چکیده:
این نوشتار با روش توصیفیتحلیلی به مقایسۀ اندیشه احمد غزالی و ژان لوک ماریون دربارۀ عشق میپردازد. با وجود تفاوتهای بین این دو اندیشمند در زمینه فکری و زمانه، محتوای اندیشۀ آنها از جهاتی شباهت دارد. غزالی در نگارش سوانحالعشاق از روش تأویل برای کشف رموز صوفیه استفاده میکند و ماریون نیز با بهرهگیری از پدیدارشناسی هایدگر، زوایایِ پنهانِ رویدادِ عشق را بیان میدارد. برحسب اینکه برخی مستشرقین مثل هانری کربن، روش پدیدارشناسی در سنت غربی را با روش تأویلگرایانه یا کشفالمحجوب عرفای مسلمان در یک راستا میدانند، به نوعی همافق کردن رویکرد پدیدارشناسانه ماریون و تأویلگرایی غزالی توجیه میشود. این دو متفکر از اشتراک معنوی مفهوم عشق سخن میگویند و عشق را به مجازی و حقیقی تقسیمبندی نمیکنند؛ بنابراین، غزالی و ماریون عشق را، خواه در ارتباطات انسانی و خواه در ارتباط با خداوند، به یک معنا میدانند. هدف اصلی ماریون، فراروی از غلبه متافیزیک بر الهیات و نفی نگرش مفهومی و بُتگونه دربارۀ خداوند است و غزالی نیز با تأویل تجربه زیسته عارفان، از حصار تنگ مفاهیم فلسفی عبور و از زبان تمثیل و رمز برای تبیین موضوع عشق استفاده میکند.
This study compares Ahmad Ghazali and Jean-Luc Marion's thoughts about love using a descriptive-analytical method. Despite the differences between these two thinkers in terms of thought and time, the content of their thoughts is similar in some ways. In writing Savaneh al-Oshshaq, Ghazali uses the method of esoteric commentary to discover the mysteries of Sufi, and Marion uses Heidegger's phenomenology to explain the hidden angles of the love phenomenon. According to the fact that orientalists like Henry Corbin consider the method of phenomenology in the occident tradition to be in line with the esoteric commentary (Revelation of the Veiled or Kashf al-Mahjoub of Muslim mystics), the comparison of Marion's phenomenological approach and Ghazali's interpretation seems logical in a way. These two thinkers talk about the univocality of the concept of love and do not divide love into metaphorical and real aspects. Therefore, Ghazali and Marion consider love to have the same meaning, whether in human relationships or in connection with God. Marion's main goal is to refute the metaphysical dominance over theology and negate the conceptual and like idol attitude about God, and Ghazali interprets the lived experience of mystics, crosses the narrow fence of philosophical concepts, and uses the language of allegory and mystification to explain love. Keywords: Ghazali, Marion, Love, Saturated Phenomenon, The Event of Appropriation. IntroductionAhmad Ghazali is a Muslim mystic and theologian of the fifth century and Marion is a contemporary Christian theologian. These two thinkers are different from each other in terms of methodology and religious beliefs. In this study, the common and comparable themes between Ghazali and Marion are mostly discussed. Ghazali's distinction from many previous mystics was due to the centrality of love in mysticism. So far, no research has been done on the comparison of Marion's and Ghazali's views on the subject of love. According to Ghazali, the truth of love is one of the issues that cannot be obtained except with sapiential knowledge. He is a follower of spiritual intoxication (Sokr), and although love is an important feature of his mysticism, he calls people to follow religious law (Sharia). Marion, as a postmodern theologian who is influenced by the Neoplatonic tradition and Heidegger, examines the components of earthly love with a phenomenological approach and wants to provide a model for the romantic relationship between man and God. Ghazali also takes help from esoteric commentary in dealing with love and in this way explains the mysteries of the love relationship between man and God. In this research, to approximate Marion and Ghazali's methodological explanations, we will have a brief reference to Corbin's point of view for finding a nexus between Western Phenomenology and Muslim mystics' Kashf al-Mahjoub. It seems that, from the historical point of view, common foundations can be found between Marion's and Ghazali's thinking. In this perspective, the common basis of Marion and Ghazali's thought can be found in the Neoplatonic tradition. Materials and MethodsThe method of this research is based on the descriptive-analytical method. Before starting this type of research, the researcher has studied the theories, opinions, or results of previous studies on the research topic. By examining the thoughts of Ghazali and Marion about love, despite the difference in the intellectual background and era of these two thinkers, the researcher has found similar thoughts in some aspects, for example, the univocality and the ineffability of love. Research FindingsBoth Ghazali and Marion believe in the hierarchical character of love, in such a way that no boundary can be drawn between earthly love (eros) and divine love (agape). These two types of love are so united that there is no difference between them at all. In Marion's opinion, love does not only belong to God or man, but it is a general concept and widespread that can cover even erotic love. Ghazali considers love to be an existential truth that cannot be divided into metaphorical and divine love; rather, all that counts as gradations of love refer to one thing. According to him, love is the absolute truth and the essence of unicity, and returns the difference in the levels of love to their commonality. These two thinkers believe that absolute love cannot be described or explained, but its characteristics can be expressed. Ghazali considers love to be a disaster and mishap in which comfort is unstable. He calls love a swallower of people (Mardom-Khar) because it destroys all the comfort, tranquility, and peace of the lover. Marion also sometimes describes love as a saturated phenomenon and a wonderful light that goes from extreme brightness to darkness. In this case, what happens is a single phenomenon through which other phenomena, even love, can be understood and intuited. Discussion of Results and ConclusionsThe phenomenon of love is the basis for comparing the thoughts of these two thinkers. Love is the most important mystical approach of Ghazali. Marion, referring to the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius in the Neoplatonic tradition, considers the best name for God to be good or love. Marion explains love using philosophical concepts, but Ghazali uses cipher, allegory, sign, and symbolic images to express his thoughts. Ghazali has used the method of esoteric commentary in writing his works, especially the Savaneh, and has been trying to give a mystical interpretation of the mysteries of Sufi, but the method that Marion uses in analyzing his material is phenomenology. The possibility of bringing Ghazali and Marion's thinking closer should be sought in Henry Corbin's thinking, which adapts the phenomenology of the West to the revelation of the veiled (Kashf al-Mahjoub) as a hermeneutics of Muslim mystics. Ghazali tries to go beyond the surface and reach the inner meanings of the verses by an esoteric commentary of the Qur'an and Marion is also trying to get to the depth of the meaning of divine unfoldment as an event of appropriation, by passing the appearance of theology and breaking the conceptual idols about God. Both thinkers believe that love is a single truth, unit, and commonality of meaning which is rooted in the influence of both of them from the Neoplatonic tradition. In the Neoplatonic tradition, reality has a gradual increase in intensity and there is no leap in it. Therefore, there is no precise demarcation between human love and divine love.
خلاصه ماشینی:
هدف اصلي ماريون، فراروي از غلبه متافيزيك بر الهيات و نفي نگرش مفهومي و بُتگونه دربارۀ خداوند است و غزالي نيز با تأويل تجربه زيسته عارفان، از حصار تنگ مفاهيم فلسفي عبور و از زبان تمثيل و رمز براي تبيين موضوع عشق استفاده ميكند.
به نظر ميرسد پيوندگاه انديشه ماريون و غزالي سنت نوافلاطوني است؛ زيرا ماريون اين جريان فكري را مفرّي براي گريز از تنگناي مفاهيم متافيزيكي ميداند و حكماي مسلمان نيز آنچه را به ارسطو نسبت ميدادند، درواقع منظر فكري فلوطين بود.
ترديدي نيست كه غزالي متكلم است؛ ولي او مستقيماً يا غيرمستقيم متأثر از سنت مشائي است و بهویژه در تفسير پديده عشق از آثار فلسفي و برخي از رسالات تمثيلي ابنسينا بهره ميبرد و از اين نظر رگههايي از سنت نوافلاطوني در جان مايه انديشه او ديده ميشود.
از ديگر موضوعات مورد وفاق آنها اهميتدادن به شهود عرفاني بهعنوان يك منبع موثق معرفتي براي مقابله با نگرش متافيزيكي دربارۀ خداوند است و ازنظر روششناختي هم ميتوان با الهام از هانري كربن، پديدارشناسي ماريون را با كشفالمحجوب يا تأويلگرايي غزالي از جهاتي منطبق دانست.
برای روشنشدن مطلب به ذکر يك نمونه از تأویل وی با محوريت مفهوم عشق بسنده میشود: تفسير غزالی از آیه 30 سوره بقره در سوانح اين است: وقتي ملائکه به خداوند گفتند چرا انسان را برمیگزینی با وجود اینکه ما پیوسته مشغول حمد و تقدیس توئيم، حقتعالی فرمود او خصوصیتی دارد که شما ندارید.
به نظر او، هستي همان خداوند يا سوژه متعال است و آنگاه كه انسان در معرض انكشاف الهي قرار ميگيرد، وجه فاعلي خود را از دست ميدهد و جنبه قابلي يا انفعالي پيدا ميكند.