بررسي ديدگاه مخالفان قاعده حداكثري سنخيت علت و معلول

Investigating the Views Opposing the Rule of Maximum Congruence between Cause and Effect

يكي از فروع مهم اصل عليت، قاعده سنخيت علت و معلول است كه موجب تقابل فيلسوفان مدافع اين قاعده با مخالفان آن شده است. اين مخالفت ها را با توجه به دو معناي حداقلي و حداكثري سنخيت، مي توان به دو دسته تقسيم كرد: معناي حداقلي سنخيت در نظامهاي فلسفي پيش از حكمت متعاليه معنا مييابد و معناي حداكثري نيز با توجه به مباني خاص حكمت متعاليه چون اصالت وجود و تشكيلك وجود تبيين ميگردد. مخالفان معناي حداقلي سنخيت، متكلمان و بهويژه اشاعره هستند و مخالفان معناي حداكثري سنخيت شامل گروههاي مختلفي از جمله برخي از فيلسوفان مخالف حكمت متعاليه، برخي اصوليين و نيز تفكيكي ها هستند. در اين مقاله به تحليل و نقد مخالفان معناي حداكثري و پاسخ به آنها بر مبناي حكمت متعاليه مي پردازيم.

One of the important subsidiaries of the principle of causality is the rule of congruence between cause and effect, which has led to an opposition between the philosophers adhering this rule and those opposing it. Those oppositions may be divided into two groups considering two states of a minimum and a maximum congruence. The state of minimum congruence is meaningful in philosophical systems before transcendental theosophy, and the state of maximum congruence are explained by considering the special bases of transcendental theosophy such as principality of existence and gradation of existence. The opponents of minimum congruence are theologians, especially Ash’arites, and the opponents of maximum congruence consist of various groups including some philosophers opposing transcendental theosophy, some legal theoreticians (Usūliyyūn) and some separationists (Tafkīkīyyūn). In the present article, we have dealt with an analysis and review of the opponents of maximum congruence and their answer on the basis of transcendental theosophy.