مقایسه نظریه آیندۀ متعالی با مرگ‌اندیشی خیام

اندیشیدن درباره‌ی مرگ و سخن گفتن از آن یکی از بن مایه‌های رایج در ادبیات و جریان اندیشه‌های هر ملّت است. به دلیل ناشناخته بودن این پدیده، هریک از اندیشمندان بسته به فرهنگ و درک مخاطبانشان به تعبیر‌های متفاوتی از مرگ و مرگ‌اندیشی روی می‌آورند و معانی متفاوت و متناقضی از آن به دست می‌دهند که این مساله در گذشته‌ی ادبی ایران به اشکال گوناگون نشان داده شده است. پژوهش حاضر بر آن است تا با مقایسه مرگ‌اندیشی از دیدگاه عمر خیام رباعی سرای دانشمند قرن پنجم هجری و دیدگاه پژوهشگران جدید غرب مانند زیمباردو تفاوتها و شباهت‌های آنها را نشان دهد. این پژوهش از نوع تحلیل مقایسه‌ای است که با استفاده از منابع کتابخانه‌ای با استناد به منابع پژوهشی مکتوب انجام گرفته است. پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که تفکر مرگ‌ اندیشی در دو دیدگاه چه معنایی دارد؟ یافته‌های حاصل پژوهش نشان می‌دهدکه عمر خیام بیشتر نگاهی بدبینانه و مادی به مرگ و مقوله‌های مرگ دارد و از مفاهیمی چون خوشباشی، دم غنیمت شمری، پوچی مرگ  استفاده می‌کند در حالی که آیندۀ متعالی دارای یک دید خوش بینانه نسبت به مرگ است و از مفاهیمی مانند خودکشی، سازندگی و توجه مثبت استفاده می‌کند.

Comparing the Transcendent Future Theory and Khayyam’s Thinking about Death

Introduction    Some similarities are observed between two or more ideas which seem to be chronologically and geographically unrelated to each other. These similarities might rise from the identical roots between different nations. Qualities like life and death, good and evil, justice, cruelty, love, sacrifice, patricide, filicide and etc. are transnational and universal and appear more and less similarly in different nations’ literature. The reason behind these similarities might be found in their oral literature, mythology, myths or subconscious of the nations. The more universal one nations’ thoughts, the more important they become. Among these thoughts, thinking about death has been considered of high importance in Muslim and western intellectuals. Khayyam is the representative of Iranian old theoretical thoughts in whose philosophical quatrains has asked questions about death and its stress and incomprehensible features by using different similes and metaphors. In order to overcome these difficulties he proposed some solutions which violated the religious convictions. This is when he lived in a society whose foundations were based on strong religious beliefs. However, the idea of the transcendent future is related to the modern world which thinks about death in a nonreligious way and suggests some solutions as well. Since there was no comprehensive research on the topic, the main objective of this paper is to compare and contrast the visions of Khayyam and western ideologists who think of death as the transcendent future. Thus the research questions are:What are the transcendent future and thinking about death in Khayyam’s point of view?How do these two views consider overcoming the stress of death?How do these two views consider immortality, heaven and hell?What is the effect of thinking about death on seizing the day?  Research Methodology        This paper is a comparative analysis and uses library resources and written texts. Therefore, Zimbardo’s transcendent future theory and Khayyam’s quatrains were analyzed to compare and contrast.  Discussion   Khayyam’s thinking about death arises from his personal thoughts and has a materialistic and nihilistic look on death. (Nowruzi, Davoodkhani, 2000,110; Nafisi,2006:23),  While the transcendent future vision believes in the life after death .(Ortuño,., Paixão. Janeiro, 2013;11). Khayyam’s belief in body and soul and metempsychosis is in line with the transcendent future (Khatat,. Shouhani,2006:59). Nonetheless, the theory of transcendent future is the result of different research and religious beliefs which attempts to present a concept which is acceptable to all religions without considering any specific culture. The other bold concept in the transcendent future view is believing in the life after death as a transcendent feature  (Boyd Zimbardo 1996:38), whereas Khayyam does not think of death as a transcendent concept which probably is their most obvious difference. However, according to the differences between the meanings of the words, it is not easy to claim that they had similar view of a transcendent concept.For the stress of death, it needs to be said that since the time is short, both views propose confronting mechanism; for Khayyam they are: having fun, seizing the day and vinosity in order to enjoy more (Rahmdel,2006:139) . In the transcendent future view, these mechanisms are positive attention to suicide, building and positive attention (Boyd, Zimbardo,2005:191). Positive attention is almost similar to being happy and seizing the day in Khayyam’s view. Since the life after death is meaningless to Khayyam, being happy and enjoying life is to reduce the stress of death up to the point a human being is alive. However, in the view of the transcendent future which believe in the life after death, the focus is on building and creating over time. They believe in this sentence that “I go but my generation continues.”  And it reduces the worries (Urien,2007:369).Heaven and hell exist in both views. For Khayyam these exist within the human being and they are the center (Ebrahimi Dinani,2011:257). Followers of the transcendent future also believe in the heaven and hell as they will be after death (Van Beek, Karieyz, 2015:82). The concept of immortality also exists in both views. Immortality for Khayyam is worldly; it is to convert into other elements (Kohandani, 2005:80). For the followers of transcendent future, there are five forms of immortality which people will face based on their culture and religion (Hood, Mooris,1983:354).Both views give high importance to seizing the day and living in the moment; however, since the findings were gathered from older people (Scheibe,Carstensen,2010:137), it cannot be said the youngsters who believe in the transcendent future also think the same of seizing the opportunities.  ConclusionThrough analyzing and comparing Khayyam’s views which were done only based on his quatrains and the idea of the transcendent future which is a rather modern psychological theory, it can be said that both believe in death. For transcendent future followers, which is a more scientific view on death, dying is not the end and there is life after it while Khayyam think of death as the end of life. In order to escape from the worries of death, he suggest to be happy, drink and live in the moment while transcendent future theorist think of suicide as a solution which can please human beings and help them overcome the stress and fears of death.Also, while Khayyam sees Heaven and Hell within himself, the vision of a transcendent future believer, unlike him, is believed to be an outer land based on people’s future view of them. The concept of immortality is also expressed differently in each perspective; while Khayyam suggests the belief in worldly immortality and the return to the material cycle, the perspective of the transcendent future suggests different forms of symbolic immortality that each individual may tend to one. But perhaps the most similar in the two perspectives is the issue of seizing opportunity. Both visions insist on enjoying the life in the moment; the issue is called hedonism for the transcendent future view.