معیارهای سنجش معارف شهودی با تاکید بر آرای صدرالمتالهین

ﻣﻮﺿﻮع ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻌﯿﺎرﻫﺎی ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻣﻌﺎرف ﺷﻬﻮدی اﺳﺖ. وﻗﻮع ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻣﻌﺎرف ﺑﺸﺮی ﯾﮑﯽ از ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ در ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ اﺳﺖ. ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻋﻠﻢ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎی ﻋﺪم ﺗﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺻﻮرت ذﻫﻨﯽ ﺑﺎ واﻗﻌﯿﺖ ﻣﺎﺑﻪازای آن در ﺧﺎرج اﺳﺖ؛ اﻣﺎ ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺣﻀﻮری از آﻧﺠﺎﯾﯽ ﮐﻪ واﺳﻄﻪ ﺻﻮرت ذﻫﻨﯽ ﻣﻄﺮح ﻧﯿﺴﺖ، ﻣﺤﻞ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ و ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ. ﺣﻘﺎﻧﯿﺖ در ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺷﻬﻮدی ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﯾﮑﯽ از اﻗﺴﺎم ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺣﻀﻮری از ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺜﯽ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ در ﺳﻨﺖ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻧﯽ و ﺑﻪ ﺗﺒﻊ آن در ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪﻫﺎی ﺷﻬﻮدی ﺣﻮزه ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ اﺳﻼﻣﯽ ﻣﺤﻞ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ. اﯾ ﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ در ﺻﺪد ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﻣﻌﻨﺎی ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺷﻬﻮدی و ﻣﻌﯿﺎرﻫﺎی ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﺻﺪق آن از ﻧﮕﺎه ﻣﻼﺻﺪراﺳﺖ. ﻣﻼﺻﺪرا ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺿ ﯿﺢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎی ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﯽ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎی ﻋﺪم ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻘﺖ ﺻﻮرت ذﻫﻨﯽ ﺑﺎ واﻗﻌﯿﺖ ﺧﺎرﺟﯽ اﺳﺖ، ﺑﯿﺎن ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺣﻀﻮری از ﺳﻨﺦ ﺧﻄﺎ در ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﯽ ﻧﯿﺴﺖ. ﻣﻼﺻﺪرا ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ اﺳﺖ ﺑﺎ اﯾﻨﮑﻪ ﻣﺸﻬﻮدات ﻋﺎرف رﺣﻤﺎﻧﯽ اﺳﺖ، ﻣﻤﮑﻦ اﺳﺖ در ﻣﻘﺎم ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﻣﺸﻬﻮدات دﭼﺎر ﺧﻄﺎ ﺷﻮد. ﺻﺪراﻟﻤﺘﺄﻟﻬﯿﻦ ﻗﺮآن و اﺣﺎدﯾﺚ و ﻋﻘﻞ را ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان دو ﻣﻌﯿﺎر ﺑﺮای ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ ﺷﻬﻮدی ﻣﻌﺮﻓﯽ ﻣﯽ ﮐﻨﺪ. اﻫﻤﯿﺖ اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ از آﻧﺠﺎﺳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮدن ﻣﻌﯿﺎرﻫﺎی ﻣﻌﺎرف ﺷﻬﻮدی، ﻣﯽﺗﻮان ﻣﻌﺎرف ﺷﻬﻮدی ﺻﺎدق را ﺗﺸﺨﯿﺺ داد.

criteria for measuring intuitive knowledge with an emphasis on the opinions of mull sadra

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 .methodthis 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 ulmuti’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 ulmuti’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.conclusionsadr 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