تأملي در منشأ تصور عليت

تأملي در منشأ تصور عليت

در پاسخ به اين پرسش كه «منشأ تصور عليت چيست؟» نظريه‌هاي گوناگون مطرح بوده است. در اين مقاله با پنج نظريه آشنا مي‌شويم: 1. هيوم منكر عليت است و نظريه تعاقب را به عنوان توضيح و توجيه آنچه مردم و فيلسوفان عليت مي‌شمارند، پيشنهاد كرده است؛ 2. علامه طباطبايي و شهيد مطهري تلاش كرده‌اند با تكيه بر علم حضوري، منشأ تصور عليت را توجيه و نظريه تعاقب را نقد و رد كنند؛ 3. دكتر احمد احمدي نيز سعي كرده با تكيه بر اصل اتحاد حاس و محسوس مسئله را حل كند؛ 4. شهيد صدر و آيت الله جوادي آملي معتقد به بداهت اصل عليت‌اند؛ 5. نويسنده مقاله معتقد است نقد هيوم با تكيه بر علم حضوري يا تمسك به اتحاد حاس و محسوس رد نمي‌شود. بخشي از راه‌حل در بداهت اصل عليت‌ است. ولي هرچند بداهت با توضيحاتي كه خواهد آمد بهترين نظريه در توضيح و توجيه اصل عليت و منشأ تصور آنست اما براي حل مسئله كافي نيست؛ زيرا: نظريه بداهت و حتي اگر نظريه علم حضوري و اتحاد حاس و محسوس را نيز بپذيريم؛ در نهايت، كليت اصل عليت را توضيح داده و توجيه مي‌كنند نه مصاديق عليت را؛ در حالي كه مشكل اصلي در بحث عليت اينست: «از كجا بفهميم الف علت ب است نه ج يا ...؟». در پايانِ مقاله سعي شده با تركيب عقل‌گرايي (Rationalism) و حس‌گرايي (Empiricism) ، و نيز با استفاده از روش آزمون و خطا، پاسخي قابل قبول به پرسش اخير داده شود.

Salman Khakban[1] The question about "the origin of causality conception" is on the most important questions about causality. Various theories have been and are being proposed to answer the question. After the advent of modern sensationalism especially in the light of Hume's critiques, scholars and in particular Muslim philosophers refocused on the question. The present paper discusses four theories about the explanation and justification of the origin of causality conception. The first theory is proposed by Hume who denies causality. He proposed the theory of succession to explain and justify what common people and philosophers regard as causality. However, such philosophers as Allamah Tabatabaii and Motahhari tried to justify the origin of causality conception, and criticize and deny the theory of succession by relying on immediate knowledge. Ahmad Ahmadi has also tried to propose a new answer to the question by relying on the principle of unity of sensitive and sensible. The present paper, however, holds that Hume's critiques cannot be resolved by relying on immediate knowledge or the principle of unity of sensitive and sensible. A part of Hume's critiques and justification of the principle of causality should be found in the theories proposed by such scholars as Muhammad Baqir Sadr and Allamah Jawadi Amoli who believed in the selfevidence of the principle of causality. As it will be discussed in the paper, selfevidence is the best theory to explain and justify the principle of causality and origin of its conception, but it is not sufficient to answer the question because the theory of selfevidence and even the theories of immediate knowledge and unity of sensitive and sensible can at most explain and justify the totality of the principle of causality not its instances. It is while the main question of causality is that "how can we understand that A is the cause of B not C . . . "? Finally, the paper seeks to provide an acceptable answer to the question by combining rationalism and sensationalism and using the method of trial and error.   [1] . Assistant professor of department of philosophy and theology, Qom University