ملارجبعلي و ملاصدرا در مواجهه با اثولوجيا

Mulla Rajabali and Mulla Sadra’s Approach to Uthulujia

اثولوجيا اثر فلوطين كه سالها به اشتباه به ارسطو نسبت داده ميشد، همه فيلسوفان جهان اسلام از جمله ملارجبعلي تبريزي و صدرالمتالهين شيرازي را تحت‌تاثير قرار داده است؛ هرچند اين دو حكيم در يك زمان ميزيسته‌اند و متعلق به مكتب اصفهان بوده و مسايل يكساني براي آنها مطرح بوده و هر دو در تاييد برخي از اقوال خود به اثولوجيا استناد كرده‌اند، اما در تاريخ فلسفه دو جريان كاملاً متفاوت را هدايت كرده و در مقابل هم قرار گرفته‌اند؛ چرا كه ملارجبعلي بشدت دغدغه‌هاي كلامي داشته و پذيرش اشتراك معنوي وجود بين واجب و ممكن و انتساب صفات به ذات باريتعالي را به دور از تنزيه و منافي آيات و روايات ميدانسته، برخلاف ملاصدرا كه او نيز با دغدغه‌هاي كلامي و عرفاني، با طرح تشكيك وجود، اين مسايل را حل شده ميپنداشته است. اما نكته قابل توجه اين است كه چگونه دو فيلسوفي كه در مسايل مختلف آرا متضادي دارند از يك كتاب واحد بهره برده و از آن نقل‌قول كرده‌اند! اگرچه تاثير اثولوجيا در مباني فكري و عقيدتي اين دو حكيم انكارناپذير است، اما در اينجا بنظر ميرسد چون اين كتاب را از آنِ ارسطو و ارسطو را حكيمي الهي ميدانسته‌اند، سعي داشتند عبارات اين كتاب را در تاييد آرا خود بيان كنند تا اعتبار اقوالشان را فزوني بخشند و بنابرين هريك از منظر خود به اين كتاب نگريسته و مضامين آن را درك كرده است و هر كجا آن را سازگار با مباني خود ديده، پذيرفته و در تاييد عقايدش آورده است و هر كجا آن را ناسازگار با مباني خود يافته، بي‌اعتنا از آن گذشته و يا سعي در توجيه آن داشته است.

Uthulujia by Plotinus, which had been mistakenly attributed to Aristotle for many years, has influenced all Muslim philosophers, including Mulla Rajabali Tabrizi and Mulla Sadra. Although both philosophers were contemporary with each other, followed the School of Isfahan, dealt with similar problems, and resorted to Uthulujia in order to confirm their own ideas and theories, they led two completely different philosophical trends in the history of philosophy and, in fact, stood against each other. Mulla Rajabali’s great attachment to Kalami issues persuaded him to believe that accepting the univocality of the Necessary Being and the possible beings and attributing different adjectives and qualities to the divine essence is far from God’s incomparability to other things and against Qur’anic verses and traditions. However, Mulla Sadra, in spite of his interest in Kalami and gnostic issues, believed that such problems could be solved in the light of his theory of the gradation of existence. Nevertheless, the noteworthy point is how is it possible for two philosophers with opposing ideas regarding different problems to have benefitted and quoted from the same book! Although the influence of Uthulujia over the philosophical and ideological principles of these two philosophers is undeniable, it seems that, since both believed that this book was written by Aristotle, whom both considered to be a divine philosopher, they tried to refer to this book in order to confirm their ideas and prove their validity. Thus each looked at Uthulujia from his own point of view and perceived its content based on his own ideas. Wherever they saw it consistent with their own principles, they quoted the related statements in order to confirm their ideas, and wherever they saw its content inconsistent with their views, they ignored it or tried to justify the case.