بررسی تطبیقی انتقادی اندیشه های سارتر و شهید مطهری در باب ماهیت انسان : اصالت بشر در برابر انسان کامل

The present study conducts a comparative-critical examination of two ideas: "the authenticity of man" by Jean-Paul Sartre and "the perfect man" by Morteza Motahari, concerning the nature of human beings. The main problem of this research is to explain the similarities and differences between these two perspectives regarding the meaning of life, freedom, responsibility, and the ultimate purpose of human beings. The importance of this topic stems from the fact that in the contemporary world, spiritual crises, nihilism, existential anxiety, and human bewilderment in the face of fundamental questions about existence and the purpose of life have doubled the necessity of re-reading and comparing different systems of thought. On one side, Sartre, as the prominent representative of atheistic existentialism, centering on the contradiction between existence and essence, considers man as a being without a predetermined essence and "condemned to freedom," who must himself create the meaning of his life. On the other side, Shahid Motahari, relying on the primacy of existence, divine nature (fitrah), and substantial motion, introduces man as a purposeful being with an innate potential to attain the desired perfection. The research method in this study is analytical-comparative, relying on library sources and the texts of the original works of both thinkers. In his book "Existentialism and Human Authenticity," Sartre bases his thought on the principle that existence precedes essence. In other words, man first comes into existence and then creates his own essence and nature. From this perspective, there is no pre-determined nature or fitrah for man. Man is a being who is initially nothing, and then through his free choices, he shapes his identity and the meaning of his life. Sartre believes that man is condemned to freedom because he cannot escape choice and responsibility. This freedom is accompanied by anxiety and heavy responsibility, since each individual's choice is somehow considered a choice for all humanity. From Sartre's viewpoint, the absurdity and meaninglessness of the world find meaning only through man's free action. He denies any pre-determined divine or innate purpose for man and considers the meaning of life to be the product of individual creativity and will. In contrast, Shahid Motahari, utilizing the philosophical foundations of transcendent theosophy, particularly the primacy of existence, substantial motion, and fitrah, presents a different image of man. From his perspective, man is a being whose existence is primary and whose essence is subordinate to his existence. Based on the principle of substantial motion, man is not a static and fixed being, but is on a path of continuous evolution and becoming. The divine fitrah of man means his innate and inner inclination toward perfection, virtue, and truth. Motahari believes that man possesses latent potentials that flourish through education, free will, and righteous action. The ultimate purpose of man from his perspective is to reach the perfect man and proximity to God. The perfect man is one in whom all dimensions of existence, including intellect, will, emotion, and body, have grown in harmony and balance. From this perspective, human freedom is not only not in conflict with purposefulness and teleology, but is a tool for attaining true perfection and happiness. A comparative examination of these two ideas shows that both thinkers emphasize human freedom, free will, and responsibility. Both Sartre and Motahari consider man as a free being who determines his own destiny and is responsible for his choices. Both also emphasize the importance of meaning in human life, with the difference that Sartre considers meaning to be made by the individual, while Motahari seeks it in the innate and divine path. Furthermore, both perspectives emphasize freedom as a fundamental characteristic of man, although its foundations and consequences differ. The fundamental differences between these two ideas can be examined at three levels: ontological, anthropological, and teleological. At the ontological level, Sartre believes in the absurdity and purposelessness of the world, while Motahari considers the world to possess a wise and purposeful order. At the anthropological level, Sartre introduces man as without a pre-determined essence and fitrah, but Motahari emphasizes the existence of divine fitrah and innate potentials in man. At the teleological level, Sartre accepts no pre-determined purpose for man and considers man's perfection to lie in freedom and choice itself, while Motahari sees man's ultimate perfection in proximity to God and the realization of the perfect man. These differences stem from the differences in the philosophical foundations and worldviews of these two thinkers. A critique of Sartre's thought from Motahari's perspective shows that Sartre's theory of human authenticity suffers from inherent contradictions. On one hand, Sartre accepts man's absolute freedom, but on the other hand, he places a heavy responsibility on him that, without innate and divine support, is difficult to bear. This contradiction leads to anxiety and nihilism. In contrast, Shahid Motahari's model of the perfect man, due to its attention to the spiritual, innate, and social dimensions of man, and its presentation of practical solutions in educational, ethical, and social domains, possesses greater applicability for responding to the spiritual crises of the contemporary world. Motahari not only pays attention to human freedom and responsibility but also, by presenting a transcendent goal, gives meaning and direction to human life. The conclusion of the research shows that although both perspectives emphasize human freedom, free will, and responsibility, they have fundamental differences in their ontological, anthropological, and teleological foundations. Shahid Motahari's model, due to its attention to the spiritual dimensions of man, its presentation of practical solutions in educational and social domains, and its greater applicability in responding to the spiritual crises of the contemporary world, is superior compared to Sartre's theory, which suffers from inherent contradictions. Therefore, re-reading Motahari's thought can be illuminating for today's generation, especially in facing spiritual and ethical challenges. It is suggested that future research also compare these two perspectives with other philosophical and psychological schools to clarify further dimensions of this topic