بررسی تطبیقی انسان شناسی عرفانی و فلسفی از دیدگاه مولانا و کانت (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
یکی از مسائل مهم اندیشه بشری، انسان و هستی ناشناخته اوست که همواره محور بحث در بین فیلسوفان و عارفان بوده است. آنان بر اساس دیدگاه خود به انسان از دو منظر نگریسته اند: برخی از وضع موجود انسان و در باره اینکه «انسان چگونه هست و چگونه نیست» سخن می گویند و پاره ای در باره شرایط انسان مطلوب گفت وگو می کنند به این معنا که انسان چگونه باید باشد و نباشد. در مقایسه این دو رویکرد باید گفت: انسان شناسی فلسفی با نگاهی عقلانی به مسائل اساسی انسان به-عنوان یک موجود عقلانی و اندیشمند و انسان شناسی عرفانی از راه علم حضوری به مطالعه و بحث در باره انسان و چگونگی دستیابی او به کمال می پردازد. این مطالعه با روش توصیفی تطبیقی و در جهت تبیین، تحلیل و تطبیق انسان شناسی فلسفی و انسان شناسی عرفانی از دیدگاه کانت و مولانا پرداخته است. یافته های حاصل از این پژوهش نشان می دهد هدف غایی مولانا در انسان-شناسی معرفی انسان کامل یا مطلوب است و حال آن که کانت در انسان شناسی پراگماتیکی خود، انسان موجود را معرفی می کند.A comparative Comparative Study of Mystical and Philosophical Anthropology from the Perspective of Molana and Kant
Introduction In this study, one of the important issues of human thought, that is, man and his unknown existence, is discussed. This issue has always been the focus of discussion among philosophers and mystics. Based on their point of view, they have looked at man from two perspectives: Some of them talk about the current condition of man and about "how man is and what he is not", and some others talk about ideal human conditions, in the sense of how humans should be and what they should not be.This article aims to explain, analyze and apply philosophical anthropology and mystical anthropology from the perspective of Kant and Rumi. In comparison of these two approaches, it should be said: Philosophical anthropology deals with the basic issues of man with a rational view and looks at him as a rational and thinking being, and mystical anthropology studies and discusses about man and how he achieves to the perfection by means of intuition. The findings of this research show that the ultimate goal of Rumi's anthropology is to introduce the perfect or ideal human being, while Kant in his pragmatic anthropology discusses the existing human being in the form of whatever he is. MethodologyIn this research, we have first examined the history and foundations of anthropology in the East and the West. Then, with a comparative descriptive approach, we have investigated philosophical and mystical anthropology from the perspective of Molana and Kant, and we have compared the opinions of these two great thinkers about man, and we have extracted the similarities and differences of these two approaches in the existential dimension of man. DiscussionIn examining the attitudes of two great thinkers, Kant and Rumi, we find out that Kant plays a central role for man in existence and considers him to be the center of everything. Unlike the philosophers before him who defined man based on essence and identity (truth), he tries to objectively discover the characteristics, abilities, actions and behavior of man, with a new approach. In fact, in this attitude, the nature of man and his situation in the world are examined.Therefore, it is necessary to examine the human being in the scope of his functions, actions and reactions. The fundamental subject of Kant's critical philosophy is "man and his destiny". He tries to help him by providing solutions to reach his ultimate goal, which is "being moral". Kant's anthropology is different from other approaches about man in the 18th century due to his pragmatic character.In his epistemological system, Kant considers the external world (existence) to be the subject of man or the wise subject. Based on this philosophy, the world cannot be identified as it is. The world is the result of the formation of intellectual subjects and these are the people who give order, law and structure to the world. Kant deals with another characteristic of man, namely freedom and liberty, and he believes that man's rationality is not the reason for his privilege, but his volition is the creator of moral values and standards. He believes that the ultimate goal of anthropology is to reach the position of "man subject to moral laws".In Rumi's ontological system, on the one hand, existence, soul and spirit of the world are seen, which are infinite, eternal and immortal, and on the other hand, the visible finite world, which is accidental and decaying, and the distance between these two worlds is filled by the presence of “Man” who is able to establish a relationship with God. Based on this, man is the center of cognition, and God and the world are discussed from the angle of his understanding.Rumi introduces man with two attitudes. First, his attention is on human existence, with all his weaknesses and natural conditions; as he is and then he introduces man from the side of what he should be and how he can be (perfect man). Despite these two aspects in man, Rumi believes that the soul and truth of man can sometimes be superior to angels and sometimes inferior to animals. When he is able to surpass the position of matter and be freed from every material thing, the ability of fondness with God will be created in him and he will reach the world of the soul. In fact, a person reaches the upper limit of human conduct (Soluke) and perfection (Kamal) when love and free will gather in him. In his upward trend (development) towards his origin, he can reach the end of the path of truth through rebirth. In discussing the true nature of man, like other mystics, Rumi calls man the great universe (Alam Akbar). Unlike the philosophers who consider man as a small universe (Alam Asghar) and hence, they see his place in the world as great one. Conclusion"Man and anthropology" is one of the important and prominent issues of human thought, which has always attracted the attention of many thinkers. Since each of the thinkers has looked at the complex dimensions of man from a certain angle, they have only been able to describe a part of the human existence. As a result, they have had different definitions of the human category. They have discussed human cognition with two approaches "how it is" and "how it should be". In this study, we have investigated the opinions of Molana and Kant about human beings. In summarizing the opinions of these two thinkers about humans, we are faced with two approaches, which are summarized below:Molana considers the creation of man as a result of manifestation (Tajalli) and love and a matter of God's grace. Therefore, it is considered the highest degree for man in the universe, and the goal of his perfection (Kamal) is to be close to God. In his view, man is the most perfect manifestation of God, the principle and axis of existence, and the rest of the world is subordinate to him. Molana considers man to have a divine origin and related to the transcendental world. He believes that man has two poles of earthly and celestial existence, which can go infinitely in the arc of descent and ascent. One dimension of him in this world is limited to time and space and the other dimension is timeless and space less. This way of looking at man has caused the emergence and finding of a perfect man in his mystical thought.According to Kant's belief, man is a being with intellection, wisdom and freedom, and he is the only high goal of philosophy. In this attitude, which is a new approach to man, his nature and position in the universe is investigated. The prominent feature of Kant's anthropology is its "pragmatic" or pragmatic nature. This means that he introduces an anthropology that is related to human action and behavior and has less theoretical aspects. From his point of view, a human being cannot be placed in the form of a definition, but his identity is formed by his social life and interaction with others. In fact, Kant's man has more of a moral aspect, and on this basis, man needs to be examined in the scope of functions, relationships, actions and reactions.Kant considers two reasonable and sensible worlds for humans. He considers his body to be related to the sensible world and his essence to the reasonable and rational world (beyond the sensible world and the system of nature) regardless of geographical additions. On the one hand, he considers man as a moral being, and on the other hand, he considers him to have animal motives and desires, which is capable of using his intellect and the freedom that is defined for him, to remove himself from the rank of an animal to human being.In this approach, the relationship between man and the universe is revealed through his actions and behavior, on this basis, he must take responsibility for whatever he chooses. Although both thinkers have looked at man from two dimensions, the ultimate goal of Rumi's anthropology is to identify the perfect or ideal man, and the fundamental subject of Kant's philosophy is man and his destiny.Similarities and differences between Molana's and Kant's opinions about manOpinion differencesimilarityMolana (Rumi)Man has a divine origin and is born of God's manifestation, love and will.* It has the highest position in the universe. *It has two aspects, superior and inferior. *It has two terrestrial and celestial dimensions. The earthly dimension is limited to time and space (lower aspect) and the celestial dimension is timeless and space less (higher aspect).* His ultimate goal is to achieve perfection (Kamal), and perfection is the closest state to God's attributes.* KantMan is a being with intellection, wisdom and freedom. *It has two reasonable and tangible aspects. *It has two ranges. A moral being (higher side) and a being with animal tendencies (lower side). *His identity is formed by his social life and interaction with others and is defined in the scope of his functions, relationships, actions and reactions.*
تبلیغات
