تأملی در تضمنّات سیاسی نسبت عقل و وحی
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
1 - استادیار گروه مطالعات سیاسی، بین المللی و حقوقی، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: عقل, وحی, فلسفه سیاسی, آتن و اورشلیم. ,
چکیده مقاله :
تأمل در نسبت میان عقل و وحی، فلسفه و دین و به تعبیری آتن و اورشلیم، بُن‌مایة کوشش‌های فکری بزرگ‌ترین چهره‌های سنّت فلسفۀ سیاسی بوده است. پرسش بنیادینی که در فلسفه سیاسی مطرح می‌شود این است: «چگونه باید زیست؟» کوشش برای پاسخ به این پرسش بنیادین در سنت فلسفه سیاسی، به‌ویژه از وقتی با سنت وحیانی ادیان ابراهیمی مواجه شد، با کوشش برای دفاع از خود فلسفه به‌مثابه والاترین شیوه زندگی، اینهمان شد. ما در این مقاله می‌کوشیم تا نشان دهیم که عقل و وحی، یا فلسفه و دین، از همان آغاز یک وجه مشترک بنیادین داشتند: زندگی کافی نیست، آنچه لازم است، خوب زیستن است. اما پاسخ هر یک آنها به این پرسش که «خوب چیست؟»، از بنیاد متفاوت بود. استدلال ما این است که آن اشتراک و این افتراق، زمینه‌ساز دیالوگی شد که نه‌تنها به تداوم سنت فلسفه سیاسی کمک کرد، بلکه امکاناتی را برای طرف وحیانی به منظور تدوین الهیاتی نظام‌مند فراهم نمود. با این حال به نظر می‌رسد که فلسفه سیاسی مدرن، به‌مثابه شیوه تفکری که ذاتاً درون‌ماندگار است، آغازِ پایان این دیالوگ میان دو سنت استعلایی عقلانی و وحیانی محسوب می‌شود. این مقاله، کوششی برای پرداختن به نسبت میان عقل و وحی، یا فلسفه و دین، از حیث موسّع‌ترین استلزامات سیاسی آن و مدخلیّت فلسفه سیاسی مدرن در قطع دیالوگ مزبور است.
Reflecting on the relationship between reason and revelation, philosophy and religion, and, in a sense, Athens and Jerusalem, has been the core of the intellectual efforts of the greatest figures in the tradition of political philosophy. The fundamental question raised in political philosophy is: "How should one live?" The effort to answer this fundamental question in the tradition of political philosophy, especially since it encountered the revelation tradition of Abrahamic religions, became the same as the effort to defend philosophy itself as the highest way of life. In this article, we try to show that reason and revelation, or philosophy and religion, had a fundamental commonality from the very beginning: it is not enough to live, what is necessary is to live well. But the answer of each of them to the question "What is good?" was fundamentally different. Our argument is that this commonality and this difference formed the basis of a dialogue that not only helped to continue the tradition of political philosophy, but also provided possibilities for the revelationists to enrich their revealed theology. However, it seems that modern political philosophy as an essentially immanent way of thought, is the beginning of the end of this dialogue between these two transcendental traditions. This article is an attempt to deal with the relationship between reason and revelation, or philosophy and religion, in terms of its broadest political implications, and the role of modern political philosophy in interrupting that dialogue. Keyword: reason; revelation; political philosophy; Athens; Jerusalem. Main IssueThe contemplation of the relationship between reason and revelation, philosophy and religion, or, in a broader sense, Athens and Jerusalem, has been at the core of the intellectual efforts of the most prominent figures in the philosophical tradition. The fundamental question posed in political philosophy is: "How should one live?" The attempt to answer this foundational question within the tradition of political philosophy—especially since its encounter with the revelatory tradition of the Abrahamic religions—has become an endeavor to defend philosophy itself as the highest way of life. Both traditions emphasize that mere living is not sufficient; rather, what is essential is to live well. However, the answers provided by each of these traditions to the question of the good life carry certain fundamental political implications. This article focuses on examining these implications and analyzing their various dimensions. Analysis The immediate question that arises is: What is "the good"? The inquiry into the nature of the good is, by its very nature, an Athenian question. In the Socratic tradition, in contrast to the revelatory tradition, the inquiry into essence lies at the heart of philosophical activity. This is where the divergence begins. In the revelatory perspective on a good life, the goodness of God and His commandments are taken as given. "Life" and "goodness" have closely related meanings, both denoting something desirable. However, for the Socratic philosopher, reflecting on what something is—including the good itself—and avoiding unexamined assumptions is itself ultimately considered good. Thus, the Socratic philosopher cannot and should not disregard the genuine possibility of revelatory claims. In this context, any form of dogmatism in favor of philosophy itself would contradict the philosophical enterprise. Consequently, within the Socratic tradition of philosophizing, the dialogue between philosophical reason and divine revelation persists, even if tension exists between them. In this sense, philosophy must necessarily take the challenge of revelation seriously.The dialogue between revelation and reason, or between religion and philosophy, in the Socratic sense, is founded on thematic possibilities that bring these two traditions closer together despite their fundamental differences. The first commonality between philosophy and divine law is their shared concern for human beings. Philosophy is a human activity, and divine law also addresses humans rather than animals or angels. The central concern for human beings, their lives, and their attainment of happiness is a shared feature of revelation and Socratic philosophy. The second shared characteristic between divine law and Socratic philosophy is that both call humans to something beyond themselves—something divine or at least quasi-divine, something outside and above humanity. In both traditions, humans are beings with a responsibility that arises entirely from their humanity and their distinction from other creatures. This second shared characteristic is linked to a third, more fundamental one: virtue. In the philosophical perspective, virtue results from rational prescriptions that emerge from human reason and relate to humanity’s natural purpose. In the revelatory view, virtue is understood as obedience to divine law or walking the "straight path."Socratic philosophy emphasizes the necessity of questioning the nature of the good while outwardly acknowledging revelation’s response to this question. This, in turn, does not pose a problem for the philosopher, since, as mentioned earlier, the very effort to answer this question is itself "good." Therefore, for the Socratic philosopher, the good life or happiness is necessarily theoretical rather than practical in nature. This is why, theoretically, it is radical, while practically, it remains conservative. However, with the emergence of modern political philosophers, the story underwent a fundamental transformation. This time, philosophy sought to defeat its adversary—namely, revelatory theology—by providing a clear and dogmatic answer to the question of what constitutes the good. The reason for this shift was that happiness or the good life was no longer understood as a theoretical matter. With the dissolution of the transcendent realm, what remained and was valued was the practical (political) realm. Victory in the political realm required a considerable level of dogmatism and a departure from the Socratic philosophical enterprise in its strictest sense. For this reason, it became necessary for modern political philosophers to portray the revelatory path not as the "straight path" but as a deviation—a deviation that not only fails to lead to the good life but also brings suffering upon humanity. The weakening of individuals through Christian morality (Machiavelli), the prevalence of war, insecurity, and the obstruction of natural and bodily desires (Hobbes), and the hindrance of human intellectual progress by divine law (Spinoza) were among the foundational pillars of liberal-democratic regimes. The triumph of liberal-democratic regimes signifies that these doctrines had already won a spiritual victory. However, this victory ultimately came at the cost of the loss of power for both philosophy and revelation.This article argues that the similarities and differences between reason and revelation provided the foundation for a dialogue that not only sustained the tradition of political philosophy but also created opportunities for proponents of the revelatory tradition to enrich their theology. However, it appears that modern political philosophy, as an essentially immanent mode of thought, marks the beginning of the end of this transcendental dialogue. This article seeks to examine the relationship between reason and revelation, or between philosophy and religion, in terms of its broadest political implications and to explore the role of modern political philosophy in severing this connection. Consequently, we may ask: To what extent did modern political philosophers remain faithful to their professed goal of liberating philosophy? The early modern political philosophers' project of making philosophy the benefactor of political society necessarily required a break from the hard core of Socratic philosophy—namely, its fundamentally critical stance toward political life. The rejection of the epistemic value of revelation as a necessary precursor to rejecting its authority as a theological foundation for political laws could only be achieved through a form of dogmatism. Since the Socratic virtue of doubt was abandoned in the strictest sense, Spinoza and his contemporaries' claim to liberate philosophy must itself be met with serious doubt. This article proposes transforming these doubts into Socratic doubts rather than reducing them to the skepticism of contemporary relativist philosophies. Achieving this requires an effort to revive the dialogue between reason and revelation, or philosophy and revelatory religion.
Methodology
Our methodology in this article is based on the doctrine of "close reading." In this approach, we seek to understand the meaning of a text as closely as possible to how its author understood it. A distinction is made here between understanding and explanation. Priority is given to understanding. Understanding a text depends on attempting to grasp the author's intended meaning by focusing on the text’s internal logic. External references as explanatory devices are, at least initially, set aside. Thus, in this article, we engage with sacred texts and political philosophy texts in a manner that consistently prioritizes understanding over explanation.
Findings
The findings of this article indicate that the tension between reason and revelation—precisely because it was a fundamental tension—led to the continuation of their dialogue. The revelatory rejection of the philosophical life relied on reference to a divine source of knowledge. Conversely, the philosophical tradition emphasized the capabilities of human natural reason in acquiring knowledge. However, philosophical knowledge, ultimately, was not entirely immanent. Philosophy, in its classical sense, was an attempt to resemble the divine. Thus, the divine or the transcendent, in its broadest sense, served as an intermediary link that historically connected these two opposing traditions. However, with the emergence of modern philosophy and its unprecedented political ambitions, this unwritten agreement lost its relevance.
References
Aristotle (1959), Politics, Translated by H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (2016), Metaphysics, Translated by C. D. C Reeve, Hackett Publishing Company.
Bloom, Allan (1980), "The Study of Texts", in Political Theory and Political Education, Melvin Richter, Princeton University Press.
Bloom, Allan (2001), “The Ladder of Love”, in Plato, Plato’s Symposium, A translated by Seth Benardete, with commentary by Allan Bloom and Seth Benardete, The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Cicero, M. T (1966), Tucalan Disputations, Translated by J. E. King, Harvard University Press.
Dannhauser, W (1974), Nietzsche’s View of Socrates, Cornell University Press.
Fott, D (2013), “Notes on the Text and Translation”, in Cicero, On the Republic and On the Laws, Translated bt David Fott, Cornell University Press.
Hobbes, Thomas (1839), The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, Vol. 1 and 3, London, J. Bohn.
Hobbes, Thomas (1962), Body, Man and Citizen, Edited with an Introduction by Richard S. Peters, Collier Books.
Hobbes Thomas (1987), De Cive, Edited by Howard Warrender, (Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes), Oxford.
Jeirani, Yashar (2018), “Phalsafe va Sarzamine Pedari”, in Strauss, Soqrate Kesenofon, Translated by Yashar Jeirani, Pegahe Roozgare No.
Ketabe Ahde Atiq: Ketabhaye Shariat ya Torat (2014), Translated by Pirooz Sayyar, Hermes.
Ketabe Ahde Jadid (2019), Translated by Pirooz Sayyar, Ney.
Machiavelli, Niccolo (1998), Discourses on Livy, Translated by Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, The University of Chicago Press.
Mahdi, M and Lerner, R (1963), Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook, Agora Edition, The Free Press, New York.
Mahdi, Muhsin (2001), Alfarabi and the Foundations of Islamic Political Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press.
Manent, Pierre (2015), Tarikhe Fekriye Liberalism, Translated by Abdolvahabe Ahmadi, Agah.
Meier, H (2006), Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, Cambridge University Press.
Meier, H (2017), Political Philosophy and the Challenge of Revealed Religion, Translated by Robert Berman, The University of Chicago Press.
Naser Khosraw (2009), Divan, by Mojtaba Minavi and Mehdi Mohaghegh, Tehran University.
Pangle, Thomas (1992), "A Critique of Hobbes's Critique of Biblical and Natural Religion in "Leviathan"", in Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2.
Pangle, Thomas (2003), Political Philosophy and God of Abraham, John Hopkins University Press.
Plato (1980), The Symposium and The Phaedo, Translated by Raymond Larson, Harland Davidson.
Plato (1984), Four Texts on Socrates: Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, and Aristophanes’s Clouds, Translated with notes by Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, Cornell University Press.
Plato (1988), The Laws of Plato, Translated with an Interpretative essay by Thomas Pangle, The University of Chicago Press.
Plato (1991), The Republic of Plato, Translated with notes and an interpretive essay by Allan Bloom, Basic Books.
Plato (1997), “Theaetetus”, in Complete Works, Translated by John. M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company.
Plato (2001), Plato’s Symposium, A translated by Seth Benardete, with commentary by Allan Bloom and Seth Benardete, The University of Chicago Press.
Saadi (1990), Koliyyat, by Mohammad Ali Foroghi, Amir Kabir.
Spinoza (2016), The Collected Works of Spinoza Vol. II, Edited and translated by Edwin Curley, Princeton University Press.
Strauss, Leo (2015), Shahr va Insan, Translated by Rasool Namazi, Agah.
Strauss, Leo (1948), “reason and Revelation”, in H. Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Strauss, Leo (1958), Thoughts on Machiavelli, Chicago University Press.
Strauss, Leo (1988), Persecution and the Art of Writing, Chicago University Press.
White, Howard. B (1987), "Francis Bacon", in History of Political Philosophy, Edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, The University of Chicago Press.
Whybray, R. Norman (20020, The Good Life in the Old Testament, T & T Clark, London.
قرآن کریم.
اشتراوس، لئو (1394) شهر و انسان، ترجمه رسول نمازی، تهران، آگه.
جیرانی، یاشار (1397) «فلسفه و سرزمین پدری»، در سقراط کِسنوفون، نویسنده لئو اشتراوس، ترجمه یاشار جیرانی، تهران، پگاه روزگار نو.
سعدی، مصلح¬بن¬عبدالله (1369) کلیات، به اهتمام محمدعلی فروغی، تهران، امیرکبیر.
کتاب عهد عتیق: کتاب‌های شریعت یا تورات (1393) ترجمه پیروز سیار، تهران، هرمس.
کتاب عهد جدید (1398) ترجمه پیروز سیار، تهران، نشرنی.
منان، پی‌یر (1394) تاریخ فکری لیبرالیسم، ترجمه عبدالوهاب احمدی، تهران، آگه.
ناصرخسرو قبادیانی (1388) دیوان اشعار، تصحیح مجتبی مینوی و مهدی محقق، چاپ هشتم، تهران، دانشگاه تهران.
Aristotle (1959) Politics, Translated by H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.
---------- (2016) Metaphysics, Translated by C. D. C Reeve, Hackett Publishing Company.
Bloom, Allan (1980) "The Study of Texts", in Political Theory and Political Education, Melvin Richter, Princeton University Press.
---------------- (2001) “The Ladder of Love”, in Plato, Plato’s Symposium, A translated by Seth Benardete, with commentary by Allan Bloom and Seth Benardete, The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Cicero, M. T (1966) Tucalan Disputations, Translated by J. E. King, Harvard University Press.
Dannhauser, W (1974) Nietzsche’s View of Socrates, Cornell University Press.
Fott, D (2013), “Notes on the Text and Translation”, in Cicero, On the Republic and On the Laws, Translated bt David Fott, Cornell University Press.
Hobbes, Thomas (1839) The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, Vol. 1 and 3, London, J. Bohn.
-------------------- (1962) Body, Man and Citizen, Edited with an Introduction by Richard S. Peters, Collier Books.
-------------------- (1987) De Cive, Edited by Howard Warrender, (Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes), Oxford.
Machiavelli, Niccolo (1998) Discourses on Livy, Translated by Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov, The University of Chicago Press.
Mahdi, Muhsin (2001) Alfarabi and the Foundations of Islamic Political Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press.
Mahdi, Muhsin and Lerner, R (1963) Medieval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook, Agora Edition, The Free Press, New York.
Meier, H (2006) Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, Cambridge University Press.
----------- (2017) Political Philosophy and the Challenge of Revealed Religion, Translated by Robert Berman, The University of Chicago Press.
Pangle, Thomas (1992) "A Critique of Hobbes's Critique of Biblical and Natural Religion in "Leviathan"", in Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2.
------------------ (2003) Political Philosophy and God of Abraham, John Hopkins University Press.
Plato (1980) The Symposium and The Phaedo, Translated by Raymond Larson, Harland Davidson.
------- (1984) Four Texts on Socrates: Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, and Aristophanes’s Clouds, Translated with notes by Thomas G. West and Grace Starry West, Cornell University Press.
------- (1988) The Laws of Plato, Translated with an Interpretative essay by Thomas Pangle, The University of Chicago Press.
-------- (1991) The Republic of Plato, Translated with notes and an interpretive essay by Allan Bloom, Basic Books.
-------- (1997) “Theaetetus”, in Complete Works, Translated by John. M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company.
-------- (2001) Plato’s Symposium, A translated by Seth Benardete, with commentary by Allan Bloom and Seth Benardete, The University of Chicago Press.
Spinoza (2016) The Collected Works of Spinoza Vol. II, Edited and translated by Edwin Curley, Princeton University Press.
Strauss, Leo (1948) “reason and Revelation”, in H. Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
-------------- (1958) Thoughts on Machiavelli, Chicago University Press.
-------------- (1988) Persecution and the Art of Writing, Chicago University Press.
White, Howard. B (1987) "Francis Bacon", in History of Political Philosophy, Edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, The University of Chicago Press.
Whybray, R. Norman (2002) The Good Life in the Old Testament, T & T Clark, London.
