تحلیل انتقادی نظریه وجود ذهنی از دیدگاه میرقوام الدین رازی تهرانی
آرشیو
چکیده
نظریه وجود ذهنی به صورت جدی از زمان فخررازی در فلسفه و کلام اسلامی مطرح بوده است. در این میان برخی از فیلسوفان به اثبات این نظریه و برخی دیگر به انکار آن پرداخته اند. از جمله فیلسوفانی که به انکار نظریه وجود ذهنی پرداخته میر قوام الدین رازی تهرانی را می توان نام برد. این فیلسوف در انکار وجود ذهنی از استادش ملارجبعلی تبریزی متأثر است و همانگونه که تبریزی نظریه وجود ذهنی را با نفس، علم و ادراک پیوند می دهد، میرقوام الدین نیز همانند استاد به این محورها توجه دارد. مسئله اصلی در این نوشتار ادله انکار وجود ذهنی نزد میر قوام الدین رازی تهرانی و چگونگی پیوند آن با مسئله ادراک و علم است. البته این بررسی از جنبه های انتقادی و تحلیلی خالی نخواهد بود. روش بحث در این مقاله روش توصیفی تحلیلی و روش گردآوری داده ها کتابخانه ای است. نتیجه اجمالی که مقاله به آن دست یافته این است که میر قوام الدین رازی با انکار وجود ذهنی نمی تواند پاسخی درخور برای گزاره های حقیقیه داشته باشد و نظریه میر قوام الدین رازی درباره وجود ذهنی را باید در پرتو سخنان ارسطو تفسیر کرد، هرچند که وی در ارائه نظریه ای منقح در باره التفات نفس به غیر به مثابه راهی برای ادراک اشیا ناموفق است.Critical analysis of the theory of mental existence from the point of view of Mir Qawamuddin Razi Tehrani
The theory of mental existence has been seriously discussed in Islamic philosophy and theology since the time of Fakhrazi. Meanwhile, some philosophers have proved this theory and others have denied it. Mir Qawamuddin Razi Tehrani can be mentioned among the philosophers who denied the theory of mental existence. This philosopher is influenced by his teacher Melar Jabali Tabrizi in denying the existence of the mind, and as Tabrizi connects the theory of the existence of the mind with self, science and perception, Mir Qawamuddin also pays attention to these axes like the teacher. The main issue in this article is the denial of evidence of mental existence by Mir Qawamuddin Razi Tehrani and how it is connected with the problem of perception and science. Of course, this review will not be devoid of critical and analytical aspects. The discussion method in this article is the descriptive-analytical method and the library data collection method. The brief conclusion reached by the article is that Mir Qawamuddin Razi, by denying the existence of the mind, cannot give an adequate answer to true propositions, and Mir Qawamuddin Razi's theory about the existence of the mind should be interpreted in the light of Aristotle's words, although he presented A revised theory of self-affection is unsuccessful except as a way of perceiving things.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Discussing the mental existence and its problems has always been one of the concerns of philosophers. In the meantime, some have proved and others have denied the mental existence. It can be said that Ibn Sina is the first philosopher who addressed the issue of mental existence. Of course, he does not have the interpretation of mental existence, but he has pointed to the essence of the problem. He has mentioned this issue in some of his works such as Ta'aliqat. After Ibn Sina, it can be said that Fakhr al-Dīn Rāzī seriously addressed the issue of mental existence. He has put forward a point of view that is known as the "relationship" theory in the theories related to mental existence. He believes that knowledge, perception and intelligence are a correlative state, whose existence is based on two additional sides. Fakhr al-Dīn Rāzī has devoted a chapter to the theory of mental existence in al-Mabahith al-Mashriqia under the title "Proof of Mental Existence". After Fakhrazi, we can mention Suhrawardī, who believes that an object has an existence in the mind other than its external existence. After Suhrawardī, Nasir al-Din Tusi admits mental existence and believes that existence is divided into external and mental. After Nasir al-Din Tusi, we can also refer to the views of some other theologians and philosophers who have dealt with mental existence. Philosophers such as Qazi Saʽid Qomi, Mulla Rajabali Tabrizi, Ali Qali bin Qarchaghai Khan and... pointed out.
The main issue in this article is to express and examine Mir Qavam al-Din's point of view on the issue of mental existence. In this article, first, the philosopher's theory and its arguments in rejecting mental existence are expressed, and then we will examine the philosopher's sayings and verify his arguments in this regard.
Review literature: Until now, many articles and theses have been written about mental existence from the point of view of different thinkers, but as far as the authorS has searched, no article or thesis has been published about Mir Qavam al-Din's view on mental existence. Although many articles, books and theses have been written about the topics of this article.
Methods
The discussion method in this article is the descriptive-analytical method and the library data collection method.
Findings
The finding of this article is that Mir Qavam al-Din's theory in denying the existence of mind should be interpreted with Aristotle's theory.
Conclusion
First: Mir Qavam al-Din is among the philosophers who deny mental existence. He not only denies mental existence; It also refers to its consequences.
Secondly: By denying the issue of mental existence, Mir Qavam al-Din specifies two points about Knowledge: 1- About acquired knowledge: he believes that acquired knowledge is invalid; 2- It explains the way of our perception and knowledge of things through the senses of the soul and introduces these senses directly.
Thirdly: It was found that the important presupposition of Mir Qavam al-Din in denying the mental existence is the discussion of the principality of essence. Now, if he cannot defend the evidence of principality of essence, then the issue of denying mental existence will also suffer.
Fourth: It was found that we can reinterpret the words of Mir Qavam al-Din based on Aristotle's words in the book of Metaphysics and about the soul. The result is that he considers the science of reason to be kind to beings, which can be called a kind of rational and reasonable union, with the difference that due to the ambiguity of his theory and the words that have come down to us from previous scholars, it is not possible to place Mir Qavam al-Din in the theory He justified himself. His theory cannot explain the Knowledge of self, but it should be considered as a relatively new interpretation compared to the words of other followers.
تبلیغات
