پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 938 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,697 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,624,687 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,986,780 |
مقایسه آراء مرتضی مطهری و جان هیک درباره شرور و دلالت های تربیتی آن | ||
| اندیشه های نوین تربیتی | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 03 دی 1402 اصل مقاله (694.59 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/jontoe.2023.43363.3762 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نازیلا صالحی* 1؛ علی ستاری2؛ مریم بناهان2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2استادیار گروه مدیریت و برنامه ریزی آموزشی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| دیدگاه های متفاوت در ارتباط با شرور، حاکی از کارکرد دو گانه آن مبنی بر دو وجهه مثبت و منفی است. با پذیرش این کارکرد دو گانه، مساله اساسی که در این جا مطرح می شود این است که در نظام های تربیتی ما، رویکرد مواجهه با شرور تاکنون، یک رویکرد اجتنابی و پرهیز از شرور بوده لذا به شر از دیدگاه مواجهه ای که می تواند دارنده زمینه ای تربیتی باشد نگاه نشده است به همین دلیل این پژوهش با هدف مقایسه آراء مرتضی مطهری و جان هیک به منظور دریافت دلالت های تربیتی در مورد شرور انجام شده است. در انجام این پژوهش با استفاده از روش چهار مرحله ای جرج زد. اف. بردی که شامل چهار مرحله توصیف، تفسیر، همجواری و مقایسه است ابتدا مبانی شر از دیدگاه هر دو اندیشمند توصیف، تبیین و تفسیر، سپس با هم مقایسه و مورد نقد و ارزیابی قرار گرفت و در نهایت دلالت های تربیتی ارائه شد. نتایج این پژوهش حاکی از آن است که آراء دو چهره اندیشمند دینی درباره شرور دارای رویکرد غنی تری نسبت به رویکردهای قدیم تر از جمله رویکرد تقدیرگرایانه و مبارزه طلبانه است. رویکرد آن ها در این زمینه با عنوان رویکرد مواجهه با شرور به مثابه موقعیت تربیتی شناسایی شد. این رویکرد انسان را به جای گریز، مبارزه و انفعال در برابر شرور، در مواجهه سازنده با آن ها قرار داده و از موقعیت عارض شدن شرور به عنوان موقعیتی تربیتی بهره می گیرد. در این رویکرد تهدید های ناشی از شرور به فرصت های تربیتی سازنده تبدیل می شود که می تواند در پرورش روح و فضیلت های اخلاقی انسان کارساز باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| شرور؛ جان هیک؛ مرتضی مطهری؛ دلالت های تربیتی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A comparison of opinions by Morteza Motahari and John Hick on evil and the educational implications | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| nazila salehi1؛ ali sattari2؛ Maryam banahan2 | ||
| 1Ph.D student, Department of Educational Administration and planning, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and planning, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The present study aims to compare the opinions of Morteza Motahari and John Hick on evil for its educational implications using George Bereday’s four-step comparison model of description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison. Initially, the opinions of Motahari and Hick on evil were described based on the philosophical components before being interpreted and criticized. In the juxtaposition stage, the information obtained in the description, interpretation, and criticism stages were categorized to set up a framework for the next stage of comparing similarities and differences of opinion between the two thinkers on evil. Finally, the resulting educational implications of their opinions were presented. Research findings show that the opinions of Motahari and Hick on evil as two religious thinkers prompt people to face evil in a constructive manner and exploit its emergence for educational purposes instead of fleeing, attacking, or remaining passive towards it. In this approach, the threats of evil are transformed into moral education, cultivating the human spirit and moral virtues. Introduction Evil as the absence of good (Haas, et al, 2022: 83) has been introduced with a dual function. One aspect states that evil is not extremely bad but that good cannot exist and be perceived without bad. For instance, in an article titled “The Counterpart and Appreciation Theodicies”, McBrayer(2013) states that good cannot exist without evil and that we are unable to know, recognize, and appreciate good and other issues without evil. The other aspect states that evil is inherently bad and unnecessary in the world (Pinak, 2003: 132), and so must be confronted. The first generation of the Frankfurt School theorists, i.e. Gramsci, Freire, and Giraud, believe that the way to confront deprivation, domination, and educational discrimination as examples of moral evil is the creation of change by community elites (Kardan, 2009: 271-272), liberating education for reform, raising awareness, empowering the oppressed and deprived, and critical literacy, respectively (Kardan, 2009: 272). By accepting the dual function of evil, the main question that arises is that in most education systems, the issue of evil is generally frowned upon as inherently undesirable, to be avoided. Although much recommendation exists on confronting evil, this has not yet been considered as an opportunity to educate (turning threat into opportunity). To achieve this, and to attain its educational implications, the present study uses a descriptive analytical method to explain the approaches of Morteza Motahari and John Hick as two religious thinkers in facing evil and the educational implications of each approach. Methodology We used a qualitative approach and George Z. F. Bereday’s four-step comparison model of description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison for this basic research (Aghazadeh, 2012: 126). In the description stage, the phenomena and examples under research, i.e. the opinions of Motahari and Hick, were described based on the philosophical components. The information described by the researcher in the first stage was interpreted next. At this stage, the data collected in the first stage was criticized based on its weak and strong points. In the juxtaposition stage, the information obtained in the description, interpretation, and criticism stages were categorized to set up a framework for the next stage of comparing similarities and differences of opinions between the two thinkers on evil. Finally, the resulting educational implications of their opinions were presented. Results In general, the opinions of Motahari and Hick are rooted in a religious approach in ontological terms with a central belief in God, Judgment Day, and life after death. This, in turn, is rooted in another ontological belief in which evil is considered necessary for existence and inevitable for the growth and evolution of humankind. Ontologically, in addition to the aforementioned similarities, both thinkers have considered the existence of evil as an opportunity for self-improvement and spiritual cultivation, at the same time as recommending the fight against it in an integrated manner. Anthropologically, both thinkers believe that humans have free will and see evil as a necessity for evolution and growth. They consider that humans have the free will and choice to counter evil as a natural right and see evil as an environment for the emergence of human skills. Epistemologically, Motahari and Hick see evil as a factor for thought, reflection, educator of wisdom, and the bedrock of human scientific genius. Hence, in a shared opinion with Motahari, Hick believes that the advancement of experimental sciences such as physics, chemistry, medicine, science and technology, and culture and civilization is owed to the existence of evil. By considering evil as a factor of growth and evolution, an important aspect of which includes cognitive growth and development of human insight, Motahari and Hick join voices to recommend the two approaches of fighting evil and at the same time exploiting it for its cognitive opportunities. Therefore, they are of the same opinion in focusing on the cognitive opportunities produced by evil. For instance, in the first type of evil such as ignorance, incompetence, intellectual poverty, and lowly character traits, leading to the creation of type two evils such as microbes, floods, and earthquakes, Motahari adopts the approach of countering evil as a cognitive struggle in the former to block the path of the latter. Namely, by using cognitive thinking skills and reasoning, it is possible to block the occurrence of type two evils such as floods and earthquakes. Axiologically, Motahari and Hick believe that evil must exist to reveal spiritual and apparent beauty, and moral virtues and goodness. Thus, based on axiology, they share similar opinions. On the other hand, their approach to type two evils such as disasters and hardships is an evolutionary one because both believe that human bliss flourishes at times of loss and deprivation; that in the absence of disasters and hardships, bliss finds no meaning. Ontological differences go back to the existence and nonexistence of evil. Motahari is of the opinion that evil is inherently nonexistent (Motahari, 1997: 156), while Hick is of the opinion that evil is a natural part of the universe which is intertwined with it (Hick, 2010: 39). Another difference between Motahari and Hick on the subject of evil is related to their definition of ontology. Motahari sees evil as a necessity of Divine wisdom and justice (Motahari, 2009: 90), while Hick sees the joys of heaven as a reward and compensation for the harm (Hick, 2007: 338). Therefore, in Hick’s thought, only Divine justice for evil is explained. Discussion and conclusion Overall, both thinkers hold an active stance on the subject of evil and a constructive approach to exploiting various evil situations. This approach can be used instead of or in conjunction with the approach to avoiding evil or surrendering to it and believes that evil holds educational opportunities for spiritual cultivation and moral virtues on the path of human perfection. The approaches of both thinkers hold educational importance. Both encourage people to counter evil actively and constructively instead of passively and consider evil as a factors for the stimulation of thought, production of knowledge, enrichment of science, and bedrock of spiritual cultivation and moral virtues in humans. Both thinkers believe that actively encountering evil transforms threat into opportunity in educational terms and cultivates the human spirit and moral virtues. Thus, Hick and Motahari believe that the important educational implications of evil lie in exploiting it as a platform to educate the individual and the community. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Evil, John Hick, Morteza Motahari, Educational implications | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdullahnejad, M., & Rafiqi, S. (2016). A look at the new concept of Kant's good will. The Journal of Philosophy of Religion,14(3),465-486.http:// doi.org / 10.2059/JPHT.2017.202337.1005344. (Text in Persian). Aghazdah, A.(2012). Comparative education. Samt Pub. (Text in Persian). Askari, Z., Nowrozi, A., & Mohammadi, R.(2016). From suffering to treasure: analysis of three roles to the educationalrole of suffering. The Journal of New educational ideas, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Al-zahra University, 13( 1), 51-73. http://doi.org/ 10.22051/jontoe.2017.11183.1402(Text in Persian). Buss, D. M(2019).Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (6th ed.). Clack, B.(2013). feminism and the problem of evil in:The Blackwell companion to the problem of evil, first Edition. Edited by justin p. McBrayer and Daniel Howard -snyder, wiley-Blackwell,326-339.http://doi.org/10,1002/9781118608005.ch22. Gutek, G.L.(2012). Philosophical Schools and Educational Opinions.(M.Pak Sarasht, translator).Samt pub. (Text in Persian). Haas, J, Vogt., & k.m (2022). Good and Evil in Recent Discussions - Good and Evil in Virtue Ethics.Zeitschrift fur Ethik Und Moralphilosophie. volume 5, 83–88 .https:// dio.org/10.1007/s42048-022-00122-1. Hick, J (1997). Philosophy of Religion.(B,Rad, Translator). Al-Hadi International Pub.(Text in Persian). Hick, J( 2010). Evil and The God of love. Palgrave Macmillan London pub. Hick, J(1989). An Interpretation of Religio: Human Response to the Transcendent. NewHaven and London.Yale. University press pub. Hick, J(1990). philosophy of Religion, fourth Edition, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Hick, J(2007). D. Z. Phillips on god and evil. Religious Studies. No.43; Cambridge university pub. Hick, J(2018). Philosophy of Religion. Mahdi International Pub.(Text in Persian). Hosseini Shahroudi, M., Masoudi, G., & Darabi, K. (2017). The relationship between agency and moral evil from the point of view of Mulla Sadra and Augustine.The Journal of Scientific-Research Quarterly of Ayan Hikmat.10(38), 57-80.http://dio.org/ 10.22081/PWQ.2019.66668(Text in Persian). Idoko, B.(2020). A Moral Resolution to the problem of Evil. Nnamdi Azikiwe Journal of Philosophy, Vol.12(1) ,54-66 http://doi.org/2504-8694. E-ISSN.2635-3709. Kant, I (2008). Lessons in moral philosophy. (M, Saneyi Dareh Beidi,Translator)Naqsh and Negar Pub.(2008) (Text inPersian). Kardan, A(2009).The course of educational opinions in the West. Samt pub.(Text in Persian). Malekian, M(2000). History of Western Philosophy (Collection of Professor Malekian's lessons).College andUniversity Research Institute pub.(Text in Persian). Mcbrayer, J.p.(2013). counterpart and appreciation theodiciies:,in the blak well compantion to the problem of evill,firstedition.edited by justin p. mcbrayer and Daniel howard -snyder,wiley-blackwell.192-204. http://doi.org/10.1002 /9781118608005. Misbah Yazdi, M.T.(2015). Moral Philosophy.Qom Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute pub(Text in Persian). Motahari, M (1997). Philosophical essays. Sadra Pub.(Text in Persian). Motahari, M (2009). Adl Elahi. Sadra Pub.(Text in Persian). Motahari, M (Bita).Principles of philosophy and the method of realism. Volumes 7 and 5. Islamic Pub Office. (Text in Persian). Nasri, A(1984).Complete picture from the perspective of schools. Tehran: Academic Jihad of Allameh TabatabaiUniversity pub.(Text in Persian). Peterson, M (2018). God and evil: Textbook on the issue of evil.(H, Ghanbari, Translator).Taha pub.(Text in Persian). pia lara, M(2001). A postmetaphysical theory of Reflective judgment, in rethinking Evil, contemporary perspective (m.pia lara editor). university of California press pub. Pinnok, C(2003). the Metaphysics of Love , Bentall Lectures in theology. Plantinga, A(1997). Philosophy of Religion (God, free will, evil).( M.Saeedi Mehr, Translator).Qom: Taha CulturalInstitute(1997)(Text in Persian). Pour Mohammadi, N (2017). About Evil. Volume 1. Taha Pub. (Text in Persian). Qardan Qaramalki, M(2010). God and the problem of evil. Bostan Kitab Pub.(Text in Persian). Shato, J(2009). Great coaches)Gh. Shekohi,translator).University of Tehran pub.(2009)(Text in Persian). Shats, D (2013). on constructing a jewish theodicy the in : the blackwell companion to the problem of Evil first edition.edited by Gustin p.mc brayer and Daniel howard -snyder wiley -blackwell.309-325.http://doi.org/10,1002/9781118608005ch13. Shirazi, S (1981). Commentary on the book Asfar Sadr al-Maltahin, volume 7. Dar al-Ahaya al-Trath al-Arabi pub. (Text in Persian). Shirazi, S (2003). Explanation of the principles of al-Kafi: Volume 1 and 7. (M. Khojawi editor ). Tehran: Research Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies pub. (Text in Persian). Staub, E.(2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help and harm others. Cambridge University Press. Suienburn, R (2012). Is there a God? .( M.Javedan, Translator).Mofid University Pub.(2012)(Text in Persian). Swinburne, R (1996). Some Major strands of theodicy, the Evidental Argument from Evil.(ed, Howard SnyderDaniel).indianna university press pub. Swinburne, R (2003). Providence and the problem of evil, Oxford: Clarendon press, Oxford University. Swinburne, R(1998). Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford:Clarendon Press. Oxford University. Taliaferro, C; meister, C; & harisson, S.(2018).The History of Evil in the Early Twentieth Century: 1900-1950».location: London pub. Trakakis,N.N.(2013).”Antitheodicy“,in the Blackwell companion to the problem of vile.edited by Justine p.Mcbrayer and Daniel Howard Snyder,willy Blackwell. Vahidi, M., Dehbashi, M., & Shanazari, J.(2013). Comparison of the solution to the problem of evil from the point ofView of John Hick and Allameh Tabatabai. journal of Theological Knowledge Quarterly,4(2),95-119. http://doi.org/ Vol.4. No.2, Fall & Winter, 2013-14. (Text in Persian). | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 150 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 179 |
||
