رابطه ‌وجود با ماهيت در حكمت متعاليه

The Relationship between Existence and Quiddity in the Transcendent Philosophy

نوع رابطه وجود با ماهيت در حكمت متعاليه در مباحث اصالت وجود و اعتباري بودن ماهيت مطرح شده است. ملا‌صدرا در اينباره با دو زبان يا با دو شيوه بيان مطلب كرده است. او از يكسو ميگويد وجود بالاصاله و بالذات تحقق دارد و ماهيت بالعرض و بواسطه وجود تحقق پيدا ميكند و با وجود متحد است، اما از سوي ديگر معتقد است تنها «وجود» تحقق عيني دارد و ماهيت هرگز پا به عرصه وجود نميگذارد و فقط يك امر اعتباري محض است كه عقل از وجود انتزاع ميكند. اين دو تعبير ـ‌ظاهراً‌ـ متباين، موجب سر در گمي پژوهشگران گرديده است. از اينروي برخي او را به تناقضگويي متهم كرده و برخي ديگر كوشش نموده‌اند تا اين تعارض را بگونه‌يي توجيه كنند. با مراجعه به مجموعه آثار ملا‌صدرا روشن ميگردد كه در اين دو تعبير هيچگونه تعارضي وجود ندارد؛ جايي كه ملا‌صدرا ميگويد وجود بالذات و ماهيت بالعرض تحقق دارند منظورش ماهيت موجود است و آنجا كه موجوديت و تحقق ماهيت را نفي ميكند مراد ماهيت جدا از وجود است. ما در اين مقاله كوشش كرده ايم با استناد به آثار خود ملا‌صدرا اين مطلب را مدلّل كنيم.

The kind of the relationship between existence and quiddity in the Transcendent Philosophy has been propounded in the discussions on the principiality of existence and the mentally-posited nature of quiddity. Mulla Sadra has explained this relationship in two ways. On the one hand, he argues that existence is originally and essentially realized, and quiddity is realized by accident and through the mediation of existence, with which it is eventually united. On the other hand, he believes that it is only “existence” which is objectively realized, and quiddity never steps into the realm of existence and is merely a mentally-posited affair which the intellect abstracts from existence. These two apparently different interpretations seem to have created a confusion among the researchers in this field. That is why some of them have accused him of contradiction, and some others have tried to justify this contradiction in a way. However, a reference to Mulla Sadra’s collection of works makes it clear that these two interpretations are not contradictory. When he states that existence and quiddity are realized by essence and by accident, respectively, he is referring to the nature of the existent, and when he negates the existence and realization of quiddity, he is referring to quiddity in separation from existence. In this paper, the writer has tried to clarify this point by reference to the works of Mulla Sadra himself.