Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Recherche INDEX Auteur Motsclés NUMÉROS EN TEXTE INTÉGRAL 22 | 2022 Argumentat

Recherche INDEX Auteur Motsclés NUMÉROS EN TEXTE INTÉGRAL 22 | 2022 Argumentation et philosophie arabe du langage 21 | 2021 L’exercice en art 20 | 2020 Lire 19 | 2019 Dire et vouloir dire dans les arts du langage anciens et tardo antiques 18 | 2018 Usages contemporains de Descartes 17 | 2017 L'événement 16 | 2016 La notion d'Intelligence (nous noein) dans la Grèce antique 15 | 2015 Philosophie et littérature 14 | 2014 Dire et vouloir dire 13 | 2013 Pratiques de l'interprétation 12 | 2012 Un siècle de chimie à l'Académie royale des sciences 11 | 2011 L'instrument de musique 10 | 2010 Penser la fiction 9 | 2009 L'autre Husserl 8 | 2008 Chimie et mécanisme à l'âge classique 7 | 2007 La comédie d'Aristophane et son public 6 | 2006 Science et littérature 5 | 2005 La subjectivité 4 | 2004 Penser le corps 3 | 2003 Figures de l'irrationnel 2 | 2002 L'esprit. Mind/Geist 22 | 2022 Argumentation and Arabic Philosophy of Language Argumentation and Arabic Philosophy of Language Linguistic philosophy in modern uṣūl alfiqh: al Ākhund alKhurāsānī (d. 1911) on seeking something without willing it to be La philosophie linguistique dans l'uṣūl alfiqh moderne. AlĀkhund alKhurāsānī (m. 1911) : chercher quelque chose sans vouloir qu’il soit AliReza Bhojani https://doi.org/10.4000/methodos.8985 Résumé | Index | Plan | Texte | Bibliographie | Notes | Citation | Auteur ENGLISH FRANÇAIS Résumés Dans un ouvrage moderne fondateur de uṣūl alfiqh, alĀkhund alKhurāsānī (m. 1911) soutient que les deux termes ṭalab (recherche) et irāda (volonté) sont forgés pour désigner un seul concept. Dans l'argument, il implique que les Ashʿarīs, et certains Duodécimains Shīʿa modernes penchant vers leur position, tombent sous le coup d'un sophisme linguistique lorsqu'ils affirment que ṭalab et irāda sont distincts. Pour alKhurāsānī, ṭalab et irāda peuvent être utilisés dans deux modes distincts, un mode réel (ḥaqīqī) ou un mode initiateur (inshāʾī). Le premier dénote une recherche ou une volonté réelle dans l'essence d'un acteur , tandis que le second cherche simplement à initier le sens de la recherche ou de la volonté. En conséquence, un ṭalab initiateur peut être distinct d'un véritable irāda, et un véritable ṭalab peut être distinct d'un irāda initiateur , sans remettre en cause la position selon laquelle ṭalab et irāda sont conceptuellement identiques. L'analyse des arguments d'alKhurāsānī, et de certaines critiques de celuici par des érudits modernes et contemporains ultérieurs de uṣūl alfiqh, viseront à élargir notre compréhension de la catégorie d'inshāʾ en arabe, analysée jusqu'à présent à travers le prisme de la notion de performativité de J. L. Austin. Plus généralement, l'article prend le traitement de cette question linguistique comme un exemple affirmant l'importance continue de l'uṣūl alfiqh moderne et contemporain pour s'engager dans la philosophie arabe de la langue et de l'argumentation. Entrées d’index Motsclés : uṣūl alfiqh moderne, philosophie linguistique arabe, inshāʾ, commandement, chercher et vouloir, performatifs arabes Keywords: modern uṣūl alfiqh, Arabic linguistic philosophy, inshāʾ, command, seeking and willing, Arabic performatives SEARCH All OpenEdition ☝ ἶ This site uses cookies and gives you control over what you want to activate ✓ OK, accept all ✗ Deny all cookies Personalize Privacy policy L'esprit. Mind/Geist 1 | 2001 La philosophie et ses textes TOUS LES NUMÉROS → LA REVUE Projet scientifique Description de la revue Direction de la revue et composition des différents comités Politique de science ouverte Conditions de publication et instructions aux auteurs APPELS À CONTRIBUTION Appels clos Appels en cours INFORMATIONS Contacter la revue Mentions légales et crédits Politiques de publication SUIVEZNOUS LETTRES D’INFORMATION La Lettre d’OpenEdition Revue soutenue par l’Institut des sciences humaines et sociales du CNRS Flux RSS Plan AlKhurāsānī and the Kifāyat aluṣūl Stakes in the debate The meaning of command Command as an initiation of seeking: ṭalab inshāʾī The fundamental identity of ṭalab and irāda Internal speech and the distinction between ṭalab and irāda The fallacy in distinguishing between ṭalab and irāda The reception of AlKhurāsānī’s ideas amongst later modern Shīʿī scholars Conclusions Texte intégral I would like to thank Syed Mohammad Ghari S. Fatemi who, in his typically engaging and provocative style, first introduced me to alKhurāsānī’s treatment of the issues discussed in this article. I also note my deep gratitude to Rahim Nobahar who has spent many hours helping me read and understand something of the linguistic discussions in Kifāyat aluṣūl. Errors, of course, are entirely my own. Thanks are also due to Walter Young and Sais Mandjee. Finally, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and gracious comments on an earlier version of the paper. Signa This paper examines an argument in modern Shīʿī uṣūl alfiqh (legal theory) regarding a contested linguistic distinction between ṭalab and irāda, or seeking and willing. The debate arises within the discussion of a typical uṣūl alfiqh position holding ṭalab to be the meaning of command as a substance of words (maʿnā māddat alamr). In his seminal Kifāyat aluṣūl, alĀkhund alKhurāsānī (d. 1911) argues that the two terms ṭalab and irāda are coined to refer to a single concept. Within the argument he implies that the Ashʿarīs, and some modern Twelver Shīʿa who lean towards their position, fall foul of a linguistic fallacy when they assert that ṭalab and irāda are distinct. For alKhurāsānī, both ṭalab and irāda may be used in two distinct modes, a real (ḥaqīqī) mode or an initiating mode (inshāʾī). The former denotes a real seeking or willing within the essence of an actor , whereas the latter simply seeks to initiate the meaning of seeking or willing. Accordingly, an initiating ṭalab may be distinct from a real irāda, and a real ṭalab may be distinct from an initiating irāda, without undermining the position that ṭalab and irāda are conceptually identical. Analysis of alKhurāsānī’s distinction between inshāʾī and ḥaqīqī, and some criticisms of it, will aim to broaden our understanding of the category of inshāʾ in Arabic, affirming the continued importance of uṣūl alfiqh for engaging with Arabic philosophy of language and argument. 1 1 Exploring the theological nature of Islamic Legal Theory is an established research avenue within I (...) Although within the context of a seminal work of uṣūl alfiqh, alKhurāsānī’s concerns in this discussion are typically not solely jurisprudential. 1 As many of his subsequent commentators have stated, his aim seems to be a refutation of the theory of internal speech (kalām nafsī) developed by Ashʿarī thinkers and discussed further below. His theological position is justified through pointing towards an alleged linguistic fallacy, provoking further linguistic analysis and argument amongst subsequent scholars of uṣūl alfiqh. As is typical of al Khurāsānī’s contributions within uṣūl alfiqh, his ideas continue to be a platform for extensive deliberation and discussion amongst Shīʿī seminarians. On this particular issue alKhurāsāni’s ideas have been widely criticised. Few scholars endorse his strategy for defending the core theological question at hand, the implications of his approach, or the linguistic position which is the crux of his argument. Analysis of alKhurāsānī’s arguments and some of the criticisms raised against them, will however demonstrate the vibrancy of late modern and contemporary uṣūl alfiqh as a forum for theological discourse which continues to be an impetus for argument and discussion of issues of philosophy of language in Arabic. 2 2 For example, see contributions to the Scholars of Islam and Arabic are now increasingly cognisant of the broad 3 As a debate emerging out of consideration of the meaning of command, al Khurāsānī’s argument for the identity of seeking and willing falls most squarely into alSīstānī’s second category. As shall be seen, however , his treatment presumes a particular understanding of the difference between assertoric and nonassertoric sentences, a distinction that is, for him, ultimately a function of usage. Through analysis of alKhurāsānī’s argument, this paper aims to emphasise that linguistic discussions within modern Shīʿī uṣūl alfiqh, described by alSīstānī as having such a firm place within the history and current content of the discipline, continue to be an important forum for the consideration and elaboration of ideas relevant to the philosophy of language. AlKhurāsānī and the Kifāyat al uṣūl contributions to the volume of Adamson, Peter (ed.) (2019), Philosophy and Jurispr (...) 3 For example, see the collection of essays in Germann, Nadja and Mostafa Najafi (eds.) (2021), Philo (...) 4 For example, see Gleave, Robert (2000), Inevitable Doubt: Two Theories of Shīʿī Jurisprudence, Leid (...) 5 Gleave, Robert (2019), “Sectarianism and Integration: Contemporary Categories and the Prospects for (...) philosophical contributions made within the writings of uṣūl alfiqh. 2 Still more recent scholarship, has emphasized its importance for understanding Arabic philosophy of language in particular . 3 As is typical of the study of Islamic philosophy and Islamic legal theory, the emphasis has however been on pre modern Sunnī thought. Study of modern and contemporary Shīʿī uṣūl alfiqh is still in its infancy, with the few dedicated monographs tending to focus on issues of epistemology. 4 Gleave has noted the value and importance of integrating studies of Shīʿī legal thought for the benefit uploads/Philosophie/linguistic-philosophy-in-modern-u-ul-al-fiqh.pdf