








‫أﺳﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﺑﻘﺴﻢ اﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪرﯾﺔ‬- ‫ﻛﻠﯿﺔ اﻵداب‬


PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

 ٨٤٤

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

 ‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻗﺩ ﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺭﻴﺏ ﻷﻭل ﻭﻫﻠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺸﻬﺩ ﺼﻌﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻭﻨﺸﺄﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺒﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ – ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺒﺎﺸﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻻﺩﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺸﺌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻭﻨﻅﺎﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ؟‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻴﻘﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻻﺘﺴﺎﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل(‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺄﺴﻴﺱ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻭﺠﻴﺘﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭ؟ ﻭﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭﺓ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ؟‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﻗﻭﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺘﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺃﺸﺩ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺒﺎﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ ﻟﻌﺼﺭﻩ ﻭﻟﻁﺒﻘﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﻤﻰ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﻫﻭ ﻫﺩﻓﻨﺎ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﻨﺎﻩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ‬
‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻨﻁﻠﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ "ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﺴﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ" ‪ ،Sociological Materialism‬ﺃﻱ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﻠﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﻴﺸﻬﺎ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﻻ ﻴﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻴﺭﺩﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺤﺼﺭﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻴﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﺍﻻﻨﺘﻤﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻤﺤﺩ‪‬ﺩ ﻤﺎﺩﻱ – ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺸﺎﺭﻁﺎﹰ ﻟﻺﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻜﺭ‪ .‬ﻅﻬﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺠﻪ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺴﺒﻕ ﻟﻠﻌﺩﻴﺩ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻜﺭﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻴﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻭﺍ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻜﺎﺸﻔﺔ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺭﺤﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﻥ ﻫﺅﻻﺀ‪ :‬ﺠﻭﺭﺝ ﻟﻭﻜﺎﺘﺵ ﻓﻲ "ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ")‪ ،(١‬ﻭﺴﺎﺭﺘﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﻪ "ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ ﻋﻥ ﻤﻨﻬﺞ")‪ ،(٢‬ﻭﻟﻭﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺠﻭﻟﺩﻤﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﻴﻪ‬
‫"ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻔﻲ")‪ (٣‬ﻭ"ﺇﻤﺎﻨﻭﻴل ﻜﺎﻨﻁ")‪ ،(٤‬ﻭﺃﻨﻁﻭﻨﻴﻭ ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﻪ "ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ")‪.(٥‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﻬﺩﻑ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺸﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺘﺒﺭﺯ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻜل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪1) Lukacs, Georg, History and Class Consciousness. Translated by Rodney Livingstone.‬‬
‫‪(London: Merlin Press, 1967).‬‬
‫‪2) Sartre, Jean-Paul, Search For A Method. Translated with Introduction by Hazel E.‬‬
‫‪Barnes (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963).‬‬
‫‪3) Goldmann, Lucien, The Hidden God: A Study of the Tragic Vision in the Pensee of‬‬
‫‪Pascal and the Tragedies of Racine. Translated by Philip Thody. (London and New‬‬
‫‪York: Routledge, 2014, 1st ed. 1964).‬‬
‫‪4) Goldmann, Lucien, Immanuel Kant (London/ New York: Verso, 2011/ first published‬‬
‫)‪1945‬‬
‫‪5) Antonio Negri, The Political Descartes: Reason, Ideology, and the Bourgeois Project.‬‬
‫‪Translated and introduced by Matteo Mandarini and Alberto Toscano. (London. New‬‬
‫)‪York, Verso, 2007‬‬
‫‪٨٤٥‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫أوﻻً‪ :‬ﻋﻼﻗ ﺔ ﻓﻜ ﺮ دﯾﻜ ﺎرت ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺿ ﻊ اﻟﻄﺒﻘ ﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻮرﺟﻮازﯾ ﺔ اﻟﻔﺮﻧ ﺴﯿﺔ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﻘ ﺮن‬
‫اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .١‬اﻟﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﻲ ﻟﺒﻮرﺟﻮازﯾﺔ اﻟﻘﺮن اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻭﺠﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻀﻊ ﻭ‪‬ﺴ‪‬ﻁﻲ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﻤ‪‬ﻠﹶﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﻜﹶﻨﹶﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺘﺤﺎﻟﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎل ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺤﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻴﻥ ﺘﻡ ﻋﺯﻟﻬﻡ ﻋﻥ ﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ)‪ ،(٦‬ﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻴﺩ ﻟﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻬﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻭﺘﺤﺼل ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯﺓ‬
‫ﻫﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺴﻊ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﺫﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻟﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻤﺠﺎل‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺘﻭﻟﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﻕ ﻭﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﻓﻕ ﻤﻨﻁﻕ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺎل‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺴﻌﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺒﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺯﻋﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻟﺩﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻴﺄﺘﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻭﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ )ﻻ‬
‫ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺭﻴﻊ ﻤﺜﻼﹰ(‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻨﺸﺄﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺠﻬﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤ‪‬ﺸﻜﱠل ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺎﹰ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺤﻤﻲ ﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺤﺎﻭل‬
‫ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﻤﺠﺎل ﻟﻬﻴﻤﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ‬
‫ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻀﺎﻓﺭ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻟﺹ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺭﺕ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺭﺍﺩﻴﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﺒﺩﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ ﻭﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻅﻬﺭ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻫﺩﺍﺀ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ‬

‫‪ (6‬ﻴﺸﻴﺭ ﻤﺼﻁﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ ‪ Ursprung Akumulation‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻨﺯﻉ ﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﻀﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺘﺎﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺯﺭﺍﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻨﺠﻠﺘﺭﺍ ﻭﺒﻌﺽ ﻤﻨﺎﻁﻕ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﺒﺘﺩﺍﺀ‪ ‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻤﺱ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺤﻭﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺘﺴﻴﻴﺠﻬﺎ ﻭﻤﻨﻊ ﻋﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﺍﺭﻋﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻭل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺨﺼﺨﺼﺔ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻬﺎ ﺒﺩﺃﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﺼل ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﻴﻥ ﻋﻥ ﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﻭﺘﺤﻭﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ‪ .‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻨﺯﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﻭﻟﺼﺎﻟﺤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻀل ﻤﺼﻁﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ "ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ" ‪ Primal/ Primary‬ﻻ‬
‫"ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻲ" ﺃﻭ "ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﺌﻲ" ‪Primitive‬؛ ﻷﻥ "ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ" ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺼﻭﺩ ﺒﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Ursprung‬ﺍﻷﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﻬﺎ ﻤﺎﺭﻜﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﻪ "ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺎل"‪.‬‬
‫‪٨٤٦‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻴﺩ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺘﺫﺓ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺕ ﺒﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﺭﺒﻭﻥ)‪ ،(٧‬ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﺎﻩ ﻟﻬﻡ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻋﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻘﻭل ﺒﺎﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺨﻠﻭﺩﺍﹰ ﻋﻘﻠﻴﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺘﻅﻬﺭ‬
‫ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻭﻟﻪ‪" :‬ﻭﻜﻨﺕ ﺃﺠلﱡ ﻋﻠﻭﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻁﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻜﻐﻴﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻥ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺕ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﺅﻜﺩﺍﹰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﻤﻬﺩﺍﹰ‪ ...‬ﻭﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺤﻰ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻬﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻭﻕ ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻡ ﻴﻜﻥ ﻟﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺠﺭﺅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺴﻠﻤﻬﺎ ﻟﻀﻌﻑ ﺍﺴﺘﺩﻻﻻﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺃﻴﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻤﺘﺤﺎﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻤﺘﺤﺎﻨﺎﹰ ﻤﻭﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﺘﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﻷﻥ ﻴ‪‬ﻤ‪‬ﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﺒﻤﺩﺩ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﺔ ﻓﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭ")‪ .(٨‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻴﻅﻬﺭ‬
‫ﺒﻭﻀﻭﺡ ﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺘﻪ ﺒﺘﻨﺎﺯﻟﻪ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺤﺹ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻀﻌﺎﹰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻓﻭﻕ ﻗﺩﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻱ ﻭﻗﺩﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﻜﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﺴﺘﻌﺩﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﺍﻡ ﻟﺘﻨﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎﹰ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺍﻷﻤﺭ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻻﻗﺘﺭﺍﺏ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺤﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻗﺩ ﺃُﺠﺒﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺘﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺃﺒﺩﺍﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ)‪ ،(٩‬ﺒل ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺇﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﺒﻨﺯﻋﺔ ﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﺘﺨﺫﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﺩﺍﻋﻤﺎﹰ ﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺘﺨﺫﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺩ ﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻭﺠﻬﺎﹰ ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﺃﻴﺩﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺜﺎﺒﺘﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻁﺎﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺜﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻬﺎﺩﻥ ﻭﺍﻹﺼﻼﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻴﻨﻌﻜﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺭﻯ ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ)‪ .(١٠‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺼﻴﻑ ﻫﻭ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺴﻴﺤﻜﻡ ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺒﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﺨﺎﺭﺠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺄﻟﻭﻑ ﻋﺼﺭﻫﺎ ‪ ،anomaly‬ﺒﺴﺒﺏ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺃﻭﺍﻨﻬﺎ)‪ .(١١‬ﻭﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺃﻭﺍﻨﻬﺎ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ ﻓﻲ‬

‫‪ (7‬ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ :‬ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‪ .‬ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻜﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺝ‪ .‬ﻤﻨﺸﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻭﻴﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺒﻴﺭﻭﺕ‪ /‬ﺒﺎﺭﻴﺱ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .١٩٨٨‬ﺹ ‪.٥‬‬
‫‪ (8‬ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ :‬ﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ‪ .‬ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻤﺤﻤﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﻀﻴﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺘﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ،١٩٦٨‬ﺹ ‪.١١٧ – ١١٦‬‬
‫‪ (9‬ﻭﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺁﺨﺭ ﺤﺴﺏ ﺃﺤﺩﺙ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺤﻭﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪Neil Davidson, :‬‬
‫‪How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions?. (Chicago: Haymarket Books,‬‬
‫‪2012).‬‬
‫‪10) Antonio Negri, The Political Descartes, pp. 6 – 10.‬‬
‫‪11) Antonio Negri, The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza’s Metaphysics and‬‬
‫‪Politics. Translated by Michael Hardt. (Minneapolis, Oxford: University of‬‬
‫‪Minnesota Press, 1991), pp. 3 – 11.‬‬
‫‪٨٤٧‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺤﻅﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﺇﺩﺍﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻁﻭﺍل ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻤﻥ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﺃﻜﺒﺭ ﺩﻟﻴل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻟﻡ ﺘﺘﺤﻤل ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻥ ﻟﻨﻌﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﺎ ﻜﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﻨﻘﻭل ﺇﻥ ﻻ‪-‬ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺇﺼﻼﺤﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺤﺎﻭل ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻘﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻨﻔﺱ ﻭﻗﺕ ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ؛ ﺇﺫ ﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﺒﺭﻫﻨﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺭ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﺸﻙ ﻭﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺭﺍﻥ ﻋﻥ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺩﻡ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ ﻷﺴﺎﺘﺫﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺕ ﺒﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﺭﺒﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻫل ﺃﺜﺒﺕ ﺒﻤﻨﻬﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ‬
‫ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ؟ ﺇﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻨﺠﺩﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻘﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻨﺠﺩ ﺃﺒﺩﺍﹰ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺘﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺸﺨﺹ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ ﻭﻁﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺩﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻭﺙ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻪ ﺍﻹﺼﻼﺤﻲ ﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﻨﻪ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻟﻭ‬
‫)‪(١٢‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﺭﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﻭل ﺇﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻟﻥ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺭﻴﺴﺘﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻠﻴﺱ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﻔﻁﺭﻱ؛ ﻭﻜﺄﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﺸﻴﺭ ﻤﻥ ﻁﺭﻑ‬
‫ﺨﻔﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺭﻴﺴﺘﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺎ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻨﻁﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﻫﻭ ﻻ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺤﺘﻰ ﺍﻹﺸﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺒﻌﻴﺩ‪ .‬ﻨﺎﻫﻴﻙ ﻋﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺠﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻴﺒﺘﻌﺩ ﻋﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻨﻘﻁﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻑ ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﺘﺼﻔﺕ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ ﺒﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻡ‬
‫ﺘﺩﺨل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﺭﺍﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﺎﺌﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺌﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ ﺤﻭل ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﻻﺴﺘﻘﻼل ﻓﻌل ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺫﺍﺘﻴﺔ ﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻌل‪ ،‬ﻤﻤﺎ ﻴﺅﻜﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻗﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻤﺎ ﺃﺨﻔﺎﻩ ﻋﻥ ﻗﹸﺭﺍﺌﻪ ﻫﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻭﺍﺠﻬﻪ ﻀﻤﻨﺎﹰ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺭﻴﺢ ﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌل‬
‫ﺒﻔﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻤﻊ ﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺃﺒﺩﺍﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﻌﺘﻨﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻴﻁﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ‬

‫‪ (12‬ﺍﻟﻜﺭﻴﺴﺘﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺎ ‪ Christology‬ﻫﻲ ﺃﺤﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺩﺭﺱ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺢ‪.‬‬
‫‪٨٤٨‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻜﺜﺭ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻡ‬
‫ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺭﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﺇﻻ ﻤﻊ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻭﺃﺘﺒﺎﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺜﻡ ﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻤﻥ ﻋﺸﺭ )ﺩﻴﺩﺭﻭ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭﻟﺒﺎﺥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻠﻔﺸﻴﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻻﻤﺘﺭﻱ(‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٢‬ﺗﺤﺪﯾﺪ اﻟﺸﺮﯾﺤﺔ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ اﻧﺘﻤﻰ إﻟﯿﮭﺎ دﯾﻜﺎرت‪:‬‬

‫ﻜﻲ ﻨﺘﻔﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺍﻋﺙ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻜﻤﻥ ﺨﻠﻑ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺭﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺸﺭﻴﺤﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻐﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﺎﺌﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﻤﺠﺎﻟﺱ ﺤﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺒﺭﻟﻤﺎﻨﺎﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‪ .‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺘﺴﻤﻰ "ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ" ‪ ،Noblesse de Robe‬ﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺘﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺒﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺭﺘﺩﺍﺀ ﺯﻱ‬
‫ﻤﻌﻴﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻟﻤﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻟﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻜﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﻨﺒﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﺎﺌﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺸﻐﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜل ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺼل‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺘﻤﻜﻨﺕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻷﻫﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺠﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺒﺭﻟﻤﺎﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻁﻌﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺅﻫﺎ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺘﻤﻴﻴﺯﻫﻡ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﻡ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ "ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ" ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﻤﺜل ﻨﺒﻼﺀ "ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻑ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻡ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺭﻴﻴﻥ ﻋﻤﻭﻤﺎﹰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻨﺒﻼﺀ "ﺍﻷﺭﺽ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻡ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﺜﺭﻭﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﺌﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﻁﺎﻋﺕ ﺘﺒﻭﺀ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻲ ﺘﺴﺎﻭﺕ‬
‫ﻤﻊ ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﺒﻔﻀل ﻜﻔﺎﺀﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻨﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻴ‪‬ﻌﺭﻑ ﻋﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ‬
‫ﻨﺒﻭﻏﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﺒﻲ)‪.(١٣‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﺒﻨﺎﹰ ﻷﺤﺩ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻫﺅﻻﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﺒﻭﻩ ﻤﺴﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﺒﺭﻟﻤﺎﻥ ﻤﻘﺎﻁﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺒﺭﻴﺘﺎﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺭﺙ ﻋﻥ ﺃﻤﻪ ﺃﻤﻼﻜﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﺴﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻭﺍﺘﻭ ﻀﻤﻨﺕ ﻟﻪ ﺩﺨﻼﹰ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺍﹰ ﻤﻨﺘﻅﻤﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻤﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻫﻲ ﺘﺩﻋﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻁﺒﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻴﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺸﻬﺩﺘﻪ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﻤﻜﻨﺕ ﺒﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺎﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒﺩﺃﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﺘﺘﺭﺠﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬

‫‪13) Goldmann, The Hidden God, pp. 103 ff; cf. Pierre Bourdieu, The State Nobility: Elite‬‬
‫‪Schools in the Field of Power. Translated by Lauretta C. Clough (Cambridge: Polity‬‬
‫‪Press, 1996), pp. 327-335, 377-381.‬‬
‫‪٨٤٩‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺒﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻤﻤﺎﺜﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﺼﻌﺩﺕ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﺌﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺘﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺼﺏ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﺘﺒﻭﺃ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺘﻤﺎﺭﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻨﻅﺭﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻨﻪ ﻤﺠﺎل ﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻤﺠﺎل ﺘﺤﻘﻕ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ؛ ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻷﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭﺓ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﻘﻭل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻨﻪ ﻟﻥ ﻴﺴﻤﺢ ﺒﺸﻜﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﻷﻥ ﻴﻤﺘﺩ ﻟﻴﺼل ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺒﻼﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺴﻠﻁﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻜﻤﺔ ﻭﺩﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩ ﻭﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺴﺎﺌﺭﺍﹰ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻕ ﺍﻟﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺒﺤﺜﺕ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻤﺩﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻘل ﺒﺫﺍﺘﻪ ﻭﻤﺘﺤﺭﺭ ﻤﻥ ﻀﻐﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻡ ﻴﺸﻬﺩ‬
‫ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯﺓ ﻟﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﺭﺍﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﻟﺼﻌﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ؛ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻤﻥ ﻋﺸﺭ‬
‫ﺼﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﻅﺎﺌﻑ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻭﺭﺍﺜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﺘﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺍﻨﺩﻻﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺴﻨﺔ ‪١٧٨٩‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻭﺭﺍﺜﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻴ‪‬ﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺜﻡ‬
‫ﻗﻀﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﺌﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺼﺎﺤﺏ ﺼﻌﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻁﻤﻭﺤﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻌﻭﺩ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻤﻤﺎﺜل؛ ﺇﺫ‬
‫ﺴﻌﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﻨﺤﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﻭل ﻤﺤل ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﺤل ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﻤﺸﺭﻭﻋﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﻬﺩﻑ ﺇﺤﻼل ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻤﺤل ﺍﻟﺘﺭﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺼﻁﺩﻤﺕ ﺒﺎﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺘﻤﻜﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﺩﻴﻨﻴﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﻌﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﻁﻤﺢ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻬﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﻀﻴﺕ ﺒﺄﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻓﺌﺔ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯﺓ ﺘﻨﺒﻎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﻁﻴﻁ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻤﻁﺎﻤﻊ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻨﻘﻠﺒﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻓﺌﺔ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺌﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﺇﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻅﻬﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺤﺼل ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺭﻨﺴﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻤ‪‬ﺸﺒﻌﺎﹰ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻟﻭﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ؛ ﻓﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴ ﹰﺎ‬
‫ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻟﺩﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺔ ﻓﻜﺭﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻻﺼﻁﺩﺍﻡ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﻗﺒﻭل ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺩ ﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺱ ﺤﺎل ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ)‪.(١٤‬‬
‫ﻓﺒﻌﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺸﻠﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻨﻌﺯﻟﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻁﻤﻭﺤﺎﺘﻬﺎ‬

‫‪14) Negri, The Political Descartes, pp. 93 – 95.‬‬

‫‪٨٥٠‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﻭﻴﺕ ﻨﺯﻋﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻨﺯﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺘﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺃﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺭ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻨﺎ ﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺘﻜﺸﻑ ﻋﻥ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻓﺌﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻜﻔﺌﺔ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻫﻤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺘﺄﺘﻲ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺘﻤﻴﺯﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٣‬ﻓﻜﺮ دﯾﻜﺎرت اﻧﻌﻜﺎس ﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺗﻄﻮر اﻟﺒﻮرﺟﻮازﯾﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁﺔ ﺒﺸﻜل ﻜﺎﻤل ﺒﺎﻷﻭﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻗﺩ ﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺒﻌﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻗﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺘﻲ ﺒﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل ﺘﺤﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﺎﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺠﻌل ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺱ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﻭﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﺒﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪ ،‬ﺒل ﺇﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺠﻌﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻫﻭ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻘﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺸﻴﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﺌﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻨﺠﺩﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻗﻭﺓ ﻻﻤﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺼﺎﺤﺒﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻗﻭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ؛ ﺃﻱ ﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ – ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻗﻭﺓ‬
‫ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺒﺼﻔﺔ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻻﺒﺘﺩﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺤﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻗﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺘﻁﻭﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻤﻊ ﻤﺎ ﺼﺎﺤﺒﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻨﻘﺩﻱ ﻤﺘﻁﻭﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺘﻘﺩﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻡ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻊ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻥ ﻗﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺘﻤﺜل ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺭﺘﻴﺏ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺒﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﻌﻜﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺍﺨﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺭﺼﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺼﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻴﻁﺔ‪ ،‬ﺜﻡ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺘﺭﻜﻴﺒﻬﺎ ﻤﺭﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺘﺅﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺤل ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ)‪ .(١٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺴﻴﺭ‬

‫‪ (15‬ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ :‬ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻟﺘﻭﺠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‪ .‬ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻭﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﺴﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺴﻌﺩ ﺍﷲ‪ .‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺴﺭﺍﺱ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ‪ ،٢٠٠١‬ﺹ ‪ ٣٠‬ﻭﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺒﻌﺩﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪٨٥١‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺤﺴﺏ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻭﻓﻕ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺼﻠﺕ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺘﹸﻘﺴﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺒﺴﻁ ﻤﻜﻭﻨﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺤﺘﻰ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺘﻭﺯﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﻜﻔﺎﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ – ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺒﻲ ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻗﺒل ﻅﻬﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﺭﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺨﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻜﺸﻑ ﻋﻨﻪ "ﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ"‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﻘﻭل ﻤﺎﺭﻜﺱ ﻋﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻴﻘﺘﺼﺭ ﺃﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺜﻴﻘﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺏ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﺘﺼل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﺼﻭﺭﻩ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻭﺍﻨﺎﺕ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺁﻻﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻴﻜﺸﻑ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻨﻅﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺭ )ﺃﻭ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﺓ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺤﻴﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻨﻅﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﻭﺍﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﻌﺘﺒﺭﻫﺎ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﻤﺴﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﻟﻺﻨﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻭﺍﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻨﺎﺒﻌﺎﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻜﺭﻴﺎﹰ ﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﻗﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﺤﻜﻤﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﺓ ﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺁﻟﺔ؛ ﻭﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺁﻟﺔ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﺤﻭل ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻤل ﻭﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻤل ﻤﻌﻪ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻗﻭﺓ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﻟﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﻤﺼﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﻠﺭﺒﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺤﺴﺏ ﻤﺎﺭﻜﺱ ﻤﻭﺠﻬﺎﹰ ﺒﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻤﻜﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺼﺎﺭ ﻗﻭﺓ‬
‫ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ)‪ .(١٦‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻨﻅﺭﺓ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺭﻓﻊ ﻤﻜﺎﻨﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺱ ﻨﻔﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﻭﻓﺎﺌﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﺸﺒﻴﻬﻪ ﺇﻴﺎﻫﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﻨﺎﺌﻊ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻬﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺩﺭﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺤل ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼﺕ‪ ،‬ﺘﻨﺒﻊ ﻤﻥ ﺘﺒﻨﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻅﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻗﻭﺓ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ)‪.(١٧‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﺘﺠﻨﺏ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﺘﻭﺴﻴﻊ ﺸﻜﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﻭﺍﻷﺨﻼﻕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻥ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺁﻨﺫﺍﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺩﺍﻡ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل‬

‫‪16) Marx, Capital, I. (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959), P. 390.‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺴﺩ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺁﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﻀﺒﺎﻁﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﺍﺜﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻤﻴﺸﻴل ﻓﻭﻜﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭ "ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﻗﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﻻﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﻥ"‪ .‬ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻤﻘﻠﺩ‪ .‬ﻤﺭﻜﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺒﻴﺭﻭﺕ ‪.١٩٩٠‬‬
‫‪17) István Mészáros, Social Structure and Forms of Consciousness. Vol. I: The Social‬‬
‫‪Determination of Method. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010), pp. 20 – 21, 27‬‬
‫‪– 28.‬‬
‫‪٨٥٢‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺘﺤﺕ ﻭﺼﺎﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻋﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻓﺼل ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻲ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺭﺍﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺘﺘﻭﻻﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻧﯿﺎً‪ :‬اﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮى اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﮭﺞ‪:‬‬

‫‪ .١‬ﻧﻤﻂ اﻹﻧﺘﺎج وﻧﻈﺮﯾﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻗﺩ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﻁﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻨﺸﺄﺘﻬﺎ ﺒﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻷﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻁ‬
‫ﻴﺘﻁﻠﺏ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺱ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺍﺘﺨﺫ ﺸﻜ ﹰ‬
‫ﻼ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺭﻴﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﺒﺤﺙ ﻤﻨﺫ ﺸﺒﺎﺒﻪ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻋﻥ ﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﻓﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﺘﻀﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻤﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ)‪ .(١٨‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻷﻥ ﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﺓ ﺘﺘﻁﻠﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ ﻜﺸﺭﻁ ﻗﺒﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‪ ،‬ﺒﻀﻁﺒﻪ ﻭﺘﻨﻅﻴﻤﻪ ﻭﻋﻘﻠﻨﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺅﻫ‪‬ل ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻅﻬﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﻭﻓﻲ "ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ‬
‫ﻫﺩﺍﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل"‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﺎﻟﺫﻱ ﺤﻜﻡ ﻫﺫﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل)‪.(١٩‬‬
‫ﻴﻘﻭل ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﺼﻔﺎﹰ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻭﺜﻴﻕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪" :‬ﻜﻴﻑ ﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ]ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ[ ﻋﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ]ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ[؟‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺭﺍﺡ ﺒﻤﺸﺭﻭﻉ ﺠﺩﻴﺩ ﻻﻤﺘﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻴﺒﺩﺃ ﺒﻔﺼل ﻋﻨﺎﺼﺭﻩ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺼل ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﻫﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻴﺯ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻨﻤﻭﺫﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻤﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻜﺘﺎﺏ "ﺜﺭﻭﺓ ﺍﻷﻤﻡ" ﻵﺩﻡ ﺴﻤﻴﺙ؛‬
‫"ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﺒﺈﻋﻁﺎﺌﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻤﺭﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ‬
‫ﺜﺭﺍﺀ‪ ،"‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺭﺒﺤﺎﹰ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺍﺌﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻀﻴﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻭﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺒﻌﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﺜﻡ ﺘﺠﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺘﻌﻁﻴﻨﺎ ﻤﻨﺘﺠﺎﹰ‬

‫‪18) Sohn-Rethel, Alfred, Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology‬‬

‫‪(London: Macmillan, 1978), pp. 77-78.‬‬
‫‪19) Negri, The Political Descartes, P. 96.‬‬
‫‪٨٥٣‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺠﺩﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺜﺭﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺯﺍﺌﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻫﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﺫ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺏ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻲ؛ ﻭﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩﻩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﺎﹰ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤل؛ "ﺜﺎﻨﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ]ﺫﻫﻨﻲ[ ﻟﻠﻌﻤل‪ ،‬ﻜﺎﺸﻔﺎﹰ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻋﻥ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺯﺍﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺘﻌﺭﻴﻑ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ]ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ[ ﺘﻀﻊ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻤﻨﺫ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻀﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﺸﻜﺎل‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺌﻀﻴﺔ )ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﻴﺔ( ﻟﻠﻔﺼل ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻓﺘﺭﺍﺽ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻭﺤﺩﺓ"‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻔﺼل ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﻭﺘﻜﺎﻤل ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻴﻀﺎﹰ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻲ "ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﻬﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﻭﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﻴﺼﻴﺭﺍﻥ ﺠﺯﺀﺍﹰ ﻤﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪" .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻜﺭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ...‬ﻓﺎﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫]ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﻴﺔ[ ﺘﺩﻋﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﻭﺘﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﺩﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺘﺒﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺘﺘﻌﺎﻤل ﻤﻌﻪ ﺒﻨﺎﺌﻴﺎﹰ")‪.(٢٠‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﺄﻜﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻫﻭ ﺸﺭﺡ ﻟﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل‪ ،‬ﻴﺘﻀﺢ ﻤﻨﻪ ﺭﺒﻁﻪ ﺇﻴﺎﻫﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﺩﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل ﺴﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺭﺒﻁ ﻫﻭ ﺃﻭﻀﺢ ﺩﻟﻴل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻗﺎﺌﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﻨﺎﺒﻌﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻴﻘﻭل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪" :‬ﺒﻤﺎ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻜل ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻭل ﻟﺩﻴﻬﺎ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻌﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻟﻔﻙ‬
‫ﺘﻌﻘﻴﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺸﻴﺎﺀ ﺒﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺭﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻨﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻨﺘﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻜﺜﺭ ﺼﻌﻭﺒﺔ ﻭﻤﺸﻘﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﺘﻨﺎﻭل ﺃﺴﻬﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻴﺴﻭﺩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺞ ﻭﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺠﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺎﺀ ﻤﺜل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﻜﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻁﺭﻴﺯ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﺘﺸﺎﺒﻙ ﺍﻟﺨﻴﻭﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻨﻤﺎﻁ ﻻﻤﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻉ‪ ...‬ﻓﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻫﺵ‬
‫ﻜﻴﻑ ﺃﻥ ﻜل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻷﻨﺸﻁﺔ ﺘﺤﻔﺯ ﻋﻘﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺘﺩﺭﺒﻬﺎ‪ ...‬ﻓﺒﻤﺎ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻻ ﺸﻲﺀ ﻴﻅل ﺨﻔﻴﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻨﺸﻁﺔ ﻭﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻨﺎﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻘﺩﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺘﻘﺩﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﺘﻤﺎﻴﺯﻩ ﻭﺘﻨﻭﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺘﻼﻓﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺩﻴﺩ ﻋﻥ ﺒﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﻤﻨﺘﻅﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻤﺔ‬

‫‪20) Ibid: pp. 96 – 97.‬‬

‫‪٨٥٤‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﺘﺄﺴﺱ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ")‪ .(٢١‬ﻨﻼﺤﻅ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻴﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺏ ﻗﺎﺌﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﺩﻭﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﺇﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﻗﺎﺌﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺱ ﺇﻀﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺸﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻤﺎ ﻴﺅﻜﺩﻩ ﻗﻭل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪" :‬ﺇﻥ ﻤﻨﻬﺠﻨﺎ‪ ...‬ﻴﻤﺎﺜل ﺍﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﺌﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﺘﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻨﺎﻫﺠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺘﻭﺠﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻤﺩﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺒﺄﺩﻭﺍﺘﻬﺎ"‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺭﺘﻴﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻭﺏ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﻤﻨﻪ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل‪" ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺍﺤﺘﺎﺠﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﻁﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﻤﻨﺸﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻓﻲ ﺒﺼﻨﻊ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﻜﻲ ﻴﺘﻡ ﻤﻬﻤﺘﻪ")‪ .(٢٢‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ‬
‫ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺼﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺜﺭﺍﺀ ﻤﻤﺎ ﻗﺒل‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﺎ ﻴﺤﺩﺙ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻴﺤﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ؛ ﻓﺎﻟﺫﻫﻥ ﻴﻤﺩ ﺫﺍﺘﻪ ﺒﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻴﺼﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻓﻲ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺒﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻴﺨﺘﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﻤﺎﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜل ﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺃﻥ ﺘﺼﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻤﻨﻅﱠﻤﺔ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻴﺼﻴﺭ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺜﺭﺍﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ ﻭﻤﻥ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺯﺍﺌﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻀﻔﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﺘﻌﻜﺱ‬
‫ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺼﻴﺭ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻜﻴﻑ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﻬﺘﻡ ﺒﺄﺩﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺼﻴل ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ‬
‫ﺘﻬﺘﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﺎﻩ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺴﺎﺌل ﺍﻟﻜﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺭﺓ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﻭﺠﻴﺘﻭ ﻭﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻔﺎﺼﻴل ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺌل ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺯ ﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺤﻴﺎﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻐﻠﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻨﻴﻔﺎﺘﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﻔﺎﺼﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﺒﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺒﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﻭﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻴﻀﺎﹰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻐﻠﺔ ﺒﻘﻀﺎﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻴﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﻁﻤﻭﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻭﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‪.‬‬

‫‪21) Descartes: “Rules for the Direction of the Mind”, in The Philosophical Writings of‬‬
‫‪Descartes, vol. I, (London. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), P. 35.‬‬
‫‪22) Ibid, P. 31.‬‬
‫‪٨٥٥‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫‪ .٢‬ﺗﺠﺎور اﻟﻨﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﻔﺮدﯾﺔ وﻧﺰﻋﺔ اﻟﮭﯿﻤﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻄﺒﯿﻌﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ "ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ" ﺘﺴﻭﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﻭﺤﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﺯﺍﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺍﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻨﺤﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺎﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺘﺎﻥ ﺘﺘﺠﺎﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺤﺩ ﻴ‪‬ﻤﻜﱢﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﻱﺀ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺽ ﺒﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺒﺴﻬﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻫﻤﺎ ﻤﻌﺎﹰ ﻴﻜﺸﻔﺎﻥ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻡ‬
‫ﺘﺭﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺃﺩﺍﺘﻴﺔ)‪ .(٢٣‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻅﻬﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎل ﺃﻴﻀﺎﹰ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﺒﺘﺩﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺒﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁﺔ ﺒﺈﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ؛ ﻓﺄﻨﺎ ﺃﻋﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺠﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺤﻭ ﺼﺎﺩﻕ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﻨﺕ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻁﺎﻟﻤﺎ ﻤﻜﻨﺘﻨﻲ ﻤﻌﺭﻓﺘﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺃﺩﺍﺘﻴﺎﹰ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺩ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁﺔ‬
‫ﺒﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻜﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻜﺘﺸﻔﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ "ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎل‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ" ﺘﺤﻤل ﺍﻟﻤﻼﻤﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﺒﺘﺩﺍﺀ‪ ‬ﺒﺎﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺘﺘﻀﺢ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺼﻭﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺘﺄﺴﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﺘﺭﻴﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻜﺸﻑ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻘﻁﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺒﺄﻱ‬
‫ﺸﻲﺀ ﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻁ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﺒﻤﺎﻀﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺜﺎل ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﻭﻱ ﻟﻠﻨﺯﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﺒﻤﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺴﻴﻜﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻤﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﻭﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻗﺩ ﻗﻁﻌﺕ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻨﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻤﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٣‬اﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻆ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﮭﺞ‪:‬‬

‫ﻤﺎ ﻨﻼﺤﻅﻪ ﻓﻲ "ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ" ﻫﻭ‪ (١ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻡ ﺒﺎﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ‪..." :‬ﺃﻥ ﺃﻁﻴﻊ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺒﻼﺩﻱ ﻭﻋﻭﺍﺌﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻤﻊ ﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺘﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﺎﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﻨﻌﻡ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﺒﺄﻥ ﻨﺸﺄﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻤﻨﺫ ﻁﻔﻭﻟﺘﻲ‪(٢٤)"...‬؛ ‪ (٢‬ﺍﻟﻭﻋﺩ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﻤل ﺩﺍﺨل ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ ﻭﻗﺒﻭﻟﻪ‬

‫‪23) Horkheimer, Max: “The Rationalism Debate in Contemporary Philosophy”, Between‬‬

‫‪Philosophy and Social Science. Selected Early Writings. Translated by G. Frederick‬‬
‫‪Hunter, Mathew S. Kramer & John Torpey (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), pp. 217-‬‬
‫‪218, 233, 279, 376.‬‬
‫‪ (24‬ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ :‬ﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.١٣٨‬‬
‫‪٨٥٦‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻭﻋﺩﻡ ﺘﻐﻴﻴﺭﻩ‪" :‬ﻭﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺤﻜﻤﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺠﺘﻬﺩ ﺩﺍﺌﻤﺎﹰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﺎﻟﺏ ﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﺎﻟﺏ ﺍﻟﺤﻅ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﻴﺭ ﺭﻏﺒﺎﺘﻲ ﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻏﻴﺭ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺠﻤﻠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺒﺄﻨﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻨﻘﺩﺭ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻨﺎ‪ .(٢٥)"...‬ﻭﻴﻨﻁﻭﻱ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺨﺫﻫﻤﺎ ﻜﻀﻤﺎﻨﺔ ﻟﻼﻤﺘﻴﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﻘﻘﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﻌل ﺤﺘﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻅﻬﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻫﺩﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺕ ﺒﺎﻟﺴﻭﺭﺒﻭﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻭﺠﻴﺘﻭ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻲ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻓﻘﻁ ﺒﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻴل ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺴﻭﻑ ﺘﺅﺠل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻴﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺭﺓ )ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ( ﺃﺩﺭﻜﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻗﻭﺘﻬﺎ ﺘﻜﻤﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻨﻤﻁ‬
‫ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﻭﻫﻴﻤﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺒل ﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻤﻜﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁﻤﺤﺕ ﻟﺘﺭﺠﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎً‪ :‬اﻟﻤﺸﺮوﻃﯿﺔ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻣﻼت اﻟﺪﯾﻜﺎرﺗﯿﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪ .١‬اﻟﻤﺸﺮوﻃﯿﺔ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﯿﺔ ﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻮﺟﻮد واﻟﻤﺎھﯿﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻜﺘﺎﺏ "ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ" ﺘﺴﻭﺩﻩ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻜﺸﻑ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻨﻔﺼﺎﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ)‪ .(٢٦‬ﻓﺎﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﻲ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻜﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻤ‪‬ﻨ‪‬ﻊ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺒﻔﻀل ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻗﻭﻯ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺘﺤﻘﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻗﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺃﻭﻟﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻓﻲ "ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ" ﻫﻲ ﺃﻭﻟﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻜﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﻤﻬﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺒﺩﻭﻥ ﻨﻤﻁ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺨﺎﺹ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﻴﻨﺎﺴﺒﻬﺎ؛ ﺇﻥ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻨﺘﻤﻰ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺠﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ‪ :‬ﺹ ‪.١٤٠‬‬ ‫‪(25‬‬

‫ﺍﺴﺘﻔﺩﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason.(London :‬‬ ‫‪(26‬‬
‫‪and New York: Continuum, 2004), p. 73; Horkheimer, Critical Theory.‬‬
‫‪Translated by Mathew J. O’Connell and others. (New York: Continuum, 2002),‬‬
‫‪pp. 211 ff.‬‬
‫‪٨٥٧‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻫﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻅﻬﺭ ﺒﻤﻤﺎﺭﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺯ ﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﻋﻤل ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻁﻴﻁ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺒﺩﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﺒﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻨﺸﻁﺔ ﺘﻤﺎﺭﺱ ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺭﻕ ﻗﺒل ﺃﻥ ﺘﻨﻔﺫ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺨﻁﻴﻁﻬﺎ ﻭﺭﻗﻴﺎﹰ ﺃﻫﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻨﻔﻴﺫﻫﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﹰ؛ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺘﻨﺸﻐل ﺒﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺒﺘﻭﺴﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ ﻭﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴ ﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﺃﻁﻠﻕ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ "ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ"‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﺎﺕ ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﺠﺭﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﺸﻐﻠﻪ ﻓﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻨﻤﻁ ﻋﻤل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻠﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﺘﺸﻐﻠﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻘﺴﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٢‬اﻟﻤﺸﺮوﻃﯿﺔ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﯿﺔ ﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻷﻧﺎ واﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‪:‬‬

‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺴﻭﺩ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻤﺴﺘﺒﻌﺩﺓ ﻹﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺔ ﺒﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﻥ ﺼﻨﻌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺒﻔﻜﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺒل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻤﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻡ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭﻱ ﻭﺤﺴﺏ‪ .‬ﻟﻭ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻗﺩ‬
‫ﺼﻨﻌﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺼﻭﺭﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﻅﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺠﺯﺀ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻷﺼﻐﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻟﻸﻨﺎ ﻭﻤﺠﺎل‬
‫ﺘﺤﻘﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻭﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺼﻨﻌﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻜل ﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻻ ﻨﺭﺍﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻫﻭ ﺠﻭﻫﺭ ﻤﻤﺘﺩ ﻏﺭﻴﺏ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻫﻲ ﺠﻭﻫﺭ‬
‫ﻤﻔﻜﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻤﻐﺘﺭﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻷﻥ ﺠﻭﻫﺭﻫﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻡ ﻟﻼﻤﺘﺩﺍﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﻤﺘﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻻﻏﺘﺭﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﺘﺸﻌﺭ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻏﺭﻴﺏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻓﺸﻠﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺤﻜﻤﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٣‬اﻟﺸﻚ اﻟﺪﯾﻜﺎرﺗﻲ أﺛﺮ ﻟﻠﮭﺰﯾﻤﺔ اﻟﺴﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻮرﺟﻮازﯾﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺠﻌل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﺸﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﺍﺒﺘﺩﺍﺀ‪‬؟ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻙ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﺨﻁﻭﺓ ﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺠﺭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل ﺇﻟﻰ ﻴﻘﻴﻥ ﺜﺎﺒﺕ ﻴﺅﺴﺱ ﺒﻪ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻫﻭ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺒﻜﺜﻴﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻭ ﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﻁﺒﻘﻴﺎﹰ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﻭﻀﻊ ﺸﻙ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺘﺯ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻭ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺸﻲﺀ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻭﺠﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﻴﻭﺠﺩ‪ ،‬ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﻴﺎﹰ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺍﻫﻤﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ‬

‫‪٨٥٨‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺃﺘﻰ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻌﺭﻀﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻬﺩﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺭ ﻭﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺨﺸﻰ ﻤﻥ ﻓﻘﺩﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﻭﺴﻁ ﻗﻭﻯ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺸﻌﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﺍﻡ ﺒﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺄﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺭﻀﺔ ﻟﻼﺴﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻭﻗﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﺒل ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺘﺎﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﺩﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺠﺩ ﻤﺒﺭﺭ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﺎﺌﻑ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺨل ﺍﻟﻬﻴﻜل ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﺒﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺴﻁﻰ‬
‫ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺩﻡ؛ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻤﺎ ﺯﺍﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺯﺍﺩﺕ ﻤﺭﻜﺯﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﺩ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ‬
‫ﻭﻀﻌﻬﻡ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻤﺎ ﺯﺍﺩﺕ ﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻉ ﺯﺍﻟﺕ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﺃﻴﻀﺎﹰ‪) .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﺜﺒﺘﺕ ﺍﻷﺤﺩﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺤﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻔﻌل‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻗﺩ ﺃﻨﻬﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﻤﺭﻜﺯﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﻜﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺴﺎﻫﻤﺕ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻁﻭﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻗﺼﺩ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ)‪ .((٢٧‬ﻭﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺯﻋﺯﻉ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺒﺕ ﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺃﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺒﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﺩﺍﺨل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻬل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺸﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﻭﻟﻭ ﻤﺅﻗﺘﺎﹰ؛ ﻓﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﺫﻫﻨﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺘﻰ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻴﻌﻭﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﺘﺄﻜﻴﺩ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﺒﻔﻜﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﻘﻭل ﺃﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺭ ﻓﺄﻨﺎ ﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩ ‪cogito‬‬
‫‪ ،ergo sum‬ﻓﻬﻭ ﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻷﻨﻪ ﻴﻔﻜﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﺎﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺭﺭ ﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﻋﻨﺩ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻭ ﻤﺒﺭﺭ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ‬
‫ﻤﺒﺭﺭ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻗﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻙ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺼل ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻁﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻭﻫﻤﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻜل ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻴﻌﺭﻓﻪ ﻭﻴﺸﻌﺭ ﺒﻪ ﻭﻴﺤﺱ ﺒﻪ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﺃﻭﻫﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻟﻪ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻁﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻜﺭ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺸﻜﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻜل ﻤﺎ ﺤﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﺜﺒﺕ ﺃﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻤﻲ ﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻫﺯﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺨﻀﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻴﻁﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻜﺭ ﻻ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻭﻫﻤﻬﺎ ﺒﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻻ‬
‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺨﻀﻊ ﻹﻴﻬﺎﻡ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻁﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻜﺭ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻭﺠﻴﺘﻭ‪،‬‬

‫‪ (27‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺃﻟﻴﻜﺴﻲ ﺩﻱ ﺘﻭﻜﻔﻴل ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭ "ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﺓ" ‪L' Ancien Régime et la‬‬
‫)‪.Révolution (1856‬‬
‫‪٨٥٩‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻜﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﻔﻜﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﺘﻭﺼل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻨﻁﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻫﻭ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ ﺒﺎﻷﻋﻤﺎل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺤﺘﻰ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻤﻨﺸﻐﻠﺔ ﺒﺎﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٤‬ﺛﻨﺎﺋﯿﺔ اﻟﻌﻘﻞ واﻹرادة‪:‬‬

‫ﻴﺫﻫﺏ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤل ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻴﺩ ﺒﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻫﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ)‪ .(٢٨‬ﻓﻌﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺘﺅﻜﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﺒﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺃﻱ ﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻴﺅﻜﺩ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻗﻴﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺸﺭﻁ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻴﻌﺘﺭﻑ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻡ ﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻑ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ؛ ﻷﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﺘﺸﻤل ﺃﺸﻴﺎﺀ ﻜﺜﻴﺭﺓ ﺠﺩﺍﹰ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﺒﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻑ ﻜﻤﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﻨﻭﻋﻴﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺜﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺼﻭﺭﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﻗﻭل‬
‫ﻤﺫﺍﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﺇﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺸﺘﺭﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل‪ .‬ﻭﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻤﻘﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺭﺍﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺼﻭﺭﺘﻪ ﺘﻌﻨﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﺒﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﻭﺤﺩﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻤﻠﻤﺢ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺁﺨﺭ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ؛ ﺇﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺅﻜﺩ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻋﻘﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﺼﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺘﻨﻅﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻴﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﺴﻴﻁﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل ﻓﻲ ﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﻁﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻁﻴﺌﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺴﻊ ﻨﻁﺎﻗﺎﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل‪ ،‬ﺒﺤﻴﺙ ﺘﺘﻌﺩﻯ ﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺘﺎﺡ ﺃﻤﺎﻤﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤ‪‬ﻠﹶﻜﺔ ﻤﻘﻴ‪‬ﺩﺓ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻜﻲ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺎﹰ ﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻘﺒل ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻗﺎﺌﻡ ﻭﻻ ﻴﺤﺎﻭل ﺘﻐﻴﻴﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﻨﻔﺼﺎل ﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﻤﻤﻴﺯ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬
‫ﺘﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺎﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺯﺓ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻁﻭﺍل ﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﺘﻁﻭﺭﻫﺎ)‪ .(٢٩‬ﻓﻼ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻨﻅﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺒﺈﻗﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﺯﻥ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻓﻴﻕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻁﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺴﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻨﺤﻭ‬

‫‪28) Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, in Philosophical Writings, translated by‬‬

‫‪Norman Kemp Smith. (New York: The Modern Library, 1958), pp. 215 – 216.‬‬
‫‪ (29‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻭﻜﺎﺘﺵ ﺘﺤﺕ ﻤﺴﻤﻰ "ﻨﻘﺎﺌﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ" ﻓﻲ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﻪ "ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ"‪.‬‬
‫‪Georg Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness, pp. 110 ff.‬‬
‫‪٨٦٠‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻭﻜﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻕ ﻹﺭﺍﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻴﺠﺏ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺩﻋﻴﻡ ﻗﻭﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻜﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻅل ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻴﻑ‬
‫ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﻤﻊ ﻤﺘﻁﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻴﻴﻑ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻨﻅﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫راﺑﻌﺎً – اﻷﺳﺎس اﻟﺒﻮرﺟﻮازي ﻹﻟﮫ دﯾﻜﺎرت‪:‬‬

‫‪ .١‬اﻻرﺗﺒﺎط ﺑﯿﻦ ﺗﺼﻮر دﯾﻜﺎرت ﻟﻺﻟﮫ وﺗﺼﻮره ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻄﺔ اﻟﻤَﻠَﻜﯿﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻴﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺭﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﻴﺭﺴﻥ)‪ (٣٠‬ﻋﺩﻡ ﻭﻋﻴﻪ ﺒﺈﺸﻜﺎﻻﺕ ﻗﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺤﺩﻭﺜﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺽ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻭل ﺒﺈﻟﻪ ﻗﺩﻴﻡ ﻭﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ ﻤﺤﺩﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﺼﻠﻪ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻭ ﻴﻘﻭل‪" :‬ﻭﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﺘﺴﺄﻟﻨﻲ ﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻟﺨﻠﻕ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﺩ ﺒﺄﻨﻪ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺤﺭﺍﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ]ﻴﺠﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ[‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻴﺠﻌل ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺩﺌﺔ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻨﺘﺼﻑ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺌﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﺤﻴﻁﻬﺎ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺘﺴﺎﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺤﺭﺍﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻻ ﻴﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻨﻪ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺅﻜﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺒﻤﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﻤﺜل ﻋﺩﻡ ﺍﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻷﺸﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻠﻭﻗﺔ]ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ[")‪ .(٣١‬ﺇﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻴﺯ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ ﺍﻷﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺸﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻠﻭﻗﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﻀﻊ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻭﻗﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻴﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﺓ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺯﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻴﻘﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺽ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺴﻭﻑ ﻴﺅﻜﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻜل ﻤﺎ ﺃﻨﻜﺭﻩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﻜﺸﻑ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺹ ﺃﻴﻀﺎﹰ ﻋﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻨﺤﻲ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎﹰ ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺩﺍﺌﺭﺓ ﺤﺘﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺕ ﺤﻭل ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌل ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻫل ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌل ﻤﻥ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﻓﻌل ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻫﻭ ﻓﻌل ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺸﻔﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺘﻨﺤﻴﺔ ﻤﻤﺎﺜﻠﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻗ‪‬ﺒ‪‬ﻠﻪ ﻟﻠﺨﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺩﺍﺌﺭﺓ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﻭﺨﺼﻭﻤﻬﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺼﻭﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻤﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﺍﹰ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻟﻠﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻴﺔ ﻴﺫﻜﺭﻨﺎ ﺒﺎﻷﺸﻌﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﻨﻔﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﺎﺌﻊ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻠﺴﺒﺒﻴﺔ؛ ﺇﻥ ﺘﺼﻭﺭﻩ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻟﻴﺱ ﺴﻭﻯ ﻤﻭﺭﻭﺙ ﻜﻼﻤﻲ ﺘﺴﺭﺏ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺠﺭﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻤﺒﺎﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺭﺼﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺩﻴﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻻ ﻴﺯﻋﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪.‬‬

‫‪ (30‬ﻫﻭ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻤﺎﺭﻴﻥ ﻤﻴﺭﺴﻥ ‪ (١٦٤٨-١٥٨٨) Marin Mersenne‬ﻻﻫﻭﺘﻲ ﻭﻓﻴﻠﺴﻭﻑ ﻭﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﺭﻴﺎﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﺭﻨﺴﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺸﻬﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻑ ﺍﻷﻭل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﺼﺩﻴﻘﺎﹰ ﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻤﺩﺍﻓﻌﺎﹰ ﻤﺨﻠﺼﺎﹰ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻤﻤﺜﻼﹰ ﺸﺨﺼﻴﺎﹰ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺒﺎﺭﻴﺱ‪.‬‬
‫‪31) Descartes: To Mersenne, On the Eternal Truths (April 15, May 6 and May 27, 1630”,‬‬
‫‪in Philosophical Essays and Correspondence, edt. Roger Ariew. (Indianapolis/‬‬
‫‪Cambridge: Hackett, 2000), P. 30.‬‬
‫‪٨٦١‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻲ ﻟﻌﺩﻡ ﺠﺭﺃﺓ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﻜﻤﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤ‪‬ﻠﹶﻜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺨﺎﻀﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻭﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻤﻘﻴﺩﺓ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺒﺩﺴﺘﻭﺭ ﻭﺤﻜﻡ ﻨﻴﺎﺒﻲ ﻭﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺭﻗﺎﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻘﻴﺩﺓ ﺒﺄﻱ ﺸﻲﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺴﺕ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻕ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺼﻭﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻟﻺﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺼﻭ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﻓﻕ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻕ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺩ ﺒﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺒﺩﺴﺘﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ‬
‫ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻭﺝ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻭﻗﺕ ﻴﺸﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻡ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻭﺭﻩ ﻋﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ ﻟﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺭﻭﺝ ﻋﻥ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻗﻭﺓ ﻓﻭﻕ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﺠﺎﺌﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻜﻴﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻜل ﻤﺎ ﻨﻔﺎﻩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﻴﺘﺨﺫ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﻗﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻜﺴﺔ ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻤﻭﺍﻗﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺒﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﺘﺨﻠﻴﺹ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺼﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺃﺴﺒﺎﻨﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺭﻨﺴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺴﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻜﺜﺭ ﺘﻘﺩﻤﺎﹰ ﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﺠﻌﻠﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﺘﺄﻜﺩ ﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻨﻅﺭ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﻤﺎﺜل ﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺜﻠﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﻤﻤﺎﺜﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﺼل‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭل ﻟﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﻟﻠﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺤﺘﻠﻪ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻨﺠﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻪ ﻭﻨﻤﻁ ﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﻫﻭ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﻭﺴﻴﻁﻲ ﻭﻻﻫﻭﺘﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺎﹰ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺭﺓ؛‬
‫ﻓﻜﻴﻑ ﻨﻨﻅﺭ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺃﺒﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺩ ﺍﻷﻜﺒﺭ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺜﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺯﺍﻟﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﻭﺃﻋﺩﻤﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ؟ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺃﺒﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ "ﺃﺏ"‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺃﺒﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻴﻘﻭل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺨﻁﺎﺒﻪ ﻟﻤﻴﺭﺴﻥ‪" :‬ﺃﺭﺠﻭ ﺃﻻ ﺘﺘﺭﺩﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻜﻴﺩ ﻭﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻜل ﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻭﻀﻊ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻴﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻤﻠﻜﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﻭﺍﺤﺩ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻨﻌﺠﺯ ﻋﻥ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻜﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺘﺄﻤﻠﻪ ﻋﻘﻠﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻥ ﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻁﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻋﻘﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻁﺒﻊ ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻠﻭﺏ ﺭﻋﺎﻴﺎﻩ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻟﺩﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺫﻟﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻵﺨﺭ ﻫﻲ ﺸﻲﺀ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻜﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺃﻨﻨﺎ ﻨﻌﺭﻓﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻨﻨﺎ ﻨﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻜﻨﺎ ﺘﺠﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻨﻘﺩﺭﻫﺎ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ‪،‬‬
‫ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺤﻭﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﻼل ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺄﻟﻭﻑ ﻟﺭﻋﺎﻴﺎﻩ‪ ...‬ﺴﻭﻑ‬
‫ﻴﻘﺎل ﺇﻨﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﺴﺱ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺎﺌﻕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻓﻼ ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻐﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻴﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ‬

‫‪٨٦٢‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻪ؟ ﻭﺇﺠﺎﺒﺘﻲ ﻋﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺅﺍل ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺒﻠﻰ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺘﻐﻴﺭﺕ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ")‪ .(٣٢‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻫل ﻴﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﷲ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ؟ ﻴﺠﻴﺏ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻨﻁﺎﻕ ﻋﻘﻠﻨﺎ‪" :‬ﻨﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻨﺅﻜﺩ ﺒﻌﺎﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻔﻌل ﻜل ﺸﻲﺀ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻜﻨﺎ ]ﻤﻌﻘﻭل ﻟﻨﺎ[‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺤﻴل‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻔﻌل ﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻜﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺙ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺨﻴﺎﻟﻨﺎ ﻴﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻗﻭﺘﻪ")‪.(٣٣‬‬
‫ﻭﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻔﻌل ﻜل ﺸﻲﺀ ﻤﻌﻘﻭل ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻌﻘﻭل ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﻗﺕ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﻋﻘﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﺼﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺒﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﺘﻬﻡ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﺒﺄﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺱ ﺴﻭﻯ ﺨﻴﺎل ﺇﺫﺍ ﻨﻅﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺸﻲﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻏﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻤﻌﻘﻭل ﻭﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﺴﺘﺤﻴل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﺒﺴﺒﺏ ﺫﻟﻙ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﺯﻟﺔ ﺴﻭﻑ ﺘﻅﻬﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﻘﺩﻤﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺄﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺍﷲ ﻴﺴﺘﺤﻴل ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻌل ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺢ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻗﺒﺤﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺩﺨل ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻤﻌﻘﻭل‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﺍﺠﻊ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻀﺢ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻴﻁﻠﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﺒﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺨﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺴﻭﻑ ﻴﺜﻭﺭ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﻴﻘﺩﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺹ ﺩﻟﻴﻼﹰ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺨﻁﺎﺒﻪ ﻟﻤﻴﺭﺴﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﻻﻫﻭﺘﻲ ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﺘﺼﻭﺭﺍﹰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺎﹰ ﻋﻘﻼﻨﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﺜل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﺴﻼﻤﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﺴﻠﻴﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﻕ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻭﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻭﺍﻗﻑ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺘﺠﻌل ﻤﻭﺍﻗﻑ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺍﻹﻴﻁﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ‬
‫ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺘﻘﺩﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒﺴﺒﺏ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﺒﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٢‬ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎت ﺗﺼﻮر دﯾﻜﺎرت ﻟﻺﻟﮫ‪:‬‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺘﻨﺎﻗﺽ ﻋﻤﻴﻕ ﺤﻭل ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻭ ﻴﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺴﺎﺌﻠﻪ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺼﺩﻴﻘﻪ ﻤﻴﺭﺴﻥ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺒﻌﺽ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻕ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻻ ﻴﺨﻀﻊ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺎﻨﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻐﻴﺭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﺸﺎﺀ؛ ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ "ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ" ﻴﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻨﻪ ﻗﻭﺓ ﻻﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﻭﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ ﻫﻲ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺫﺍﺘﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪32) Descartes: “Letter to Mersenne (April 15, May 6 and May 27, 1630”, The‬‬
‫‪Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. III, (London. New York: Cambridge‬‬
‫‪University Press, 1985), P. 23; cited in Negri, P. 111.‬‬
‫‪33) loc.cit.‬‬
‫‪٨٦٣‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺽ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺼﻭﺭﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻌﺎﻜﺴﻴﻥ ﻟﻺﻟﻪ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻟﻤﻭﻗﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻜﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺙ ﻭﺘﻭﻟﻲ ﺍﺨﺘﺭﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻤﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﺸﻲﺀ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺃﺼل ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﺘﺤﺩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ ﻤﻊ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺭﺏ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ ‪Deism‬؛ ﻭﻤﻥ ﺠﻬﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ‬
‫ﺨﻀﻭﻉ ﻨﻔﺱ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻟﻠﺤﻕ ﺍﻹﻟﻬﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻠﻭﻙ ﻭﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻓﻲ ﻅل ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻭﻗﺒﻭﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻨﺘﺞ ﻟﺩﻴﻬﺎ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻔﺭﺽ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ ﻜﻴﻑ ﻴﺸﺎﺀ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻴﻔﻌل ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻙ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻭ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﻫﺩﺍﻑ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺨﺹ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻩ ﻟﻴﺱ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻵﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻗﻨﻭﻡ ﺍﻷﻭل ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺱ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺭﻉ ﺍﻷﺨﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻴﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻗﺏ‪ .‬ﺒل ﻫﻭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻤﻥ ﻟﺼﺩﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﻭﻟﺼﺩﻕ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ .‬ﺇﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻴﻁ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺜﻘﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻜﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﻤﻔﻜﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﻟﻬﺎ؛ ﺇﻨﻪ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻴﺙ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﻴﻘﺘﺭﺏ ﻤﻥ ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ ‪ Deism‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻷﻟﻭﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ ‪ .Theism‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻟﻴﺱ ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻹﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺒل ﺇﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل؛ ﻟﻴﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﺠﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﻅﻬﺭ ﻗﻭﺘﻪ ﺒﻔﻌل ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺠﺯﺍﺕ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻗﺎﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻫﻭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﻤﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻀﺎﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻟﺼﺩﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ .‬ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻗﺩ ﻭﻋﺩ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺴﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻫﺩﺍﺀ ﺒﺄﻥ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻗﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺴﺒﻴل ﺍﻟﺩﻋﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ ﻟﻌﻘﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻴﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ ﻫﻭ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺒﺈﺜﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﻗﺩﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻫﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻤﺴﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺤﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻤﻘﺩﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﺇﻟﻬﺎﹰ ﺃﻗﺭﺏ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ‬
‫ﻴﻜﺸﻑ ﻋﻥ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﻘل ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻨﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻁﺭﻱ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻜﺸﻑ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻨﺒﻲ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺒﻘﺩﺭﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﺩﻫﺎ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺌﺩ ﺍﻹﻴﻤﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻭ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ‬
‫‪٨٦٤‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻟﻜﻥ ﺒﻁﺭﻕ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﻨﺒﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒﺎﻟﻌﻘل ﻻ ﺒﺎﻟﻭﺤﻲ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﺤﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻤﻘﺩﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻜﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘل‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻀﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻟﻠﻤﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﺍﻓﻊ ﻋﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺠﺩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺸﺭﻋﻴﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺭﺍﻭﺡ ﻤﻭﻗﻑ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ ﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺘﺘﺼﻑ‬
‫ﺒﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺘﻪ ﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﺭﺒﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻨﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻴﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﺘﻬﺎﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻪ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﺭﺍﻭﻏﺔ ﻭﺴﻭﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻥ ﺘﺘﻀﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺤﺩﺜﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻊ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﻭﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺴﻜﻭﻻﺌﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺠﻨﺒﻪ ﻟﻺﺸﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺤﻜﻤﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻗﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺒﺎﻷﺤﺭﻯ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻟﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺒﻤﻌﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻫل ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻗﺩﻴﻡ ﺃﻡ ﻤﺤﺩﺙ؟ ﻭﻫل ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻟﺩﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺔ؟ ﻟﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺼﺎﻤﺘﺎﹰ ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﻭﻋﻥ ﻗﺼﺩ‬
‫ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﺼل ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻹﺸﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ‪،‬ﻭﻨﺤﺎﻫﺎ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻗﺩ ﺴﺒﻕ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺃﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺴﺎﺌﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻟﻡ ﻴﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺼﺭﻴﺤﺎﹰ ﺤﻭل ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﺫﺍﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺭ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻴﺘﻀﺢ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻗﺩ ﺃﺜﺒﺕ ﻓﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺭ‪ ،‬ﻤﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺜﺒﺘﻪ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻜﺭﺓ ﻫﻭ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﻓﺭﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻡ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﺍﺴﺘﻤﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻜﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺒﻌﺩ ﻤﻭﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‪ .‬ﻜل ﻤﺎ ﺃﺜﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻭ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﻼل ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻜﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌل ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻘﺩ‬
‫ﺒﻨﺎﺀ‪ ‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﻼﻟﻬﺎ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻨﺸﺎﻁﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻴﺅﻫﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺠﻭﻫﺭﺍﹰ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻼﹰ ﺒﻌﺩ‬
‫ﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺒﺎﺭﺘﻜﺎﺏ ﺃﻏﻠﻭﻁﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻨﻘل ﺤﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻭﻫﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻭﻫﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ؛ ﻭﻜﺄﻨﻪ ﻗﺎل ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﻼل‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻻﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻩ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻌل ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻘﻼل ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺭﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺱ ﻋﻥ ﺒﺩﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ ﺸﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺘﻘﻼل ﺍﻷﻨﻁﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺱ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺠﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﺠﻭﻫﺭﺍﹰ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻼﹰ ﺒﻌﺩ ﻓﻨﺎﺀﻩ ﺸﻲﺀ ﺁﺨﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻭﺒﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺸﺄﻥ‬

‫‪٨٦٥‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻁﺭﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻤﻨﺫ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻴﻁﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻏﺽ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻁﺭﻑ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻋﻥ ﻗﺼﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻹﺸﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل ﺘﺅﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻻ ﺘﺯﺍل ﻤﺘﺩﺨﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺸﺅﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻌﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻤﻌﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻅﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﺭﺍﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻤﺱ‬
‫)‪ (١٥١٣‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﺩﺭﻴﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺘﻘﻴﻴﺩﻫﺎ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺩﺭﻴﺱ ﻗﺩ ﺃﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺘﻌﺎﻤل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ)‪.(٣٤‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻥ ﻴﺒﻘﻰ ﺃﻤﺎﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻜﻴﺩ ﻤﺭﺓ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻟﻴل ﺍﻷﻨﻁﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ‬
‫ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻷﻨﺴﺏ ﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻭ ﺍﻟﺩﻟﻴل ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﷲ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﻴﺯﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﻱ ﺒﺈﻁﻼﻕ‪ ،٣٥‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻘﻼل ﻓﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ‬
‫ﻟﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺏ ﺒﺎﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻨﻁﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺠﻭﺩﻴﺎﹰ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻻﺒﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺒﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺒﻌﺩ ﻓﻨﺎﺀﻩ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻟﻴل ﺍﻷﻨﻁﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺜﺒﺕ ﻤﻁﻠﻭﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻭﺍﻨﻁﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻷﻨﺴﺏ ﻟﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻻ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺸﻲﺀ ﻤﻤﻜﻨﺎﹰ ﻟﺩﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻤﻜﻨﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻥ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺭﻕ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﺍﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .٣‬اﻷﺳﺒﺎب اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﻌﯿﺪ دﯾﻜﺎرت ﻟﻔﻜﺮة اﻟﻜﻤﺎل إﻟﻰ اﻹﻟﮫ‪:‬‬

‫ﻴﻘﻭل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤل ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺙ ﺇﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل‬
‫ﻭﻋﻥ ﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻀﺭﻭﺭﻱ ﻴﺘﺼﻑ ﺒﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻨﻪ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﻷﻨﻪ ﻨﺎﻗﺹ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺼﺩﺭﻫﺎ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻤل ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺙ ﻫﻲ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺭﻯ‬

‫( ﻭﻴﻅﻬﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻜﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻫﺩﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺩﻡ ﺒﻬﺎ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺤﻭل ﺃﺜﺭ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﺍﺓ ‪34‬‬
‫‪Abraham Anderson:‬ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﺒﻥ ﺭﺸﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻨﻅﺭ‪:‬‬
‫‪“Descartes Contra Averroes?: The Problem of Faith and Reason in the Letter of‬‬
‫‪Dedication to the Meditations”, Interpretation, Vo. 32, no. 2, Winter 1996, pp. 209-‬‬
‫‪221.‬‬
‫‪ (35‬ﺘﺭﺠﻊ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ "ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﻱ ﺒﺈﻁﻼﻕ" ‪ absolutely necessary being‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﺒﻥ ﺴﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﻥ "ﻭﺍﺠﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺒﺫﺍﺘﻪ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﻨﺘﻘﻠﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻴﺩ ﺃﻟﺒﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺭ ﻭﺘﻭﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﻜﻭﻴﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪٨٦٦‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﻅﻡ ﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ .‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻴﺘﻭﺼل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﻤﻥ ﺘﺄﻤﻠﻪ ﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻷﺤﻭﺍل ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻟﺩﻴﻪ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻹﺤﺎﻁﺔ ﺒﻪ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪ ،‬ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺎﹰ ﻟﻌﺩﻡ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻱ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺼﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﻠﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻨﺘﻅﻡ ﺒﻪ ﻭﺘﺘﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻠﻨﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻓﻌل ﺃﻓﻼﻁﻭﻥ ﻭﺃﺭﺴﻁﻭ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻫﻭ ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﻔﻭﻀﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺘﻌﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺭﺍﻉ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻜﺘﺏ ﺃﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﺤﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﻴﻥ)‪ ،(٣٦‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻭﻀﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ ﻜﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻜﻠﻪ ﻴﺼﻌ‪‬ﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺨﺭﺠﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪ ،‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﻓﻬﻭ‬
‫ﻨﺎﻗﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻟﻺﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻘﻠﻪ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺌﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺼﺩﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺼﺩﺭﻫﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺌﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻜﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺌﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻴ‪‬ﺩﺨل ﻓﻲ ﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺭﻱ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﻜﻤﺎ ﻟﻭ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻴﺘﻠﻘﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻲ ﻤﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺘﺼﻌﻴﺩ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺌﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻴﻨﻁﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻨﻜﺎﺭ ﻹﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻜﺎﻤﻼﹰ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻜﺎﻤﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻏﺘﺭﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺯﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﺎل ﺒﺎﻁﻨﺔ ﻭﻤﺤﺎﻴﺜﺔ ﻟﻌﻘل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﺼﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺼﺩﺭﻫﺎ ﻷﻨﻪ ﻜﺎﺌﻥ ﻨﺎﻗﺹ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺹ ﻫﺫﻩ ﻨﺎﺒﻌﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺸﻌﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻌﺠﺯ ﻤﻥ ﻗ‪‬ﺒ‪‬ل ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﺠﺯ ﻋﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﺎﹰ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻜﻤﺎﻻﹰ ﻤﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻴﺒﻘﻰ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺼﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﺓ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺌﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻜﺄﻥ ﻋﻘل ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻗﺩ‬
‫ﺘﻠﻘﻰ ﻤﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﻴﻠﺘﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻭﺍﻟﻭﺤﻲ ﻋﻨﺩ ﻤﻥ ﻗﻴل ﻋﻨﻪ ﺇﻨﻪ ﺃﺒﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﻭﺭﺍﺌﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﺄﻭﻴل ﺤﻀﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﻔﻁﺭﻱ ﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺭﺠﻌﻴﺔ ﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻨﺠﺩ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺠﺩﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﷲ ﻓﻁﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﺍﺨﺘﻠﻔﺕ ﺘﺄﻭﻴﻼﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﺫﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻋﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻴل‪.‬‬

‫‪ (36‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﻤﺭﺕ ﻤﻥ ‪ ١٦١٨‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ،١٦٤٨‬ﻭﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺃﻜﺒﺭ ﺼﺭﺍﻉ ﻤﺩﻤﺭ ﺸﻬﺩﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻙ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺕ‪ ،‬ﺜﻡ ﺘﺤﻭﻟﺕ ﺒﻌﺩ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺤﺭﺏ ﻓﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻨﻤﺴﺎﻭﻴﺔ ﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﻤﻨﺎﻁﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻭﺫ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ‪.‬‬
‫‪٨٦٧‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫راﺑﻌﺎً‪ :‬اﻟﻤﺸﺮوﻃﯿﺔ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯿﺔ واﻟﺴﯿﺎﺳﯿﺔ ﻟﺘﺠﺎوز ﺳﺒﯿﻨﻮزا ﻟﻠﻤﺬھﺐ اﻟﺪﯾﻜﺎرﺗﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻜل ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻭﻀﻊ ﺸﺭﻴﺤﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺴﺘﺨﺘﻔﻲ ﻤﻊ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‪ ،‬ﻷﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﻜﺜﻴﺭﺓ ﺘﺘﺭﻜﺯ ﺤﻭل ﺍﺨﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺜﻴﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺩ ﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻜل ﺸﻲﺀ ﻋﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﺩﻻﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻨﺠﺩ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺘﺎﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻨﻲ ﻭﻫﻭﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺩﻥ)‪(٣٧‬؛ ﻭﺒﺩﻻﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺘﺯﻡ ﺒﻘﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺩ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻨﺠﺩ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺘﻭﺤﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﻭﻫﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺸﻬﺭ ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ‪(٣٨)Pantheism‬؛ ﻭﺒﺩﻻﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﻫﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﻤﺘﺩﺍﺩ ﻭﺇﻟﺤﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜل ﺠﻭﻫﺭ ﺒﺤﺎﻤل ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﻫﺭ‪ ،‬ﻨﺠﺩ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺠﻭﻫﺭﺍﹰ ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﻤﺘﺩﺍﺩ ﺴﻭﻯ ﺼﻔﺘﻴﻥ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﻫﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺠﻭﻫﺭﺍﹰ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﻼﹰ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺘﺤﻭل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺼﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺠﻭﻫﺭ ﻭﺍﺤﺩ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ؛ ﻭﺒﺩﻻﹰ ﻤﻥ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺭﺒﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻨﺠﺩ ﻋﻭﺩﺓ ﻗﻭﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﻗﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ؛ ﻭﺒﺩﻻﹰ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﻨﻔﺼﺎل‬
‫ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺴﻨﺠﺩ ﺘﻭﺤﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﺒﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻴﻀﺎﹰ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺒﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺩ ﺘﺨﻠﺹ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻤﻥ ﻜل ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻨﻘﺎﺌﺽ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺘﺨﻠﺹ ﻤﻥ ﻜل ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺄﺯﻭﻡ ﻭﻤﺎ ﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻤﻥ ﻭﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻨﻘﺴﻡ ﻴﺭﺠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻡ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺒﻨﺎﺌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺘﻔﺎﺼﻴﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺯﺌﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻲ ﺭﺅﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻡ ﻴﺄﺕ ﻜل ﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﺇﻥ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻘﺼﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺄﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻴﺽ ﻤﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻤﺫﻫﺒﻪ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻜﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻡ ﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻜﻤﻥ ﺘﺤﺕ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻡ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻤﺠﺭﺩ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺸﺨﺼﻴﺔ‬

‫‪37) Spinoza, Ethics II, Prop. 3, 4; in, Complete Works, translations by Samuel Shirley.‬‬
‫‪Edited with introduction and notes by Michael Morgan (Hackett Publishing‬‬
‫‪Company: Indianapolis/ Cambridge, 2002).‬‬
‫‪38) Spinoza, Ethics I, prop. xi, xvi.‬‬
‫‪٨٦٨‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻟﺩﻯ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺘﻔﻀﻴﻼﹰ ﺨﺎﺼﺎﹰ ﺒﻪ ﻟﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻭﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺫﻫﺏ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻲ؛ ﺒل ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﻴﺭﺠﻊ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻌﻴﺸﻪ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﺩﻯ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺨﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺭﺅﻴﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻋﻥ ﺭﺅﻴﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺩ ﺭﺃﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺘﻠﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺩﺓ ﺒﺎﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺒﺩﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﺴﻤﻲ ﻭﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻫﻭ ﺃﻗﻭﻯ ﺍﻷﻨﻅﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻠﺘﺯﻤﺔ ﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻤﺴﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻨﺠﺤﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺒﺈﺼﻼﺡ ﻤﻀﺎﺩ ﻟﻠﺤﺭﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺘﻴﺔ؛ ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻜﺭﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻴﻠﺘﺯﻤﻭﺍ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﺼﻼﺤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﻻ ﺼﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺨﻠﺼﻴﻥ ﻟﻨﻅﺎﻤﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺯﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻲ ﻗﺭﻴﻨﺎﹰ ﻟﻼﻟﺘﺯﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻨﺒﻼﺀ ﺍﻟﺭﻭﺏ‬
‫ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻓﺭﻀﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻥ ﺩﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺭﺴﻤﻲ ﻜﺫﻟﻙ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻗﺩ ﺃُﺠﺒﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻥ ﻁﻤﻭﺤﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺴﺒﻴل ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻤﻜﺘﺴﺒﺎﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ؛ ﺇﻨﻬﺎ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻓﺭﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻤﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ‪ ،‬ﺘﻘﺒل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﻷﻨﻪ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﺎﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻴﺩﺓ ﻟﺒﻘﺎﺌﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﺘﺩﻋﻴﻡ ﻭﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺍﻷﺭﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍﻁﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻴﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﺴﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻗﻁﺎﻋﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﺘﻘﺒل ﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﻨﺴﻘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻴﺩﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﻷﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻭﺍﺠﻬﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺘﻴﺎﻥ ﺒﺒﺩﻴل ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺠﺎﺀ ﻓﻜﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺎﹰ ﻭﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺒل‬
‫ﻭﻤﻨﺎﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻷﺤﻴﺎﻥ ﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻴﻅﻬﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻫﺩﺍﺌﻪ ﻟﺘﺄﻤﻼﺘﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺘﺫﺓ ﻭﻋﻤﺩﺍﺀ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻭﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺩﺴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺴﻭﺭﺒﻭﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻟﻡ ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻊ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﺒﻘﻁﻴﻌﺔ ﺤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺸﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻤﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺭﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻜﺭﺭﺕ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺸﻜﻠﺕ ﺘﺭﺍﺠﻌﺎﹰ ﻋﻥ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺴﺎﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻼﻁﻭﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺩﺜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﻤﻊ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻓﻼ ﻨﺠﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﻁﻨﻪ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﺴﻠﻁﺔ ﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻗﻭﻤﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﺒﺈﺼﻼﺡ ﻤﻀﺎﺩ ﻭﻤﻘﺎﻭﻤﺔ ﻋﻨﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﺴﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻤﻌﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺘﻴﺔ؛ ﺒل ﻨﺠﺩ‬
‫ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻨﺎﺠﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﺴﺘﻁﺎﻋﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﺹ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺤﺘﻼل ﺍﻷﺴﺒﺎﻨﻲ ﻤﻨﺫ ﺃﻭﺍﺨﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺃﺴﺒﺎﻨﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺩﻋﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺠﻨﻭﺏ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﻁﻭﻴل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭﺓ ﻭﺤﺘﻰ ﺃﻭﺍﺌل ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫‪٨٦٩‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻲ ﻨﺠﺩ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺭﺍﺌﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺘﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﺎﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺩﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺫﻫﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻨﺠﺩ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﻁﺎﻋﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻘﻴﻡ ﻨﻅﺎﻤﺎﹰ ﺩﻴﻤﻭﻗﺭﺍﻁﻴﺎﹰ ﺴﺒﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻨﺠﻠﻴﺯﻴﺔ )‪ (١٦٨٨‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ )‪ (١٧٨٩‬ﺒﻔﺘﺭﺓ ﻁﻭﻴﻠﺔ )‪ ،(١٥٦٨‬ﻭﻁﻭﺭﺕ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﺍﹰ‬
‫ﻨﻘﺩﻴﺎﹰ ﻤﻨﺫ ﻭﻗﺕ ﻤﺒﻜﺭ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻴﻁﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻷﻤﺭﻴﻜﺘﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺠﺯﺭ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻗﻴﺔ )ﻗﺒل ﺼﻌﻭﺩ ﺸﺭﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺠﻠﻴﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻤﻥ ﻋﺸﺭ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻜﻠﻪ ﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻨﻅﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﺜﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺎﹰ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﺩﻴﻨﻴﺎﹰ؛ ﻜﻤﺎ ﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻤﺘﺤﺭﺭﺓ ﻤﻥ ﻜل ﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻜﺒل ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻥ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻜﺎﻨﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ؛ ﺇﺫ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻤﺤﺎﻁﺔ ﺒﺄﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﻤﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﺴﻴﻁﺭﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ ﻗﻭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺴﻭﺍﺀ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺭﻨﺴﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺴﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺴﺒﺎﻨﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺜﻭﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻨﺠﻠﺘﺭﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺘﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺴﺭﻋﺎﻥ ﻤﺎ ﺍﻨﺘﻬﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺫﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺼﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺒﻌﻭﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺘﺸﺩﺩ ﺩﻴﻨﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺒﺭﻭﺘﺴﺘﺎﻨﺘﻴﺔ ﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺴﺭﻋﺎﻥ ﻤﺎ ﻓﻘﺩﺕ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﺭﻴﺎﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺘﻔﻭﻗﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻯ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻔﻭﻗﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻨﺠﻠﺘﺭﺍ ﻭﻓﺭﻨﺴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺩﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻭﺍﺨﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻀﻁﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﻀﻭﺍﺀ ﺘﺤﺕ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﺯﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺘﺘﺒﺎﺩل ﻗﻴﺎﺩﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻨﺠﻠﺘﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻭﻓﺭﻨﺴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻗﺩ ﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻨﺎﺌﻲ ﺫﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻨﺎﺌﻲ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﺒﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺒﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﻭﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﻨﺸﺎﺯ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﺁﻨﺫﺍﻙ)‪ .(٣٩‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺤﻭﺭﺒﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻁﻭﺍل ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻨﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻊ ﻋﺸﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻤﻥ ﻋﺸﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻤﺎﺭﺴﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﻭﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻅﺭ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺍﻨﺔ ﻟﻤﺅﻟﻔﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﻔﺭﺕ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻨﻅﺭﺕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻤﻬﺭﻁﻕ)‪.(٤٠‬‬

‫‪ (39‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻭﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺒﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﻨﺸﺎﺯ ﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺄﻟﻭﻑ ‪.anomaly‬‬

‫‪ (40‬ﻭﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﺭﺴﻡ ﺠﻭﻨﺎﺜﺎﻥ ﺇﺴﺭﺍﺌﻴل ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻫﻭ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﺭﺍﺌﺩ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭ ﻟﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻭ ﻤﺤﻕ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻴﺭ ﺃﻭﺍﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻡ ﺘﹸﺤﺩ‪‬ﺙ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻭﻗﻊ ﺇﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺭﻥ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻴﺭ‪ .‬ﺃﻟﻑ ﺇﺴﺭﺍﺌﻴل ﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻜﺘﺏ ﻤﻭﺴﻭﻋﻴﺔ ﻀﺨﻤﺔ ﺤﻭل ﻋﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻭﻴﺭ ﺘﺭﺴﻤﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻨﺎﺒﻊ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺭ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‪Israel, Jonathan, Radical Enlightenment. Philosophy and the Making of :‬‬
‫‪Modernity 1650-1750. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Enlightenment‬‬
‫‪Contested. Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670 – 1752 (New‬‬
‫‪York: Oxford University Press, 2006); Democratic Enlightenment. Philosophy,‬‬
‫‪Revolution, and Human Rights 1750 – 1790. (New York: Oxford University Press,‬‬
‫)‪2011‬‬
‫‪٨٧٠‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻓﻤﻊ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻫﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﻭﻴﺔ ﻭﻨﺎﺠﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺘﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺜﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺜل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻟﻡ ﻴﻜﻥ ﻤﻘﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﺒﻤﺎ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻴﻘﻴﺩ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﺨﻠﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺌﺽ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻌﻭﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻤﺘﻸﺕ ﺒﻬﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻟﻭﻫﻴﺔ ﺘﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻟﻡ ﻴﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺒﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﻌﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺴﻤﺎﺀ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻗﺎﺒﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﻡ ﻭﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺼﻭل‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻌﻘل‪ .‬ﺇﺫ ﻗﺩ ﺼﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻋﻨﺩﻩ ﻤﺤﺎﻴﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺤﺎﻟﱠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺃﺠﺯﺍﺌﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺘﻲ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻤﻐﺘﺭﺏ ﻭﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻏﺘﺭﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻟﻡ ﻟﻡ‬
‫ﺘﺴﺘﻁﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺘﺭﺍﺠﻌﺕ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺼﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻋﻨﺩ‬
‫ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﻤﺎ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻨﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻐﻠﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻌﺯل‬
‫ﺩﺍﺨل ﻓﻜﺭﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﻤﻊ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﻁﺎﻋﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻁﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﻟﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﺨﻠﻕ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﺎﻫﻲ ﻤﻌﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ ﻟﺩﻴﻪ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﻤﻔﺎﺭﹺﻗﺔ ﻤﻐﺘﺭﺒﺔ ﺒل ﺼﺎﺭﺕ ﻤﺤﺎﻴﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻗﺩ ﺴﺒﻕ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺨﻠﻘﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﺭﻴﺩﻩ ﻭﻨﺠﺤﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺼﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻜل ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻤﺤﺎﻴ‪‬ﺜﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻜل‪ ،‬ﻭﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻗﺩﻴﻤﺎﹰ ﻭﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺤﻘﺎﺌﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺯﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺤﺩﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﻗﻭﺍﻨﻴﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺇﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻬﺎﺩﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻡ ﻴﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﺠﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﻜﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﺴﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﻴﺔ ﻫﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ‬
‫ﻴﺴﺘﻁﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻤﻭﺕ ﻭﻫﻭ ﻤﻁﻤﺌﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻁﺒﻘﺘﻪ ﺴﻭﻑ ﺘﺴﺘﻤﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺒﻌﺩﻩ ﺍﺴﺘﻤﺭﺍﺭﺍﹰ ﺠﻤﻌﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻙ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺘﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻫﻭ ﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻋﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺒﻌﺩ ﻤﻭﺕ ﺃﻓﺭﺍﺩﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻟﻡ ﺘﻜﻥ ﺘﻀﻤﻥ ﺒﻘﺎﺀﻫﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺒﺎﻟﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻱ؛ ﻓﻬﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩ ﺒﻔﻜﺭﻩ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﺯﺍﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘل ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺓ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﺎﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﻴﺩﺓ ﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﺒﻌﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻨﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﻜل ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﻀﻭﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﺒﻘﺎﺌﻬﺎ ﺒﻌﻴﺩﺍﹰ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻌﻲ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺘﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻘﻼل ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﻴﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺘﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﻜﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻻ ﻜﺄﻓﺭﺍﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪٨٧١‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻜﺭﺓ ﻓﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘل ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻤﺄﺨﻭﺫﺓ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺒﻥ ﺭﺸﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻭﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺒﻭﺍﻋﺙ ﺘﺒﻨﻲ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻤﺭﺘﺒﻁﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻁﻭﺭﺕ ﻭﻋﻴﺎﹰ ﻁﺒﻘﻴﺎﹰ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺎﹰ ﺍﺴﺘﻁﺎﻉ ﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻨﺯﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻗل ﻨﻀﺠﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﻷﻜﺜﺭ ﻁﻔﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻗل ﺘﻁﻭﺭﺍﹰ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﻀﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺎﺸﻬﺎ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺠﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻴﺘﺒﻨﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺩﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺘﺼﺩﻕ ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺎﻜﺱ ﻓﻴﺒﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎﺭﺓ ‪ ،elective affinity‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺘﺫﻫﺏ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺠﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻌﻴﺩ ﺇﺤﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﻤﺫﺍﻫﺏ ﻭﻓﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﻗﺩﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺴﺒﻕ ﻅﻬﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭ ﻤﺎﺽﹴ ﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﺤﺩﺙ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻓﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻀﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩ‬
‫ﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺴﺏ‪ ،‬ﻴﺠﻌل ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻴﺩﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺘﺒﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻤﺎ)‪ .(٤١‬ﻓﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻭﺩ ﻭﺍﻷﺯﻟﻴﺔ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﻭﺭﺠﻭﺍﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻭﻟﻨﺩﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺭﻏﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻨﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺼﻭﺭ ﻓﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﺴﺎﺒﻘﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪41) Gerth, H.H., and Wright Mills, C., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (New‬‬
‫‪York: Oxford University Press, 1946), pp. 62-63, 276, 285, 325, 348, 371.‬‬
‫‪٨٧٢‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﺧﺎﺗﻤﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺒﻌﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻌﺭﻓﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺭﻭﻁﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻭﺴﻴﻭﻟﻭﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻨﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻵﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻭﻀﻊ ﻴﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺒﺄﻥ ﻨﻌﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺘﺤﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻁ ﺒﻪ ﻤﻥ ﻜل ﺠﺎﻨﺏ‪ .‬ﻓﻬل ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ؟‬
‫ﻫل ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻟﻭﺍﻗﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺘﺒﻌﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺭﻜﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻴﺭﺓ ﺤﻭل ﺜﻨﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻭﻗﻲ؟‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻤﺎ ﺘﻭﺼﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻴﺠﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻨﻌﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﺎﻨﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺤﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺘﺘﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﻴﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻭﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺃﺜﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﺜﺒﺘﺕ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻻ ﺘﺸﻴﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ؛ ﺫﻟﻙ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻟﻴﺴﺕ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻲ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻜﺎﻨﻴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺒل ﻫﻲ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻭﻱ؛ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﻤﺘﺴﺎﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻜﻭﻨﺔ ﻟﻜل ﻋﻀﻭﻱ ﻭﺍﺤﺩ‪ ،‬ﻴﺘﺒﺎﺩل ﻜل ﻤﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺨﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﺜﻨﺎﻥ ﻴﺘﺄﺜﺭﺍﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﹰ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺼﺭ ﻤﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻜﻭﻨﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺃﻭﻀﺎﻉ ﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻓﻜﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﺭﺍﺒﻁﺔ ﻋﻀﻭﻴﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﻓﻜل ﻤﺎ ﻴﺤﺩﺙ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻴﺠﺩ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻭﺍﺯﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﺎﹰ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺴﺎﺱ ﺘﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺸﻜﻴﻠﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﻜل ﻋﻀﻭﻱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺤﺩ ﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻤﺼﻁﻠﺢ "ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ"‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻜﺭ ﻨﺎﺒﻊ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﻓﻜﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺘﺤﺎﺩ ﻋﻀﻭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻤﺎ ﻴﺒﺭﺭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻭﺃﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﻫﻭ ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺌﻠﺔ ﺇﻥ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻭﺘﺭﺍﺒﻁ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻫﻭ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻨﻅﺎﻡ ﻭﺘﺭﺍﺒﻁ ﺍﻷﺸﻴﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻤﻠﺕ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻷﺸﻴﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻴﺸﻜﻼﻥ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻭﺍﺯﻴﻴﻥ ﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺘﻔﻴﺩﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺸﺭﻭﻁﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻤﺘﻭﺍﺯﻴﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﺼل ﻭﻴﺸﻜﻼﻥ ﺠﺎﻨﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻠﺔ ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻴﻨﻭﺯﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻥ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺒﻌﺽ ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻟﻭﻴﺱ ﺃﻟﺘﻭﺴﻴﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺫﺍﻫﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺴﺘﻔﺎﺩ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﻨﺎ ﺒﻪ ﻜﺜﻴﺭﺍﹰ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪٨٧٣‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 ‫ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﺒﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻨﻌﻜﺎﺴﺎﹰ ﻷﺴﺎﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺇﻻ ﺒﻭﻀﻊ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻨﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﺴﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻨﺩﻤﺎ ﻴﻘﻭل ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﻤﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ)‪ ،(٤٢‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﺠﺎﺯﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻻ‬
‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭﻫﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﺘﻡ ﺩﺍﺨل ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﻷﺼﻠﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ‪.‬‬

‫‪42) Negri, The Political Descartes, P. 235.‬‬

‫ﻴﻨﻅﺭ ﻨﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﻨﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ‪ metaphors‬ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﻭﻟﻠﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻠﺴﻭﻑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻜﺫﺍ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻨﻘل ﻟﻠﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﻴﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻌﺒﻴﺭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻤﺠﺎﺯﻱ ﻭﺍﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﻴﺸﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ‪ cognitive metaphor‬ﻴﺨﺘﻠﻑ ﻋﻥ ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻨﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ ﻟﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺭﻜﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻱ‪.‬‬
‫‪٨٧٤‬‬

‫‪PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com‬‬

 :‫اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ‬
:‫ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ اﻷﺟﻨﺒﯿﺔ‬.١
- Anderson, Abraham: “Descartes Contra Averroes?: The Problem of
Faith and Reason in the Letter of Dedication to the Meditations”,
Interpretation, Vo. 32, no. 2, Winter 1996, pp. 209-221.
- Bourdieu, Pierre, The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of
Power. Translated by Lauretta C. Clough (Cambridge: Polity Press,
1996)
- Davidson, Neil, How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois
Revolutions?. (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2012).
- Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, in Philosophical
Writings, translated by Norman Kemp Smith. (New York: The Modern
Library, 1958)
- -------------: “Rules for the Direction of the Mind”, in The Philosophical
Writings of Descartes, vol. I, (London. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1985)
- -------------: To Mersenne, On the Eternal Truths (April 15, May 6 and
May 27, 1630”, in Philosophical Essays and Correspondence, edt.
Roger Ariew. (Indianapolis/ Cambridge: Hackett, 2000)
- Gerth, H.H., and Wright Mills, C., From Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946)
- Goldmann, Lucien, Immanuel Kant (London/ New York: Verso, 2011/
first published 1945)
- -------------, The Hidden God: A Study of the Tragic Vision in the
Pensee of Pascal and the Tragedies of Racine. Translated by Philip
Thody. (London and New York: Routledge, 2014, 1st ed. 1964).
- Horkheimer, Max, Critical Theory. Translated by Mathew J. O’Connell
and others. (New York: Continuum, 2002)
- ---------------, Eclipse of Reason.(London and New York: Continuum,
2004)
- ----------------: “The Rationalism Debate in Contemporary Philosophy”,
Between Philosophy and Social Science. Selected Early Writings.
Translated by G. Frederick Hunter, Mathew S. Kramer & John Torpey
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993)
- Lukacs, Georg, History and Class Consciousness. Translated by
Rodney Livingstone. (London: Merlin Press, 1967).
- Marx, Capital, I. (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959)

٨٧٥

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

 - Mészáros, István, Social Structure and Forms of Consciousness.
Vol. I: The Social Determination of Method. (New York: Monthly Review
Press, 2010)
- Negri, Antonio, The Political Descartes: Reason, Ideology, and the
Bourgeois Project. Translated and introduced by Matteo Mandarini and
Alberto Toscano. (London. New York, Verso, 2007)
- ---------------, The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza’s
Metaphysics and Politics. Translated by Michael Hardt. (Minneapolis,
Oxford: University of Minnesota Press, 1991)
- Sartre, Jean-Paul, Search For A Method. Translated with Introduction
by Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963).
- Sohn-Rethel, Alfred, Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of
Epistemology (London: Macmillan, 1978)
- Spinoza, Complete Works, translations by Samuel Shirley. Edited with
introduction and notes by Michael Morgan (Hackett Publishing
Company: Indianapolis/ Cambridge, 2002).

:‫ اﻟﻤﺮاﺟﻊ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﯿﺔ‬.٢
،‫ ﻤﻨﺸﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻭﻴﺩﺍﺕ‬.‫ ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻜﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺝ‬.‫ ﺘﺄﻤﻼﺕ ﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺯﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‬:‫ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬-
١٩٨٨ ،‫ ﺒﺎﺭﻴﺱ‬/‫ﺒﻴﺭﻭﺕ‬
،‫ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺘﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﻁﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺭ‬.‫ ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻤﺤﻤﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﻀﻴﺭﻱ‬.‫ ﻤﻘﺎل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺞ‬:‫ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬-
١٩٦٨ ‫ ﺍﻟﻁﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ‬،‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺭﺓ‬
‫ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ‬،‫ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺴﺭﺍﺱ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺭ‬.‫ ﺘﺭﺠﻤﺔ ﻭﺘﻘﺩﻴﻡ ﺴﻔﻴﺎﻥ ﺴﻌﺩ ﺍﷲ‬.‫ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﻟﺘﻭﺠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺭ‬:‫ ﺩﻴﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬-
٢٠٠١

٨٧٦

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com