چکیده:
آﻗﺎی ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻣﺠﺘﻬﺪ ﺷﺒﺴﺘﺮی از دﮔﺮاﻧﺪﯾﺸﺎن ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ از ﻋﻠﻢ ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿــﮏ، ﻣﻮﺿـــﻮعﻫــﺎی ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮن دﯾﻨﯽ و اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ را ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﮐﺮده و دراﯾﻦﺑﺎره آﺛﺎر ﻓﺮاواﻧﯽ ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ ﮐﺮده اﺳــﺖ. وی ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اﻧﺪﯾﺸــﻪ ﺧﻮد و ﻧﯿﺰ اﻧﺪﯾﺸــﻪ ﺳﺎزﻧﺪه ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﻪ ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮑﯽاش را ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﻗﺎرهای ﻗﺮن ﺑﯿﺴﺘﻢ آﻟﻤﺎن ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﮐﺮده و در اﻫﻤﯿﺖ آن ﮔﻔﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺸﮑﻞ ﺟﻬﺎن اﺳﻠﺎم در ﺣﺎل ﮐﻨﻮﻧﯽ، ﻋﺪم ﺗﻤﺴﮏ ﺑﻪ ﻣﮑﺘﺐ ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮑﯽ ﺑﺮآﻣﺪه از اﯾﻦ ﻣﺒﻨﺎی ﻓﮑﺮی ﮐﻪ ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮏ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﯽ ﻧﺎم دارد، ﻣﯽﺑﺎﺷﺪ؛ ﺑﺎ اﯾﻦ ﺣﺎل ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﻪ ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮑﯽ وی ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﮔﺮدآﻣﺪه از ﻋﻨﺼـــﺮﻫﺎﯾﯽ اﺳـــﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرﺗﯽ ﻏﯿﺮﻋﻠﻤﯽ از ﻣﮑﺘﺐﻫﺎی ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮑﯽ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮن ﮐﻪ در ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ و ﺑﻠﮑﻪ ﺑﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪﻃﻮرﮐﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﺘﻀﺎد و ﺣﺘﯽ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ، ﺑﻪ ﻋﺎرﯾﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪه و در ﮐﻨﺎر ﻫﻢ ﻗﺮار داده ﺷﺪهاﻧﺪ؛ ﺑﻪﻃﻮرﻣﺜﺎل وی در ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ اﻧﺴﺎنﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ و ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ و ﻧﯿﺰ ﺟﺎﯾﮕﺎه ﺗﻔﺴـــﯿﺮ در ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﻨــﺎ ﺑﺮ اﺳـــﺎس آﻣﻮزهﻫــﺎی ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿــﮏ روﺷـــﯽ و ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿــﮏ روشﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ و در ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﺮﺑﻮط ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﻓﻬﻢ و ﻓﺮاﯾﻨﺪ آن ﻧﯿﺰ ﺗﺮﮐﯿﺒﯽ از ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮏ ﻓﻠﺴــﻔﯽ و ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮏ روﺷﯽ را اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﮐﺮده اﺳﺖ. اﻓﺰون ﺑﺮ اﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﺗﻠﻘﯽ وی از ﻫﺮﻣﻨﻮﺗﯿﮏ روشﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﯽ ﺷﻠﺎﯾﺮ ﻣﺎﺧﺮ ﻧﺎدرﺳﺖ ﻣﯽﺑﺎﺷﺪ و ﻣﺴــﺌﻠﻪ
اﺻــﻠﯽ وی را اﺷــﺘﺒﺎه ﺗﺸــﺨﯿﺺ داده اﺳــﺖ. ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﭘﯿﺶ رو ﻣﯽﮐﻮﺷــﺪ اﯾﻦ اﻗﺘﺒﺎسﻫﺎی ﻏﯿﺮﻓﻨﯽ و ﺑﺮداﺷﺖﻫﺎی ﻧﺎدرﺳﺖ را ﻧﺸﺎن دﻫﺪ و ﺑﺤﺚ ﮐﻨﺪ.
Mr. Mohammad Mojtahed Shabestari is a contemporary dissident which, based on the principles derived from hermeneutics, has analyzed various religious and social issues and he has produced a lot of works. He introduced his thought base, as well as the thought-maker of his hermeneutic system, on the twentieth-century Continental Philosophy of Germany and in its importance it has said that now the problem of the Islamic world is not resort to hermeneutical school taken from philosophical hermeneutics. However, his hermeneutic system is a collection of elements which is non-academic from various hermeneutic schools which unscientificly has been borrowed and put together from the hermeneutic schools, which are completely opposite and even contradictory in the foundations as well as in the buildings. For example, he spoke on the of anthropological and semantic principles and also the place of interpretation in understanding the meaning based on doctrines of methodic hermeneutic and methodological hermeneutic, and also he has chosen a combination of philosophical hermeneutics and methodic hermeneutics in the subject of epistemology of understanding and its process. In addition, his conception of Schleiermacher's methodological is inaccurate, and is incorrectly identified his main problem. This paper tries to illustrate and discuss these non-technical adaptations and misconceptions.