تحلیل انتقادی آرای الیاده در باب تفکیک امر قدسی از غیرقدسی

میرچا الیاده (1907-1986) ضمن اتخاذ رویکرد وجودی نسبت به اساطیر استدلال می‌کند که تلقی انسان بدوی در خصوص اسطوره به‌مثابه امری راستین و تکرارپذیر مرتبط با ساختارِ وجودی اوست. به همین سبب، وی با نقد تلقی روانکاوی فروید در باب ناخودآگاه‌بودن فراشد اسطوره‌سازی، به طرح این موضوع می‌پردازد که اسطوره‌ اساساً تبیینِ نظری آیین‌هایی است که به صورت خودآگاه به بازتکرارِ نمادین عمل آفرینش پرداخته‌اند. در این راستا، الیاده به پیروی از دورکم، اما به شیوه‌ای متفاوت از وی، به تفکیک امر قدسی از غیرقدسی می‌پردازد و تصریح می‌کند که به زعم وی هستی و اعیان آن به واسطه تجلیِ امر قدسی ظهور یافته‌است. بر این اساس، مقاله پیش رو می‌کوشد ضمن بررسی خاستگاه‌های نظری اندیشه الیاده استدلال‌های وی را در این باره بررسی و تحلیل کند. در این بررسی نگارنده با تاکید بر مفروضات نظری الیاده و روش‌شناسیِ پدیدارشناختیِ بدوی، دیدگاه او را نسبت به اسطوره محل تامل می‌داند و معتقد است آنچه الیاده به‌مثابه ساختارِ وجودی بشر مطرح می‌کند اساساً برساخته‌ای فرهنگی است.

A Critical Analysis of Eliade’s Distinction between the Sacred and the Profane

Adopting an ontological approach towards myths, Mircea Eliade (19071986) argues that the primitive man’s conception of myths as true repetitive stories is related to his ontological structure. Accordingly, Eliade, criticizing Freud’s understanding of the creation of the myth as an unconscious process, suggests that myth is basically a theoretical explanation of rituals which consciously deal with the symbolic repetition of Creation. In this way, Eliade, following Durkheim’s dichotomy regarding the sacred and the profane, asserts that the primitive man thinks of being and its objects as the result of hierophany: a process through which the sacred is embodied as an objective entity. The present article aims to survey the theoretical foundations of Eliade’s thought as well as his arguments in this respect. Emphasizing Eliade’s theoretical assumptions and phenomenological methodology, the article argues that Eliade’s theory is somewhat questionable and it is, instead, suggested that what he puts forth as the ontological structure of the human being is better understood as a cultural constitute.   Extended Abstract   1. Introduction Eliade studies mythology from the viewpoint of a historian of religion. Attempting to yield a phenomenological analysis of myth, he eventually turns to hermeneutic interpretation or creative hermeneutics to uncover the latent meanings of myths. He argues that what renders the world of myths meaningful is the interpretation that is based on their phenomenological description. The definition provided by Eliade is based on a kind of ontological distinction established between two different levels of being: one based on an antihistorical approach and the on a historyoriented approach to being and time. However, although what he puts forth as his logical argument seems to be of high validity and, thus, deserving reflection and admiration, it appears that his preliminary assumptions in the distinction drawn between the sacred and the profane as well as his emphasis on the inherency of this distinction is in contrast with the phenomenological approach in its philosophical dimension.   2. Theoretical Framework The purpose of this study is to investigate the theoretical foundations of the myth, and possibly religion, so as to examine the originality of Eliade’s theory. It goes without saying that such a study can expose the weaknesses of Elide’s theory and question the validity of some of his assumptions and, thus, it can become more applicable in analyzing the structure of the myth.   3. Methodology Eliade’s mythological views are mainly based on the distinction between the sacred and the profane. This dichotomy constitutes the basics of his methodology. Such a perspective toward the components of mythology allows him to present the socalled ontological dichotomy that he proposes to exist between two different levels of being: an antihistorical and a historyoriented approach to being and time. As a result, we will investigate the theoretical foundations of Eliade’s assumptions, and the authenticity of his reasoning through a close reading of what phenomenology offers as a method of analysis.   4.  Findings When Eliade emphasizes that the sacred is spatially or temporally embodied through the process of revelation, he takes for granted some assumptions that are not as clearcut as he supposes them to be. What Eliade considers to be the sacred is essentially the same as what is known, in the history of philosophy, as Platonic ideas. The revelation of the sacred in the objective forms of being is considered to be of a lesser value in comparison with what he assumes to be the absolute truth and, therefore, any objective phenomenon is considered ,on the one hand, to have the potential to represent as well as embody the sacred, and thus be of the same dignity as the sacred, while, on the other hand, to be restricted to its existential limits and constraints. The sacred discloses itself in various dimensions and effects and is, consequently, manifested in different levels of being, and such manifestations will exhibit huge differences in terms of degree and frequency.   5. Conclusion The present study shows that phenomenology, as a methodological tool, has been used by Eliade in a special sense. He has not only restricted his studies to the phenomenological description and interpretation of the myth; but, instead of addressing the structure or configuration of the mythical components, has focused on discovering the common themes or motifs of mythology, i.e., the hermeneutic analysis of myths. Of course, it seems that Eliade has deemed some of his questionable assumptions evident without a valid benchmark and regarded such assumptions as the cornerstone of his future topics and concerns. These assumptions, however, are in a way of epistemological character and are, in fact, culturally constituted, but Eliade has tried to resolve the issue by reducing such topics to some prefabricated forms or what philosophers consider as a priori. This can be due to the difficulty Eliade experiences in explaining them structurally.