Document Type : Research
Authors
1 -
2 Professor of courses outside of jurisprudence and principles at the holy Mashhad Seminary and assistant professor at the Department of Jurisprudence and Principles of Jurisprudence, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Abstract
The present study, with an analytical-comparative approach, examines two anthropological approaches: abstract and physicalist, and their moral consequences. The main issue of the research is how the difference in the foundations of anthropology leads to the formation of distinct and sometimes conflicting moral theories. In the abstract perspective, which is derived from transcendental wisdom and the foundations of Islamic philosophy, man is considered a being with an abstract self-aspect who is endowed with inherent dignity, real agency, moral responsibility, and the ability to receive reward and punishment in the hereafter. In contrast, the physicalist approach, which is rooted in secular anthropology and contemporary cognitive sciences, considers man to be merely a material and biological entity whose entire behavior can be explained at the physical and neurological level. Therefore, concepts such as agency, absolute value, or moral justice lack a real basis in it. This research, based on the works of Islamic thinkers such as Allameh Tabatabaei and Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and analyzing the views of thinkers such as Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, shows that accepting or denying the indivisibility of the soul seriously changes the moral, educational, and social foundations. The basic finding is that divine anthropology, due to its comprehensive view of the material and abstract dimensions of man, can present a more coherent, meaningful, and innate moral system based on innate dignity. Accordingly, returning to it is a strategic necessity in rebuilding moral and educational systems in the contemporary world.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)