چکیده:
خطا در معارف بشری یکی از مباحث مهم معرفت شناسی است. خطا در علم حصولی بمعنای عدم تطابق صورت ذهنی با واقعیت مابازای آن در خارج است. اما خطا در معرفت حضوری محل تامل و مناقشه بوده است. حقانیت در معرفت شهودی همواره در سنت عرفانی و به تبع آن در فلسفه های شهودی فلسفه اسلامی محل تامل بوده است. این پژوهش درصدد بررسی معنای خطا در معرفت شهودی و معیارهای سنجش صدق آن از نگاه ملاصدرا است. ملاصدرا با توضیح معنای خطا در معرفت حصولی بیان می کند که خطا در معرفت حضوری از سنخ خطا در معرفت حصولی نیست. از منظر ملاصدرا . گاه القائات شیطانی باعث حصول شهودات و دریافت هایی غیر مطابق با واقع می شود. علت وقوع این خطا ضعف شهود عارف و صفات اخلاقی ناپسند اوست. خطای دیگر از نظر ملاصدرا خطا در تفسیر مشهودات است. بعبارت دیگر ملاصدرا معتقد است که عارف با اینکه مشهوداتش رحمانی است اما ممکن است در مقام تفسیر مشهودات دچار خطا شود. صدرالمتالهین قرآن و احادیث و عقل را بعنوان دو معیار برای سنجش معرفت شهودی معرفی میکند. در خصوص این دو معیار ملاحظاتی وجود دارد که ضمن مقاله به آن ها اشاره میشود.
Introduction: The occurrence of errors in human knowledge is an
important epistemological topic in philosophy. Error in “acquired
knowledge” (al-‘Ilm al-husuli) means the mismatch of the mental
form with the reality outside it. But the error in “present knowledge”
(al-‘Ilm al-hudhuri), since the mediation of the mental form is not
mentioned, has been a place of reflection and controversy. Since
intuitive knowledge (al-ma’rifat ush-shuhudiyyah) is a type of present
knowledge, and the mystic claims it relates to the known truth, it is
necessary to investigate the validity of intuitive knowledge and its
criteria. Sadr ul-Muti’allihin’s great emphasis on intuitive knowledge
and its place in the knowledge of existence doubles the necessity of
investigating the authenticity of intuitive knowledge and its criteria .
Method:This library research aims to investigate the meaning of
error in intuitive knowledge and the criteria for measuring its truth
from his point of view by referring to the works of Sadr ul-
Muti’allihin .
Findings:. 1 Accepting the possibility of error in intuitive
knowledge, Sadr ul-Muti’allihin insists on the measurability of
intuitive propositions. According to Sadr ul-Muti’allihin, the devil
(ash-Shaytan) and his suggestions (Ilgha’at), as well as the
philosopher’s moral weaknesses, are two important factors causing
errors in intuitive knowledge.
. 2 Sadr ul-Muti’allihin considers Revelation (Wahy) and Intellect
(‘Aghl) to be the most important measure of intuitive knowledge.
According to him, Shari’a is the surest way to reach the truth. Sadr ul-
Muti’allihin’s repeated emphasis on the importance of the Shari’a and
his great effort in adapting his philosophical findings to the principles
of the Shari’a indicate the special place of the book and tradition in his
epistemological system. According to Sadr ul-Muti’allihin, Intellect
has a special place as the second measure of intuitive knowledge.
Based upon this, one of the important goals of Sadr ul-Muti’allihin is
to combine intuition and evidence. From his point of view, although
mystical revelations are superior to proof in terms of certainty,
intuitive knowledge not only does not oppose true proof, but intuition
without proof goes astray.
Conclusion: Sadr ul-Muti’allihin considers the heart to be the place
of the Devil’s inspirations, and emphasizes that just as the existence of
inspiration is certain, the existence of Satanic temptations is certain.
Therefore, it seems that at least in some types of acquired knowledge,
there is a possibility of error. In addition, the mystic may fall into
error in the position of communicating or interpreting and explaining
intuitive knowledge. Therefore, Sadr ul-Muti’allihin insists on the
quantification of intuitive cases. Sadr ul-Muti’allihin considers
revealed knowledge and Intellect to be the most important criteria for
measuring intuitive knowledge, and regarding the Shari’a, he warns
that it should not be influenced by superficial perceptions. And
regarding Intellect, he emphasizes that if the intuitive claims of
mystics are contrary to clear rational and logical laws and principles,
they are rejected. Of course, at the same time, he pays attention to the
limitations of Intellect and emphasizes that some intuitive knowledge
may not be grasped by Intellect, and in these cases, Intellect cannot
issue a verdict either positively or negatively.