فلسفه ناداني (بررسي زمينه‌هاي جهالت آدمي)و نقش فلسفه‌ورزي در آن

Philosophy of Ignorance (A Study of the Backgrounds of Human Ignorance) and the Role of Philosophical Thinking in it

تصور ميكنم بايد شاخه‌يي تحت عنوان فلسفه ناداني يا فلسفه جهالت داشته باشيم. اگر قبول كنيم، پرسش اول اين است كه اين نوع فلسفه چه ميكند؟ در يك تعريف كلي، فلسفه ناداني پرسيدن سوالهاي اساسي درباره ماهيت ناداني است. ناداني چيست؟ اگر بخواهيم بشيوه فلسفي به ناداني بپردازيم اولين سوال، در مورد ماهيت آن است و سپس اينكه آيا ناداني، ذاتي است؟ ماهيت انسان و رابطه‌اش با ناداني چيست؟ آيا ما واقعاً نادان يا دانا ميشويم؟ چون بعضي وقتها چيزهايي كه ياد ميگيريم به حجم جهالت ما اضافه ميكند نه به حجم دانايي ما و دست آخر؟ اينكه ناداني ارزش است يا دانايي؟ آيا دانايي امر ثابتي است كه اگر يكبار بدستش آورديم تا ابد بدستش آورده باشيم؟ آيا ذات آدمي و ماهيت ما به ناداني است يا دانايي؟ و آيا ما ميتوانيم آدمها را بخاطر نادانيشان سرزنش كنيم يا خير؟ در اينجا دو ديدگاه وجود دارد: از يكسو آدمي چنان آغشته به ناداني است كه جايي براي سرزنش او باقي نميماند، چون تصور ميشود ما در ناداني آفريده يا پديدار شده‌ايم. از سوي ديگر، تصور ميرود انسان نسبت به ساير موجودات، موجود متفاوتي است؛ آنگونه كه ارسطو در دسته بنديش، انسان را حيوان ناطق (بمعناي تفكر) در نظر آورد و قوه ممتاز انسان را فكر دانست. اگر چنين باشد پس فكر كردن ذاتي من است و بعبارتي بسمت دانش رفتن ذات من است. در مقاله حاضر ضمن طرح چنين سوالاتي، زمينه‌هاي جهالت آدمي و نقش فلسفه‌ورزي در آن توضيح داده خواهد شد.

If we accept that it is necessary to have a branch of philosophy called the philosophy of ignorance, the first question that comes to our mind is: What does this philosophy do? In a general definition, the purpose of the philosophy of ignorance is to ask some basic questions about the nature of ignorance. Therefore, the next question is: What is ignorance? If we wish to deal with ignorance following a philosophical method, the first question targets its nature, and the next asks whether ignorance is essential. The other questions that may follow include: What is the nature of man and his relationship with ignorance? Do we really become ignorant or knowledgeable? (This question is important because sometimes something that we learn increases our ignorance rather than our knowledge.) Which one is a value: ignorance or knowledge? Is knowledge a fixed entity to stay with human beings for ever once it is attained? Can we blame people for their ignorance? There are two views here: On the one hand, man’s life is so closely intertwined with ignorance that there remains no place for blaming him. This is because the general assumption is that we have been born or have appeared ignorant. On the other hand, it is assumed that, comparing to other existents, man is a different one. As we know, in his classification, Aristotle calls human being a rational animal and considers his most prominent distinction over other animals to be his ability to think. If so, thinking is essential to the self; in other words, man seeks knowledge by nature. In the present paper, while posing some questions, the writer has tried to explain the backgrounds of man’s ignorance and the role of philosophical thinking in this regard.