چيستي علم و معرفت از منظر هوسرل و صدرالمتالّهين

The Nature of Science and Knowledge from the Viewpoints of Husserl and Mulla Sadra

ماهيت و چيستي علم مانند ديگر موجودات، متعلق پرسش قرار مي‌گيرد. در اين مقاله تلاش بر اين است كه چيستي علم از نگاه ادموند هوسرل، فيلسوف نامدار غربي قرن بيستم ـ كه تفكر فلسفي قرن بيستم متاثر از اوست ـ و صدرالدين محمد شيرازي فيلسوف شهير اسلامي و موسس حكمت متعاليه ملقب به صدرالمتالّهين، بررسي شود. هوسرل چيستي علم و معرفت را با حيث التفاتي توضيح مي‌دهد و صدرالمتالّهين با استفاده از انشاي نفس، پرده از ماهيت آن برمي‌دارد. طرح مقاله براي يافتن صرف مشابهت و اختلاف بين اين دو فيلسوف نيست، بلكه براي يافتن پاسخ به پرسش اصيل از چيستي علم و معرفت است. فرضيه اصلي اين است كه غير از تشابه فكري بين دو فيلسوف در صورت ظاهر مساله و با وجود اختلاف فكري و فرهنگي و بسترهاي مختلف اجتماعي و سنت‌هاي گوناگون تاريخي، راه حل هر دو به توجه به مقام و منزلت «انسان» از حيث انضمامي (نه حيث انتزاعي) منتهي مي‌شود.

The nature and the essence of knowledge are investigated like those of other entities. This paper is an attempt to investigate the nature of knowledge from the viewpoint of the prominent twentieth-century western philosopher, Edmund Husserl, who has had a profound influence on the philosophical thought of the twentieth century, as well as that of the renowned Muslim philosopher, and the founder of the transcendental theosophy, Sadreddin Mohammad Shirazi, known as Mulla Sadra. Husserl explains the nature of knowledge and science utilizing the concept of intentionality, and Mulla Sadra uncovers it through the concept of the construction of the ego. It is not merely sought in this paper to find the similarities and the differences between the views of these two philosophers; rather, an attempt has been made to find an answer to the original question regarding the nature of science and knowledge. The main hypothesis here is that, in addition to the intellectual similarities between the two philosophers with regard to the question itself, and considering their intellectual, cultural, social differences as well as their differing historical traditions, both have come up with a solution that leads to the consideration of man’s standing and stature from a concrete rather than an abstract perspective.