TY  - JOUR
T1  - Toplumsal Bedenin Yetkinliği:  Nasîrüddîn-i Tûsî’de İdeal Yönetim Ontolojisi
TT  - The Perfection of the Social Body: Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī’s Ontology of Ideal Political Power
AU  - Gökdağ, Kamuran
PY  - 2018
DA  - September
DO  - 10.26570/isad.459783
JF  - İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi
JO  - isad
PB  - Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Araştırmaları Merkezi
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 1301-3289
SP  - 47
EP  - 68
IS  - 40
LA  - tr
AB  - Bu çalışmadaki maksat Nasîrüddîn-i Tûsî’nin,alışılagelindiği üzere, erdemli devlet(ler) - erdemli olmayan devletler, başkabir ifadeyle ideal devlet(ler) - ideal olmayan devletler tasnifini bir defadaha aktarmak değildir. Şüphesiz Tûsî’nin bu konudaki tasnifleri en iyi biçimiyleyine kendi metinlerinden, özellikle Ahlâk-ı Nâsırî’den okunabilir.Aksine buradaki amaç, ister erdemli olsun ister erdemli olmasın,Tûsî’nin metinlerindeki bütün iktidar biçimlerini ortak kesen ontolojik ilkeninne olduğunu tespit etmek, bu ilkenin hem aşkınlık hem de içkinlik düzlemleriyleya da salt bilgi ve salt eylem alanlarıyla aynı anda kesişen bir metafora nasıldönüştüğünü ve Tûsî düşüncesinde bu metaforun normatif bir teleoloji bağlamındaideal olan işleyişini göstermektir. Kavramsal çerçevesibakımından insan doğası gereği toplumsal bir varlıktır şeklinde Aristo’yareferansla kullanılan bu ilkeye mahiyeti bakımından ise, Aristo’nun öncesi veözellikle hocası Eflâtun da (Platon) dahil olmak üzere, hemen hemen bütünklasik siyaset düşünürleri müracaat ederler. Başvurulan bu mahiyet, en kabahaliyle, insanî varoluşun ancak toplumsal bir bedende mümkün olduğudüşüncesidir. Tûsî düşüncesinde ise bu ilkenin özellikle belirlediği şey,insana özgü siyasî eylemin bir toplum içinde ya da bütün bireyleri aşkıntoplumsal bir bedende tahayyül edilebileceğidir. Ancak Tûsî literatüründe, bubedenin organlarını veya bileşenlerini bütünlüklü bir birliğe kavuşturarak yetkinleştirensürecin ne olduğu, bu sürecin siyaset felsefesinin Aristocu kurucu ilkesiyleilişkisinin nasıl kurulduğu sorusu henüz açıklıkla sorulmuş değildir. Tûsî’nin anlaşılmasındaoldukça önemli olan bu sorunun mümkün cevabı, onun, söz konusu kurucu ilkebağlamında her biri insan doğasında köklenen bazı ikilikler arasındakigerilimleri nasıl aştığını ya da elediğini ve bütün bu ikilikleri veyaçoklukları birbirini onaylayarak bütünleyen bir birliğe nasıl kavuşturduğunu göstermeklebulunabilir.
KW  - Nasîrüddîn-i Tûsî
KW  - toplumsal beden
KW  - içkinlik düzlemi
KW  - aşkınlık düzlemi
KW  - birlik/yetkinlik
KW  - ideal yönetim
N2  - The objective of this study is not to reproduceonce again Tūsī’s usual classification of virtuous cities and non-virtuouscities or ideal and non-ideal cities. One can learn about these classificationsthrough his own works, particularly from Nasirean Ethics (Akhlāq-i Naṣirī). Rather, the objective here is to specify the ontological principlethat serves as the common denominator to all forms of power in Tūsī’s works, be itvirtuous or non-virtuous, and to show how this principle becomes a metaphor through its transcendental and immanent levels orby its grounds of pure knowledge and pure action as well as how he processesthis metaphor in a normative teleology. For its conceptual vocabulary, almostall classical political thinkers refer to this principle as formulated byAristotle in the phrase, “Manis by nature a social animal.” The similarities and differences inphilosophers’ perspectives on the identity of power depend on their definitionof the social/political content of this principle in relation to “human nature.” Therefore, they discuss the sociallife and the ideal form or management of this social life directly in relationto human nature. One can argue, however, that although all thinkers,principally classical philosophers, have their own vocabularies and conceptualpreferences on the subject, they theorize within a similar epistemologicalframework. They discuss the premise, “Manis by nature a social animal,” on two grounds. In other words, this premisethat finds its base in the separation of body and soul reaches to thedistinction of society and ideal society by analyzing essential human needs andhuman needs for perfection. These needs can be placed onto immanent ground ascorporal needs-society and onto transcendental ground as soul-perfectiveneeds-ideal society. However, a tension in theoretical discussions of thesubject always exists. This tension between grounds exists in parallel to thesearch for ideal politics and the secondary expositions on this search whosefocal point moves toward extremes. Sometimes this tension increases to thelevel that it creates an opposition between two grounds, and reproduces both ofthem in a contradictory way to their own premises. This practice ofreproduction covers the shared field of these two grounds and the exchangesbetween these grounds through these correlations. Tūsī’s conception of social body enables us tounderstand all political practices occurring within the shared space whereimmanence and transcendence meet in two-dimensional correlations. Theparticular thing that this principle determines in Tūsī’s thought is that thepolitical action specific to the human being can be imagined in a society or asocial body transcendent of all its individuals. The literature on Tūsī,however, has not openly questioned the process of perfection of this body’sorgans or components by turning them into a whole union. Also, the question ofhow the political philosophy of this process is related to Aristotelianconstitutive premise has not been addressed yet. A possible answer to this question can be found by showing how one overcomes or eliminates the dualisms taking root in humannature within the context of this premise and how she or he arrives to acomplete union by approving of each element in dualisms or multitudes. Humannature, society or politics are taken as identical issues in Tūsī’s politicalphilosophy. The most important source of this idea of identicalness, which hasits rootsin Ancient Greece, for Tūsī and even in the present day withvarious differences and antitheses is to relate the premise that man is bynature a social animalwith spiritual and corporal needs and at the same time with immanent andtranscendent grounds. Two kinds of body — man and society — are conceived of asconnected to the same causational principle and to the same processes. Tūsī groundsthis thought in the theory of needs based on the union and harmony betweencorporal organs and spiritual powers. In this sense, the premise that man isby nature a social animal is explained in his thought both through immanentneeds based on body and through transcendental needs based on soul. According to Tūsī, even though a completeopposition can be created by pulling two grounds to the extremes, they cannotbe separated completely, because a connection between grounds taking rootwithin human nature always exists. The illusion or image of separation occurs whenone ground seizes the other in possession or dispossession of the other throughthis connection. For example, the domination of reason in soul-relatedperfections in the transcendental ground occurs not by destroying the corporalneeds in the immanent ground, such as desire and anger, but, on the contrary,by bringing that desire and anger into a balance and controlling it through asuperior position. On the other hand, placing the corporal needs to thisposition limits soul-related perfections. Staying within the normativeteleology of the classical philosophy, Tūsī treats the first status as thehealth of the whole, composition or body and the second status as its illness.Therefore, in both health and illness, grounds can play actively to place itselfinto this dominant position during the human process of being human. In other words, the principal thing thatdistinguishes human association from other animal associations or commonalitiesis an association in which both grounds can be active at the same time despitetheir variable conditioned differences. Just as encoding health and illnesstendencies in relations between body and organs, these grounds that can beactive only by encoding similartendencies in the social body and organs proportional to their levels offunctionalities. Tūsī transforms the relationship between the tendenciesreturning to or rooting in these grounds to the body-organ metaphor in thelogic of balance in thetheory of disposition and treats it as a common denominator for both bodies. 
CR  - Aristotle, Politics, trc. ve ed. C. D. C. Reeve, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998.
CR  - Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, trc. David Ross, ed. Lesley Brown, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
CR  - Demirkol, Murat, Nasîreddin Tûsî’nin Ahlâk Felsefesine Etkisi, Ankara: Fecr Yayınları, 2011.
CR  - Fahreddin er-Râzî, el-Muhassal, nşr. Hüseyin Atay, Kahire: Mektebetü dâri’t-türâs, 1411.
CR  - Fahreddin er-Râzî, Şerhu Uyûni’l-hikme, nşr. Ahmed Hicâzî es-Sekkā, Tahran: Müessesetü’s-Sâdık, t.y.
CR  - Fahreddin er-Râzî, Şerhu’l-İşârât ve’t-tenbîhât, nşr. Ali Rızâ Necefzâde, Tahran: Encümen-i Âsâr ve Mefâhir-i Ferhengî, 1384hş.
CR  - Gökdağ, Kamuran, İbn Haldûn’un Toplum ve Siyaset Teorisinde Asabiyet (doktora tezi), İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2017.
CR  - Hillî, İbnü’l-Mutahhar, Keşfü’l-murâd fî şerhi Tecrîdi’l-i‘tikād, Beyrut: Müessesetü’l-A‘lemî li’l-matbûât, 1408/1988.
CR  - İbn Miskeveyh, Tehzîbü’l-ahlâk, trc. Abdulkadir Şener v.dğr., İstanbul: Büyüyen Ay, 2003.
CR  - İbn Sînâ, Risâletü ecvibeti an aşere mesâil, Resâilü İbn Sînâ içinde, nşr. Hilmi Ziya Ülken, İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi, 1953, II, 76-83.
CR  - İbn Sînâ, el-İşârât ve’t-tenbîhât, nşr. Süleyman Dünyâ, Kahire: Dârü’l-maârif bi-Mısr, 1968.
CR  - İbn Sînâ, eş-Şifâ et-Tabîiyyât: el-Hayevân, nşr. Saîd Zâyed, Kum: Mektebetü Âyetullahi’l-Uzmâ el-Mar‘aşî en-Necefî, 1984.
CR  - İbn Sînâ, en-Necât, nşr. Mâcid Fahrî, Beyrut: Dârü’l-âfâki’l-cedîde, 1982.
CR  - İbn Sînâ, Kitâbü’ş-Şifâ: Metafizik, I-II, trc. Ekrem Demirli-Ömer Türker, İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2004-2005.
CR  - İbn Sînâ, Uyûnü’l-hikme, nşr. Abdurrahman Bedevî, Beyrut: Dârü’l-kalem, 1980.
CR  - Kaya, M. Cüneyt, “In The Shadow of “Prophetic Legislation”: The Venture of Practical Philosophy After Avicenna”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 24/2 (2014): 269-296.
CR  - Kaya, M. Cüneyt, ““Peygamberin Yasa Koyuculuğu”: İbn Sînâ’nın Amelî Felsefe Tasavvuruna Bir Giriş Denemesi”, Dîvân: Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, sy. 27 (2009): 57-91.
CR  - Plato, The Laws of Plato, trc. ve ed. Thomas L. Pangle, London: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
CR  - Plato, The Republic of Plato, trc. ve ed. Allan Bloom, New York: Basic Books, 1968.
CR  - Tiryaki, M. Zahit - Kübra Bilgin Tiryaki (ed.), İslam Düşüncesinde Mizaç Teorileri, Ankara: Nobel Yayınları, 2016.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîrüddin, Risâletü’l-imâme, Telhîsü’l-Muhassal içinde, nşr. Abdullah Nûrânî, Tahran: Müessese-i Mütâlaât-ı İslâmî Dânişgâh-ı McGill Şu‘be-i Tahrân, 1359hş./1980.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîruddin, Ahlâk-ı Nâsırî, trc. Anar Gafarov-Zaur Şükürov, İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2007.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîruddin, Evsâfü’l-eşrâf, nşr. M. Mehdî Şemseddin, Tahran: Sâzmân-i Çâp ve İntişârât, Vizâret-i Ferheng ve İrşâd-ı İslâmî, 1373.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîruddin, Risâle fî kavâidi’l-akāid, nşr. Ali Hasan Hâzim, Beyrut: Dârü’l-gurbe, 1413/1992.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîruddin, Şerhu’l-İşârât ve’t-tenbîhât, Kum: Neşrü’l-belâga, 1375.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîruddin, Tecrîdü’l-i‘tikād, nşr. M. Cevâd el-Hüseynî, Kum: Mektebü’l-a‘lâmi’l-İslâmî, 1407.
CR  - Tûsî, Nasîruddin, Telhîsü’l-Muhassal, nşr. Abdullah Nûrânî, Tahran: Müesse-i Mütâlaât-ı İslâmî Dânişgâh-ı McGill Şu‘be-i Tahrân, 1359hş./1980.
UR  - https://doi.org/10.26570/isad.459783
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/535235
ER  -