بررسي انتقادات احسائي به برهان تضايف ملاصدرا در اثبات اتحاد عالم و معلوم

Ehsaee's Critique of Mulla Sadra's Correlation Argument for the Unity of the Knower and the Known

اتحاد عالم و معلوم از مباني مهم حكمت متعاليه است كه ملاصدرا با الهام از فلاسفۀ نوافلاطوني آن را تبيين و اثبات كرده است. اين اتحاد به دو مقام كثرت در وحدت و وحدت در كثرت تقسيم مي‌شود و برهان تضايف يكي از مهم‌ترين استدلال‌هاي اثبات آن در مقام كثرت در وحدت است. اين برهان سه نكتۀ اساسي دارد: وجود ادراكي موجود مجرد، معلوم بالذات نبودن موجودات مادي و اضافۀ عالم و معلوم. انتقادات احسائي نيز متوجه اين‌هاست. ازنظر احسائي به‌دليل فعلي بودن معناي ادراك، قديم و نامخلوق شدن ماديات درصورت معلوم نبودن آن‌ها و لازمۀ مبدأ اشتقاق بودن اضافۀ عالم و معلوم، برهان ملاصدرا با انتقادات اساسي مواجه است؛ باوجوداين، به‌دليل اتحاد عالم و معلوم در مقام كثرت در وحدت يا مقام ذات بودن اين برهان، معلوم بالعرض بودن ماديات و معلوم بالذات بودن صورت‌هاي علمي آن‌ها و عدم لزوم ميان مبدأ اشتقاق و نسبت اضافه، انتقادات احسائي مشكلات اساسي دارند.

The unity of the knower and the known is one of the fundamental principles of the transcendent theosophy, which Mulla Sadra explained and proved it by inspiration from the Neoplatonic philosophers. This unity is divided into the two orders of plurality in unity and unity in plurality, and the correlation argument is one of the most important proofs of it in the order of plurality in unity. This argument has three basic points: (1) the Perceptual existence of the abstract beings, (2) that the material beings are not essentially known, and (3) the correlation between the known and the knower. Ehsaee's criticisms are also focused on these very points. According to Ehsaee, Mulla Sadra's argument must be faced with some fundamental criticisms, because (1) there is a sense of act in the meaning of the perception, (2) if the material beings were not known they would be eternal and uncreated, and (3) the correlation between the knower and the known requires their division. Nevertheless, because the unity of the known and the knower belongs to the order of plurality in unity or because this argument is in the order of the essence, and because the material beings are accidentally known and their scientific forms are essentially known, and that correlation doesn’t necessarily followed by division, Ehsaee's criticisms have essential problems.