تبیین نظریه «ذاتی بودن رابطه لفظ و معنا» در اصول فقه امامیه و ارائه آثار حقوقی آن (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
بحث از چگونگی دلالت لفظ بر معنا، یکی از اولین و مهم ترین مسائل علم اصول فقه و مبادی زبان شناختی - فلسفی علم اصول است که نشان دهنده توانایی این علم در حل فلسفی مهم ترین پرسش های زبانی است. نظریه مشهور میان فلاسفه غربی و هم چنین اصولیون شیعه، «وضعی بودن» رابطه لفظ و معنا است. با این همه، قول به «ذاتی بودن» رابطه لفظ و معنا در غرب حامیان شاخصی از افلاطون تا چامسکی داشته است. مقاله حاضر با رویکرد توصیفی تحلیلی کوشیده است تا ضمن معرفی و تبیین دیدگاه «ذاتی بودن رابطه میان لفظ و معنا»، آثار و نتایج آن را در تاریخ نظام حقوقی کشور مورد بررسی قرار دهد و به واکاوی نظریه ذاتی بودن در میان نظرات علمای اصول فقه شیعه و به علاوه در دیدگاه صاحب نظران مغرب زمین بپردازد. هم چنین، مسائل پیرامونی این نظریه از قبیل نقاط قوت و اشکالاتی که بر این نظریه وارد شده است و البته بررسی آثار پذیرش این دیدگاه در نظام حقوقی کنونی، دور از نظر نگارندگان نبوده است. ماحصل پژوهش آن است که به رغم نقاط قوت تحلیلی نظریه ذاتی بودن، ادله اقامه شده برای این نظریه ناکافی و پذیرش آن مورد تردید است.Explaining the Theory of "the Essence of the Relationship between Expression and Meaning" in the Methodological Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence and Presenting its Legal Implications
IntroductionLanguage serves as a fundamental cornerstone of human civilization, distinguishing humans from other species through its sophisticated capacity for expression, communication, and thought. This inherent capability not only facilitates interpersonal communication but also underpins the complex processes of human reasoning and conceptualization. The intricate relationship between language and thought is a subject of considerable interest across various disciplines, including linguistics, philosophy, and jurisprudence. Within the realm of legal scholarship, particularly in the context of Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and its influence on the Iranian legal system, the exploration of the nature of the relationship between expression and meaning acquires a nuanced significance. This study aims to delve into the theoretical underpinnings of the "intrinsic" and "essence" views on the relationship between expression and meaning, assessing their implications for the legal domain, with a special focus on Shia jurisprudence and its impact on contract law in Iran. By examining the intrinsic nature of language and its role in the legal system, this research seeks to uncover the philosophical and jurisprudential dimensions that underlie legal interpretation and application.Research QuestionThe central inquiry of this study revolves around the nature of the relationship between expression and meaning in the context of language and its implications for legal theory and practice. Specifically, the research question seeks to understand how the intrinsic and conventional theories of language affect the interpretation and formulation of legal principles, particularly in Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and the Iranian legal system. This investigation is driven by a desire to elucidate the extent to which the intrinsic nature of language influences legal reasoning and contract formation, examining both the theoretical foundations and practical outcomes of this relationship in a legal context.Research HypothesisThe hypothesis posits that embracing an intrinsic view of the relationship between expression and meaning can lead to significant insights and advancements in legal theory and practice. This perspective, which acknowledges a direct and inherent connection between words and their meanings, could offer a more nuanced and effective framework for legal interpretation and the formulation of contracts. By rejecting the intermediary of conventional meanings, the intrinsic theory may allow for a deeper understanding of legal texts and the intentions behind them, potentially enhancing the precision and fairness of legal outcomes. This study hypothesizes that, despite historical criticisms and the limited adoption of the intrinsic theory among Shia jurists and Western thinkers, its implications for jurisprudence and the legal system in Iran are profound and warrant comprehensive exploration.Methodology & Framework, if ApplicableThis research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology, leveraging both primary and secondary sources to explore the intrinsic and conventional theories of language within the domains of jurisprudence, legal theory, and philosophy of language. The study is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing upon insights from Islamic scholarship, Western philosophy, and semantics to construct a holistic view of the issues at hand. Through detailed textual analysis and critical examination of key texts in Shia jurisprudence, as well as works by Western philosophers and linguists, the research aims to elucidate the underlying principles and implications of the intrinsic theory of language for legal practice. The theoretical framework is grounded in the principles of hermeneutics and interpretation, providing a lens through which the relationship between expression and meaning can be examined in depth. This approach enables a comprehensive analysis of the intrinsic and conventional theories, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and relevance to the contemporary legal landscape. By integrating perspectives from a variety of disciplines, the study seeks to uncover the multifaceted nature of language and its impact on the formulation and understanding of legal principles.Results & DiscussionThe exploration of the "Intrinsic Nature of the Relationship Between Expression and Meaning" within the context of language's role in Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and legal interpretation yields both enlightening perspectives and significant challenges. The theory posits that language, in its most fundamental form, has an inherent connection between expressions and their meanings, which has implications for understanding the origins of human language and the legal importance of verbal formalities in transactions, particularly in Iranian jurisprudence. This intrinsic connection suggests a natural, direct comprehension of language that transcends learned conventions. However, the theory faces substantial criticisms that challenge its universality and applicability. A core critique lies in the observable fact that individuals do not innately understand languages unfamiliar to them, nor do they always grasp the full spectrum of meanings in their mother tongue. This contradicts the theory's implication that the relationship between expression and meaning should be immediately apparent to all. Additionally, the process of naming and the application of new concepts further contest the theory's validity. The conventional nature of language development, especially in the creation of new words and meanings, indicates a learned rather than an intrinsic understanding. These criticisms reflect broader debates within linguistics and philosophy, notably regarding Chomsky's theories. The challenges to the intrinsic theory highlight the complex interplay between nature and convention in language acquisition and understanding. In the legal domain, the theory's limitations become particularly evident in the context of modern legal concepts and terminologies, which are often culturally and temporally specific. The intrinsic theory struggles to account for the evolution and diversity of legal language, underscoring the predominance of conventionalism in the development and interpretation of legal terms.ConclusionUpon thorough examination, the intrinsic theory, while offering valuable insights into the nature of language and its origins, ultimately falls short in addressing the complexities of language understanding and legal interpretation. The empirical challenges and philosophical criticisms against the theory underscore its limitations in fully accounting for the dynamic and evolving nature of language and legal discourse. The concept of Divine Conventionalism emerges as a more viable alternative within Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh), positing that language's establishment and development are divinely ordained yet executed through human agency. This view harmonizes the divine aspect of language's origin with the practical realities of its human-driven evolution, offering a framework that accommodates both the sanctity and the variability of linguistic expression and meaning. The study's findings suggest a reevaluation of the intrinsic theory's premises and encourage a more nuanced understanding of language's role in legal theory and practice. While the intrinsic connection between expression and meaning presents a compelling philosophical idea, the realities of language usage, especially in legal contexts, necessitate a more flexible and context-sensitive approach. The adoption of Divine Conventionalism within Shia jurisprudence represents an attempt to bridge the gap between the innate capacities for speech and thought and the contingent nature of linguistic conventions. This approach acknowledges the foundational role of divine providence in establishing language while recognizing the human capacity for innovation and adaptation in its ongoing development. In conclusion, the intricate relationship between language and law, encapsulated in the debate between intrinsic and conventional theories of meaning, reveals the depth and complexity of jurisprudential inquiry. The study underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach that integrates linguistic, philosophical, and legal perspectives, contributing to a richer and more comprehensive understanding of the principles underlying legal interpretation and application.
تبلیغات
