.
تبلیغات
