بررسي انتقادي حسن و قبح در انديشه محقق اصفهاني

A Critical Investigation of Good and Badness in Mohaqiq Isfahaniʹʹs Thought

در مسيله حسن و قبح، سه محور اصلي مطرح است: حسن و قبح ذاتي؛ حسن و قبح عقلي؛ سنخ قضاياي حسن و قبح. پرسش اصلي اين است كه آيا حسن و قبح، ذاتي براي افعال اند؟ و آيا عقل انسان توان ادراك حسن و قبح افعال را دارد؟ و قضاياي حسن و قبح آيا جز قضاياي يقيني اند كه ريشه در واقع و نفس الامر دارند يا جز قضاياي مشهور بالمعني الاخص اند كه تنها پشتوانه آنها توافق آرا عقلاست؟ اين پژوهش با هدف تبيين و ارزيابي ديدگاه هاي محقق اصفهاني و با روش توصيفي ـ تحليلي به اين مسيله پرداخته است. محقق اصفهاني، حسن و قبح به معناي استحقاق مدح و ذم ذاتي را جز عوارض ذاتي افعال دانسته و در مقام اثبات، توانايي عقلا را بر ادراك حسن و قبح اشيا به نحو ايجاب جزيي مي پذيرد. ايشان قضاياي حسن عدل و قبح ظلم را جز قضاياي مشهور بالمعني الاخص دانسته و تنها پشتوانه آنها را توافق آرا عقلا مي داند. ديدگاه ايشان در كنار نقاط قوت، برخي كاستي ها نيز دارد كه در اين نوشتار تبيين مي شوند.

For addressing the issue of good and badness, we need to expound, three main questions: essential good and badness, rational good and badness and the type of the propositions of good and badness. The main question that arises is: Are essential good and badness associated with actions? Is man’s intellect capable of recognizing the goodness and badness of actions? Are the propositions of good and badness part of certain propositions which are rooted in the fact and fact-itself or part of the famous propositions in its strict sense, on which there is agreement among the sages? Using a descriptive-analytical method, this research seeks to explain and evaluate Mohaqiq Isfahaniʹs views. Mohaqiq Isfahani considers good and badness which corresponds to essential praiseworthiness or blameworthiness as part of the essential accidents of actions, and seeking confirmation, he accepts the idea that sages can recognize the goodness and badness of things according to partial affirmation. He considers the propositions of goodness justice and badness of injustice as famous propositions in their strict sense and considers sagesʹ unanimous agreement as the only way of confirming their validity. His views, though have certain strong points, have some weaknesses, on which this paper elaborates.