نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
استادیار گروه فلسفه اسلامی مؤسسه پژوهشی حکمت و فلسفه ایران
عنوان مقاله [English]
In Allameh Tabatabai's works, two different approaches to the issue of discretion are presented: the adaptive approach and the authoritarian approach. Allameh Tabatabai's authoritarian approach is his innovative vision which is drawn through the credit of the obligation, as one of the credits before the community, on an individual and personal level - not a social one.
Habermas also by authoritarian approach depicts human free will, through separating the realm of causality in the natural world from the realm of reasoning in the social world. This article seeks to answer these questions: What are the similarities and differences between the authoritarian view of Allameh Tabatabai and the authoritarian view of Habermas? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these two perspectives? Are these views acceptable and can they explain human’s free will? In this paper, these two perspectives on free will are compared and examined. Habermas's authoritarian view is similar to Allameh Tabatabai's authoritarian view in that he explains free will through a symbolic and credible world which is not subject to the law of causality and causal necessity. With the difference that in Allameh Tabatabai's approach, credit is a credit dependent on the creditor and one of the credits before the community. But in Habermas's account, credit is a social world that is independent of the established person and the person has not credited it. We conclude, by examining these two perspective: both perspectives have their faults and cannot be considered an acceptable approach to explaining the issue of free will.