‫ﺍﳉﻤﻬﻮﺭﻳـﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴـﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺒـﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬

‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺷﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻣﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‬
‫‪-‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪-‬‬
‫ﲢﺖ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺃ ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺧﺪﳚﺔ ﺳﻌﻴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻤﺎﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﻢ ﻭﻟﻘﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ‬
‫ﺭﺋﻴﺴﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ﺑﻮﺩﻭﻣﺔ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻓﺎ ﻭﻣﻘﺮﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺪﻱ ﺑﻠﻌﺒﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ﻣﻌﺮﻑ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺪﻱ ﺑﻠﻌﺒﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﺯﻭﺍﻭﻱ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﻄﺎﺭ ﺃﲪﺪ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ‪2019-2018:‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳉﻤﻬﻮﺭﻳـﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴـﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺒـﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‬

‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺷﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻣﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‬
‫‪-‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪-‬‬
‫ﲢﺖ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺃ ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺧﺪﳚﺔ ﺳﻌﻴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﳉﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻤﺎﺀ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺗﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﻢ ﻭﻟﻘﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ‬
‫ﺭﺋﻴﺴﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ﺑﻮﺩﻭﻣﺔ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻓﺎ ﻭﻣﻘﺮﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺪﻱ ﺑﻠﻌﺒﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‬ ‫ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ ﻣﻌﺮﻑ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺳﻴﺪﻱ ﺑﻠﻌﺒﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﺯﻭﺍﻭﻱ ﺭﺍﻳﺲ‬
‫ﻋﻀﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻤﺴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﳏﺎﺿﺮ)ﺃ(‬ ‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﻄﺎﺭ ﺃﲪﺪ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ‪2019-2018:‬‬
 ‫ﺷﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺃﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﺸﻜﺮﻱ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﱐ ﺑﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺴﻰ ﺣﺮﺻﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﻪ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﻭﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﱄ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﺇﻫﺪﺍﺀ‬

‫ﺇﱃ ﻛﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘــﺪﻣــﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺿﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﺪ‪‬ﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﺇﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺩﱏ ﺷﻚ ﰲ ﺻﺪﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻈﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﺮﻋﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺠﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺍﹰ ﻷﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﺇﺳﺘﻐﻼﻻﺕ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺨﺬﻫﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺷﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﺩﺭﺍﺟﻬﺎ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ "ﺍﻹﺭﺙ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ"‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﲔ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺭﺙ ﺍﻟﻈﺨﻢ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺁﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻗﲔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﲔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺘﺢ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﺠﻠﱠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺍﳉﺮﻳﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﻨﻘﺪ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻗﺘﺤﺎﻡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻞ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻏﺎﻣﻀﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﳎﺎﻝ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻐﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻔﺮﺿﻪ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳍﲑﻗﻠﻴﻄﻲ "ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺮ"‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺳﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﻗﺪﻡ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﳎﺎﹰ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺎ ﻳﻬﺪﻡ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻧﻌﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ )ﺟﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻜﱰ ﰲ ﺃﻛﺘﻮﺑﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،(1966‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ‪):‬ﻟﻮﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺟﻮﻟﺪﻣﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺰﻓﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻭﺟﺎﻙ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺘﻪ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ‬

‫أ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪):‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﺿﻤ‪‬ﺖ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻌﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺆﻃﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻇﻠﺖ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺃﺛﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﹰ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﻓﻴﺎﹰ ﻟﻸﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻳﻌﺪ ﳊﻈﺔ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﳍﺎ ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺠﺰ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺭﻏﻢ ﻧﻘﺪﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺳﻊ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ )ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺩﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫)ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ(‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ‪ :‬ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻮﻻﻩ ﳌﺎ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺤﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﺟﻌﻠﺘﲏ ﻻ ﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺭﺑﺎﻁ‬
‫ﲪﻴﻤﻲ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻗﺮﺏ ﱄ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﳊﺾ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻓﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻟﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺻﺪﺍﻩ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍ‪‬ﻼﹼﺕ ﺑﻨﺸﺮ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺗﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻧﺸﺮﺕ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﲨﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﲨﺖ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﺬﻛﺮ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻘﺎﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ -‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2018 ،1‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﲎ‬
‫ﻃﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ‪.2018‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺭﺗﺄﻳﺖ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﺫﻛﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫‪Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy(2000), Adieu à Emmanuel‬‬
‫‪Lévinas(1997),Pardonner L'impardonneable et l'imprescriptible,‬‬

‫ب‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫‪L'autre cape(1992), Le monolinguisme de l'autre (1996),‬‬
‫‪Donne le temps(1991), Politique de l'amitié(1994), (1999) sur‬‬
‫‪parole.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻭﻧﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﻧﺒﻴﻞ )‪ ،(2013‬ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﻔﻲ)‪ ،(2013‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪،‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻣﺎ)‪ ،(2010‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻐﻴﺚ‪ -‬ﻣﲎ ﻃﻠﺒﺔ )‪ ،(2008‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴﺎﺷﻲ)‪ ،(2006‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ)‪ ،(2005‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ)‪ ،(2000‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ )ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻫﻲ)‪.(1992‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﺸﻮﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍ‪‬ﻼﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﰲ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﻋﺼﻔﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ‪ ،11‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،4‬ﺷﺘﺎﺀ‪،1993،‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ ﺿﻤﻦ ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪،1985 ،17‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﳛﺘﻮﻱ ﻛﻞ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻭﳛﻮﻱ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺎﻭﻳﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻴﺔ ﲢﻠﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﲪﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﲝﺜﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺑﺄﻫﻢ ﻗﻄﺒﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﳘﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻭﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﺪﺛﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﲢﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺩﻭﺩ‪ :‬ﻭﻭﻗﻔﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻱ‪،‬‬

‫ج‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺩ‪ ‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ‪ Intentionnalité‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﺎﳉﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻇﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺒﻜﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻇﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻪ )ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ( ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ )ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ( ‪ ،1967‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﹰ ﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺣﻠﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻸﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ)‪،(Le signe et les signes‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ )‪ ،(la réduction de l'indice‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‪:‬‬
‫‪ ،Le vouloir dire comme soliloque‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﳌﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍﹰ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﺤﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺃﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪-‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ :‬ﻭﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻭﺗﻄﺮﻗﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻄﺮﺣﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺷﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﻭﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻟﻠﺒﻮﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻛﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﲪﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺗﻌﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﻷﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ؟‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻄﺮﻗﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻷﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺮﺃﻫﻢ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‪:‬‬

‫د‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻭﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺑﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﺖ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺎﻁ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺭﺗﻜﺰﺕ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻭﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪. ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻛﹼﺰﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺯﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲢﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺃﻃﻴﺎﻓﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻔﻨﺎ ﺃﺧﲑﺍﹰ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ ﻓﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﲤﺜﻞ ﻧﺼﻮﺻﺎﹰ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻼ ﻭﻫﻮ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻼﻏﻲ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﳛﻴ‪‬ﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﲪﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻨﺎ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﺷﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ )ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺟ‪‬ﻬﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺃﺣﻜﻤﺖ ﺳﻴﻄﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻳﻨﺨﺮﻁ ﰲ ﺧﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺮﺣﻨﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﳘﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻜﻼﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍﹰ ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﺿﻄﺮ‪ ‬ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ)ﺩﻟﻴﻞ( ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﳚﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺴﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺤﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﺘﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﹰ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﻋﻨ‪‬ﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﲨﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﺻﻴﻐﺖ ﻟﺘﺜﲑ ﺍﻹﻋﺠﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻦ ﲡﺎﻭﺯﺍﹰ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬

‫ه‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻤﺴﻚ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﺬ )ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ( ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﺭﻭﺱ‬
‫ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﺫﻛﺮﺕ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﲏ ﻧﺴﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺧ )ﺕ(ﻻﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻀﻌﻪ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻰﺀ ﻇﻒ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ‪ ،Margin‬ﻭﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ‪،Supplement‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﺘﺖ‪ ، Disséminatio‬ﻭﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻐﺎﻣﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﲣﺘﻠﻂ ﲟﻐﺎﻣﺮﺓ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻄﺮﻗﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻠﻘﺖ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪ de la gramatologie‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﲡﺎﻫﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﻭ‪ Ittérabilite‬ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍﹰ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻧﺴﻴﺠﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﲪﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‪ :‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﲢﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺇﻻ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﺮﻓﺖ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻛﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﲪﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﺆﺳﺲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﲪﻞ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻪ ﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻄﺮﻗﺖ ﺇﺍﻯ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺮﺿﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻼﺗﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻓﺘﺤﺪﺛﺖ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻳﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺏ ﻣﺜﻼﹰ ﺍﻟﱵ‬

‫و‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻨﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺷﻢ ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺟﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﱂ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻓﻌﻨﻮﻧﺘﻪ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺭﻛﹼﺰﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﺇﺩﺭﻛﻲ ﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﳌﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﺭﺅﻳﱵ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺄﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺼﲑﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﺒﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﲜﺴﺪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ -‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻀﻤ‪‬ﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ )‪(Altérité‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ‪ Autre‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ‪L'autre‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﻠﺘﻘﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﻖ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﹼﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻔﺘﻮﺡ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﳌﻦ ﻳﻬﻤﻪ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ /‬ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻛﺰﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺘﻀﻤﻦ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺧﻠﺼﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﲡﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲢﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫‪ Hospitalité‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻜﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ‪ "Don‬ﻓﻔﻴﻬﺎ ‪-‬ﺍﳍﺒﺔ‪ -‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻧﻌﻄﻲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻱ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﳌﺎ ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﻭﻫﻲ ﳏﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﻳﻨﺴﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﲡﻠﻲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻟﻠﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‬
‫‪،Amitié‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﺃﲰﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﹰ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ‬

‫ز‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻳﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﶈﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻟﻜﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﲝﺜﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻇﻞ ﻓﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﻠﻮﺭ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻟﻺﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﺣﺎﺳﺘﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺣﺪﺱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ‪ /‬ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ؟‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺪﻑ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﻤﺖ ﺑﺘﺘﺒﻊ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻞ ﺍﶈﻄﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﺟﻬﺘﲏ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳒﺎﺯﻱ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ :‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﰒ ﻧﻔﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺷﻄﺒﻬﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻚ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺷﻚ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻓﺘﺸﻚ ﰲ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺸﻚ ﰲ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻧﺼﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﻤﺜﻠﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻓﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﻘﻄﻴﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﻟﻌﻮﺍﺭﺽ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﺱ‬
‫ﳚﻌﻠﻚ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﺄﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺗﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻔﻲ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻣﻌﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ح‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺷﻐﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻋﺠﺎﰊ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪.‬‬

‫ط‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪.:‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ .:‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪-‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫)ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻛﻌﺮﺽ ﻣﻌﱪ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻳﻄﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺧﺼﻮﺑﺔ ﻭ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ (‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪. 13‬‬

‫‪3‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﱢﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﻼﹰ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﺸﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺎﻳﺮﺕ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺯﻣﲏ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎ ﻭﺗﻌﺪﺩﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻓﺎﺋﻖ‪ ،‬ﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻟﲔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻳﺎﺿﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫"ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ"‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻗﺪﳝﺎ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻗﺪﳝﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻨﺔ ﻳﻔﺘﻘﺪ ﻟﻠﺪﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻸﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﺔ " ﻻ ﻳﻄﺮﻕ ﺑﺎﺑﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺭﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎ "‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍ ﺗﻨﺒﺆﻳﺎ ﺑﻘﺪﻭﻡ ﺷﺨﺺ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻛﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺠﺎﺀ ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺮﺿﻴﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﻘﻴﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺟﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﺎﻟﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﺎﻟﺖ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﳍﺎ ﻓﻘﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺨﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻟﻸﺯﻣﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﲢﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻭﺃﺧﻼﻕ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺯﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﲤﺜﻠﺖ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻧﺼﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ ﻭﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺃﳌﺎﱐ )‪،(1938-1859‬ﻭﻟﺪ ﻷﺑﻮﻳﲔ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﲔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺗﻨﺼﺮ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1887‬ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻟﻮﺛﺮﻳﺎ‪،‬ﻭﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻃﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﲔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﺎﻝ ﺃﻭﻻ ﰒ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺗﻮﺑﻨﻐﻦ ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﺒﻮﺭﻍ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪1928‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1891‬ﻧﺸﺮ )ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﺴﺎﺏ( ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﻠﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺮﺍﻉ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ‪ (...) ،‬ﻟﻴﺄﰐ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ‬
‫)ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺮ ﰲ ﳎﻠﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﲔ ‪ 1901-1900‬ﰲ ﻫﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺍﳌﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ(‬
‫‪ 1913‬ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﲟﻨﻬﺠﻪ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ)‪ (...‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1929‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1936‬ﺻﺪﺭ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ )ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ(‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1936‬ﺻﺪﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ )ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ()‪ .(...‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺃﲪﺪ ﻣﻨﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺃﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ‪،‬ﻁ‪ ،2001 ،1‬ﺹ‪.337‬‬

‫‪4‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﻴﺎﺩﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﺘﻴﻘﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻧﺰﻋﺔ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺿﺎﻟﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻣﺼﺪﺍﻗﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﺯﺩﻫﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﻬﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ –‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺰﻳﺎﺀ‪ -‬ﻓﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﲢﻮﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺧﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ؟‬
‫ﺍﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ ﺍﳌﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺷﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﱄ )‪2((...‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﲣﻠﻰ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻀﻴ‪‬ﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ )‪ (Universalité‬ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ‪،‬ﻓﻴﺸﺎﺭ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻣ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺤﺮﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺒ‪‬ﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﻴﻂ ﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺻﺎﺭﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻧﺴﻘﻴﻪ ﳑﻨﻬﺠﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺪﺍﻫﺔ ﻗﻄﻌﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﲝﺚ ﻻ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﻣﻨﻈﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﺎﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻳﻈﻢ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻻﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻞ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺇﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‬
‫‪،2008‬ﺹ‪.546‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.48‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﻭﺑﺎﳉﺬﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺬﺭﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺟﺬﺭﻳ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﻼﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺪﺷﲔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺪﺷﲔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺪﺷﲔ ﻟﻠﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ‬
‫ﻛﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ )ﻓﻬﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺔ ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻟﻴﺆﺳﺲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻛﻠﻲ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻣﺘﺤﺮ‪‬ﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﺎﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﳉﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﹼﻖ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﻣﻠﺊ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﰐ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﺟﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ ﻛﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻭﺳﻊ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﹼﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﳓﻮﻯ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺑﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭﻻ‬
‫ﰒ ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﻳﻒ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺴﻠﻚ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﻱ ﳍﺎ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻮﺍﺋﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻠﻘﺖ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﺭﺛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1911‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﳎﻠﺔ ﻟﻮﻏﻮﺱ "‪ "Logos‬ﻣﻘﺎﻻ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ(‪ 2‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬

‫‪1‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ » ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ « ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹ‪‬ﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،2008 ،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.12‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ " ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎﹰ " ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ" ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺸﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ 1911-1910‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﻀﻴﺖ ﺑﺎﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﲔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ‪" :‬ﺃﺷﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﺑﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪" ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ " ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ " ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺭﺟﺐ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﻪ ﳛﺘﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﺸﺮﻩ ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ 1911‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ" ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ " ‪ 1901-1900‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺿﻊ‬
‫‪6‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﲢﺼﺮﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺿﻴﻖ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ‪‬ﺎ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻄﻤﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻌﺪﻯ‬
‫ﺷﺮﻃﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﺤﺮﺭﺓ ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﻘﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎ )ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ( ﺑﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ‪ -‬ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ – ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﲢﻜﻤﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ )‪ (...‬ﺍﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺰﻝ ﻳﻌﻮﺯﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﳏﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺿﺤﺔ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤ‪‬ﺎ ﺷﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻻ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ‬
‫ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﱂ ﲣﻄﻮ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺧﻄﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ‪ .1‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻓﺘﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻣﺎ ﳒﺪﻩ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﺛﺮﺓ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻄﻠﺒﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻊ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮ‪ ‬ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﻬﺪ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ‪‬ﺍ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻻﲡﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪)،‬ﻓﺄﺿﺤﺖ ﺗﻔﺘﻘﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ(‪ ،2‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺑﻘﻴﺖ ﺩﻭﻥ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ 1‬ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺃﺳﺴﺎ ﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ‪ .1913‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﳘﺰﺓ ﻭﺻﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺯﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺘﺨﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﲜﻬﻮﺩ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﲔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ( ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺭﺟﺐ‪،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬ﻁ‪ ،2002 1‬ﺹ ‪.6 -5‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.12‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻣﺜﻞﹶ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﲤﺎﻣﺎﹰ ﰲ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻐﻠﺐ ﰲ ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻟﺒﺜﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻌﺔ ﺍﶈﺮﻛﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻧﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﺪﺩﺕ ﺑﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﰲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ )ﻛﺎﻧﻂ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻇﻠﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ )ﻓﺸﻪ( ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻘﹼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﲰﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻴﻤﺔ‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.27‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﲰﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﲨﻴﻌ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺃﺩﻗﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻋﺎﺟﺰﺓ ﻋﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻃﻤﻮﺣﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﳛﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﺍﻫﺐ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﻳﻨﻘﺼﻬﺎ ﳏﻮﺭ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﻳ‪‬ﺘﻴﺢ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻭﺗﺘﻌﺎﱃ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﺧﺼﻮﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻇﻞ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ( ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﰲ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ )ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ(‪ 2‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﺘﻘﺼﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻃﺮﺣﺎ ﻣﺘﺠﺬﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺎﻍ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﺮﺣﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﻗﺔ ﻭﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻓﻪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﻣﻊ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻈﻠﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻴﻪ ﻧﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺎﻧﺢ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳓﺼﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﻳﻌﻄﻰ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻜﻴﻒ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ‪،3(...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻨﺸﺄﻫﺎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﻭﺻﺮﳛﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﲰﺎﺡ ﺭﺍﻓﻊ ﳏﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ‪:‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺆﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪،‬‬
‫‪ 1991‬ﺹ ‪.117‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﰲ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﺒﻮﺭﻍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﻼﺀ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﺬﺭﻱ ﻣﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺎﻍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ‪:‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻨﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،2007 ،‬ﺹ‪.320‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Husserl, E: Idées Directrices pour une phénoménologie et un philosophie‬‬
‫‪phénoménologique pure, Tom 1. Introduction général e à la phénoménologie‬‬
‫‪pure. Trad. Paule Ricœur, Gallimard, 1950, Collection Tel. P78, 79‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫)ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ " ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ " ﻛﻤﺎ ﺟﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻝ "ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ" ‪ ،1911‬ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺘﺪﺉ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻻ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﻟﻪ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ)‪(...‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻗﺒﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ­ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺪﺱ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ­ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﳊﺪ‪‬ﺛ‪‬ﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻢ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﻭﺇﻃﻼﻕ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ)‪ .1((...‬ﻓﺄﻥ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ" ﻧﻌﻠﻖ " ﻛﻞ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺻﻠﻨﺎ‪):‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﻲ ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﺬﺭﻱ ﻭﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
‫ﻣﺎ)‪.2((...‬‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ " ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ " ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻼﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﻄﺎﺓ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﻠﺘﻔﺖ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﳒﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻳﺜﻖ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﻟﻪ )ﺇﻥ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﰐ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ "‬
‫ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ" ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻻ ﺣﺪ ﻟﻪ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻐﲑ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﺄﻳﺔ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻻ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺩﻕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮﻫﺎ ﺣﺴﻤﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻘﺒﻠﺔ(‪ .3‬ﻭﻧﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻪ "ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ " ﻓﺎﻥ ﺗﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺗﺘﻬﻴﺄ ﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺬﺭﺗﻪ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ " ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎ "‪):‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺿﻐﺎﺙ‬
‫ﺃﺣﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺠﺔ ﻣﺆﺩﺍﻫﺎ ﺇﻥ ﺍﶈﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﺰﻋﻮﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺬﻟﺖ ﻃﻮﺍﻝ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﺹ ‪.17‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﻏﺎﺩﺍﻣﲑ‪ ،‬ﻃﺮﻕ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﻧﺎﻇﻢ ﻭﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‬
‫‪ 2007‬ﺹ‪.51‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.104‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺃﻻﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﲔ ﺍﳌﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ(‬
‫ﻓﻤﺬﺍﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ؟‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺮ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ‪:‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺑﺎﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺴﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻄﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺗﺆﻟﻒ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻞ ﲝﺚ ﳏﺎﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺑﺎﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳏﺎﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ ﺃﻱ‪ ‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﻮﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺼﻠﺢ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﻭﺻﻔﻴﺎﹰ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺎﹰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﺗﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻣﺘﺄﺻﻠﺔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻭﺻﻠﺖ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻀﺞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﱃ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻟﻴﻮﺗﺎﺭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪) ،‬ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ "ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ"‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻰ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻋﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ )ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﶈﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺒﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺟﺬﻭﺭ ﺷﱴ ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺣﺚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻭﺻﻔﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ(‪ .4‬ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻪ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ "ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ" ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ]ﻟﻔﻆ[ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺗﺪﻝ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.82‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،2007 ،‬ﺹ‪.12-11‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪jean-françoins lyotard, Que sais- je la phenoménologie, puf, paris, 1945, P5.‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.12‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ» ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ« ﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻭ» ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﲞﺎﺻﺔ « ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﺭﺱ ﺧﱪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺧﱪﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﳏﺎﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺧﱪﺗﻪ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻘﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺑﺄﺷﻜﺎﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‪).‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺗﻮﻛﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻣﻮﺍﺯﻱ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ‪Epokhé:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ ﻳﻜﻤﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺗﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﺃﻱ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫"ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ"‪ 2‬ﺇﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣ‪‬ﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Yan patoca, Introduction á la phénoménologie du Husserl, TR : Erika Abrams,‬‬
‫‪Jérôms Millon, Grenoble, 1992, p7.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﺭﺩﺕ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﲝﻮﺙ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ‪ ،1901­1900‬ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻨﺤﻴﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻜﻮﳉﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺳﻌﻴﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ "ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ " ﺗﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ " ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ " ‪ 1905‬ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﱐ ﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻗﺒﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﰲ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺠﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ "ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ" ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،1907‬ﻳﻮﺳﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻛﻲ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻳﻘﺎﺭﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻟﻺﺑﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﺄﻭﺟﻪ ﺷﺒﻪ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﻟﻠﺸﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺭﺍﺩﻳﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ " ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ" ﺃﻣﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ " ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ " ‪ 1913‬ﳚﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﻭﺧﻄﻮﺗﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺼﻒ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ " ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺳﲔ " ﺃﻱ ﻋﺰﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﻘﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻏﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﺸﲑ ﻟﻐﺔﹰ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻔﻴﺪ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻟﻴﻘﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﲨﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺠﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﺤﺺ ﺻﺪﻗﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻓﺤﺼﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﺻﺪﻕ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ‬
‫‪11‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ 1‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﻠﺒﺎ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻐﻨﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺘﻘﻮ‪‬ﻡ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻭﻛﺬﺍ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺎ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﲨﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺼﻬﺎ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﰲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻌﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﳍﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‪‬ﺍ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺎ ﻳﺘﺨﻄﻰ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻘﻼﳍﺎ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻻ ﳝﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻳﺘﺨﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳒﺎﺯ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻼﺣﻆ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻬﺘﻢ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ "ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ" ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﺐ ﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﻥ ﳚﺮﻳﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﻻ ﻳﺒﺘﺪﺉ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺳﻞ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﺴﺘﺼﻠﺢ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺃﻗﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ " ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ "ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﻳ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﻐﲑ‬
‫ﻓﺤﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﻜﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﻭﱃ(‪.3‬‬

‫ﲣﻀﻊ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺤﺺ ﺃﺻﻼ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﺼﺪ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻱ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﻨﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2007 ،1‬ﺹ‪.129‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque English, husserl, LE Vocabulaire des philosophie, Ouvrage coordonné‬‬
‫‪par Jean-Pierre Zarader, ellipses,2002,P.121.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.110‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﲬﺴﺔ ﺩﺭﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.63‬‬
‫‪12‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪) :‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺧﻠﻮﺹ ﻭﻧﻘﺎﺀ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺻﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻣﻠﻚ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺜﻼ ﳓﻦ ﻧﺴﻤﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺣﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ "ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﲔ ﻗﻮﺳﲔ"(‪. 1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ‪: Ruduction‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﺮ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺩﻋﺎﻣﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻹﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺮﺳﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺭﺙ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ‬
‫ﻭ)ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻪ ﳛﻴﻞ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻭﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ "ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺑﲔ ﻗﻮﺳﲔ" ﻭ "ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺑﲔ ﻗﻮﺳﲔ" ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺫﺍﰐ ﻛﺄﻧﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﰊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﻟﺬﺍﰐ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ )ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﻭﺻﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﳒﺎﺯ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺟﺬﺭﻱ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻼﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺭﺅﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻴﺔ(‪ .3‬ﻓﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ )ﻳﺘﻢ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻹﻳﺒﻮﺧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﻄﻠﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ)‪(...‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Husserl, E, Méthode phénoménologique et philosophie phénoménologique,‬‬
‫‪Conférences de Londres — 1922, Annales de Phénoménologie, 2003, Revue‬‬
‫‪éditée par’Association pour la promotion de la phénoménologie.P177.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ .‬ﺹ ‪.39‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.36‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Antoine Grandjean et Laurent Perreau, Husserl la science des phénoménes,‬‬
‫‪CNRS ÉDITION, PARIS, 2012, P17.‬‬
‫‪13‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭ"ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ"‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﳉﻲ ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺭﺩﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻧﺬﻛﺮ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺩ‪ ‬ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻱ‪ :‬ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺩ ﺍﳋﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﲢﺪﻳﺪﺍﺕ ﻣﺎﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳋﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﳍﺎ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻏﺾ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﳉﺰﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻱ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﻫﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ)ﺍﻧﻪ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﲝﺚ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳕﻂ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺩ‪ ‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﱄ‪:‬ﻭﻳﻌﲏ ﺭﺩ‪ ‬ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﻧﻌﻄﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﻌﺎﻟﻘﺎﺕ ﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻺﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﶈﺎﻳﺚ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺨﻠﹼﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻟﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻮﺍﺋﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳊﺪ‪‬ﺛﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺻﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌ‪‬ﺮ‪‬ﺿﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﻴﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺇﺛﺮﺍﺀ ﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻳﺘﺨﻠﹼﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﳊﺎﺻﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻄﻮﺗﲔ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻳﺘﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﳚﺎﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻔﺴﺪﺓ ﻟﺼﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ‪ :‬ﺑﲔ ﻗﻄﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺮﺍﻛﻴﺐ ﻓﻮﻗﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻔﺎﺳﺪ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﺮﻭﺽ ﻭﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻭﻋﺎﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺠﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﶈﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﰐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺍﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺑﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﻭﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﻭﻧﺰﺍﻫﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﺎﺑﻌﻬﺎ ﲟﻮﺭﻭﻧﺔ ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﺎﱂ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﲟﻔﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﻭﺃﺣﻮﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﲪﺪ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ 1‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،2006 ،‬ﺹ ‪.57‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻧﺎﺯﱄ ﺍﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪، 1970،‬ﺹ ‪.100‬‬
‫‪14‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﺪﻧﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻫﻮ ﳝﺮ‬

‫ﲟﺮﺣﻠﺘﲔ‪:‬‬
‫‪­1‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ‪ :‬ﻭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻏﺾ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺗﺘﺠﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪­2‬ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﻵﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺩ‪ ‬ﺍﻟﺘﺬﺍﻭﰐ‪ :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺮﺭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺩﺭﻭﺱ‬
‫"ﺟﻮﺗﻨﺠﻦ " ﻣﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻤﲔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻﳘﺎ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻣﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‬
‫ﻻﺯﺍﻝ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻼﻣﺢ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻭﺗﻮﺳﻴﻌﻪ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺭﺩﺍ ﺗﺬﺍﻭﺗﻴﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺭﺩ ﳛﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﻓﺎﳌﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺳﺎﻟﺐ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﺍﻭﰐ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼ ﻟﺘﻬﺎﻓﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﱄ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻗﺘﺮﺍﺣﻪ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻵﻧﻴﱵ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺬﺍﻭﰐ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﻷﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺬﺍﻭﰐ ﻓﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻟﻸﺧﺮ‪). 1‬ﺑﺈﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ )ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ( ﳝﻜﻦ ﻷﻱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻟﻘﻴﻤﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ‪ .‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻜﺸﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﻣﺘﻼﺯﻣﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳏﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2010 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.219 ،218‬‬
‫‪15‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ؟ ﻭ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻫﻲ؟‪ .1‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ؟ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻟﻨﺎ؟ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺒﻘﻰ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﲨﻴﻊ ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻣﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺗﻈﻞ ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ‪:Intentionnalité‬‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ "ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﺘﻨﻴﺔ"‪ ،2‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﰐ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.176‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻩ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻴﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ )‪(Intondo‬ﺃﻭ )‪(Intontoi‬‬
‫ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺸﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫)‪ (Intondo‬ﻛﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻓﲏ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ )‪ ،(Concept‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﲔ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﲔ ﳘﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ )‪Maqul‬ﻭ‪ (Mana‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻓﺎﻷﻭﻝ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ "ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ" ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﺑﻦ ﺳﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ )‪ Intontoi‬ﻭ ‪ Mana‬ﻭ ‪ Maqul‬ﻭ ‪ ،( Neoma‬ﻣﺘﺮﺍﺩﻓﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﺇﺫ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺮﲨﺖ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ )‪ (Intention‬ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺍﺗﺒﻊ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ " ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ" ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻣﻼﺣﻘﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎﻝ ﳌﺎﺩﺗﻪ‪,‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﰲ ﻃﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺜﻼ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻃﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮﰐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﺼﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻭﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻳﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﳓﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﻼﺡ ﺇﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺳﲑﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻗﺒﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.169‬‬

‫‪16‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻰ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﱪﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﻓﻮﺭ ﻋﻮﺩﺗﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ "ﻓﻴﻨﺎ" ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﻣﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﻙ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ )ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺛﻮﻟﻴﻜﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫‪ ،1874‬ﺃﺧﺬ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﺃﺣﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﲝﻜﻢ ﺃﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ )ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ(‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1867‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﻦ)ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﳒﺪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﺠﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫)ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﱪﻧﺘﺎﱐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ )ﻋﻤﻠﻪ " ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﲡﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ "‪1874‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺗﻪ(‪ 1‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲤﺜﻴﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺗﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻧﻜﺎﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﳏﺒﻮﺏ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺍﻫﻴﺔ ﻣﻜﺮﻭﻩ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﻣﺮﻏﻮﺏ‪) :‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻫﻮ ﲰﺔ ﲤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﳊﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻗﺼﺪﻩ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ "ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ" ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺣﻮﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺼﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﺻﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻫﻲ ﳏﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺻﺮﻓﺔ ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺻﻼﺡ ﺇﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.152 ،151‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.153‬‬
‫‪17‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﻗﺼﺪﻩ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺎﻛﻲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﺘﺎﱐ؟‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻰ ﺑﱪﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻋﻨﻪ "ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺘﻪ" ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻐﲑ ﻣﻦ ﳏﺘﻮﺍﻫﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻏﻴ‪‬ﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻇﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﳍﺎ‪ 1‬ﻭﻣﻌﻪ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ "ﻛﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ"‪) ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﱪﻫﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥﹼ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺒﻠﻮﺭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻛﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﻛﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ‪1894‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺑﲔ )ﻛﺎﺳﻴﻤﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﺭﺩﻭﻓﺴﻜﻲ( ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ‪" :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻼﺕ" ﻭﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ "ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ‬
‫ﰲ ﺝ‪ 2‬ﺷﺒﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺎﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻟﻮﱐ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﺩﺧﻞ‬
‫ﲤﻴﺰﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻘﻲ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﲔ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﲰﺎﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻩ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ "ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﺮﺩﻓﺴﻜﻲ" ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﻓﻼ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﳏﺎﻳﺜﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺻﺮﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩ‪‬ﺍ ﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ "ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ " ﻭ" ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻲ"‪ ،‬ﰲ)ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻸﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﱰﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺮﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ" ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ "‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ " ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ "‪ " ،‬ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ " )ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﺳﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻮﻳﻨﻮﻣﺎﺋﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﰒ " ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻘﻮﻣﺔ "‬
‫ﻭ ﺃﺧﲑﺍ " ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻔﻌﻠﺔ " ﺃﻭ " ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ " ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﺮﺿﻴﺔ " ﻭ ﻫﻮ ﲤﻴﺰ ﻣﺒﲏ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫­ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﰲ ﺻﻠﺐ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫­ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﳉﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﻝ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ " ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ"‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ‪:‬‬
‫‪-‬ﰲ ﻧﺺ " ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ‪ "1901­1900‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ‬
‫‪-‬ﰲ ﻧﺺ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ‪ : 1913‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻨﻌﻄﻒ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪-‬ﰲ ﻧﺺ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ‪ :1929‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﳌﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻮﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺸﺌﺔ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﳓﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪.‬‬
‫‪-‬ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻧﺺ ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪ +1935‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ‪1938‬‬
‫‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻠﺔ ﻛﺒﺪﺍﻫﺔ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻋﺎﺋﻖ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ ﺍﲪﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫‪18‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺘﺎﺟﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﱪﻫﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻛﺘ‪‬ﺸﺎﻑ »ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ« ﺍﳌﻬﻢ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻈﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﹰﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺠ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺣﻘﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺘﻌﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ(‪ 1‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﳏﺎﻳﺜﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ )ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﰒ ﺑﲔ ﻗﺼﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﰒ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ(‪ 2‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ ﺣﺮ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﺹ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﲢﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻳﺪﻭﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﺃﻳﺎ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﺶ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ﺫﻭ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺄﻣ‪‬ﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﻻﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ ﻳﻌﻄﻰ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺸﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﻧﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﺠﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻳﺘﺒﺼﺮﻩ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻼ ﻟﻠﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﺎﺛﻼ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﶈﺾ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻮﻻ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻳﺎ ﺣﺪﺳﻴﺎ ﺗﺎﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺗﺘﺠﻪ‬
‫ﳓﻮﻯ ﳓﻮ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ"ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ"‪ 3‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻌﻴﺶ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺣﺴﺐ‬

‫ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮ ﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﻭﻳﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،6­1‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ ‪،2006‬ﺹ ‪.86...46‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.51‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ ﺃﲪﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.55‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ‪ :‬ﻋﻴﺶ‪ :‬ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ‪ :‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺩﻓﲔ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﰲ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺋﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪:‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.643‬‬
‫‪19‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳍﻴﻮﱄ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺇﻻ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻷﺩﺍﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺎﺵ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻮﺭ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺎ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺎ ﻭﻳﻜﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﳐﺼﻮﺻﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﳝﺎ‪:‬‬
‫)‪Noése,Noéme(Noesis,Noema‬ـ‪ ،‬ﺯﻭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ‪ ،Noesis) Noése‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﲢﻴﻞ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪ ،Noema) ،Noéme‬ﺇﱃ ﺭﺑﻂ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﺳﻴﺲ‪ :Noesis Noése‬ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﻮﺻﺔ ﻣﻘﻮﻻ ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﻛﻠﻲ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﲟﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﳝﺎ‪ :Noése,Noéme‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻟﻠﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﶈﻜﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻫﺘﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺘﲔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺗﲔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻴﺶ )ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﳝﺎ( ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺘﺎ ﺗﺪﻻﻥ ﻣﻨﺬ ‪ 1913‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪.‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻼﺯﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻷﻥﱠ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﱄ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻳﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺴﻤﲔ‪ :‬ﺃﻭﻻ‪ :‬ﻗﺴﻢ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque English, husserl, LE Vocabulaire des philosophie, Ouvrage coordonné‬‬
‫‪par Jean-Pierre Zarader, ellipses,2002,P.113.‬‬

‫‪20‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪.‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺑﻌﺎﺩ‪ :‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ‬
‫ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺎﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ )ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺗﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﺣﺴﻦ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺗ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﳛﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻧﻀﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳ‪‬ﺴﻬﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀًﺍ ﳏﺎﻳﺜﺎ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻻ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺬ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﻳﻦ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ )ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﺴﺪﺩ ﺟﻬﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﶈﻀﺔ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ ﳏﺾ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﲰﺔ ﺗﻀﺎﻑ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻳﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻳﻔﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺼﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫)ﻓﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻧﻀﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻣﺮﺩﻭﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻮﺍﺓ ﺣﺪﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺻﻠﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﺛﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲞﻼﻑ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﰲ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.19‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.26‬‬
‫‪21‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻓﺘﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﻋﻴﲏ ﺗﻌﻨﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍ ﻻ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻜﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ )ﻓﺎﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﻻ ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻜﺸﻒ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻠﺮﺅﻳﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻳ‪‬ﻜﺸﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﺑﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺄﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﱪﻧﺘﺎﱐ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﲤﺎﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱪﻧﺘﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﻨﺒﻪ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻌﻰ ﻫﻮ ﺇﱃ ﲢﻘﻴﻘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻛﻌﻠﻢ ﻳﻘﻴﲏ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﺘﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﰲ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﲣﻄﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﺳﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﺰﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ "ﺍﻟﺮﺩ" ﻭﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺿﺎﻉ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ‪)،.‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﹼﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ ﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ(‪.2‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.91‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫‪John J. Drummond, Phénoménologie et ontologie, érudit, Drummond, J .‬‬
‫‪(2009) Phénoménologie et ontologie, Philosophiques, 36(2), 593-607.‬‬
‫‪http://doi.org / 10.7202/ 039488ar, 18:33.‬‬
‫‪22‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -3‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻘﺎﺀﺍﺗﻪ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﳑﺎ ﺃﻓﻌﻠﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﺗﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ )‪ (...‬ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﱄ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﲏ ﺗﻜﻨﻴﻜﹰﺎ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺠ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺍﻧﻀﺒﺎﻃﹰﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺘﺨﻞ ﻋﲏ ﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﻮﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻘﺎﺋﻲ ﳐﻠﺼﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻨﺺ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ )ﺃﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ‪ (1962‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﲪﻠﺖ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﺎ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ ﰲ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺍﳌﺸ‪‬ﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺴﻮﺍ ﺇﻭﺍﻟﺪ )ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ ﻋﱪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻓﺎ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻧﲏ ﺣﺪﺕ‪ ‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﲑ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺄﻛﺜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﻘﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻧﻈﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ‪De la‬‬
‫‪.2(grammatologie‬‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﺧﺘﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻓﻖ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ)‪ (...‬ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ )ﺗﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﻮﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﻓﺎﲢﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻜﺮﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻴﻘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﻣﻦ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2000 ،2‬ﺹ‪.73‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2004 ،1‬ﺹ‪.74‬‬

‫‪23‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ(‪ 1‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺮﺩﻱ ‪‬ﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻇﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﻜﺜﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ )ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺭﺟﺎﻉ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻘﺒﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﺗﺪﺭﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﱄ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ‪،‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺞ ﺗﻜﻴﻔﺖ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻧﺴﻘﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﱪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﱐ ﱂ ﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺭﺑﺎﻁ ﲪﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺀ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﳉﻴﺎ ﺷﺮﻁ ﳍﺎ )ﻓﻤﺎ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻟﺼﺎﻗﻪ ﺑﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺒﻬﻢ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺩﻭﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﲞﺘﻼﻑ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﲤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ‪-‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،-‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﰐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﻫﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺇﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﻮﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﺗﺒﻊ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪2005 ،1‬ﺹ‪.14-10-9-‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Derrida jacque, sur parole, edit, l'aube, paris, 1999, 84.‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﺻﱪﻱ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪،1989 ،‬ﺹ ‪.107‬‬
‫‪24‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻭﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻭﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﻄﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ )ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﲤﺜﻴﻞ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﻄﲑﺓ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻧﺎﻓﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪،1‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻠﻌﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻫﺎﺋﻞ‬
‫ﻭﻻ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺧﺮﻗﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳒﺪﻩ ﻳﺒﺘﻜﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻠﺨﻠﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ))‪(...‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻤ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﺳﺄﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﳛﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﺰﻡ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺸﻐﻴﻞ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻳ‪‬ﺴ‪‬ﻢ ﻭﻳﻮﺳﻊ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻧﻐﻼﻕ ﺣﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ(‪ .2‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻠﻜﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﺧﺎﺿﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻴ‪‬ﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ‪.‬ﻃﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻋﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺃﺣﻄﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺸﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺳﻌﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳋﺒﺊ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻐﺪﻭﺍ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺑﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺩﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪ -‬ﺑﻞ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ – ﰲ ﲡﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﺘﻬﻰ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ –ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ‪ -‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻻﻥ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪.3‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼ‪‬ﺎﺭﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰﺕ ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻤﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻱ ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﻯ ﰲ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺘﻬﺎ ﻗﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﻠﻐﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ .‬ﻓﺤﲔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ‬

‫‪-‬‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ )ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1992 ،1‬‬
‫‪1‬ﺹ‪.27‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ )ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.36‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ‪ -‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺻﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻻﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺹ‪. 9‬‬

‫‪25‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺫﺍﰐ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ )ﺍﻷﻧﺎ(‪،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻛﻴﻨﻮﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺩﻓﻌﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﻓﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺻﻮﺗﺎ ﻭﻛﻼﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻴﺶ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ )ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺤﺺ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺴﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻛﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﺈ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﲤﻀﻲ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻭﻃﺒﻊ ﻭﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﻭﲡﺴﻴﺪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﻓﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ(‬

‫‪1‬ﻓﻨﺴﺖ ﺏ‪.‬ﻟﻴﺘﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳛﲕ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪،‬‬
‫‪،،2000‬ﺹ ‪.288‬‬

‫‪26‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ‬

‫ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ )ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺔ )ﺩﻝﹼ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ)ﻣﻌﲎ( )ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ(ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ(‪،1‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ )ﺗﻌﻠﹸﻢ(‪ 2‬ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﻌﺪﻯ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻖ ﻓﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﻫﺘﲔ ﺍﻻﺧﲑﺗﲔ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﺼﺪﻕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻭﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰﻳﻦ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ)‪ (Ausdruck‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺭﺟﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺧﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺭﺩﻳﻔﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ )‪،3(Anzeichen‬ﺃﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﳘﺎ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﻻﹼﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻮ "ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ" ﻭﻛﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻄﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺫﺍ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ "ﺟﻮ‪‬ﺍﱐ" ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ "ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ" ﻣﺎﺩﻣﺖ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻣﺎﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻮ "ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ"(‪ .4‬ﻓﺎﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻮﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻛﺤﻀﻮﺭ‪.‬ﻭﻳﻔﺮﻕ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻻﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﻭﻫﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2010 ،1‬‬
‫ﺹ‪..29‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ)‪ ،( das bezeichnen) ،(bezeichnen‬ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﻋﻠﹼﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ‪ ،(das Zeichen)،‬ﻭﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ‪،anzeichenen‬‬
‫‪ ،das Anzeichenen‬ﺃﻭ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ‪ ،Kennezeichen‬ﻭﺃﻭﻣﺄ ﺇﳝﺎﺀ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺀ ‪das Anzeigen‬‬
‫‪ ،anzeigen‬ﻭﻗﻠﺖ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺀ ‪ Kennezeichen‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺀ ‪ Merkzeichen‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﲝﻮﺙ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺹ ‪.29‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2005 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.45‬‬
‫‪4‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2015 ،1‬ﺹ‪.205‬‬
‫‪28‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻻ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺇﳝﺎﺀﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺩﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﳝﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫)‪ (Indication‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻬﺎ )ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﻠﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﺑﺪﺀﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﺭ‪‬ﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺟﺰﺀﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﳑﻴﺰﺓ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﹼﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﺼﺪﺍﻕ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﱪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺪﺍﻕ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻓﻜﻮﻛﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺳﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﺫﻛﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻀﺎﻡ ﺍﳊﻔﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻷﻧﺎﺱ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻓﺎﻥ‪....‬ﺇﱁ‪.‬ﻓﺄﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻗﺼﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻣﺎﺭﺳﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻡ ﱂ ﲤﺎﺭﺳﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﲢﻞ ﳏﻞ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﲢﻞ ﳏﻠﻪ ﰲ ﻏﻴﺎﺑﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺤﲔ ﺗﺪﻝ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ)ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻄﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ –ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ‪] Bedeutung2‬ﺩﻻﻟﺔ[ ﺃﻭ‪] Sinn‬ﻣﻌﲎ[ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ(‪3‬ﺃﻱ ﻫﻲ)ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻮ" ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ" ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔـ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻠﺊ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪، ،1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.30‬‬

‫‪ Bedeutung2‬ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻓﺴﺮ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ deuten‬ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻭﻻ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﲑ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﺮﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻛﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻲ ﺍﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ)‪Jacquet derrida, MARGES DE LA PHILOSOPHIE, Minuit, Paris, (...‬‬
‫‪1972, p.125.‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.45‬‬

‫‪29‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﻗﻮﺳﲔ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ‪ ،1(épokhé‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻤﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻳ‪‬ﺴ‪‬ﻤﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺩﻻﻟﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﲢﺖ ﻟﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ –ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ‪ -‬ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺒﺪﻻ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻮﺿ‪‬ﻊ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻫﻮ(‪،2‬ﻓﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻞﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺪﺱ ﻣﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺷﺮﻋﻲ‪ ‬ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳ‪‬ﻌﻄﻰ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﰲ "ﺍﳊﺪﺱ" ﻋﻠﻰ ﳔﻮ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ)ﺑﻔﻌﻠﻴ‪‬ﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴ‪‬ﺪﺓ( ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻠﻘﹼﻰ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﻲ ﺣﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻄﺎﻗﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ‪ ‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔﹰ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺪ‪ ‬ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺿﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪...‬ﺑﺪﺀٌ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻋﻮ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻭﻣﺒﺪﺃ(‪.3‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﳓﺪﺱ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺗﺮﻗﻰ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺪﻭﺳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ )ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ)‪.4((...‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺭﺍﺑﻂ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﲜﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﺎﺋﻒ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ)ﻣﺎﺩﺍﻣﺖ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ " ﻋﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ" ﻓﺎﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺘ‪‬ﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﻳﺴﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‬

‫‪1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.205‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.51‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻮﻡ‪،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2014 ،1‬ﺹ‪.20‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.52‬‬
‫‪30‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻛﺤﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ "ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﺒ‪‬ﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ "ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ" ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻮ‬
‫"ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ" ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺠﻠﹼﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﻣﺒﺪﻋﺎ ﺑﺈﻧﺘﺎﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﳝﺎﹶﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳝﺎﺀ ﳝﺮ‪ ‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﺎﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻔﻴﺰ) ‪ (Motivation‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻘﻮ‪‬ﻡ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻙ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻔﻞ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻙ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﻤﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺟﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺣﻴﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻁ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻓﻬﻲ ﲤﺘﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﻳﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺗﺴﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺍﺗﺴﺎﻉ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻔﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻋﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﺪﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪):‬ﻟﺘﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﺜﻼ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﻛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﻻ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻧﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺳﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﻟﺒﺎﻃﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﺘﺸﺎ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﲦﺔ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻳﻘﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺻﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔـ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﺮﺩ ﲣﻤﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫‪1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.205‬‬

‫‪31‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻗﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﹼﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﻊ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻓﺴﺤﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﳎﺎﻻ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺑﺪﺀﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﲣﺘﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻨﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻛﻴﺪﺓ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺮﺩ ﲣﻤﻴﻨﺎﺕ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺻﺪﻗﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻣﻪ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲔ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﺍﻷﻳﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻞ ﳏﻞ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻟﻨﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻌﱪ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﻴﻄﲔ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺠﺄ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻨﺤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺸﻜﹼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻘﻮ‪‬ﻡ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺟﺰﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺃﻱ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﳑﻴﺰﺓ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺇﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻳﺼﺎﳍﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻼ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻔﻆ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻞ ﲟﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻠﻪ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻗﺼﺪﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺐ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻔﻆ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﺎ ﻭﻗﻮﻻ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺇﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ‪.‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻳﺼﲑ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺼﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻭﳛﻘﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﻋﻢ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻳﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﻭﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻗﻮﻻ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻀﺎﻳﻒ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ﺹ ‪.34-33‬‬

‫‪32‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻧﻠﻤﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺷﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﺨﺎﻃﺒﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻫﻲ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻌﺐ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﺩﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻘﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﺰﺀﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻠﻌﺒﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺇﺑﻼﻏﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺑﻼﻍ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ)ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻳﻠﻘﻒ ﻳﺒﺼﺮ ﺣﺪﺳﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺍ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺫﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﻛﺸﺨﺺ‪ .‬ﺣﲔ ﺃﺻﻐﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ ﻛﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺃﲰﻌﻪ ﻳﺮﻭﻱ ﻳﺪﻟﻞ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻏﺐ‪....‬ﺍﱁ(‪،1‬ﻓﺎﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﱪ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﻗﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﲢﺖ ﺣﺪﺱ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ‪.‬ﻓﺎﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﳜﺮﺝ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻴﺸﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪.‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﺼﻮ‪‬ﺭ ﺣﺪﺳﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﻴﺎ ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻣﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻀﺎﻳﻒ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺑﻼﻍ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺭﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﶈﺎﺩﺛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻓﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻭﺷﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺧﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻔﺮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﻏﲑ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.38‬‬

‫‪33‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ)ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺷﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ( ﺃﻥ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺄﺷﲑﺍ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ‪).‬ﻓﺎﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﻠﻌﺐ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺒﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ(‬
‫ﻓﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎ ﻝ)ﺩﻻﻟﺔ(‪) .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺼﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻛﻤﺮﺍﺩﻑ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪2((...) ،‬ﻭﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﺩﻕ ﻓﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺒﺪﻯﺀ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﻓﻼﺯﻟﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻ ﺃﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻡ ﻣﺘﺸﺎﺑﻚ ﻣﻊ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺩﻻﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺜﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺤﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻈﻞ ﰲ ﻏﲎ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﻔﻴﺔ ﺑﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺧﻠﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺱ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺯﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻟﻚ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ)ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﲤﺘﻠﺊ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﰐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺪﻭﺱ ﺑﻜﻼﻡ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﳌﻞﺀ ﺇﱃ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻞﺀ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﲏ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻭ ﺩﻻﻻﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ(‪.3‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺒﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺌﺔ ﺟﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﱵ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺑﻼ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﺴﺒﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻓﺮﻗﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‪.4‬‬

‫‪1‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﳊﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻨﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،2003 ،‬ﺹ‪.140‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.54‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.55‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﳛﺼﺮﻫﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺮﻗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺑﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻭﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺮﺍﺀَ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺇﻧﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺜﺐ ﻟﻦ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻗﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻔﻆ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﺃﹶﺑﺮﻛﹶﺎﺩ‪‬ﺍﺑﺮ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺣﺎﻝ‬
‫‪34‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫‪ -2‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪:‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻇﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺒﻜﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻇﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻻ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻪ )ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ( ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﻨﺎ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ )ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ(‬
‫‪)،1967‬ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻧﺺ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺒﻂ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺗﻀﺎﺭﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ‬
‫ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻣﻌﺎ ﻋﻨﻴﻔﺎ ﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺎﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ(‪1‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﻗﺶ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﳌﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﺴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲤﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫)ﺃﲝﺎﺙ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ‪،(1911-1910‬ﻓﺼﻮﺹ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳋﺼﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﻣﺘﺤﻘﻘﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺩﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺯﺍﻋﻤﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﳓﻮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻄﻰ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴ‪‬ﺎ‪ :‬ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﺧﻀﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭ‪.‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﳕﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿ‪‬ﻊ ﻭﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍ ﲟﻮﺿﻊ)ﺗﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿ‪‬ﻊ( ﳘﺎ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﻻ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ ﻳﺘﺨﻠﻠﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻮﻳﻪ‪،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺮﺑﻊ ﺍﳌﺪﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﺧﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻊ ﻗﺼﺪﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪-4‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﺟﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺎ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﳝﺘﻠﻰﺀ ﻗﺼﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﺑﺎﳊﺪﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﻭﺿﻮﺣﻪ ﻭﲤﻴﺰﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺄﻳﺪ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺋﺒﺎ ﻭﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻗﺎﺑﻼ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺹ‪.58-57-56-55‬‬
‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.72‬‬
‫‪35‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ)ﺣﺴﺐ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻳﺄﰐ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ ﲨﻌﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ(‪،1‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﺺ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺩﻳﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮﻑ‬
‫ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﳚﻴﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ )ﺇﺫ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ -‬ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ‪)-‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ( ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ‬
‫‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺕ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ)‪(...‬ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﱄ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻈﻞ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺃﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﲣﺺ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﺣﻴﺎ ﺇﺫ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﺢ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﱪ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩﻳﺔ ﲡﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺒﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ(‪ 2‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﻦ ﻫﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻣﲔ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺇﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻷﺻﻞ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﻷﺟﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺴﻤﻰ ‪ )،‬ﺇﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺟﺊ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻷﺻﻞ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ )‪ (...‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ "ﻟﻼﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩ"‪ 3‬ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﳐﻄﻄﺔ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ‬
‫ﰲ "ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ"‪...‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻮﺯ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Husserl, E :L’Origine de la Géométrie, Trad & Intro. Derrida, Jacques, 6ème‬‬
‫‪ed, P.U.F, Paris,2010,P.3.‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﺹ‪.72‬‬

‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩ‪ :‬ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟـ‪ :‬ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩ )‪ (Rückfrage‬ﰲ ﺩﻻﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟ)‪(Question en retour‬‬
‫ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻷَﻭ‪‬ﺑ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺮﺟﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺳﺎﺋﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﻲ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺑ‪‬ﻌ‪‬ﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟـ)‪ ،(Rückfrage‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻳﻄﺮﺡ‪ ‬ﺑﺪﺀﺍﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭ‪‬ﻝ ﺇﺭﺳﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ‪ ‬ﻣﺴﻠﹼﻤﺔ ﻭﻣﻘﺮﻭﺀﺓ‬
‫ﺳﻠﻔﹰﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳ‪‬ﻌﻄﹶﻰ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥﹸ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺆﺍﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﳌﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ‪ ‬ﺍﺳﺘﻼﻣﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗ‪‬ﺒ‪‬ﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳ‪‬ﻌﺘ‪‬ﺒ‪‬ﺮ ﻭﺳﻴﻄﹰﺎ ﻭﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺣ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺗﺼ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﺑﻌﺎﻣ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ »ﺃﻥ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻟﻠﺴﺆﺍﻝ«‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﻗﻮﲰﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﺟﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ‪ :‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩ‪،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،69‬ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﲝﺎﺙ‪ ،‬ﺧﺮﻳﻒ‪ ،2010 ،‬ﺹ ‪.7‬‬
‫‪36‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﳉﺎﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ :‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻄﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻝ"ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ"‬

‫ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻰﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ(‪،1‬ﻓﻤﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺧﺎﺿﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻠﺖ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ ﻭﺗﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺑﻞ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺃﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪﻭﺱ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﳛﻠﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻮﻱ ﻭﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺣﺪﺱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻓﻼ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻲ ﻭﻻ ﺣﺪﺳﻲ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻮﻟﻪ )‪(...‬ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ –ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲢﺪﺱ‪-‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺴﻤﻮﺣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﺗﻔﺮﺿﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ(‪2‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﻻ ﳜﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻭﻻﺩﺓ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﻤﻮﻋﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻣﻜﺘﻮﺑﺎ‪.‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻘﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺂﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻩ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﺰﺍﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻠﺐ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ )ﺧﻼﻝ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ -‬ﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺣﻖ ﺣﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﳑﻜﻦ ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻳﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﱪ ﺇﻋﻼﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺳﻴﺒﺪﻭ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ )ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻨﻪ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺳﺬﺍﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺃﻱ ﲤﺎﺛﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻱ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ -‬ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻦ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺃﻣﺮﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻧ‪‬ﺬﻛﹼﺮ ﺏ ﻭﳓﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺗﺘﻌﲔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺃﻭ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.73‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.74‬‬
‫‪37‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻓﻜﺮﺍ ﻋﱪ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻸﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ)ﺇﻥ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﺑﺄﺛﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻠﺊ‪...‬ﻓﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﻌﲔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ)ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ‬
‫ﳛﺲ‪ ‬ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻣﺖ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻌﺰﻝ(‪.3‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺑﺎﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﲝﻮﺙ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﺎﲢﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ "ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﲤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ( ﻭﻫﺬﺍﺍ ﻣﺎﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎﻩ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺧﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪-:‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ)‪:(Le signe et les signes‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻳﺒﺘﺪﻯﺀ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﻔﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻏﻼﻕ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﺼﺪﻕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻭﻟﺔ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰﻳﻦ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ )‪(Ausdruck‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺩﺭﺟﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺧﺬﻩ ﺭﺩﻳﻔﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ)‪.4((Anzeichen‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ "ﺃﲝﺎﺙ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ" ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﲤﻴﺰ ﻓﺮﳚﻴﻪ ‪ frege‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫)ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﺟﺪ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﻣﻔﻴﺪ – ﻻ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ ﻓﺮﳚﻴﻪ ﻟﻮﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﰲ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ﺹ‪.31-30‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.31‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.31‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.45‬‬
‫‪38‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻛﻤﻠﻔﻮﻅ ﻟﺴﺎﱐ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﳛﺮﺹ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ)ﺍﳋﻠﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﻱ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ(‪،2‬‬
‫ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺴﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻻ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ )ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ]ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ[‪- bedeuten vouloir-dire‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻠﻲ‪-(im mitteilendr Rede)‬ﻣﺸﺒﻚ )‪ verflochten‬ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ – ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ‪.3(...‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪]Bedeutung):‬ﺩﻻﻟﺔ[ ﺃﻭ ‪] sinn‬ﻣﻌﲎ[ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻯ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﱰﻭﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ :‬ﺑﻼ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ )‪ (Bedeutunglos‬ﺑﻼ ﻣﻌﲎ )‪4((Sinnlos‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍ ﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﻼ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﺍﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﺮﻋﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻴﺘﺄﻛﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻣﺜﻠﹼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻕ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﳘﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻄﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﻴﺶ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪)،‬ﳜﺸﻰ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺄﺛﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ bedeutung‬ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ ،Signification‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺿﺤﺖ ﻣﻔﺴﺪﺓ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺺ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ ﻓﺘﻌﻮﻕ ﻓﻬﻤﻪ ﰲ ﻗﺼﺪﻩ ﺍﶈﻮﺭﻱ(‪،5‬ﻭﻗﻴﺎﺳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﻠﻚ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﳛﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ)‪ (Zeichen‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﱰﻭﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ)‪ bedeutungslos‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.31‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.50‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.50-49‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.45‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪45‬‬

‫‪39‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫‪ (bedeutsam‬ﲝﻴﺚ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﺰﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻠﻔﻮﻅ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺮﻙ ﺍﳌﻠﻔﻮﻅ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﲝﺎﺟﺔ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﳝﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﲝﺴﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺮ ﺑﺄﺻﺎﻟﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺜﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻭﺣﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﱠ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻻ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﻴﺸﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ )ﺇﻥﱠ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﻃﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ‪veut‬‬
‫‪ ،dire‬ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ‪ Bedeutung‬ﻫﻲ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻭ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻗﻮﱄﹼ(‪.1‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﲢﺎﻓﻆ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﱄ ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻓﻬﻮﻯ ﳝﺘﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﳝﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻃﺒﻘﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ‪.‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﻟﻠﻤﻌﻴﺶ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺭﻫﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﺗﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺭﻫﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﺒﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺭﻫﻦ ﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻌﲔ )ﺇﺫ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﲔ ﺃﺻﻼ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺷﺘﺒﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻤﻊ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﲨﻌﺎ ﲪﻴﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻼﻣﺲ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻓﺼﻞ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﻋﻲ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺻﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻤﻮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻉ ‪ fait‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺏ ‪droit‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻬﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺖ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺼﻠﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.47‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.53‬‬
‫‪40‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﻭﺣﺪﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﻬﺪﻱ‬
‫‪‬ﺎ)ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻏﲑ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻸﻓﻖ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻳﻠﺰﻣﻨﺎ ﺃﺻﻼ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﲟﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺑﻮﻇﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻨﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ)‪ (...‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﻨﺴ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ؟ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﳛﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺟﺬﺭ ﻛﻞ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻚ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ)ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺮﺗﺴﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﻘﺎﺑﻼﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺘﺤﻴﻂ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻵﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺳﺘﺘﺨﺬ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺷﻜﻼ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ(‪،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺒﻠﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭ ﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﻴﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺣﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻳﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﺧﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻥﹼ "ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ" ﻭﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﻻ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻨﻄﻮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺣﻮﳍﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﳚﻴﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻘﻮ‪‬ﻡ ﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳏﺴﻮﺭ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻦ‪):‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻟﻸﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻘﻮ‪‬ﻡ ﺃﻓﻌ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﻟﻠﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﻵﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺴﺎﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻮﺍﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﲦﺔ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺜﺒﺖ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺗﻮﺷﻲ ﺑﺎﻧﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ(‪.2‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.54-53‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.58‬‬
‫‪41‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ ‪la réduction de l'indice‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻳﺘﻮﺟﺐ ﺇﺯﺍﺣﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﲡﺮﻳﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻭ"ﺭﺩﻫﺎ" ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﲡﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻻﹰ ﲪﻴﻤ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﳍﺎ ﲡﺮﻳﺒﻴ‪‬ﺎ)‪(...‬ﺇﻥ ﺗﻮﺍﺑﻊ ﺃﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﺏ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻘﻄﻊ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﺴﺨﻬﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻻ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﺿﺎ ﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﺎﺑﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺰﺍﻭﺝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﰒ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ؟ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻻ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺴﻢ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺣﺼﺮﻫﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥﹼ )ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻭﺭ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ‪...‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺃﻭ ﲣﻤﲔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ‪‬ﺎ ﲡﺮﻳﺒﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﻔﻴﺾ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﲝﺼﺮﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﲜﻤﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻮﻇﺎﺋﻒ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﺑﺪﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻟﺴﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﺍﻓﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻻ ﲟﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻤﺔ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﺻﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺳﺘﺼﺪﻕ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻊ‬
‫ﲢﺖ ﻃﺎﺋﻠﺔ" ﺍﻟﺮﺩﻭﺩ" ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪ ،3‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻴﺠﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﺩﻭﺩ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺍﺭﻕ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﺎﻍ ﺿﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻌﺔ‪ /‬ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻝ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.59‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.60‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.64‬‬

‫‪42‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺘﻘﺎﺑﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺎﻛﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻼﺕ ﺗﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﺑﲔ ﻧﻮﻋﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺭﻓﻀﻪ ﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻷﻣﱪﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺳﻴﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪Le vouloir dire comme‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪:‬‬
‫‪soliloque‬‬
‫ﻳﺒﺘﺪﺉ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﻣﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻭﻗﻊ ﺇﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ؟‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻓﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﺯﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺩ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺷﻚ ﻭﻻ ﲢﻮﳍﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﱄ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻔﻬﻲ‪ :‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﳕﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﺯﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ]ﺃﻱ[ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ(‪ ،1‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺇﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﻓﻬﻲ ﲡﻌﻞ ﰲ ﻟﻠﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳋﺎﺭﺝ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺧﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻓﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺻﻨﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ‪ ob-jet‬ﻣﺜﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻳﻘﻊ ﲢﺖ ﻃﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ(‪ ،2‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‬
‫ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻄﻖ ﺑﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻓﻌﻼ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﻗﻮﻻﹰ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ)ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﲔ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ]ﻣﺮﺓ[ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﻴ‪‬ﺔ )‪ ،(être-avec‬ﻭ]ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ [ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻗﺮﰉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ)‪ (auprés-de-soi‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺎﺩﺭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺘﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ "ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺣﺪﺓ"‪،‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.65‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.65‬‬
‫‪43‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﻧﻴﻮﺗﻴﻘﻴﺔ – ﻧﻴﻮﻣﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ(‪.1‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﳛﻘﻖ‬
‫ﻧﺴﻔﻪ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺇﻥ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ "ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ" ﺗﻔﺮﺽ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺧﺮﺍﺝ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺪﻱ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﻱ ﻭﻭﺍﻋﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧ‪‬ﻔﹶﺴ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺻﺮﳛﺎ ﺑﺈﻃﻼﻕ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳛﻲ ﺻﻮﺗﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻃﻨﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﻜﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻣﺜﻠﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ "ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ" ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺴﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺩﺍﻝ ﳛﻴﻴﻬﺎ)ﻫﻮ "ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﻗﻮﻝ" ﻓﻸﻥ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ )‪(Deutung‬ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲣﺘﺺ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲡﺪ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻔﻬﻲ)‪ ،3((rede‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ ﻻ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﰲ ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻳﻠﻘﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ)ﻣﺜﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺃﺳﺎﺭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﳝﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﲨﻠﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻹﳔﺮﺍﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﱐ ﲟﺎ ﳘﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﻤﺎ ﱂ ﳜﻀﻌﺎ ﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ)‪ (korper‬ﺇﱃ ﺟﺴﺪ)‪ ،4((lieb‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺼﺪﻩ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻭﺃﺳﺎﺭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﳛﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺘ‪‬ﺤﺠﺒﺔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻻ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻋﻢ ﻻ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻟﻪ‪.‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﰲ ﻏﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ‪،‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.66‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.67‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.68‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.69‬‬
‫‪44‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﺗﻔﺸﻞ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ )ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲤﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﺘﻨﻊ‬
‫ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺟﻪ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﺗﻌﺪ‪‬ﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺰﻡ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻠﻤﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﺣﺪﺍ ﻣﺘﺒﺎﻳﻨﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻼﹼﻟﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺻﺮﻳﺢ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺻﺮﻳﺢ )ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳊﺎﻓﺔ(‬
‫ﺇﺫ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﲑ‪ -‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﻓﻌﻼ – ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺼﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﲟﻘﺪﻭﺭﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ" ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﺼﻮﺹ" ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻮﻡ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﱪﺭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺇﻗﺼﺎﺋﻪ ﻹﳝﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﻭﺃﺳﺎﺭﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﺟﺰﻳﻦ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺇﺧﺮﺍﺟﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻻﺿﻄﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺧﺮﺍﺟﺎﺕ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺄﻭﳍﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﲢﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺩﻻﱄ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﰲ ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻩ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ؟‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺳﺔ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻣﺴﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻧﻔﺦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﲤﻨﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺘ‪‬ﻜﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﲔ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﳍﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳝﺮ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﱠ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻸﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺱ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﻭﺇﳝﺎﺀﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻇﻒ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﰐ ﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻋﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻻﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﻓﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﻝ]ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰊ [ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﲦﺔ ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﺣﺪ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻭ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻌﻴﺶ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺒﲔ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.70‬‬

‫‪45‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺪﺑﺮﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ(‪.1‬ﻓﻤﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺪﺳﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻳﻠﺠﺄ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻻ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ؟ ﺃﻻ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺎﻃﺔ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻄﻠﲔ؟ ﺃﻻ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﱄ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﺷﻴﺌﹰﺎ؟‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪):‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺠﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻣﺘﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﲡﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﳎﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﺌﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺧﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﺷﻲﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ‪:‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﺑﱪﻫﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﶈﻀﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻭﻻ ﻟﻺﺧﺒﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻓﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ)ﻓﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺣﺪ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻔﻴﺪ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻻ ﺗﺘﺒﲔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ(‪،3‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳛ‪‬ﺪ‪‬ﺙ ﺷﺨﺼ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺃﺳﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺳﺄﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺘﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻣﺘﺤﺪﺛﲔ‪).‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻻ ﺗﻔﻴﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ ]ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ[ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻦ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻱ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ(‪ ،4‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻫﲔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻔﻈﺔ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪74‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.80‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.86‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.88‬‬
‫‪46‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫‪ vorstellung‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ)‪ (re-présentation‬ﺃﻱ‬

‫ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺗﻜﺮﻳﺮﺍ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ )‪ (présentation‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ]ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ[ ﳏﻮﻻ‬
‫]ﻟﻺﺣﻀﺎﺭ[‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻬﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺎ ﻳﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺪﺍ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻧﻈﻢ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﱃ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺯﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺍﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﳚﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﺎﻟﻘﺎ ﰲ ﻋﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺑﲔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺣﻀﺎﺭ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﲤﺜﻞ)‪ (Vorstellung‬ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ)‪ (Ver-gegenwértigung‬ﻷﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﻀﺎﺭ)‪ (Présentation‬ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﲤﺜﱠﻞ)‪ (Vorstellung‬ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﻳﺮ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ)‪ (vorstellung‬ﺍﻷﺑﺴﻂ –ﺍﻹﺣﻀﺎﺭ‪ 2‬ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ‬
‫)‪ (Vergegenwrtigung‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻧﺸﺘﻖ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﺮﻳﺮ ﻻ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺃﺧﺬ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺴﺒﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﻣﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻐﲑ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻴﻈﻬﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﳌﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻀﻄﺮ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻷﻥﹼ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻨﺞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﺎ "ﻟﻶﻥ"‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻧﻜﺘﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻳﺒﻴﺢ ﺳﺮﺍ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻗﺎﻃﻊ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ "ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻮﺭﻫﺮﻳﺔ" ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﻜﺘﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﱐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻵﱄ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.88‬‬

‫‪(Gegenwrtigung) 2‬ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﺹ‪.92‬‬
‫‪47‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻣﺄﺛﻮﺭﺍ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻭﻻﺋﻚ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻜﺘﺔ )‪ ،(ponctualité‬ﺍﻵﻥ‬

‫)‪(maintenant‬ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻗﻒ )‪ (stigmé‬ﻭﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻧﻜﺘﺔ ﺃﻵﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﻜﺘﺔ‪ ،.‬ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻵﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪.‬ﻓﺎﻵﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺎ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺮ‪ ‬ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﻘﻒ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻧﻘﻴﺾ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻨ‪‬ﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﲟﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﻣﺴﺎﻙ ﲟﺤﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺗﺪﺭﳚﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳊﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺰﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻱ ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﻭﺗﺜﺒﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﺱ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ‪:‬‬
‫)ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﺘﺌﻢ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺈﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺮﺩ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﺇﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻻﺣﻘﺔ ﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﺯﺍﺋﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺧﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﳚﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻹﻗﺼﺎﺋﲔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ(‪.2‬ﻓﺎﳌﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻘﻴﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻪ ﲤﻴﺰﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﲤﻴﺰ ﻳﻨﺤﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻃﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﲢﻮﻱ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﲣﻴﻴﻼﹰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭﻩ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺳﺄﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻤﺎﺩﻯ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻬﺪ‬
‫ﻷﻣﺮﻳﻦ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺒﺊ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻟﺬ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﲑ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﻏﲑ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.104‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.117‬‬
‫‪48‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﲣﻴﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﲤﺎ ‪‬ﻣﺎ(‪ 1‬ﻓﺎﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﻘﺼﺪ ﳛﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺳﺘﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺑﺎﻃﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺪﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺿﻲ)ﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﺼﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ "ﺑﺪﻝ" ﺃﺻﻠﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻟﻴﺴﺘﺒﺪﻝ ﻧﻘﺼ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ)‪((...‬‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﻳﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﺍﻝ ﳝﺤﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ)‪(...‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺮﺩ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﳛﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ ﳉﺴﻤﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻔﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﳏﻀﺔ)‪.3 ((...‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ)‪ (Supplémantarité‬ﻫﻮ ﻋﲔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻳﺆﺧﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺃﻵﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﲢﺖ ﺭﲪﺔ ﻗﺴﻤﺔ ﻭﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﻑ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺃﻣﺮﻩ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺧﺘﻼﻑ(‪،4‬ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻳﻨﻮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﺘﻔﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻣﺘﻼﺀ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﱄ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻄﻠﻊ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﻝ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ﺹ‪.121-120‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.140‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.127‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.142‬‬
‫‪49‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻴﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻷﺟﻠﻪ ﻳﺼﲑ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻡ )‪ (à-la-place-de‬ﻳﻮﺿﻊ ﻷﺟﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻣﻪ‪ -‬ﻫﺎﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺪﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺑﺂﺧﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ(‪ ،1‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻓﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﻫﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﺪﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﺪﻻ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﲤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﹼﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺘﻌﻮﻳﺾ ﺩﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑﻩ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻟﻠﺪﺍﻝ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺻﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻭﺍﳊﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺴﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ‬
‫ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺁﺟﻼ)‪ (Pro-visoire‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺟﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺣﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺜﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻋﺎﻟﻖ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﺷﺘﻘﺎﻕ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬ﻓﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ )ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻔﺤﺺ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﺴﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻛﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﺈ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﲤﻀﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﻭﻃﺒﻊ ﻭﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﻭﲡﺴﻴﺪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺳﺒﻖ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ – ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳍﺎ ﺃﺳﺲ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺲ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﱂ ﺗﻨﺠﺢ)ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻭﻟﺔ)‪،3((...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺃﻱ ﺇﳛﺎﺀ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.142‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻓﻨﺴﺖ ﺏ‪.‬ﻟﻴﺘﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪288 ،‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.21‬‬
‫‪50‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺇﻻﱠ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳛﻮﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻳﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳛﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺩﻻﱄ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﻓﺎﺭﻏﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻻﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳍﻴﺎﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺿﻮﺡ)‪ 1(...‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﺷﻜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﳕﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻩ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Tarek R.Dika,William C.Hackett, Claude Romano, Les concepts‬‬
‫‪Fondamentaux de la phénoménologie, U L S, Journal of French and‬‬
‫‪Francophone Philosophy, Revue de la philosophie français et de langue‬‬
‫‪française,Vol XX, No 2(2012), P176.‬‬
‫‪51‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪-‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻄﺮﺣﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫‪-5‬ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪-‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪:-‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﻴﺸﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺃﻳﻨﺎﻩ ﺳﻠﻔﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎﺽ ﺃﻭﺭﰊ ﻣﺘﺠﺬﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﳉﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮﻱ ﺍﻷﻏﺮﻳﻘﻲ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﱪﺯ ﻋﻤﺎﻟﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﲝﻀﻮﺭﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺫﻭﻗﻴﺎ ﻭﻗﻴﻤﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ)‪((...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﺑﻄﺖ ﺑﲔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﺘﻴﻨﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﻏﻔﺎﳍﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ )ﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‪:،2‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ)ﻳﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻣﺎ]ﻳﻘﻊ[ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﺒﺜﻖ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﺪ ﺩﺧﻞ ﰲ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‪ ،3‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳋﻠﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﳍﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﰲ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺗﺪﺧ‪‬ﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﰲ ﻣﺼﲑ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪)،‬ﻭﻫﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﱂ ﺗﻔﻠﺢ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‪ 4‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻻ ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻣﺔ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲣﻀﻊ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﰲ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻭﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺑﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﺒﺤﻲ ﺩﻗﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2015 ،1‬ﺹ ‪83‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ؟‪ :‬ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺃﻟﻘﺎﻫﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1929‬ﰲ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﺒﻮﺭﻍ‪ ،‬ﺯﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﲔ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﰲ ﻣﻠﺤﻖ ﺃﺿﺎﻓﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ‪ ،1943‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ .1949‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﺟﻮﺭﺝ‬
‫ﻏﺎﺩﻣﲑ ﻃﺮﻕ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.125‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﻏﺎﺩﻣﲑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.124‬‬
‫‪.4‬ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﻨﺸﻴﺨﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻃﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2011 ،1‬ﺹ‪.198‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪Jacquet derrida, MARGES DE LA PHILOSOPHIE, op.cit., P 73.‬‬

‫‪53‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫–ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ -‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﺎﻷﺧﺺ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ 1‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻣﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺴ‪‬ﻮﺱ )ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺴﻮﺱ‪) ،‬ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺜﹼﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻴﻎ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻷﻥﱠ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻳ‪‬ﻌﺰﻯ ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳛﺠﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻌﺰﻯ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﻨﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺃﺑﻄﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻫﻢ ﺃﺑﻄﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﺪﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﳎﺎﻭﺯ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ)‪ 427‬ﻕ ﻡ(‪:‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻧﻪ )ﻣﺜﻼ( ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﲢﺪﺩﺕ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺗﺘﻀﺢ‬
‫ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺩ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﻞ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳊﻖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ)ﻣﻨﺬ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳊﲔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﺼﺎﻍ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪.‬‬
‫– ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ)‪ :(1650-1596‬ﲣﺮﺝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﲝﻴﺚ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺰ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲢﺪﺩ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪):‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺮﺭ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻛﺎﺣﻜﻢ ﺃﻋﻠﻲ ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫–ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻴﺔ )‪ :(1831-1170‬ﺗﺼﻞ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﺜﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻛﺤﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﲤﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﱂ ﺗﻔﺤﻞ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻴﺔ ﲟﺠﺎﻭﺯﺓ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺳﺎﱂ ﻳﻔﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺟﻲ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1999 ،1‬ﺹ ﺹ ‪.51-37‬‬
‫– ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ)‪ :(1804-1724‬ﺇﻥ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﳏﺎﻭﻟﺘﻪ ﻹﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﱂ ﲣﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻓﺒﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺽ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻰ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﲡﺮﻳﺪ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻱ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﱂ‬
‫ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﺘﺰﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻧﺘﺰﺍﻉ ﻭﲡﺮﻳﺪ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﱂ‬
‫ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺎ ﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺣﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻐﺎﺩﺭ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺇﺫ ﻇﻞ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻮﻃﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻳﻘﲔ‪.‬‬
‫– ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻮﻳﺔ)‪ :(1899-1744‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﻒ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﲤﻴﺰﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻴﺘﺸﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﻭﺇﺳﻬﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﺄﺷﻜﺎﳍﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺁﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻇﻞ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ‪ /‬ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ‪ /‬ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﲑ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻃﻮﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪2002 ،‬ﺹ ﺹ ‪.162-199‬‬
‫‪54‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﳛﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﻗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ)‪ .1((...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻘﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ 2‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﻘﺪ ﳝﺘﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺍﺀ‪) ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﺴﺮ ﺍﺣﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ ﻟﻺﻧﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،3‬ﻭﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ‪ 4‬ﻟﻴﻤﺪﻧﺎ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪.5‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺑﻴﺖ ﻭﻣﺴﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ .6‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ :‬ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 1‬ﺹ‬
‫‪.58‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪1.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻛﻼ ﳏﺠﺒﺎ)ﺗﺎﺁﻟﻴﺘﻴﺎ( ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻟﻴﺘﻴﺎ ﺏ)ﺍﻟﻼﲢﺠﺐ( ﺑﺪﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺮﲨﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻞ ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺃﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﲟﻌﲎ )ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻏﺎﻣﻀﺎ( ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻜﺸﻔﺎ ﻭﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻧﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ، ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻴﻼ‪ -‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﳍﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.24‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‪ 34‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﲏ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪) :‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺮﺭ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺄﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺩﺍﺕ ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ]ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ[ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﺃﻥﹼ ﳍﺎ ﺟﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺯﺍﻳﻦ ﺃﻡ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﲑ ﺫﻟﻚ؟]‪ [...‬ﳓﻦ ﳕﻠﻚ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﲣﺬﺗﻪ ﻣﺒﺤﺜﺎ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ]ﺃﻣﺮ [ ﻣﻈﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﻷﻓﻖ ﳏﺠﻮﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ(‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻇﺮﺓ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺩﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪،‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،2003-2002 ،‬ﺹ‪.8‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺮ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﻭﻡ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﺆﺳﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺮﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳛﻴﺎ ﺷﻌﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻧﻈﻢ ﻣﻘﻄﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﺇﳕﱠﺎ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻭﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﳛﻘﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺃﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻨ‪‬ﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻫﺎ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻔﻀﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺑﺴﺎﻡ ﺣﺠﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ ﻁ‪ ،1994 ،1‬ﺹ‪.53‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.39‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪voir M. Heidegger, L’être Sur L’humanisme, tra : Roger Munier, Montaigne,‬‬
‫‪paris, p27.‬‬
‫‪55‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ؟ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﺣﺒﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪(...)):‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﱄ ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﺒﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺮ‪‬ﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺘﺴﻢ‬
‫‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ(‪ ،1‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻧﺼﻮﺻﻪ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‪ ‬ﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﻴﺚ ﳕﺘﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺨﺮﻭﺝ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﳔﻀﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻬﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺘ‪‬ﺠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺣﱴ ﻳﺘﺼﺪﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﺺ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺍﳌﻨﺸﻮﺭ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1946‬ﺟﻮﻝ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ( ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫)ﺷﺬﺭﺓ ﺃﻧﻜﺴﻤﻨﺪﺭ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺗﺆﺷﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺤﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﰲ ﺍﳌﺒﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺎﻣﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺭﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﳏﺠﻮﺑﺔ ﺷﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺷﺄﻥ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﺗﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺘﲔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻤﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺄﻥ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺷﻴﺌﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻼﻥ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻉ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ)‪(...‬ﺇﻥﱠ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ­ ﻭ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ­ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻧﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ( ‪ ،2‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﻠﻔﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻜﻮﳉﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﱠﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺤﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ(‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ)ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.16‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.57‬‬
‫‪56‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﲡﺎﻭﺯﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺳﺆﺍﻻﹰ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻻﹰ‪.‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﺣﺪ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺗﻪ‪):‬ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﳑﺎ ﺃﺣﺎﻭﻟﻪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭﺍ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ)‪.(..‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﺃﺣﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻷﺻﺒﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ)‪(...‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﺃﺻ‪‬ﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺫﻭ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻗﺼﻮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻛﻴﺪﺍ ﻻ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺰﺍﻝ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻳﺔ(‪ 1‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺗﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻓﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪) :‬ﺇﻥ ﺩﻳﲏ ﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﱪ ﲝﻴﺚ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﻴﺼﻌﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﻮﻡ ﲜﺮﺩﻩ ﻫﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﺗﻘﻮﳝﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﺟﺰ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﻉ ﻧﻮﺍﻗﻴﺲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻠﻚ ﻣﻌﺎ ﺳﻠﻮﻛﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻮﺿﻊ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻭﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺿﺮﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﻟﻴﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻮ‪-‬ﺛﻴﻠﻮﺟﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺘﺎﻡ ﺣﻘﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ﻧﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ 3‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺛﺎﺭﻫﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ)ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.52-16-15‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،1985 ،17‬ﺹ‪.57‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻃﻠﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﻜﲑﻩ)ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ( ‪ ،Fundamentalontologie‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﲣﻠﻰ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻮﺿﻊ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻜﻨﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ( ﰲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﲎ )ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ( ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻳﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ؟ ﻓﺮﲟﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﻲ‬

‫‪57‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻫﻴﺪﺟﺮ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻓﻬﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻗﻴﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺧﻠﺨﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ‪ ):‬ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪ .1‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﳉﻴﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﺧﻼﺻﺎ ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﳏﺎﻳﺜﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﻌﲔ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻴﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻪ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﳌﺎ ﺃﺧﻔﺎﻩ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻨﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﻧﻌﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﻊ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻨﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﺃﳘﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﲪﻠﻬﺎ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻮﻳﺾ ﻭﺍﳍﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺪﻭﺭ ﰲ ﻓﻠﻚ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﻋﺠﺰﺕ ﻋﻦ ﲡﺎﻭﺯﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺳﻴﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﲟﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ)ﻓﺤﲔ ﻛﺘﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ »ﺍﳌﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ« ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻏﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺿﻤﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻭﺑﺸﺮ ﺑﺄﻓﺎﻕ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺪﻭﺩﺍ ﺑﺄﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻴﻂ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‪ (.3‬ﻓﻬﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻣﻜﺮﺭﺓ ‪ .4‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﳓﺘﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺷﺘﻘﺎﻗﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ‬

‫)ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻲ(‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﻟﻀﺮﺑﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﲤﺎﻡ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻤﻼ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻻﺳﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺭﺟﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.50‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪M-Heidegger, Essaie et conféronces, tr: J ean Boufret, Gallimard, paris, 1986,‬‬
‫‪p90.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ)ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.13 ،12‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻋﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﲔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫‪https://modarnitysite.wordpress.com,13:09heur‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻛﻮﺭﻳﺴﺘﻴﻒ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﳍﻢ ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫ﳜﺘﻠﻔﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻭﺿﻊ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺃﺭﺿﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﲟﻌﲎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳘﺎ ﳜﺘﻠﻔﺎﻥ ﰲ )ﳊﻈﺔ(‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻛﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻓﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺒﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻠﻔﻮﻅ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.153‬‬
‫‪58‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ"‪ 1‬ﻭ"ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ"‪ ،2‬ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ"‪ 3‬ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺖ ﺻﺒﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻏﻔﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﲡﺎﻫﻞ ﻣﺘﻌﻤﺪ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻛﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ((‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ))ﺍﳉﻨﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(( ﳍﺬﺍ ﳒﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺌﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻄﺮﺣﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺻﺪﺭ ‪ ،1987‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻄﺮﺣﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ )ﻧﻮﻗﻆ ﻫﺬﻩ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ((؟‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺫﻋﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ )‪ 4((...‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺗﺴﺄﻝ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﳎﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺎﺷﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺩﺍﺭﺕ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﻳﺪﻏﺮ" ﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ"‪ :‬ﻋﻦ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﲑﻭﺭﺓ(‬
‫ﻭ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻈﻬﺮ(‪ ،‬ﻭ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ(‪ ،‬ﻭ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ(‪ ،‬ﻭ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ( ﱂ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ‪ -‬ﰲ‪ -‬ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻃﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ –ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ – ﰲ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ‪ -‬ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.106‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ‪ Da-Sain :‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺮﲨﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪ ،Daseyn :‬ﺍﳌﺘﺠﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺪﻣﺞ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﳒﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﻣﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺎ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻳﺸﻐﻠﻪ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺯﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪(le Da-Sain est l’étant pour qu’il y va dans son être de cet être même), :‬‬
‫‪voir M. Heidegger, être et temps, tr Boehem et Alphonse de walhens, Gallimard,‬‬
‫‪paris, 1986, p21.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ :Technicité‬ﺗﻨﺤﺪﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻴﻜﻨﻴﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﲔ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻧﻘﻄﺘﲔ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻧﻊ ﻭﻓﻨﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﲰﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.53‬‬
‫‪4‬ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﻧﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ -‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻻﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺘﻮﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2014 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.173‬‬
‫‪59‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺗﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﱂ ﲤﺴﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﹰ ﺧﻔﻴﻔﺎﹰ(‪ ،1‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﱂ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‪) :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟(‪ ،‬ﻓﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﱂ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻳﻄﺮﺣﻬﺎ‪)،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪) ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ(‪) ،‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ(‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﱴ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﲟﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﺢ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﹼﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺀ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺻﻴﻐﺎ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺳﻮﻑ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺶ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺳﻢ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( )‪ (Geist‬ﺃﻭ ﺻﻔﱵ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ) ‪ (geistlich/geistig‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻘﺸﻬﺎ ﰲ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺘﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻄﻬﺎ ﺑﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴ‪‬ﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳔﻠﺺ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺒﻊ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻷﻱ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮ‪‬ﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ –ﺃﻱ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ -‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻴﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺭﻳﻒ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬
‫)ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1953‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺑﻊ ﻗﺮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ )‪ TRAKlK‬ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻞ(‪ 2‬ﺍﻧﻪ ﺣﺮﺹ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺟﺘﻨﺎﺏ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪Geisting‬ﻭﺑﺪﺃ ﺟﻠﻴﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﳛﺒﺬ ﺫﻟﻚ(‪ 3‬ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪-‬‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ( ﺑﺎﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﰐ‪) :‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ‪ ،revenant‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻫﺞ ﻋﻦ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﻧﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2013 ،1‬ﺹ‪.22‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻞ‪ ،1914-1887 :‬ﺷﺎﻋﺮ ﳕﺴﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺑﺮﺟﻮﺍﺯﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺻﻴﺪﱄ ﰲ ﺻﻔﻮﻑ ﺍﳉﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺎﺋﺪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻬﺮﻫﺎ‪Grodek:‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻭﺍﺋﻞ ﻏﺎﱄ‪» ،‬ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ«ﻭﻣﲑﺍﺙ »ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ«‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪1 ،9‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،1991‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪،‬ﺹ‪.161‬‬
‫‪60‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ‪ ،‬ﲡﻨﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ؟ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺩﻱ؟(‪ ،1‬ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺳﻴﻌﻠﻦ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ‪ (1927‬ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻳﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ)ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ‪)،(Geist‬ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬
‫‪ ،Geist‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ‪ geistlich‬ﳘﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﺍﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻳﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﲡﻨﺒﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ‪ geistig‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻨﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺣﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،geist / geistlich / geistig،‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻀﺢ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ؟ ﻭﲟﻌﲎ ﺁﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲡﻨﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ؟‪ .‬ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﻄﺮﺡ ﺳﺆﺍﻻ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺪﺩ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺪﺩ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻌﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻠﻞ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎﹰ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺳﻴﺘﺴﲎ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﰐ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺬﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﺒﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻋﻮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﺬﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻮﻇﻔﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﺮﻏﻤﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺣﻘﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﲡﻨﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺳﻠﻔﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﲡﻨﺒﻪ؟ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﻋﺪ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺍﻩ ﻭﻳﺘﺠﻨﺒﻪ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ؟ ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻧﺴﻲ ﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﻨﺐ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺩﻱ؟ ﺃﻭ ﺭﲟﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﲝﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺍﻭﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻮﻙ ﰲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﺟﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺀً ﻭﺗﺸﺎﺑﻜﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻠﻮﻫﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ؟‪ ،2‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻒ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ)ﲡﻨﺐ( ‪ vermeiden‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.37‬‬

‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.39‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪61‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﻴﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻛﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻓﺴﺄﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﱳ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﻭﺇﺧﻔﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ – ﺃﻱ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﲰﺢ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲢﺖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺧﻄﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﳍﺎﺫ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ )ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ( ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻈﻴﻤﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺒﻠﻎ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻮﻇﻴﻒ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﺘﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻨﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺟﻌﻞ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻫﻢ ﻳﺒﺘﻌﺪﻭﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﱂ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺃﻥ ﳜﻔﻲ ﺍﻓﺘﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﺳﺤﺮﻩ ﺍﳋﻔﻲ ‪‬ﺎ –ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪.-‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﺸﻐﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ‪ -‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ -‬ﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻔﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺘﺠﺎﻫﻠﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻻﺣﻆ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺃﻱ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ)ﺳﻮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺛﻮﺫﻛﺴﲔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻨﺸﻘﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﲑﻳﻦ ﺟﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﻃﻼﺑﻪ( ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺿﻮﺍ ﻟﻪ ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻣﺘﺪ ﺣﱴ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻭﻻﺋﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﻔﻮﻥ ﺿﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﱂ ﻳﻬﺘﻤﻮﺍ ﲟﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻘﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻋﻦ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﳘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻫﺆﻭﻻﺀ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ؟ ﻭﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺗﺸﻐﻞ ﺣﻴ‪‬ﺰﺍ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻐﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻛﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺷﺮﺡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻬﻤ‪‬ﺶ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻄﺮﻕ‬

‫‪62‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ)‪ (De l’esprit‬ﻫﻮ ﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻃﺔ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺭﲟﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺭﻧﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﺴﻤﻮﻋﺎ ﺟﻴﺪﺍ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻟﻐﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧ‪‬ﺨﻀﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸ‪‬ﻊ ﺇﻻ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺠﺞ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺍﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ :‬ﻧﺒﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺎﺕ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺣﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻭﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺤﺚ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﻪ ‪ geist / geistlich / geistig،‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻭﻇﺎﺋﻔﻬﺎ ﻭﲢﻮﻻ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺃﻏﺮﺍﺿﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼ‪‬ﻤﺖ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺻﻤﺘ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﺫﻛﺮﻫﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ؟ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﺃﻭ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ(( ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻋﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻭﳓﻮ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻌﻔﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺴﺤﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﻭ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻻ ﳜﺺ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻞ ﺃﻣﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﻋﺎﺩﻳﺎ( ‪.2‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳊﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪:‬ﺇﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺸﺤﻮﻧﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺮﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺒﺪﻱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻨﺸﻐﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻰ »ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ« ﻭ»ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ« ﻭ»ﺍﻷﻣﺔ« ﻭ»ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ«‪ ،‬ﻭ»ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﻏﺮﻳﻘﻴﺔ« ﺃﻭ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.46‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.48‬‬
‫‪63‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫»ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ«(‪ ،(1935-1933) ،1‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺇﻥ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻼ‬
‫ﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ )ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺪ(‪ ،‬ﻭ)ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳊﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪ :‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺠﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﺄﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺑﺮﻫﻦ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫)‪ (Geist‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ)‪ (geistig‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ )‪ ،(geistlich‬ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺎ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻳﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘﺎ ﲜﺬﺭ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺳﻴﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺸﺤﻮﻧﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺎﺷﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺑﺎﻷﺧﺺ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍ‪‬ﺪﺩﻳﻦ ﰲ ﳎﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﺎﺭﺙ )ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻭﺃﺭﺍﺋﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳍﺎ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﻋﻦ »ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ «ﻭ»ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ «ﻭﻋﻦ‬
‫»ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ« ﻭﻋﻦ »ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺙ« ﻭﻋﻦ »ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻣﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ «‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺻﻴﻎ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻴﻮﻁ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻨﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺃﺻﺎﻟﺘﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻴﻂ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﺃﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ)ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﻥ ﻧﻼﺣﻈﻪ ﻛﺄﻣﺮ ﺃﻭﱄ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺳﻴﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻛﻤﻌﲎ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ)‪،(Versammlung‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻏﲑ ﳏﻤﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳏﻤﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﺧﺮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.49‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.51‬‬
‫‪64‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺃﻵﻥ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﺄﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻃﺮﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺭﲟﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭﻩ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺴﻤﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻠﻒ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳋﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﻨﻮﻥ ﻭﺗﺴﻤﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺫﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻮﺯ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮﻱ ﻭﺭﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﻌﻰ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻧﻘﺎﺫﻫﺎ ﻭﺣﻔﻆ ﻧﻘﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳋﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺧﻴﻂ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻫﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ‬
‫)ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺙ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﱄ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﻳﻘﻊ ﲢﺖ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻓﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺣﺰﻣﺎ ﻭﺳﻠﻄﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺇﺧﻔﺎﺀ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻨﻪ‪.2‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳋﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳛﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳋﻔﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳊﻜﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ)‪-‬ﺑﺎﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﻳﺪﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﻧﻂ‪-‬ﻻﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ )ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻞ(‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﻴﺤﻴﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﺴﻲ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﲟﺎﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻨﺎﺩﻱ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ( ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻇﻠﺖ‬
‫ﳏﺎﻃﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺟﺴﺪﺍ‪،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.59‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.63‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.64‬‬
‫‪65‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺠﺪ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﰐ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ؟ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﳏﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺳﻢ ﻳﻄﻠﻘﻪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﱐ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﻨﺘﻘﺪﻩ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ ﻛﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﳎﺮﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻱ )ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ( ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺮﻛﻪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺎﺅﻝ ﻭﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺪﺩ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺟﻞ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﳕﻂ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻧﻮﻋﻴﺘﻪ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻱ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‪،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ‪ ego‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ )ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻗﻀﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹ‪‬ﺎﻡ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ )ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ(‪ 2‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻷﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻏﲑ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻱ‪ ‬ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﻀﺢ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺈﺑﻌﺎﺩﻩ ﻋﻦ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﺘﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺼﺮﺡ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺪﺩ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈ‪‬ﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﺯﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻱ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻷﺧﺺ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ((‪،3(.‬‬
‫ﻓﻠﻮ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﺃﻥ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ‪)) :‬ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ((‬
‫ﻭ))ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ((‪ ،‬ﻭ))ﺍﻷﻧﺎ((‪ ،‬ﻭ))ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ(( ﻭ))ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ((‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﻒ ﻛﻌﺎﺋﻖ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺧﻀﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.72‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﻴﺌﺘﻪ ‪edos‬‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﻲﺀ ﻳﻨ‪‬ﺎﺳﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ‪،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺝ‪ 2‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺇﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2003 ،1‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.76‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.72‬‬
‫‪66‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ ﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅﻝ‪.‬ﻓﺎﳊﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ)ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺘﻘﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ -‬ﻭﲟﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
‫ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺃﻧﻄﻠﻮﺟﻲ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﻨﻊ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ(‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ)‪. 1((Gemüt‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﳒﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ)ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(‬
‫ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻔﻆ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻼﲡﻨﺐ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪):‬ﻫﻨ‪‬ﺎﻙ ﲦﺔ ﺷﻲﺀ ﳛﺎﻓﻆ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺤﺮ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﻭﻗﺪﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗ‪‬ﺴﻤﻰ ﻭﺗ‪‬ﻄﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺗ‪‬ﺴﻮﺭ ﺑﲔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ )))(((‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺴﻤﺢ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﺮﺩﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﺗﻌﻮﺩ‪.‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻬﺎ ﻛﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺪﺍﻭﳍﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﺄﻟﻮﻓﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ‪،‬‬ ‫ﳛﺮﺭﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱ)‪ (uneigentlich‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﺷﺮ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ(‪ ،2‬ﻭﻳﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺟﺮﻣﺘﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺇﻋﺎﺩ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺻﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺻﻔﺔ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ(( ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺧﻀﺎﻋﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺴﺒﺔ)))(((‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺃﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ‪ ((())) :‬ﺍﺛﻨﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻬﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻔﺎﻥ ﳏﻤﻴﲔ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻑ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺏ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻓﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﲑﺍﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﳑﺎ ﻻﺷﻚ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﺒﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻜﻴﺔ(‪ ،.3‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺴﺒﺔ)))(((‬
‫ﲤﻨﺤﻨﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﻌﻄﻲ ﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺒﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﻧﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﺩﺍﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﻻ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ )ﺃﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ(ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.72‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.84‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.95‬‬
‫‪67‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ)‪ ،(cogito me cogitare rem‬ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬

‫ﻛﺎﻟﻘﺒﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻼﺫﺍﺕ(‪ .1‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﱃ ))ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ))ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ((‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻈﻬﺮ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ((ﻣﺴﻮ‪‬ﺭﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ)))(((‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﻻ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺻﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺴﺒﺔ)))(((‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻭﻛﺄﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪:‬‬
‫‪-‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ‪:‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺗﺘﻮﻫﺞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ؟ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺪ(‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﻳﺸﲑ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻀﺎﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﲔ‪،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ)))(((‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ – ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺗﺴﻠﻢ ﻋﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ -‬ﻫﻮ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼﺕ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﻫﻮ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﻳﺼﺎﺩﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪،‬ﻭﳝﻞﹺ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ)ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ)‪ (-‬ﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺻﻠﺔ)‪(-‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﻠﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ( ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺺ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻄﺒﻖ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻔﺎﺟﺄﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﲤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ)ﻓﻤﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳝﻨﺢ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.89‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.107‬‬
‫‪68‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻃﻤﺌﻨﺎﻧﺎ ﻭ‪‬ﺬﻳﺒﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺍﻧﻐﻤﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺗﺄﻣﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
‫ﳚﻴﺰ ﻭﻳﻜﺮﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻧﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺇﻥ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ))ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ((‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻫﻲ )ﻭﻫﻢ(‪) ،‬ﻭﺧﻴﺎﻝ( ﻭﻫﻲ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻃﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺪ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1933‬ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﻫﻴﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺎﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ )ﺇﻥﹼ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻵﻥ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﻌﲏ‪ :‬ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﻭﺍﳋﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺿﺮﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺯﻳﻦ )ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻨ‪‬ﺎﻙ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ)ﻋﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﻲ( ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﰎ ﺇﻗﺼﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺘﻢ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺒﺴﺔ )))(((‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﺳﺘﺸﻬﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻔﺨﻴﻤﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻷﻥ ﺻﻔﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ )ﺭﻭﺡ( ﻏﲑ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪):‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ(‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺋﻼ‪ :‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﻙ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻠﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﻏﻤﻮﺽ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ؟ ﺇﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﳘﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻼﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﻏﺎﻣﻀﲔ)ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ))ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(( ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻋﺘﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ؟ ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ)‪.3((...)(Geistig welt‬ﻓﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺗﻌﺎﱐ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻮﺯ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻮﺯﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻳﻘﺴﻤﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﻠﺌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻟﻠﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﲝﺪ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﲡﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻛﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.108‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.114‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.115‬‬
‫‪69‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ ﺷﻴﻠﻨﻎ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﹰ )‪ ،(espiritus‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ‪ ،Pnenma‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﲔ ﻳﺸﲑ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻳﻔﺘﻘﺪ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻓﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻭﺭﻭﺣﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﺇﻻ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻘﻂ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﻴﻄﺮﺡ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺳﻨﺔ‪ 1942‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺗﻪ )ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻛﻨﺼﻒ ﺇﻻﻩ( ﰲ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﳐﺼﺺ ﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ )ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﺮﺽ ﻷﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ ﻫﻠﺪﺭﻟﲔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﻣﻜﻮﺙ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ؟‪ /‬ﻻ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ /‬ﻭﻻ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ؟ ﳚﻴﺐ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﰒ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ)‪ (das wehen‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻧﺎﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﺴﺮﺓ(‪ .1‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺎﻋﺮ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﺠﺎﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﻃﻦ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟ ﻭﺍﳉﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ :1953‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﺞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳﻖ)‪(...‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﻫﺞ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻳﻀﻊ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﳛﺮﻕ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ؟ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻫﺞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﺞ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺟﺞ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺟﺞ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ :‬ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻶﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﲔ ﳛﺪﺙ ﰲﱠ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﺎﻟﺴﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﰲ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺗﻮﻫﺞ‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﲰﺎﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﱂ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻛﻨﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺭﻓﻀﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،،‬ﺹ‪.183‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.195-193‬‬
‫‪70‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺩ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﳚﻴﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﰲ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻛﺘﻮﻫﺞ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﻮﺀ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺪ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪- .‬‬
‫)ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ‪ ruah‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ Geist‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮ ﺑﲔ ﺟﻨﺒﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ‪ ruah‬ﺑﺎﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ، ruah raa)1‬ﻓﺘﻨﺎﻭﱄ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﱐ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﰲ ﺗﻮﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺮ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﺞ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺀ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪)،‬ﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﺃﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥﹼ ))ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(( ﲢﺘﻔﻆ ﲟﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ‪en‬‬
‫‪ revenant‬ﻭﻛﺸﺒﺢ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺗﻨﺠﺰﻩ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﺠﺰﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻫﺞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻣﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﻨﺠﺰﻩ ﻛﺂﺧﺮ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﲤﺎﻣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻛﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﺘﻌﺬﺭ ﺍﳒﺎﺯﻩ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪-4‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺪ ‪ la limite‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﺘﻠﻜﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻠﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺰﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﺣﻈﻮﺓ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺼﻔﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ )ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﹸﻀﻮ‪‬ﺓ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺘﻈﻤﺔ ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺟﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺄﰐ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ – ﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺔ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ – ﺇﱃ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺠﺎﻝ ﻟﻨ‪‬ﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ(‪ . 3‬ﻓﺄﺻﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺪﺩﻩ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻻ ﳜﻠﺨﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺗﺮﻋﺮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻥ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻭﻓﻀﺎﺀ ﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺸﺎﺩ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﳍﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.138‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.159‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.16‬‬
‫‪71‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫‪ -5‬ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺃﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﺸﺘﻖ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ؟ ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎ ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺬﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳓﻴﻂ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ؟ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺿﻨﺎ ﺍﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﲣﻠﻴﺼﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻨﺒﺖ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻗﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﻗﻮﻳﺔ ﺿﺪﻩ ﺍﻻ ﳛﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﳓﻄﺎﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻃﺎﺑﻌﺎ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻧﻴﺎ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺎ؟ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻢ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲝﺜﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﻫﻮ ﲝﺚ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻞ ﻭﰲ‬ ‫ﻛﺴﻘﻄﺔ)‪((...‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﻘﺎﻗﻲ ﻭﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻒ ﺿﺪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ)ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ‬
‫ﻭ)ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳊﻨﲔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﳊﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ(‪ .2‬ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻐﺪﻭ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺗﻌﻴﺪﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺖ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﻔﺎﺋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﱂ ﳜﻠﻒ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﻬﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺳﺄﻛﺘﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﻒ ﻭﺇﻃﺎﻟﺔ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺃﻓﻖ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﴰﻮﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻬﻴﻤﻦ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﺃﻵﻥ(‪ 3‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﺒﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﺎﳌﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻳﺰﻭﻝ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎﻩ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍ ﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.53‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.154‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.40‬‬
‫‪72‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺒﻮﻥ ﺑﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬

‫‪73‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﳌﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻟﻠﺒﻮﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪:‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻭﺃﺣﻜﻤﺖ ﺳﻴﻄﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﳎﻼﺕ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻓﺄﺧﺬﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﲝﺖ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﲢﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺗﺪﻋﻮ ﻟﺘﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﻋﻘﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻮﻗﻒ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﻴﺴﺔ ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺩﺍ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻧﺪﺍﺀﺍ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻗﻤﻌﻬﺎ ﻟﺸﺨﺼﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺘﲔ ﻧﺬﻛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ)ﺑﻴﺘﺮ ﺃﺑﻴﻼﺭ ‪) ،(1142-1079 Pier Abélard‬ﻣﻴﺸﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺁﻳﻜﻴﻢ ﺩﻱ ﻣﻮﻧﺘﲔ ‪) ،(1592-1533 Michel de Montaigne‬ﺭﻭﻧﻴﻪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫‪ ،(1650-1596René Desscartes‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻓﺎﲢﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻨﻘﻠﺔ ﻧﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﺯﺩﻫﺎﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﻭﺍﺳﻌ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻌﺪﺩﺕ ﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﻭﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﱂ ﺗﺒﲎ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺳﺒﻘﻬﺎ ﺟﻴﺶ ﻣﻦ "ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﲔ" ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﲪﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺗﻘﻬﻢ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺭﺅﻯ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺭﺅﻯ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻣﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻭﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﳍﺎ ﻭﻟﻌﻞﹼ ﺍﺣﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﲔ ﺑﻔﻀﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﳐﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻀﺎﺀﺍ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﲨﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ ﰲ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﲤﻴﺰﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ -‬ﺑﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﺼﲑﻩ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ)ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﺑﺘﻌﺪ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻬﺠﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺑﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻛﺜﲑﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ)‪(...‬ﻭﲤﻴﺰ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺑﻘﺮﺑﻪ‬

‫‪75‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻏﺮﺍﻕ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ(‪ .1‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ)ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﲢﺘﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺑﻔﻼﺳﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﲔ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻧﺸﻐﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻓﻴﻪ ﲝﺮﺑﲔ ﻋﺎﳌﻴﺘﲔ ﻛﱪﻳﲔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﺮﺍﺀ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﺍﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﻣﺬﻫﻼ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﳌﻄﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ(‪ .2‬ﻭ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﺪﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻊ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺓ )ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ(‪ Neo-Kantianism 3‬ﻭﺍﻣﺘﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﲑﻫﺎ ﺑﲔ‬
‫)‪(1918-1870‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻣﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺛﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﺄﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﻀﲔ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﻬﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻭﻩ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻼ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻬﻢ ﻫﻲ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺸﺊ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﰲ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻻﻛﺮﻭﺍ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳛﲕ ﻫﻮﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻮﺭ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،2016 ،‬ﺹ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ، Neo-Kantianis:‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﳌﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺒﺘﺖ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻣﻨﻮﻳﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻬﻢ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺳﻬﺎ ﳒﺪ "ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﺎﺭﺑﻮﺭﺝ "ﻭﺍﻫﻢ ﺃﻋﻼﻣﻬﺎ ﻫﲑﻣﺎﻥ ﻛﻮﻫﲔ)‪ ،(1918-1842‬ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺭﺏ)‪-1854‬‬
‫‪ ،(1824‬ﻭﺍﺭﻧﺴﺖ ﻛﺎﺳﲑﺭ)‪ ،(1940-1874‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺿﻮﺀ ﺍﻹﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ‪...،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﺑﺘﺴﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﲔ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﰲ )ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ( ﻭﻫﻢ ﻓﻴﻠﻬﻴﻢ ﻓﻴﻨﺪﻟﺒﺎﻧﺪ)‪ ،(1915-1848‬ﻭﻫﺎﻧﺮﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺭﻳﻜﺮﺕ)‪ ،(1929-1863‬ﻭﺇﻣﻴﻞ ﻻﺳﻚ)‪ ،(1915-1875‬ﻓﻤﻘﻮﻻﺕ )ﻛﺎﻧﻂ( ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻤﺔ ﻟﺼﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻋﺎﻭﻯ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺑﺮﻭﺯﺍ ﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺮﻗﺔ )ﻓﻴﻨﺪﻟﺒﻮﻧﺪ( ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑﻱ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺳﻲ( ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ )ﺍﻻﻳﺪﻭﻏﺮﺍﰲ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺟﻬﺎ ﲢﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻭ ﺑﻮﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻫﻨﺪﺍﻭﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪ ،2015 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.83‬‬
‫‪76‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﳒﺪ )ﺭﻳﻨﻮﻓﻴﻴﻪ ﻟﻴﻮﻥ(‪) ،‬ﻭﺑﺮﻭﻧﺸﻨﻴﻎ( ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﺗﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﱐ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻣﺘﺪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ )ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ(‪Logical positivism1‬‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪﺕ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻓﺎﺭﻏﺔ ﻻ ﻓﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ )ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻓﻊ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺿﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ)‪(...‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺭﺍﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﺒﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ )ﺑﺎﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ( ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ )ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ( ﺗﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻟﺘﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ(‪ ،2‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﺎﻧﲔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﲔ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﺋﻞ ﺑﻔﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﳒﺪ )ﺷﺎﺭﻝ ﺭﻳﻨﻮﻓﻴﻴﻪ( )ﻭﺁﻣﻠﲔ(‪) ،‬ﺇﻳﺘﲔ ﺑﻮﻧﻮﺕ ﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻧﺪﻳﺎﻙ( ‪) ،1780-1715‬ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺑﻜﺘﺎﺏ)ﲝﺚ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ )ﺃﻭﺟﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻮﻧﺖ‪(1857-1798 Auguste Comte‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﻔﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ )ﺑﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺳ‪‬ﺎ ﳊﻜﻢ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪ ،3‬ﻟﻴﺄﰐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪) :‬ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ ‪Henri‬‬
‫‪ ،(1941-1859 Bergson‬ﻭﻳﻨﻘﺪ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻻﲡﺎﻫﲔ ﻟﺼﺮﺍﻣﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﻟﻐﺎﺋﻬﻤﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻧﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻭ)ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﺜﹼﻞ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻪ ‪‬ﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﻧﻘﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻭﻗﺪﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ‪ ،Logical positivism‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺴﺎ ﻭﺃﳌﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺘﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻻ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﺎﺭﻏﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻧﺼﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺘﺮﺩﺩﻭﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﺍﻳﻨﺸﻄﺎﻳﻦ ﻭﻧﺬﻛﺮ)ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﺭﺍﳜﻨﺒﺎﺥ(‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺷﻠﻴﻚ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﲔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﻧﺬﻛﺮ‪):‬ﺭﺩﻭﻟﻒ ﻛﺮﻧﺎﺏ)‪-1891‬‬
‫‪،(1970‬ﻛﲑﺕ ﺟﺮﻟﻴﻨﻎ)‪ ،(1942-1866‬ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﻫﺎﻥ )‪ ،(1934-1879‬ﻭﻛﺎﺭﻝ ﻏﻮﺳﺘﺎﻑ ﳘﺒﻞ)‪.(1997-1905‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺝ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺮﻭﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﺗﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻮ ﻣﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،1964 ،‬ﺹ‪.7‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.15‬‬
‫‪77‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻮﺳﺎﻛﺴﻮﱐ ﻭﺃﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﺎﺻﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،1(...‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﲤﻴﺰﺕ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺴﺎﺣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻘﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﻐﻠﻐﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ "ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﳋﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺮﻙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻀ‪‬ﺤﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻭﺣﻴ‪‬ﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ))‪ (...‬ﲤﻜﻦ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪. 2‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﳘﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺄﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺗﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﳒﺢ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻧﻘﺒﺖ ﰲ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺜﻠﺖ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻮﻣﺔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ )ﻓﺎﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﻻ‬
‫ﻓﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ)‪(...‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺗﻴ‪‬ﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻴ‪‬ﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺻﺪ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔ(‪ .3‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺪﺭ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ )ﺇﻣﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﻛﺎﱘ ‪ (Émil Durkhrim‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳑﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ )ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺓ‪(...)،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺇﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﻨﺎﻳﺘﻪ ﻻ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺧﻠﻴﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﰲ ﲨﻠﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺱ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻄﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﻧﻮﺍﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ(‪..4‬‬

‫‪1‬ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﲝﺚ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺍﳊﺴﲔ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 ،1‬ﺹ‪.7‬‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺟﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺹ‪.101‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻭﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،2008 ،‬ﺹ‪.5‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺇﻣﻴﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﻛﺎﱘ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﺃﻧﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻮ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1966 ،1‬ﺹ ﺹ‪.10-7‬‬
‫‪78‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﺗﺄﺛﺮﺕ ﺟﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺑﺎﻹﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺍﻹﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﻴﻞ ﲪﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺗﻘﻪ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ )ﻭﲤﻴﺰﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﲢﺎﺩ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺑﲔ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﺍﺋﻖ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﻣﺎ)‪(...‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﺪﺕ ﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻛﲑﻛﺠﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺻﻠﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻥ‪،1(...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﳎﻴﺌﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﰲ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﺗﺼﺮﻓﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺃﻭﻻ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ‪) Jean Paul Sarter‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ(‪1943‬‬
‫ﺃﻫﻢ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﰒ ﺗﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﰐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ )ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺳﲑ ‪) ،(Louis Althusser‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪،(Claud Lévi-Strauss‬ﻭ)ﺟﺎﻙ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ ‪-1901 Jacques Lacan‬‬
‫‪ ،(1981‬ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ )ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻠﲔ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻔﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ )ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ ‪ (1984 -1926 )Michel Foucault‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﻷﺭﻛﻴﻠﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺭﻛﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻭﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎﻣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﻳﻐﲑ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺿﻔﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺘﺤﺪﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ‪ :‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﺔ ﻓﺠﺎﺀﺕ ﳑﺰﻭﺟﺔ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺆﺍﺩ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.‬ﺹ‪.160‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺪﻱ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،1990 ،‬ﺹ‪.6‬‬
‫‪79‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻗﹲﺪﻡ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻦ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﰎﹼ‬
‫ﺇﻏﻔﺎﻟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﳌﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ ﲡﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻓﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻦ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺪﻱ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﳉﺎﻫﺰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻒ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻫﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻘﻤﺼﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺗﺼﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺣﻮﳍﺎ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻔﺮﺽ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻓﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺧﻠﺨﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻴ‪‬ﻘﲔ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼﻗﺎ‪‬ﺎ؟ ﻭﺇﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻴﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻳﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪﻩ ﻭﻓﺤﺺ ﻃﺮﻗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻫﻨﺔ ﻭﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﺒﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺑﺄﻱ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻝ ﻗﺒﻮﻟﻪ(‪ ،1‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻔﻞ ﺍﻷﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻏﺎﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻼﺭ ‪Gaston‬‬
‫‪ (1962 -1884) Bachelard‬ﻣﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻹﺑﺴﺘﻮﻣﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺧﺎﺿﻊ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻘﻄﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ )ﻭﻋﺮﻑ ﺑﺸﻼﺭ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﲟﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻼﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻸﻥ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺗﱰﻉ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺇﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻇﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﺪﺛﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻟﻌﻞﹼ ﺃﺑﺮﺯﻫﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ )ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ(‬
‫ﻭ)ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ( ﻭ)ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺼﺤﺤﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﻘﺒﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻛﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻔﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺳﺎﱂ ﻳﻔﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1987 ،2‬ﺹ‪.25‬‬
‫‪80‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺃﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻗﺒﻠﻴﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺭﻓﺾ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳉﺎﻫﺰﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻼﺭ)ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻓﺾ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺳﺎﻟﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻳﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﻭﻳﺜﲑ ﺟﺪﺍﻻﺕ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺭﻏﺔ ﻭﻏﺎﻣﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻬﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻓﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻨﻜﺮ ﺃﻱ‪ ‬ﺷﻲﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲟﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻷﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗ‪‬ﻮﻟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻴﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﺟﻴ‪‬ﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ‬
‫ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ(‪،2‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺸﻼﺭ ﻛﻐﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺙ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﻩ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻻﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺣﺪﺛﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﻔﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺷﺎﻋﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﺣﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺬﻭﻗﻨﺎ ﻟﻺﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﺪﻉ ﻭﺧﺎﻟﻖ ﻭﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﻟﻠﻌﻮﺍﱂ‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪)Jean-Claude Parient‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﲑ ﻟﻺﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻟﺒﺸﻼﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺟﻬﺎ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ(‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﲔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﺬﻛﺮ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ )ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﺍﻭﻧﻔﺮﻳﻪ( ﻭ)ﺭﻳﻔﺎﺋﻴﻞ ﺍﻭﻧﺘﻮﻓﺎﻥ(‬
‫ﻭ)ﺍﺭﻳﻚ ﻓﻴﻨﻜﺮﻛﺮﻭﺕ(‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2013 ،1‬ﺹ ﺹ‬
‫‪.502-501‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻏﺎﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻼﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﲪﺪ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﻁ‪ ،1985 ،1‬ﺹ‪.153‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Jean-Claude Parient, Bachelard, , LE Vocabulaire des philosophie, Ouvrage‬‬
‫‪coordonné par Jean-Pierre Zarader, ellipses,2002,P.382.‬‬
‫‪81‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫‪ -2‬ﺍﳌﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ‪:‬‬

‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ‪un moment Français de la phénoménologie‬‬ ‫ﰲ‬ ‫‪Jean- luk marion‬‬ ‫ﻳﺮﻯ‬
‫)ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰎ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﲜﺮﺃﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﰎ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﳍﺎ ﺃﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﺷﺘﻐﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻭﺯﻣﻨﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻧﺪﺍﺀﻩ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ﺍﳌﻨﺸﻮﺩ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ( ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺳﺆﺍﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﺭﺷﺎﺩﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻷﻋﲔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﻔﺮﻧﺴﺎ ؟ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﻭﻣﻮﺭﺳﺖ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻫﻞ "ﻧﻌﻢ" ﺃﻡ " ﻻ " ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﺣﺴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؟ ﻫﻞ ﳒﺢ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﳌﺘﺆﺧﺮﻭﻥ "‪"successeurs‬ﻋﻦ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻮﺩﺓ " ‪" terre promisse‬ﻭﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻣﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻄﻤﺢ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ؟‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺪ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲤﻨﺤﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﺣﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﻳﻄﺮﺡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺆﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﱳ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻪ‬
‫‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﻻﻣﻌﺔ ﻗﺪﳝﺔ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻭﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﺃﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ‪Bernard‬‬
‫‪ waldenfels‬ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﱴ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺃﻋﲔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﱂ ﺗﻨﻄﻔﺊ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺗﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻛﻐﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ‪ paradoxale‬ﻛﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ؟‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻨﺒﺪﺃ ﲟﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻧﻮﺭﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ "‪ "1970‬ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﻬﺪﺗﻪ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ" ‪ " 1940‬ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ"‪ . "1950‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺸﺮ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ‪ E. Lévinas‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ‪ le problem de l’intuition‬ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ‬

‫‪82‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺯﻣﻨﺎ ﺫﻫﺒﻴﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻘﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ‪ :‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ "‪ ، "J.-P.Sartre‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ "‬
‫‪ ، " M.Merleau-Ponty‬ﻡ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﻓﺮﻳﻦ " ‪ ، " M.Dufrenne‬ﻭﻧﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫‪La‬‬ ‫ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﶈﺎﻳﺚ "‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ")‪" l’être et le Néant(1943‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫)‪.1" Phénoménologie de la perception(1945‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺑﻔﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻪ ﲝﺪﺙ ﻭﻓﺎﺓ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ "‬
‫‪ " M.Merleau-Ponty‬ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ، 1961‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﻴﺪ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮ ﳊﻮﺍﱄ ‪ 20‬ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺘﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪.2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﳊﻈﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺐ ‪ proximité‬ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺣﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﲝﻴﺚ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺮﻭﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﳌﺆﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﻟﻠﺸﻲﺀ ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ‪ a soi‬ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﳊﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻋﱪﻩ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻤﻨﻮﺡ ﻟﻠﺘﻤﺜﻞ ‪ re-presentation‬ﺃﻭ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫‪ ، proximité‬ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻈﻮﺭ ﻛﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺿﺮ ﻛﺈﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﻛﻜﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻔﺮﺩ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺫﺭﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻥ ﺏ" ‪"le clin d’oil‬ﺣﻴﺖ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Pascal Dupond,Laurent Cornarie. Phénoménologie : un siècle de philosophie,‬‬
‫‪collection dirigée par Jean-Pierre Zarader.Ellipses édition‬‬
‫‪marketingS.A ,2002.p49.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Pascal Dupond,Laurent Cornarie. Phénoménologie : un siècle de‬‬
‫‪philosophie,opcit,p50.‬‬
‫‪83‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻏﲑﻳﺔ ‪ ، l’altérité‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﻋﲔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻟﻚ ﺷﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﳝﺜﻞ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﰲ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ "ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ" ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻏﲑﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻲ ‪ ،l’altération constitutive‬ﺇﻥ ﺻﺢ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ‪ ،‬ﲡﱪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺃﺛﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻛﻮﻧﻴﺔ ) ﴰﻮﻻ( ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺗﺴﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻓﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﺆﺳﺴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﺪﺛﻪ ‪،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻟﻸﺛﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﺮﻃﺎ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳎﱪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺃﻋﲔ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻫﻠﺘﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﳊﻲ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻟﻠﺒﻮﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﻓﻴﻪ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﻣﻲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ‪ ،‬ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺑﺘﻌﺎﺩ ﻭﺗﻐﲑ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ‬
‫ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻳﺪﻭﺭ ﰲ ﻓﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪:‬‬
‫)ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺑﺘﻜﺮ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺑﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻴﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻠﺰﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ ﻣﺎﻟﻜﺎ ﳍﺎ ﺑﻞ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ‪ ،‬ﳏﺮﻛﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺓ(‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺻﻮﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ‪ ،1943‬ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺮﻯ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻭﻻ ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﻴ‪‬ﲏ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻟﻮﻳﺲ ﻓﺎﺑﻴﺎﱐ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻭﻓﻼﺳﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺌﺔ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻭﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2015 ،1‬ﺹ ‪..362‬‬
‫‪84‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺳﻴﻨﻜﺸﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﺒﻠﻮﻏﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻠﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺜﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺘﺄﱂ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺭﺗﲑﻱ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻳﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧ‪‬ﺴﺎﱐ ﺍﳊﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﲔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ )ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺜﻴﺎﻥ( ﻳﺼﻮﺭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺼﻮﺭ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺒﲔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻣﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻭﺿﻴﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻪ ﳐﺘﻠﻂ ﺧﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻮﺿﻮﻱ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﳜﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻧﻘﺴﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺑﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻰ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ‬
‫ﳛﻮﻱ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﻣﻌﻪ – ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫"ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ" ﻻ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺼﻞ ‪‬ﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﻤﺤﻲ ﻭﻳﺬﻭﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﻨﺠﻦ ﻣﺮﻏﻤﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﳚﺎﺩ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﺟﺪﺍ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺳﺎﻃﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳚﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺜﻴﺎﻥ )ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺎ‪ :‬ﻭﺟﻮﺩ – ﻷﺟﻞ –ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩﺍ‪ -‬ﰲ – ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻭﻟﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ‪:‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻷﻥﹼ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻼ ﻋﻨﻪ‪،‬‬

‫‪85‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺃﻱ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻜﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﺑﺘﺄﻱ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﲔ )ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ(‪:‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪-‬ﰲ‪ -‬ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ‪:L'être-en-soi‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻏﲑ ﻭﺍﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ‪)،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﻡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻀﻔﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﺘﱪﺍ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﳝﻴﺰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ –ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻀﻊ‬
‫ﲢﺘﻬﺎ ﺧﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﲡﻪ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﲡﺎﻭﺯﻩ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺘﺼﻔﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪.2(sein‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ -‬ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ‪ :L'être-pour-soi‬ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻛﺄﻧﻪ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﻌﺰﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ –ﰲ – ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﻨﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻮﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ )ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ( ﻭ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻵﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﺯﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺎﻫﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﲔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻷﺟﻞ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‪.3‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻭﻣﻬﻢ ﰲ ﲣﻴ‪‬ﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻸﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻜﻲ ﺃﲣﻴﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺭﺗﲑﻱ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺃﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻃﺮﺣﻪ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎ ﻭﺃﲡﺎﻭﺯﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻋﺪﻣﻪ ﻃﺎﳌﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻭﱐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،2003 ،‬ﺹ ‪.114‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.129‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.835‬‬
‫‪86‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺧﻴﺎﱄ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻭﰲ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺗﻔﻜﲑﻱ ﰲ ﻣﺎﺽ ﻛﺸﻲﺀ ﻓﺄﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺑﺘﻔﻜﲑﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﺑﺘﻌﺪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﺃﺿﻊ ﺑﻴﲏ ﻭﺑﻴﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﻍ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻒ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺪﺩ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ )ﻓﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺨﻴﺎﻝ)‪(...‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﺍﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﻛﻮﻋﻲ ﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻴﺔ)‪1(...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ)ﺃﻥ ﺗﱪﺭ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻭﻇﺮﻭﻑ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ﻭﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﻦ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺑﺈﺭﺍﺩﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﺩﻣﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻐﲑﺍ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳒﻌﻠﻪ ﻣﻠﻜﹰﺎ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ(‪ ،2‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺃﺣﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺍﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﳍﻢ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺃﺣﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﺍﲡﺎﻫﻬﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺗﻌﻠﻞ ﺑﺄﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﺔ ﻷﻧﻔﻲ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﱵ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺱ(‪.3‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻓﺌﺘﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﳊﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺬﺭﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼﺎﳊﻮﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺃﻭﻻﺋﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭﻭﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﳍﻢ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺤﲔ ﺍﻟﻘﺬﺭﻭﻥ ﳝﺜﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﲣﺘﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﲣﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ)ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺩﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺣﺮﺍﺭ ﻓﻼ ﺑﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﺣﺮ‪‬ﺍ(‪،4‬ﻓﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﲝﻴﺚ ﻭﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺣﺮ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺻﻔﺔ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﺣﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﺑﻞ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺣﺮ‪‬ﺍ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Philippe Cabestan –Arnaude Tomes, Sarter, LE Vocabulaire des philosophie,‬‬
‫‪Ouvrage coordonné par Jean-Pierre Zarader, ellipses,2002, P.424.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺟﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.132‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﻌﻢ ﺍﳊﻔﲏ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1964 ،1‬ﺹ‪.70‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺷﺮﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،1993 ،‬ﺹ‪.8‬‬
‫‪87‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻓﺄﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺣﺮﺍﺭﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﳓﻤﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩﺍ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﺫﻭﺍﺕ ﺣﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﻨﺨﺮﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﺍ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺗﻘﻪ ﻋﺒﺊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﻕ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪):‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﻣﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﱵ ﻭﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﻓﺰ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻓﻊ ﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻀﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﺣﺮ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺻﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺩﺍﺧﻼ ﰲ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ )ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻼﺷﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﲦﺔ‬
‫ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﺷﻲﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﻲ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻜﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻼ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻟﻮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ –ﰲ‪ :(l'être-dans-le-mond)-‬ﺇﻥﹼ)ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﻌﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﻴﺔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ –ﰲ‪ -‬ﻭﺳﻂ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ)‪:(être – au –milieu-du-monde‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ)ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﺳﺎﻛﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﺳﻠﺒﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻃﻐﻰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪-‬ﰲ‪ -‬ﺫﺍﺗﻪ(‪.4‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﱄ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻭﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.207‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.117-116‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.120‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻓﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.121-120‬‬
‫‪88‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﲢﻘﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﺼﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﳍﺎ ﺣﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﺣﻮﳍﻤﺎ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺘﻪ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺳﻠﱯ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺗﻮﺗﺮ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﳛﻮﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻓﺎﻷﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻭﻟﺴﺖ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﺩﺧﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺣﻮﻟﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻼﻗﱵ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﺎﻱ‪ ‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺩﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﺃﺳﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﺃﻗﻴﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﱄ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺴﻠﺐ ﺣﺮﻳﱵ ﻭﺇﺭﺍﺩﰐ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺄﺛﺮ ﻛﻐﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ)ﻟﻘﺪ ﻇﻠﺖ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﻐﺬﹼﻱ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﲡﻴﺐ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ؟ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲦﺔ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻇﻞﹼ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﺸﺪﻭﺩﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺃﺛﺮﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻮ(‪ 1‬ﻭﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻛﺎﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺀﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪...‬ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ)ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ؟)‪ (...‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺟﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺭ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺸ‪‬ﺎﻛﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺜﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻻ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﻼﻕ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺛﻴﺘﻬﻤﺎ‪ facticité‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﱄ ﺗﻀﻊ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﻆ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳏﺠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻣﻴﺔ‪ ،1995 ،‬ﺹ‪.7‬‬
‫‪89‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻓﻬﻤﻬﺎ)‪ 1((...‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﲡﺮﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺻﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﺎﱐ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﳒﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﲑﻛﻴﻐﺎﺭﺩ‪،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻓﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻭﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳒﺪﻩ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺠﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻀﺠﺔ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺍﳋﺠﻮﻝ ﻳﺘﺨﻠﹼﻰ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺣﺎﻃﺔ ﺑﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻀﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺜﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻮﳍﺎ ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺄﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺰﻱ(‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺗﺘﺮﻙ ﻟﻠﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻨﻤﻂ ﻭﻛﺄﺳﻠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﲑ‪-‬ﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﳐﺎﻟﻒ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﻮﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺮ‪-‬ﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﺘﻴﻴﺠﺔ ﺗﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺳﺒﺒﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ ﻭﻧﻔﺴﻴ‪‬ﱵ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻋﻄﻞ ﺫﺍﰐ ﻛﺠﺰﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳝﺪﱐ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺗﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻋﺮﻓﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺩﺧﻮﱄ ﰲ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﻴﺰﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻕ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻫﻲ » ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻒ« ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻚ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﳝﻪ ﺷﺮﺣﺎ ﻟﻠﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻠﺐ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺆﺍﺩ ﺷﺎﻫﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺩﻁ‪ ،1998 ،‬ﺹ‪.7‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.7‬‬
‫‪90‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪﺓ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ(‪ .1‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﰲ )ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﳎﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ(‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺖ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ )ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﺃﺻﻴﻞ ﳌﻌﺎﺭﻓﻨﺎ ﻭﺧﱪﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﱂ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﺜﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﻭﱂ‬
‫ﻳﻄﻮﺭ ﲝﻮﺛﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﺜﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﳌﺘ‪‬ﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺑﻘﻲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ(‪.3‬‬
‫– ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ )ﺍﳌﺘﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ)‪(...‬ﺗﻘﺮﺃ ﻭﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻭﺗﺆﻭﻝ ﻭﺗﻌﺒ‪‬ﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺮﺭ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻗﺘﺪﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺭﻳﺚ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ(‪ ،4‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻠﺴﻒ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ)ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﱪﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻛﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﺮﻭﺭﺍ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ(‪ ،5‬ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻹﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳ‪‬ﺪﺭﹺﻙ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﻭﺍﶈﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻈﺎﻫﺮﻩ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ)ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﰲ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺫﺍﺗ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺠﺴﺪ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻧ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺷﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﲬﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﺗﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﺘﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2009 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.76‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.76‬‬
‫ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﲢﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻟﻸﲝﺎﺙ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺹ‪.121‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2008 ،1‬ﺹ‪.19‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.124‬‬
‫‪91‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ‪‬ﺍ ﳉﺴﻤﻨﺎ ﻣﺼﻨﻮ ‪‬ﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺴﻴﺠﻪ ﻭﻣﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﻪ(‪ 1‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺷﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺩﺭﻛﺎﻧﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﻭﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﺧﻔﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺑﻮﻟﻮﺝ ﺃﺟﺴﻤﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻼﻗﻲ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،.‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻼﻧﻘﺴﺎﻡ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ)‪(...‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ‬
‫‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﳎﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺗﺪﺭﳚﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﳊﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﺒﺢ ﻭﺍﻋﲔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺣﻮﺍﺿﺮ ﺣﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺃﻱ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﺍﳌﻀﻄﻠﻊ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﺇﻻﹼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ :‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ(‪ 2‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﺪ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﳊﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻋﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ‪ :‬ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﰲ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻧﺼﻒ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻳﺘﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﺗﺄﻣ‪‬ﻞ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻋﺎﺟﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺄﺟﺴﺎﻣﻨﺎ‪)،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻋﺎﺩ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻨﱵ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻭﱐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.1‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.80‬‬
‫‪92‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﻗﻄﻌﻬﺎ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺣﺎﻻﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻢ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﻐﲑ ﺟﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻓﻌﻼ ﳛﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳌﻨﻀﻮﻱ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ(‪ 1‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﲞﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﺎﺀ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳜﺎﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﳘﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﺼﻮﺭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮ‪-‬‬
‫ﻧﱵ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ)ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﺣﻠﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﻭﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﺣﻠﻮﻝ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻟﻮﺣﺘﻪ ﳜﻠﻖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﻌﻞ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺧﺒﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﳋﺒﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻌﺠﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺍ‪‬ﺮﺩﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻣﺜﺎﻻ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻮﺣﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻟﻨﺪﻱ ﺭﺍﻣﱪﺍﻧﺖ ‪Rembrant‬‬
‫)‪ (1669-1602‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ ﻟﻮﺣﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻞ‪)la ronde de nuit ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻋﺎﺑﺮﺓ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺑﻂ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻨﺒﻬﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺍﻩ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ ﻭﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﺎﺑﻂ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻨﺜﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﲤﺘﺪ ﻣﺸﲑﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻋﻴﲏ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﰎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻓﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻧﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻓﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺎﺩﺓ(‪ ،3‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﲢﻮﻱ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﳜﺘﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺷﻒ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﻮﺭﻟﺒﻮﻧﱵ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻫﻮﺍﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻫﺎﻭﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺭ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.29-28‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻨﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.17 ،16‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.22-21‬‬
‫‪93‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬

‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺟﺴﻤﻨﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪) :‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺟﺴﻤﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﺻﻼ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺟﺴﻢ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )‪(In-itself‬ﺟﺴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎﺅﻩ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺣﺴﻲ‬
‫ﳎﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﳝﺜﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﺣﻴﻮﻳﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻩ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﺴﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺣﺎﻃﺘﻪ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﳘﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮ ﺍﻹﻗﺼﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﺗﻮﺍﺭﺛﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻴﻬﻢ ﻣﺎﻋﺪﺍ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻜﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ)ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺫﻻﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳊﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻘﻮﳝﻪ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻨﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﹰ ﺍﳚﺎﺑﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺿﻌﺎ(‪2‬ﺣﲔ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻩ ﺫﻫﻦ ﻛﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺃﻱ –‬
‫ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ -‬ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻳﺸﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﺑﺎﻃﲏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻷﺣﺎﺳﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ ﻛﻠﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﻬﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.77‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﲨﺎﻝ ﻣﻔﺮﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 ،1‬ﺹ‪.80‬‬
‫‪94‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‪ :‬ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ "ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ"‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺃﻃﻴﺎﻓﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻻﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ "ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ"‪.‬‬

‫)ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻓﺮﺿﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﰊ)ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‪ ،De la grammatologie‬ﲤﻨﻴﺖ ﺣﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﻭﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻛﻴﻒ ﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪﻱ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ‪ Destruktion‬ﺃﻭ ‪ Abbau‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﻛﻠﺘﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺘﲔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﳏﻤﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻼﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﻷﻥ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ)ﺍﳍﺪﻡ(ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫‪،destruction‬ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺟﺪﺍ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﻗﻨﺎﻉ ‪ annihilastion‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻱ‬
‫]ﺍﳌﺼﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ [ ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺳﻠﱯ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳍﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﳕﻂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﻭﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺣﻪ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﻄﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻻ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺇﳕﹼﺎ ﺗﺒﲎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺍﺗﻪ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﻭﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻗﺮﺍﺀ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺭﻕ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫ﲝﻴﺚ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺬﺭﻳﻦ ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻓﺎﻟﻴﻘﻈﺔ ﻭﺍﺟﺒﺔ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻬﻞ ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻠﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲦﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻫﻈﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﺣﺰﺣﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻃﺮ ﺍﻹﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﺗﺮﺳﺒﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻧﺸﺄﺗﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ)ﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻳﻔﺼﺢ ﻋﻦ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﳌﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻴﻮﻓﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﰲ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻟﻸﲝﺎﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪1‬‬
‫‪، 2013‬ﺹ ‪.216‬‬

‫‪97‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺃﻛﺜﺮ)‪ (...‬ﺣﺎﻭﺭﻫﻢ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﳍﻢ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺃﻫﻢ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﻧﺐ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﱰﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺔ)‪ (...‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻨﻔﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺮﺍﻣﻰ ﺣﻘﻞ ﻣﺘﺮﺍﻣﻲ ﺍﻹﻃﺮﺍﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﳍﺎ( ‪ ،1‬ﻭﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺛﺎﺭ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﰎ ﻓﻜﻚ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺿﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻌﻴﺸﻪ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻭﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻻ ﳚﺎﺭﻱ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﻘﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻳﺆﻭﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺃﻳﻘﻀﺖ ﻣﻀﺠﻌﻪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ( ‪ 2‬ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﳋﻠﻖ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ )ﺃﻓﻼ ﻧﻠﺤﻆ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ( ‪،3‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪.‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ )ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻬﺾ‬
‫ﺑﺒﻌﺜﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﺴﻖ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻨﻤﺎ ﲢﻜﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ(‪ 4‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﻻ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﺤﻘﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﲣﻀﻊ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺃﻭ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺗﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﻭ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻒ ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻫﺎ‪)،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻧﻌﲏ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺇﻻ ﲟﺎ ﳛﻀﺮ ﰲ –ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ -‬ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻓﻴﺘﺨﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2010 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.33- 17 -13‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.20‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 ،1‬ﺹ‬
‫‪49‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.50‬‬
‫‪98‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫)‪(...‬ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺗﻪ )‪(...‬ﲟﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺼﻞ ﰲ ﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ)‪(...‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺘﺄ ﻳﻨﺄﻯ ﻋﱪ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺮﺃﻫﻢ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻓﻔﺮﺿﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﲡﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ ﺃﻱ "ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ" ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻛﺮﻫﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻟﻔﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺘﺪ ﻣﻦ )ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ( ﺇﱃ )ﻫﻴﺠﻞ(‪.‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﲎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺳﻨﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻭﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻜﻼ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺡ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﺗﺬﻭﺏ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﰲ‬
‫)ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺮﺓ( ﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺳﻌﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ )ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻭﺟﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺪﻩ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻗﻞ ﲤﺘﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺈﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻭﻗﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ(‪ .3‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻃﺮﺩ ﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﲤﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻟﺴﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ )ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ(‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﻜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2000 ،1‬ﺹ ‪14‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.143‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺭﻳﻚ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2011 ،1‬ﺹ‪.5‬‬
‫‪99‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﺭﺩﺓ ﻗﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺗﻔﻄﻦ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻣﺒﻜﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﲟﻘﺎﻭﻣﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ؟‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺒﺸﺮﺍ ﺑﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﴰﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﻴﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﻄﻢ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﰲ ﺗﺼﺮﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩ‪‬ﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﻇﹼﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﺍﺓ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻟﻠﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻠﻜﻬﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﻤﻮﻡ؟ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺱ ﻋﺠﺰﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺠﺰ ﻳﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﻋﺒﺎ ﻭﻣﻮﺣﺸﺎ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺎ ﻭﻣﺴﻤﻮﻣﺎ ﻛﺄﺷﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ )ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ(‪ ،‬ﺟﻌﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻢ‪ ‬ﻭﺗﺮﻳﺎﻕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻭﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ‪:‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﺎ‬
‫ﳍﺎ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺒﻘﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﳎﺮﺩ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺎﺀ ﻷﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻻ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺣﺎﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﺯﺭﺍﺩﺗﺸﻪ‪):‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻛﹸﺘﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﻻ ﺃﻣﻴﻞ ﺇﻻ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﻘﻄﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ ﺑﺪﻣﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺩﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺩﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﻣﻘﺖ ﻗﺎﺭﺉ ﻛﺴﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺮ‪ ‬ﻗﺮﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻬﻢ ﺑﻘﺎﺭﺋﲔ ﻓﻼ ﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺼﺎﻋﺪ ﺭﻭﺍﺋﺢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﱳ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺍﻣﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺱ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻦ ﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺳﻴﻔﺴﺪ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ(‪ .1‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻏﲑ ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻭﻻ ﺇﱃ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Frédéric Nitezsche¸ Ainsi Parlait Zarathoustra¸ TR: Henri Albert¸Edition‬‬
‫‪numérique¸ PARIS¸2012¸ P 95‬‬
‫‪100‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ )ﻓﺎﳍﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ ﻗﺮﺃﻧﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻈﻞ ﺩﻏﻤﺎﺋﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺷﺄﻥ ﲨﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻧﻘﻼﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺒﻴﺲ ﺍﳍﻴﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺰﻋﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺪﻣﻪ(‪،1‬ﻓﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳜﻤﻦ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ )ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻔﺎ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻭﻻ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻲﺀ ﻧﻨﺤﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﳊﺮﻭﻑ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻧﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀ(‪ ،2‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪﻩ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﺐ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳔﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻋﺒﺜﺎ ﻧﺼﺤﻨﺎ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺑﺮﻗﺺ ﻟﻠﲑﺍﻉ )ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺺ ﺑﺎﻷﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺃﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﻮ ﻷﻥﹼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﲑﺍﻉ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻧﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﳎﺎﺯﻱ ﻣﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺬﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺼﻒ ﺑﻪ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺮﺍﻩ ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻠﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺈﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺭﺍﻕ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ )ﻧﺴﻴﺖ ﻣﻈﻠﱵ( ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻮﻳﺔ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻭﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺭﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﺑﻴﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﺑﻴﺪﻩ؟ ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻧﻀﻄﻠﻊ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺘﺐ ﺑﻴﺪﻩ ﻭﻧﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺎﺗﻘﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻌﻪ ))ﺍﳋﺎﺹ((؟ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ )ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﻳﺴﻘﻂ( ﺗﱰﻉ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ)‪(...‬ﰒ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺑﲔ ﻗﻮﺳﲔ(‪ ،4‬ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻱ ﲣﺼﻴﺼﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ)ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺍﳋﻨﺜﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻣﺘﺨﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺃﻏﻄﻴﺘﻪ ﻋﻀﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﺪﻭﺍﱐ ﻭﻣﻘﻠﻖ ﻣﻬﺪﺩ ‪ /‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻬﺪ‪‬ﺩ‪،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2000 ،2‬ﺹ‪.12‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.167‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.167‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.164‬‬
‫‪101‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﳐﺎﻟﻒ ﻟﻠﻤﺄﻟﻮﻑ ﲝﻴﺚ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳒﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﳏﺾ ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﻭﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺁﻟﺔ ﺭﺍﻓﻌﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻃﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺼﺎﺀ(‪ ،.1‬ﻧﺴﻴﺖ ﻣﻈﻠﱵ‪) :‬ﻳﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﻀﺤﻚ ﺍﳍﺎﺯﻝ ﺟﺰﺀﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻓﺾ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﺧﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ )ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ( ﺃﻭ ﺇﻥ ﺷﺌﺖ ﻓﻘﻞ ﺇﺧﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻗﻤﻌﻲ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻋﻴﺒﺎ ﻣﺸﻮﻫﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻮﺩ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺭﲟﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﻭ ﱂ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻋﻞ ﺍﻹﻃﻼﻕ‪ .‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ )ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ( ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﲤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﻴﻄﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪)،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻻ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﻗﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﺑﻞ ﻭﺗﺴﻮﻳﻐﻪ ﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻹﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﳍﺎ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﻟﻠ‪‬ﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳘﺶ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻴ‪‬ﺐ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻫﺎ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‪،‬ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ )ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ(‪ 4‬ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ )ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ‪ 5( eperon‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺧﺰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻣﺘﺎﺯﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ )ﻳﺄﺧﺬ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.166‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.155‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺣﺒﻄﺔ ﲰﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻲ‪ -‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻟﻮﺱ‪ ،-‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،9‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ‪ ،4‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻗﺴﻨﻄﻴﻨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.212‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﺺ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﺍﳉﺪﻝ ))ﺍﳉﺎﺩ(( ﺇﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺬﺭ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﲑ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻬﻢ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺒﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻟﺘﺼﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻣﻌﻪ‪.‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻳﻮﻃﺪ ﻭﻳﺜﹼﺒﺖ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻼﻋﺐ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﱄ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺘﻘﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻳﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪.150 ،‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ‪ :‬ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺃﺷﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﻳﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺳﻔﻴﻨﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﺷﺮﻋﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻴﺰﻭﻡ ‪ rostrum‬ﻳﺸﻖ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻖ ﺻﻔﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻭﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺨﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺗﺊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ‬
‫‪)) eperon‬ﻳﻘﻒ ﺻﺎﻣﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﺮﻓﺄ((‪...‬ﻓﺎﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﻳﻌﲏ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﺛﺮ‪) ،‬ﺃﺛﺮ ﺳﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻴﻨﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻣﻐﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﲔ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺰ ‪ eperonnant‬ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﲟﺘﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺘﺨﻔﻴﻪ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﺻﺎﻑ‪) ،‬ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺳﻼﺡ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺮﺍﺿﻲ ﺛﺎﻗﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺑﺐ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﺗﻪ ﻣﺘﺄﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻋﺼﺐ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﺋﻂ ﺍﻻﺿﻤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﻈﻠﺔ‬
‫ﴰﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻐﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺫﻫﺎﻧﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳓﻤﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻄﺮ ﳏﺪﻕ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳋﻄﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻮﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻄﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.85-84‬‬
‫‪102‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻠﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻹﺻﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻀﻤﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﺷﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﳉﺔ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻔﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺠﺐ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻀﻬﺎ(‪. ،1‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻋﺘﱪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﺔ )ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﺎﻭﻳ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥﹼ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ(‪ ،2‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﺗﺴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﺣﺘﻮﺕ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺸﻬﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺎﻃﲑ ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﻭﻇﻔﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺒﺴﻴﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﺩﺧﻞ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1896‬ﻛﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻟﻌﻼﺝ ﺍﳊﺎﻻﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﻗﻒ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻋﺎﺟﺰﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻱ‪(...) ،‬ﻭ ﺗﺎﻓﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﻭ ﻗﻴ‪‬ﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻞ ﺑﺎﳊﺠﺞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺋﻦ(‪ ،3‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺑﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺷﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﰲ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺯﻣﺔ‪،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﺒﺐ ﰲ )ﻋﻘﺪﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ( ﻳﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﲤﺘﺎﺯ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﻮﻧﺔ )ﻓﺎﻟﺸﺬﻭﺫ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨ‪‬ﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﱯ ﻭﺍﻷﺿﻄﺮﺍﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﳓﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻮﻟﺔ(‪.4‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ)ﺃﺭﻛﻴﻠﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﻢ(‪):‬ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻣﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.84‬‬
‫‪ .2‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺸﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﲬﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﺗﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﺘﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺹ‪60‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻓﺎﻟﲑﻱ ﻟﻴﱭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻼ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﻠﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪،1977 ،‬ﺹ ‪16‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺳﻴﻐﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭ ﻟﻴﻢ ﺷﺘﻴﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺖ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩ‪.‬ﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺩ‪.‬ﺱ‪.‬ﻁ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.13‬‬
‫‪103‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ(‪ ،1‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺜﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻠﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﺳ‪‬ﺲ ﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪.،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﺘﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻳﻴﺒﺤﺜﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻭﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺠﺐ‪ ،‬ﲝﺜﹰﺎ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﻣﺎ ﲣﻔﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﺎﺋﻖ ﱂ ﺗﻘﻞ ﻓﻤﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﳊﻔﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻛﺜﲑﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﺼﺺ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺒﺤﺜﺎ ﲰ‪‬ﺎﻩ )ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﻣﺸﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺘﻪ‪) :‬ﻃﻤﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﳏﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﰲ ﻧﺺ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺰﻝ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻣﻨﻈﻢ)‪ ،2((...‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻃﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ ﻳﻘﻮ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ) :‬ﺣﱴ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺸﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺺ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﺪ ﻳﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺷﺠﺒﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺸﻬﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﺘﺮﻭﻙ‬
‫ﻟﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻟﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺸﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﻟﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺴﺘﻌﲑ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﳋﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺮﺍﻗﺐ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺼﻤﺖ(‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳒﺢ ﰲ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫)ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺃﲰﻴﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻻﺭﺧﻮﱐ ﻟﻸﺭﺷﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻷﺭﺧﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﻣﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻟﻺﻳﻮﺍﺀ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻮﺓ(‪ ،5‬ﻓﻼ ﺃﺣﺪ ﳒﺢ ﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻗﻮﻳﺾ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﻄﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﺜﺒﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﺘﻠﻪ ﻟﻸﺏ ﺍﳌﻜﺒﻮﺕ‪.6‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﻛﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﻢ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2005 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.22‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, L'ecriture et la Defférence, Seuil, 1967,P. 296‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Ibd, P.338‬‬
‫‪: Arkhé­4‬ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻈﻢ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎ ﻣﺒﺪﺃﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ :‬ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻛﺎﺋﲏ‪ .‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻲ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﻛﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﻢ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.18 ،16‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﲪﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺷﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺪﻧﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2003 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.155‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫ﻋﻘﺪﺓ ﺃﺩﻳﺐ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻘﺪﺓ ﺃﺩﻳﺐ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺄﺳﺎﺓ ﺳﻮﻓﻴﻜﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‪) ،‬ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﺃﻭﺩﻳﺐ(‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﺙ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺆﻭﻝ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺘﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪ ﻭﻟﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺰﻭﺝ ﺑﺄﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫‪104‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﺑﺘﻜﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺳﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﻓﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻗﻮﺽ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻔﻀﻞ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻩ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺮ ﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺑﻄﺎﻟﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺎ( ‪ ،1‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻧﺘﺆﻭﳍﺎ ﻻﺣﻘﹰﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﲤﺜﻠﺖ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ )ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻣﺰ( ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ‬
‫ﲝﻴﺚ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺟﺪ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻣﺰ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺿﻤﻨﻴﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪.‬ﻭﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻔﺮﻳﻐﺎ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻜﺒﻮﺕ ﻓﺎﳌﻜﺒﻮﺕ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﻓﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﺸﻬﺪ ﺍﳊﻠﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺼﻔﻪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﹼ ﻛﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺑﲔ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ)) ﺷﻲﺀ((‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﱄ ]ﻟﻸﺣﻼﻡ[‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻼﻋﺐ ﺑﻪ ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ 2‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﻠﻢ ﺗﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﲤﺜﻼﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺧﺮﺍﺝ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳊﻠﻢ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﲤﺜﹼﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﻞ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻔﹰﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻫﻦ ﺍﳌﺘﻨﺒﺊ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺃﻋﻤﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪ .‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻣﺘﺤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺮﺝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1873‬ﺗﺮﺟﻢ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﻄﻌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺄﺳﺎﺓ )ﺳﻮﻓﻮﻛﻠﺲ( ﺍﳌﻠﻚ ﺃﻭﺩﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﺣﻈﺮ ﻋﺮﺿﺎ ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻴﺎ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺄﺳﺎﺓ‬
‫ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﻧﺜﻮﻳﺔ ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻳﺴﻤﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺑﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﺇﻟﻜﺘﺮﺍ ﲡﺘﺎﺯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﳌﻴﻞ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺃﺑﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﲨﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻏﺘﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﺎﺋﺪ ﻭﺍﻷﺩﻳﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻤﻮﻣ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻟﲑﻱ ﻟﻴﱭ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.47‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Chung Chine-Yi, Derrida's Deconstruction of Jean-Luc Nancy, The Criterion:‬‬
‫‪An Intemational Journal in English, https//www.the- criterion.com,P.2‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.88-87‬‬
‫‪105‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺎ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻃﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺗﺄﺟﻴﻼ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ )ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻫﻮ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺗﺄﺟﻴﻞ ﻟﻪ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻤﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺬﺓ ﻣﺜﻼ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﲢﺖ ﺿﻐﻂ ﻏﺮﻳﺰﺓ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﻧﻀﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﻝ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﲟﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺬﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺗﺘﺨﻠﻰ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﻤﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺷﺒﺎﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﺄﺟﻞ ﺍﻹﺷﺒﺎﻉ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ‪ .‬ﲟﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﺨﻔﻴﺎ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﳛﻀﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺭﺳﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻮﺏ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺣﺎﻇﺮ ﻭﻏﺎﺋﺐ‬
‫ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻭﻋﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻭﻋﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺪﻱ ﻗﻨﺎﻋﺎ(‪ .2‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺍﻩ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺄﺳﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ )ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﺳﻴﻜﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺑﺼﺪﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﻲ )‪ auflösen‬ﻓﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﺾ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻃﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪ :umsetzen‬ﲢﻮﻳﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﻠﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺯﺍﺣﺘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﻦ ﺭﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻸﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ)ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ(‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻌﻴﺸﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﻤﻮ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﳛﻘﻘﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﻧﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ‪ .‬ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﱯ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﻧﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺣﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﺧﻨﺎﺗﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻮﺳﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﺹ‪52‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.53‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﻮﺑﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.13-12 ، 105 ،1998‬‬
‫‪106‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﺑﺎﳒﺎﺯﻩ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻄﺎﻑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﻟﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻛﺘﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺸﺎﺀًﺍ ﺧﻴﺎﻟﻴﺎ ﳚﺎﺑﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﻟﻠﺨﺼﻮﺻﻲ ﻭﺍﻧﻐﻼﻗﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺷﺮﻁ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻀﺎﺭﺓ‪) ،‬ﻓﻼ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻗﺎﺑﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮ‪‬ﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻻ ﺩﻳﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺃﻭ ﲡﻲﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺮ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ(‪ 1‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺷﺮﻃﺎ ﻟﻸﺻﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻬﻴﺆ ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ)ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ( ﻭﻳﻌﻨﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳎﻲﺀ ﻳﺸﻜﹼﻞ ﻭﺳﺎﻃﺔﹰ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻓﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﻮﻯ ﳊﻈﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﲑﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ 2‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺎ ﻟﱰﻋﺔ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ)ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣﻨﺘﺞ ﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﻜﻚ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﱃ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﰒ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺃﻃﻴﺎﻓﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﺮﺍﻉ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺘ‪‬ﺤﻜﻤﲔ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻨﺘ‪‬ﺞ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻠﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﺿﲔ ﻭﺑﺸﺪ‪‬ﺓ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ )ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﻣﺎﱄ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ )ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﺎﺗﻮﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﺟﻮﺍﺯﻳﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺤﻜﹼﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺗﺴﻴ‪‬ﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﳋﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﺼﺎﳊﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺳﺘﺰﻭﻝ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ‬
‫ﻭﲢﻞ ﳏﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴ‪‬ﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪):‬ﺃﻟﻐﻮﺍ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺗﻠﻐﻮﺍ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻄﻼﻕ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﻮﺑﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪105 ،1998 ،1‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻓﻴﻠﻴﺐ ﻣﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﺎﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﻮﺑﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1998 ،1‬ﺹ‪.168‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﺻﱪﻱ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪،1989 ،‬ﺹ ‪.159‬‬
‫‪107‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ ﺃﻣﺔ ﻷﻣﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﻤﱴ ﺯﺍﻝ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺔ ﺯﺍﻟﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻭﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻣﻢ(‪،1‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻟﻌﺒﺖ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﻭﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﻫﺎﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﺮﺍﻛﻴﺔ‪.‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﳛﻮﻱ ﲢﻮﻳﻼ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸ‪‬ﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﳝﺘﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺫﻭﺍ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺘﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻴﻄﺮﺕ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺣﱴ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻃﻴﻒ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻏﺸﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﺮﺍﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺎﺭﻗﻪ‪،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳒﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫)ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ( ﻭﻳﻨﻌﺖ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ )ﺑﺎﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﻜﻴﻒ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺨﻠﻮﻗﺎﺕ ﻓﺘﺘﺼﻠﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺒﺰ‪‬ﺍ ﻳﻮﻣﻴﺎ‬
‫ﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﺍﳌﺜﻘﻔﲔ‪) ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻋﻨ‪‬ﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀ ﺭﺑﻄﻲ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻜﺮﺓ‪-‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ –ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ -‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ )ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﺰﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ(‪.3‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﺑﻮﻟﻴﺘﺰﺭ‪ -‬ﺟﻲ ﺑﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺎﻓﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺷﻌﺒﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ ﺹ‪.206‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،،‬ﺗﺮ ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2006 ،2‬ﺹ‪.6‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻟﺒﻴ‪‬ﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﲔ)‪ (1852-1847‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺃﺳﻬﻢ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺍﳒﻠﺰ ﲝﺼﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺒﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺘﻔﺮﻋﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸ‪‬ﻜﻼﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺣﻘﺒﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻨﺬ)ﺍﳓﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺸ‪‬ﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﻟﻸﺭﺽ(‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎ ﻟﻠﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎ ﻟﻠﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻐ‪‬ﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻐ‪‬ﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺎﻛﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻜﻮﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻠﻎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻐﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﻬﻮﺭﺓ )ﺍﻟﱪﻭﻟﻴﺘﺎﺭﻳﺎ( ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺘﻐﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﻘﻬﺮﻫﺎ )ﺍﻟﱪﺟﻮﺍﺯﻳﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺣﺮﺭﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻬﺮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ)ﺇﳒﻠﺰ‪ :‬ﻟﻨﺪﻥ‪ 28 -‬ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ .(1883‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪:‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﳒﻠﺰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻴﻒ ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،2015 ،‬ﺹ‪.27-23‬‬
‫‪108‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻭﺻﻴﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﲑﺍﺛﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﻴﻒ ﻫﻮ ﻇﻞ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺷ‪‬ﺒﺢ ﻛﺜﺮﺓ ﺃﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﺗﻨﺎﺩﻱ ﺑﻌﻮﺩﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ؟ ﻫﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ؟‪" .‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ"(‪ 1‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﲨﻊ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺮﺓ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﲑﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﲏ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﺒﺎﺡ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻧﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻌﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺷﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﺎ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻻ ﲤﻠﻜﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺒﺢ‬
‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ‪)،‬ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺤﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﻬﺾ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﳏﺪﻭﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺴﻒ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺧﻠﺨﻠﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺎﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﻳﻘﲔ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻭﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺔ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺎﺕ)‪(...‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﰒ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﺘﻌﺶ ﲟﺎ ﻳﻨﻬﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﳚﺮﺅ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲦﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺩﻫﻰ ﻭﺃﻋﻈﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﻣﻦ ﳚﺮﺅ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﻨﺒﺄ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻷﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﲟﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻜﺎﺛﺮﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻋﻈﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺃﺩﻫﻰ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺒﺎﻳﻨﻬﺎ(‪) .3‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺷ‪‬ﺒﺢ ﻳﺘﻬﺪﺩ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ( ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﳛﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺷ‪‬ﺒﺤﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻃﻴﻒ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﺩﻕ ﻃﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ )ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ(‪ 4‬ﺃﻣﲑ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺳﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﺎﻧﺘﻈﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ)ﻓﻜﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻗﺮﺏ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.24‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻜﺎﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﺧﺒﻴﻼﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2017 ،1‬ﺹ‪.39‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.24‬‬
‫‪4‬ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ‪ :‬ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻟﻴﺎﻡ ﺷﻜﺴﺒﲑ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1602 -1600‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻃﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﺂﺳﻲ ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﺄﺛﲑﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺷﻬﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﺎﻛﻲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﺎﺋﻼ‪ :‬ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻫﻞ ﺳﻴﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ ﻷﺑﻴﻪ؟ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺑﻈﻼﻡ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺴﲑ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻇﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﻇﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻜﺸﻒ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺐ ﺑﺮﻱﺀ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﻥ ﻓﺎﻟﻐﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺐ ﻓﺎﺳﻖ ﻳﺸﻖ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺘﻞ ﻭﺍﳌ ﻜﻴﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﰒ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻡ‪،‬ﻭﺷﺒﺎﺏ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﺍﳊﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﳚﺮ ﺍﳋﻄﻰ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﺄﺳﺎﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻘﻢ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺭﻭﺍﺋﻊ ﺷﻜﺴﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺄﺳﺎﺓ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻣﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﳕﺎﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﱪﺍ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺟﱪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1979 ،5‬ﺹ‪.6-5‬‬
‫‪109‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ)‪ .1((...‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﺮﺋﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻩ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﳊﻤﺎ ﻭﻋﻈﻤﺎ ﺣﲔ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻪ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻻ ﻧﺮﺍﻩ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺒﺢ ﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﺳﻴﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ‪.‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ‪-‬ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻜﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴ‪‬ﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪.-‬‬
‫ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺍﳒﻠﺰ ﺳﺎﳘﺖ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﺍﳌﺴ‪‬ﺮﺣﻲ ﻷﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﳍﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻲ ﻟﺸﻜﺴﺒﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺳﻠﻴﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﺎﻟﲑﻱ‪.‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺑﺪﻉ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺃﺑﺪﻉ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺒﺪﻉ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻓﺎﻟﲑﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺐ ﻟﻸﺟﻴﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻭﺱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺇﻻ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﻦ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ؟‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﺸ‪‬ﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺑﺪ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﺣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻳﻦ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺄﺧﺬﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ :‬ﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﲢﻮﻳﻼﹰ ﻭﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺣ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻊ "ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ" ﺍﳌﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ‪،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﺫﻥ؟ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﻭﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻃﻴﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻏﲑ ﻭﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻻ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻃﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺮﺯﻫﺎ ﻭﻧﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﺃﺷﺒﺎﺣﺎ ﺟﺪﺩﺍ ﻭﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻭﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺣﻖ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﻗﺘﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺘﻔﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺃﳒﺰﺗﻪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﺒﺎﺡ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸ‪‬ﺒﺢ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﺑﻮﺳﻢ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﳌﻮﻋﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﺒﺢ ﻻ ﳝﻮﺕ ﻭﺇﳕﹼﺎ ﳚﻲﺀ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﻭﺩ ﳎﻴﺌﻪ‪.‬‬

‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.25‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪110‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻛﻌﻮﺩﺕ ﻃﻴﻒ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺰﱘ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺰﱘ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺣﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺧﺬﺭﻳﻦ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﺜﹼﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻴﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻴﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﻣﻀﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻮﺩﺕ ﻃﻴﻒ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻮﺩﺕ ﻃﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺗﻜﺮﺭ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ "ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻒ"‬
‫)ﲦﺔ ﻃﻴﻒ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1847‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻃﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﻴﺔ)‪(...‬ﻓﺎﻟﻄﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺰﺍﻝ ﻏﲑ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﺑﺪ‪‬ﺍ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﺎﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﻮﻋﻲ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﻃﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺰﺏ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺴﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﻴﻒ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﺜﻘﻠﺔ ﺑﺄﻟﻒ ﻭﻻﻡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺇﳕﹼﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ)ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺎﺕ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮ ﱂ ﻳﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ (...)،‬ﻓﻤﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﳎﻴﺪ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻘﺪﺳﺎ ﻭﻣﻠﻌﻮﻧﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻹﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ )ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻧﺼﺒﺖ ﺟﻞ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﺠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪) .‬ﻓﻠﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺍﳌﺸ‪‬ﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.193-191‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.320‬‬
‫‪111‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺃﻭﻝ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺸ‪‬ﺮﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﲜﻮﺍﺭ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺛﺎﻟﻮﺙ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﻃﻮﻕ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﲤﺜﻞ ﻧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻴﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻼ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺻﺪﺩ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻏﻼﻕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻏﻼﻕ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑﺍﺕ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻴﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳛﺪﺛﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﻓﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺃﻵﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻨﻬﻚ ﻭﻣﺮﻳﺢ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻏﻼﻕ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺨﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ‪ -‬ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‪-‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺨﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻔﺰ ﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﺑﺎﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﺎﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻼﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻱ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺭﻏﻢ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﺎﺯﻟﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺑﻜﺮﺍ ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﺣﺘﻴﺎﻃﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻲ(‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳍﺠﻠﻴﺔ )ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺭﺟﻌﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺛﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﻣﻌﺎ(‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻤﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻧ‪‬ﺴﺮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺠﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺠﻤﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺟﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﲰﻪ ﻩ)ﺟﻞ((‬
‫ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺮ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﻺﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ ﺑﲔ ﺇﲰﻪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ )‪ (Hegle‬ﻭﺇﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺮ)‪ (Eagle‬ﻭ)‪Aigle‬ﺇﲰﻪ ﻭﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺮ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﻘﺮﺭ ﻧﻄﻘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﻌﻄﻴﺶ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻴﻢ ﻟﻴﺤﺼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺇﲰﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ)ﺟﻞ( ‪ Gel‬ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﱪﺩ ﻭﺍﳉﻠﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀًﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﳛﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﱪﻭﺩ ﻭﻳﺼﻒ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻧﺴﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﻣﺘﺠﻤﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﹰﺍ ﰲ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻠﻴﺪ(‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Carles Ramond, Derrida et la Déconstruction, PUF, PARIS, 2005,P145‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2000 ،1‬ﺹ‪.63‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺃﲪﺪ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﳊﻠﻴﻢ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2010 ،1‬ﺹ‪.321‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.321-320 ،‬‬
‫‪112‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻋﺮﻑ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳉﺪﻝ)ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻟﻜﺘﻴﻚ( ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻄﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ)ﺑﺎﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻﹼ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺒ‪‬ﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺻﻮﺭ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻻﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺭﺱ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻌﺎ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﲦﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻔﺤﺺ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺸﺎﻃﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻘﺎﺋﺼﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺄﲰﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻓﺼﺎﻋﺪﺍ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺪﻻ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﺎ ﺑﺎﻃﻨﻴﺎ ﺃﻭ ﳏﺎﻳﺜﺎ ﻟﻔﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ(‪ ،1‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺪﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻛﱪ ﻣﺆﺍﻣﺮﺓ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻣﺆﺍﻣﺮﺓ ﺗﺘﺴﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻨﻒ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ‪ .‬ﻧﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻼﻏﻲ ﱂ ﻳﻨﺘﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ ) ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﺟﺔ ﺍﻻﳓﺮﺍﻑ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻮﺣﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﹼﻔﻜﻚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺎ ﻟﻜﺴﺮ»ﺍﳊﺪﺱ« ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﰲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﻡ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘ‪‬ﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﺪﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺃﲰﻰ ﺻﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ )ﺍﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﳛﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳍﺪﻑ‪(...)،‬ﻭﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺫﺍﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻄﻴ‪‬ﻊ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﳒﺪ)ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﻴﺪ( ﰲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻳﻨﺘﺰﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺘﻪ ﻟﻴﻐﺰﻭ )ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺎﻭﻱ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻴﻨﻪ ﻭﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺃﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺻﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺗﻔﻜﻚ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ )ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻧ‪‬ﻴﺔ( ﰒ ﲣﻀﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ )ﲢﻮﻳﻞ( ﻋﻨﻴﻒ )ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ( ﰒ ﺗﻘﻠﺐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ(‪،3‬ﻭﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻜﻢ ﺑﺄﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﻝ ﻓﻜﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳛﻜﻢ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻟﺬﺗﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻠﺒﻪ ﻭﳒﻌﻠﻪ ﳐﺎﻟﻔﺎ ﳌﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳉﺪﻝ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺩﻝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻄﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺇﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺇﻣﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.29‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacquet derrida, MARGES DE LA PHILOSOPHIE, Minuit, Paris, 1972, P.94‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.166‬‬
‫‪113‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫)ﻓﻌﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﰲ)ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ( ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻮﻕ ﺍﳉﺎﺭﻑ ﻭﺍﳊﻨﲔ ﻟﻸﺻﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ(‪.1‬ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺒﲎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺗﻼﻋﺐ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ‬
‫ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ )ﻓﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺭﺟﻌﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺛﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻼﳘﺎ ﻣﻌﺎ(‪،2‬ﻓﻨﺼﻮﺻﻪ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺗﻼﻋﺒﺎ ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺗﻈﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﻹﻏﻔﺎﻟﻪ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﰲ ﺧﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﲟﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﰐ ﺇﺫﻥ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﲝﺚ ﰲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲎ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﺱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻀﻤﻮ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻀﻤﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ)ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻩ( ﺃﻭ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻪ ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﲔ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﺍﻹﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ ‪ son‬ﻭﰲ ﺇﺿﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ idéalisation‬ﰲ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ(‪ ،4‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻌﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻟﻜﻼﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲣﺘﻠﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺑﻮﺻﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.169‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.168‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺇﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺇﻣﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.27-26‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻐﻴﺚ‪ -‬ﻣﲎ ﻃﻠﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2008 ،2‬ﺹ ‪.75‬‬
‫‪114‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺃﻥ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻳﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺘﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﻜﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﻭﻻ ﳛﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﲡﺴﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗ‪‬ﻘﺪﻡ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺷﻜﻼﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﲣﺼﻴﺼ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺗﻌﻴﻴﻨ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳝﺘﻠﻚ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻴﺾ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳ‪‬ﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺑﺼﻔﺘﻪ ﻧﻘﻴﻀ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﳛﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﻋﻨﻪ ﻳﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ)ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺴﻖ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻮﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺗﻨﻐﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﻌﻠﻮﻟﺔ ﻟﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺠﻴﺪ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﳝﺜﻞ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺤﻮﺭ ﺣﻮﳍﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻻﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.89‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.84‬‬
‫‪115‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪-2‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ‪-‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﻋﻨﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪-‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﺬﻛﺮ )ﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﺭﺩ ﺟﺎﻛﺴﻮﻥ( ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻃﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻹ‪‬ﻴﺎﺭ( ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻜﻴ‪‬ﻴﻒ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻜﻴ‪‬ﻴﻒ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻤﺴﻴﻨﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺒﻠﻎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻄﻮﺭ ﺫﺭﻭﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺳﺘﻴﻨﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻣﺘﺪ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺣﺚ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻱ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺻﻴﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ ‪ structure‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻟﻪ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺸﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺋﻲ( ‪) l’activité structural‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ؟ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‪ -‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﱂ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺣﱴ ﺃﻵﻥ)‪ ،1((...‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻣﺘﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﲑﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻻﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻧﺼﺐ ﺟﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﻴﻒ )ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺿﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺎﻳﺰﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﺟﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺗﻮﻏﺮﺍﰲ ﻟﻸﺯﻳﺎﺀ ­ ﺗﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺮﺃ ﻭﲣﻀﻊ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﳚﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺣﻞ ﺷﻔﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺎﺿﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺎﻳﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺰﻋﻮﻣﺔ )‪(...‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ » ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻷﻋﺮﺍﺽ «‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺳﻠﻄﺘﻪ ﻭﻫﻴﻤﻨﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ )ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺰﻋﺔ "ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ" ﺗﻠﻐﻲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺗﻐﺘﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﰲ ﺳﺠﻮﻥ "ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ"‪3‬ﻭ"ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ" ‪1‬ﻭ"ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ – ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ -‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﺬﻩ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺃﲪﺪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺯﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،1955 ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ)ﻩ(‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.313‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ‪ :Le Format‬ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﲔ ﻳﺸﻜﻼ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻮﺣﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﺘﺮﻥ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﺑﺂﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻳﻌﲎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻡ )ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ( ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﲢﻮﻝ ﺑﺆﺭﺓ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫‪117‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ –ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ -‬ﳎﺎﻻ ﳍﺠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﲤﺮﺩﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﺰ‪ ‬ﺃﺭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﻣﺎﻳﻮ‪-‬ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ ‪(..).1967‬ﳑﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﲔ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﻳﻌﻴﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﲢﺖ ﻭﻃﺄﺓ ﻣﺘﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪ ،1967‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻧﻔﺮﻁ ﻋﻘﺪﻫﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮﻯ ﱂ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ‬
‫ﳐﻠﺼﺎ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺳﻮﻯ )ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ( ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻬﺎ(‪.2‬ﻭﻳﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻟﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺑﺮﺯ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ )ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ ﻭﺟﺎﻥ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ(‬
‫ﻭﻳﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ )ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﲑ(‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ )ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ( ﰲ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ )ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ(‪):‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺰﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺴﺤﺐ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻳﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻛﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻋﻼﻣﺎﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻮﺍﻃﺊ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺗﻨﺎ)‪،3((...‬ﻓﺎﻟﺒﻨﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺪﻱ‪.‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ‪-‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ -‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻛﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻴﻄﻪ ﲞﻄﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻭﺣﺬﺭ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﳎﺎﳍﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﺗﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻤﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ )ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ( ﺃﻭ)ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ(‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﳘﺎ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﱰﺍﺡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮﻯ ﻻ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺃﻱ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺑﻞ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻭﺳﻴﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻄﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺇﺩﻳﺚ ﻛﺮﻳﺰﻭﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﻋﺼﻔﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺳﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪، 1‬‬
‫‪ ،1993‬ﺹ‪.415‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ‪ :La structure‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻼﺕ ﲢﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻞ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻛﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ)ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ( ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺘﻐﺬﹼﻯ ﺑﻠﻌﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻼﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺗﺘﻌﺪﻯ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﲔ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻮﺟﺰﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻳﻼﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻀﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﺎﺟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺭﻑ ﻣﻨﻴﻤﻨﻪ‪ -‬ﺑﺸﲑﻯ ﺃﻭﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻮﻳﺪﺍﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1958 ،1‬ﺹ‪.8‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺇﺩﻳﺚ ﻛﺮﻳﺰﻭﻳﻞ‪ :،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.10-9‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.131‬‬
‫‪118‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺇﻥﹼ)ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﰲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺩ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺻﻞ(‪ 1‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﳕﻮﺫﺟﺎ ﳊﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻗﻮﺍﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻗﻠﻖ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺪﺙ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳍﺎﺟﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺘﺰﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻳﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﳉﻬﺎ ﻣﺆﺭﺥ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﺍﳌﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻭﻛﻔﻰ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺿﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﻭﻭﻗﻔﺘﻨﺎ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﳊﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳘﺎ ﺍﻧﺪﻫﺎﺵ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﻣﺆﺭﺥ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﲣﺬﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺷﻜﻼ ﺳﻴﺌﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺭﺩﻳﺌﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺤﲔ )ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ( ﻻ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ)ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﲢﻮﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻀﺎﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﺨ‪‬ﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻴ‪‬ﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻞ‪ ،.‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻴ‪‬ﺪ ﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻃﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﺄﻫﻮﻟﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻬﺠﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻣﺴﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻨﻌﻬﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺩﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺭﲟﺎ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ‪) ،‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﺗﻄﻤﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻳﻮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻨﻮﻱ‬
‫))‪(...‬ﻓﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ‪ ،‬ﳛﻴﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﱃ ﻧﺴﻖ ﺍﶈﻼﺕ‬

‫‪،‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬ﺃﲪﺪ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.148‬‬

‫‪119‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻋﻴﺎﹰ ﻛﺎﺭﺛﻴﺎ ﻣﻬﺪﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻜﹼﻜﺎ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻹ‪‬ﻴﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺍﻓﻖ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﻭﻻ ﲝﻖ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻀﻮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺻﻄﻨﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﻮﺟﻬﻪ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻮﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﺆﺳﺲ ﻭﻣﺮﺋﻲ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻌﻴﺘﻪ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻄﺐ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺨﺬﻩ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﳉﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻸﻋﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﱐ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺎﺿﻴﻪ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ‪‬ﻴﺌﻪ‪ ،(...) ،‬ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻮﺟﻬﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺑﻼ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺨﺼﻴﺺ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻧﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺰﺍﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺘﲔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﳘﺎ ﺃﻭﱃ ﺍ‪‬ﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﲢﺮﺹ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﲤﺎﺳﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻚ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺎﻧﺘﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻜﻮ‪‬ﻥ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺟﺢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺷﻜﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﳓﺪﺩ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﻨﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﻧﺼﻮﺻﻬﻢ ﻟﻴﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻐﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻟﻐﺘﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﲤﺮﻛﺰ ﺻﻮﰐ ﻭﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻭﺣﱴ ﻋﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎ‪‬ﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ‪‬ﺪﻑ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻄﻤﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻷﻥ ﻳﻜﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺳﻨﺬﻛﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.135-134‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.149‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.146‬‬
‫‪120‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-2‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪:‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺃﺳﺲ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ "ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ"‪ 1‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‪) :‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ(‪،‬ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ "ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ" ﳛﻴﻞ‪):‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻮﻫﻢ ﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﺮﺳﺔ ﻭﻣﺼﻨﻔﺔ ﻣ‪‬ﻌﺎﻳﺮﺓ)ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺎﺭ( ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﻳﺆﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﻮﺱ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﺴﻠﻞ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺣﻴﻠﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺪﻋﻮﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺏ"ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻠﺔ"(‬
‫ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﻟﻘﻴﻄﺎ ﻻ ﺃﺏ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺴﻌﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻜﺮ‪‬ﺭ ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ‪.(Paidai)،‬ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳚﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﳝﺘﺪﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻫﻮ )ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﻗﺐ ﻭﺍﶈﺘﻮﻯ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻧﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻟﻸﺧﻼﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺍﳌﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺌﺔ ﻭﺍ‪‬ﺮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺃﺫﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻬﻲ(‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‪)،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺇﻥ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﳝﺤﻰ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ]ﺃﻱ ﺑﺼﻔﺘﻪ ﻟﻌﺒ‪‬ﺎ[ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺤﻲ ﰲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ]ﺃﻱ ﻛﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ[ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ)‪ ،4((...‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻻ ﳛﻤﻼﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﻟﻌﺎﺏ‪،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ ‪ :‬ﻋﺮﻓﺖ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ)‪ 347­427‬ﻕ ﻡ( ﺑﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ ﺧﻴﺎﻻﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻛﺈﺩﺭﺍﻛﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﳋﲑ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ)‪ ،(...‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﻴ‪‬ﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﻴ‪‬ﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻣﻞ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﻭﻋﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺜﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻔﺮﻕ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺪﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻤﺮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻟﻜﺘﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﻫﺒﻮﻁ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻴﻮﻱ )ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﻒ(‬
‫ﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ )ﺍﳌﺜﻞ(‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺟﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﺭﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،2009 ،‬ﺹ ﺹ)‪.(120­119‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،1998 ،‬ﺹ‪.8‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.117‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.118‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫‪121‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻟﻄﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻓﺎﻷﺣﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﻻ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻮﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﺮﻛﻮﻥ ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﺴﻄﺎﺋﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻨﻘﻠﻮﻥ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻏﲑﻫﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺪ ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ )ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ(ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻭﺟ‪‬ﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺃﺣﻜﻤﺖ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻄﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻳﻨﺨﺮﻁ ﰲ ﺧﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ؟‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ "ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ"‪ Phédre‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﺰﻣﻨﺎ ﲬﺴﺔ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻭﻥ ﻗﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﻧﻜﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﺧﲑﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﺳﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ )ﻓﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ(‪ 2‬ﲢﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻃﻨﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﻣﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﻄﺮﻭﺡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ‪):‬ﺑﻴﺪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳋﺎﲤﺔ ﻣﺆﺟﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﺯﺍﻝ ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﻳﻠﺘﺰﻡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺩ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲝﺪ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻤﻼ ﺷﺎﺋﻨ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﳎﺎﻧﺒﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﳐﺰﻳﺎ‬
‫‪ ،aiskhron‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﲔ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ ﻣﺸﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺸﻴﻨﺔ؟ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﲔ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ ﺣﺴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﺔ ﺣﺴﻨﺔ‪Kalôs‬؟ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻟﲑﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺐ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻨﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻘﺴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺎﻭﺭﺓ(‪ ،3‬ﻓﻔﻴﻬﺎ ﻳﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﺮﺍﻃﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺳﺘﻜﺘﻔﻲ ﺍﶈﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻭﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﺃﺛﺎﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻟﻸﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺃﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺃﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ‪،‬ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ)ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻫﻮ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.17‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻳﺒﲔ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺮﻩ ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻘﺪﺍ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻀﻠﻊ ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺇﻓﺎﺿﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻻ ﳚﻌﻠﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﲔ ﻋﺎﺭﺿﲔ ﻻ ﺻﻠﺔ ﳍﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﻜﺮﺳﻬﺎ ﳍﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﲔ‬
‫ﺗﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻴﺘﻀﺢ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻳﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻣﲑﺓ ﺣﻠﻤﻲ ﻣﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ 2000 ،‬ﺹ‪.23‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.19‬‬
‫‪122‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺃﺑﻮﻩ(‪ 1‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺑﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﻔﲎ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳ‪‬ﺠﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳ‪‬ﺠﻴﺐ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﹼﺍﺕ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻛﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ :‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻛﺄﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﺑﺎﻩ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻨﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺘﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻨﻊ ﻭﺍﻏﺘﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﺷﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﻤﺎ ﺷﺄﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‬
‫ﻟﺘﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺭﺃﻱ ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺋﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻗﺎﺗﻠﺔ ﻟﻸﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻝ‪ .‬ﻭﳜﻠﺺ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺧﺎﲤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﻻ ﺗﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﲰﺔ ﺗﻔﻀﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻞ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪)،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻏﺘﻴﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲤﺜﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻﺿﺮﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻏﺘﻴﺎﻻ ﺍﳌﺆﺟﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻔﺴﲑ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻗﺘﻠﻪ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﺮﺍﻃﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﳌﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ﺏ )ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﻏﺮﻑ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻣﻲ)ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻬﻴﺊ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﺮﺍﻓﻌﲔ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻳﺘﻠﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻢ ﺩﻓﺎﻋ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺶ‪ :‬ﻳﻨﺸﺆﻭﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﰲ ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻌﻴﺸﻮﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻭﻳﺼﺪﺭﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻘﺮﺅﻭﻩ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺪﻋﻤﻮﻩ ﻫﻢ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ(‪ ،3‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻘﺪ ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺏ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﻴ‪‬ﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻔﺴﻄﺎﺋﻴﲔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.28‬‬

‫‪2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻛﺮﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪167‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.06‬‬
‫‪123‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻭﺭﻳﺜﻴﺎ‪ :orithye1‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﻓﻌﻬﺎ ﺭﻳﺢ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺭﻳﻪ ‪ Boree‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﺃﺕ ﺗﻔﱳ ﲜﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳚﻌﻞ ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺬﺭﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﺒﺚ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﺪﻻﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﲔ ﻣﺎﺀ )ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻟﻺﺳﺘﺸﻔﺎﺀ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺗﻠﺘﺒﺲ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ )ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻥ ‪Le‬‬
‫‪،(pharmakon‬ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ "ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺝ" ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫"ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﺍﺏ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻥ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺳﻢ‪ ‬ﻭﺩﻭﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻟﺒﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺤﺮ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﺬﺍﺏ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻥ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻃﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﻓﻄﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻌﻮﻻ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ ﻃﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﺧﺒﻴﺚ(‪ ،2‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪):‬ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻥ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻭﺱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻘﺮﺍﻃﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻛﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﺠﺮﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻌﻀﺔ ﺃﻓﻌﻰ ﺳﺎﻣﺔ(‪ ،.3‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫‪ (Pharmakeus‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﺴﻄﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺮﻣﺰ ﻟﺴﺎﺣﺮ ﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﻌﻮﺫ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻤ‪‬ﻢ‪.‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺮﺍﻫﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺸﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ )ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﺱ‪(Pharmakos‬ﺑﻮﺍﻭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺔ ﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻭﺱ ﻭﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ)ﺳﺎﺣﺮ ﻭﻣﺴﻤﻢ )‪(...‬ﻗﻮﺭﻧﺖ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﲢﻮﺕ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻒ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻭﺳﻠﻄﺘﻪ‪" ،‬ﲢﻮﺕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳝﺜﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﲢﻮﺕ ﺗﻌﻠﺐ‪ /‬ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺭ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺣﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﻉ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺍﳉﻮﻛﺮ ﰲ ﺇﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ‪ (...).‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻋﺒﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﻱ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﲝﺜﻪ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺇﻻﻟﻪ ﲢﻮﺕ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻻﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻮﱘ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻴ‪‬ﺪ ﺍﳌﺪﻥ ﻭﻭﺿﻊ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺯﻳﺮ ﻭﻗﺎﺽ ﻭﻛﺎﰎ ﺳﺮ ﺍﻵﳍﺔ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﺸﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﳑﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺏ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻵﳍﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻔﺴ‪‬ﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺰﻥ ﻗﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﳌﻮﺗﻰ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﳊﺴﺎﺏ ﻭﳜﱪ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﺃﻭﺯﻭﺭﻳﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺳﺎﺣﺮ ﺑﺎﺭﻉ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻳﺸﺎﺅﻫﺎ )ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﳋﻼﻗﺔ(ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲪﻰ ﺇﻳﺰﻳﺲ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﲪﻠﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺷﻔﻰ ﺣﻮﺭﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺒﺒﻪ ﺳﺖ(ﻓﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻃﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻄﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﻱ‪ -‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻳﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2003 ،1‬ﺹ‪.119-118‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.22-21‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.74‬‬
‫‪124‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﺱ ﺑﻜﺒﺶ ﻓﺪﺍﺀ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮ‪ ‬ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻃﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺸﺮ ﻭﺇﺑﻌﺎﺩﻩ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ )ﺍﻝ(ﺟﺴﻢ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻭ)ﺧﺎﺭﺝ( ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ(‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺧﻠﺺ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﶈﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﰲ )ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ( )ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻃﺎﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻫﺔ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﻟﻠﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺪﺩ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ(‬
‫‪-3‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﲤﻴﺰ‪‬ﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻭﺟﻬﻲ ﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻣﻨﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺳﻼﻟﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺻﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﺏ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ‪ voix‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ‪ ،être‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﲎ)‪.3((...‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺛﺒﺘﺖ ﲰﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ 4‬ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺠﺰﺃ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ )ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ(‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻧ‪‬ﺔ ﻣﻦ )ﺩﺍﻝ ﻭﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻳ‪‬ﻌﺘﱪ )ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﺭﺩ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ( ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻗﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻋﺮﻑ ﺑﺄﺷﻬﺮ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ )ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ(‪) ،1916 1‬ﺷﻴ‪‬ﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺩ ﺫﻛﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.88-87‬‬
‫ﺹ‪. 83‬‬ ‫‪ 2‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﺎﻋﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺣﻀﺮﻣﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻴﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2004 ،1‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬اﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.73‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺔ ‪ :Sémiologie‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻟﻴﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﺍﻻﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺟﺰﺀﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﲏ‬
‫ﺑﺄﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﻮﻟﻴﺎ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻔﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﻌﻠﻢ ﻧﻘﺪﻱ ‪ /‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺗﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ‬
‫ﻓﺰﺍﺯﻱ ﻧﻮﺍﻓﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ‪ ،8‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ 1،‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪ ،1999‬ﺹ‪.59‬‬
‫‪125‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺳﻨﻜﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ )ﺗﺰﺍﻣﻨﻴﺔ( ﻭﰲ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ‪ la langue‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ‪parole‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺑﺎﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ(‪ 2‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪.3‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺩﻓﻴﺪ ﻭﻳﺘﻨﺎﻱ‬ ‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﺮ )ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ( ﺑﻌﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﺣﺜﲔ ﰲ" ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫)‪ ،(1927 ­ 1849)(D,Whitner‬ﻭ ﺷﺎﺭﻝ ﺳﻨﺪﺭﺱ ﺑﲑﺱ)‪(CH , S, Pierce‬‬
‫)‪ ،(1914­1839‬ﻳﻮﺩﻭﺍﻥ ﺩﻱ ﻛﻮﺭﺗﻨﺎﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﱐ‪Boudouin de courtenay .‬‬
‫)‪ ،(1914­ 1845‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﲔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﲨﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺎﺩ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺳﲑﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨ‪‬ﺼﺐ ﰲ )ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ )ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ(‪ ،‬ﻭ)ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ(‪،‬‬
‫ﻭ)ﺍﻵﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪) ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺘﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﻛﻴﺐ( ﻭﻏﲑﻫ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻯ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺳﲑﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ‬
‫ﺷﻜﹼﻠﺖ ﺍﳌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺗﺮﻋﺮﻉ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺃﺣﻀﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻼﱐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺑﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱂ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﻐﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺣﻴﺰ‪‬ﺍ ﻛﺒﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﰲ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ(‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﲨﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺙ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻟﻘﺎﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺟﻨﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺩﺭﺱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ‪ ،1911 ،1910 ،1909 ،1908 ،1907‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺪﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺕ ﻃﻼﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﲨﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﻃﻼﺑﻪ ﳘﺎ)ﺷﺎﺭﻝ ﺑﺎﱄ‪ -‬ﻭﺃﻟﱪﺕ ﺳﻴﻜﺎﻫﻲ(‬
‫ﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1916‬ﻭﻇﻬﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪.1922‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﻮﺋﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬
‫ﻋﺰﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺃﻓﺎﻕ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪ ،1985 ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺹ‪.3‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.4-3‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ )ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻟﻮﻳﻚ ﺩﻭﺑﻴﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻧﺪ ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ﻭﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﳌﺨﻄﻮﻃﺎﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺭﳝﺎ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2015 ،1‬ﺹ‪.51‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﺭﺣﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻬﺎ ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺩﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﳏﻤﺪ ﺧﻴﻀﺮ ﺑﺴﻜﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻧﻔﻲ‪ -‬ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ‪ ،2014‬ﺹ ‪.486‬‬
‫‪126‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺪ‪‬ﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻗﺒﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻨ‪‬ﺎﻫﺞ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ )ﻛﺎﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ(‪) 1‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ(‪) ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﱄ(‪) ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻮﺳﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ(‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﲝﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻓﺤﺺ‬
‫ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺭﺩ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻳﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﺑﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻧﺴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺑﲔ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ ﻭﳘﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺑﺔ )ﻓﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥﹼ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﳌﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻟﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺒﻨﻬﺎ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻠﻜﺔ(‪..2‬‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺑﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﲤﺜﹼﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ .‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻭﻭﺳﺎﻃﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻳﺴﻮﺳﲑ )ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳎﺮﺩ ﻣ‪‬ﻠﹶﻜﺔ‪ ‬ﳝﻠﻜﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﲤﻴ‪‬ﺰﻩ ﻣﻦ )ﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺃﺟﻨﺎﺱ(‪ ،3‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﲨﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،4‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺃﺭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ :‬ﻳ‪‬ﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺑﺪﺃﻫﺎ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﺮﻙ ﺃﻛﺴﺖ ﻭﻟﻒ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،1777‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﳍﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻓﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻭﺷﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺷﺠﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﺻﺤﺎ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﻢ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﻢ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﰲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.19‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.40‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻟﻮﻳﻚ ﺩﻭﺑﻴﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪.52 ،‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻓﺎﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻜﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻳﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﲔ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺧﺬ ﰲ ﻧﻘﻄﺘﲔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺘﻪ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺗﲔ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﳘﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺸﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻟﻮﻳﻚ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺑﻴﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.53 ،‬‬
‫‪127‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻜﻠﹼﻢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻗﺪ ﻭﺟﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻂ ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ؟ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻹﺻﻐﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑﻧﺎ(‪ ،1‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﳒﺪﻩ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺰﺍﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻗﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﳘﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻼﹰ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪) ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ( ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻋﺮﻓﺖ ﺑﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﰲ ﳊﻈﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﺘﺤﺪﺩ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺰﺍﻣﲏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻠﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳌﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﳍﺎ)ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺰﺍﻣﲏ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺛﻮﻥ ﺑﻘﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﲑﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺩﻋﺎ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﺑﻐﺾ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻫﻮﻳﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻘﹼﻘﺔ‪.‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ‪ :Linguistics‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﺨﺰﻭﻥ ﰲ ﺩﻣﺎﻍ ﻛﻞ ﻓﺮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻧﻘﺼﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺘﺎﺝ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺇﺫ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﺱ ﻟﻐﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻳﻀﻄﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻠﻢ ﺑﺄﻛﱪ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻲ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﺪﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﺎﺟﺰ‪‬ﺍ ﻋﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻢ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﲤﺜﻞ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻮﺍﺋﻴﺔ( ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻕ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺳﲑﻱ)ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺳﺒﺒﻴﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﺨﺬﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺩﺍﻻﹰ‬
‫‪ Signifier‬ﳍﺎ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻪ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻ ‪.4(Signified‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.38‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﻮﻧﺎﺛﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﲪﺪﻱ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﺹ‪.101‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.42‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﻮﻧﺎﺛﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻠﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.12‬‬
‫‪128‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﺼﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﲔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﻠﲔ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻧﲔ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪.‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﳓﺪﺙ ﻓﺼﻼ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﲢﻄﻴﻢ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺇﻧﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ‪ Refrence‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﻨﻔﺮﺩ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ)ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻠﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻧﺴﻘﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﺑﺼﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻝ)‪،1((...‬ﻭﻛﻐﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ )ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ( ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺮﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ )ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ( ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻃﺒﻘﺎ ﳍﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃﻳﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺳﲑﻱ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ‬
‫ﳛﺎﻛﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻇﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺗﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ )ﺍﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ( ﻫﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪) :‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻫﲏ‬
‫)ﺃﺧﺖ( ﻻ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻪ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﺘﺘﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﳍﻤﺰﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺩﺍﻻ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳕﺜﻠﻪ ﺑﺄﻳﺔ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺆﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻮﺍﺭﻕ ﰲ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﻞ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‬
‫)ﺑﻘﺮﺓ( ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﺑﻘﺮﺓ)ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﱁ‪ (...‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭ ‪)Bœuf‬ﺑﻮﻑ( ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.13‬‬

‫‪129‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭ‪)Ochs‬ﺃﻭﻛﺲ( ﰲ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ((‪.1‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ )ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪،‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﻳﻦ ﻋﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﻏﲑ ﻣﱪﺭ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﺋﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﲤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎ(‪ 2‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺿﻴﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ )ﻣﺌﺔ( ﻏﲑ ﻣﱪﺭﺓ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ )ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ(‬
‫ﻓﻠﻴﺴﺖ ﻏﲑ ﻣﱪ‪‬ﺭﺓ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﺣﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ )ﺗﺴﻌﺔ(‬
‫ﻭ)ﻋﺸﺮﺓ( ﻭ)ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﻭﻋﺸﺮﻭﻥ( ﻭ)ﻭﲦﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ( ﻭﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻧﺎ )ﺗﺴﻌﺔ( ﻭ)ﻋﺸﺮﺓ( ﻛﻼ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺗﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ )ﲟﺎﺋﺔ( ﺃﻣﺎ )ﺗﺴﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ( ﻓﻬﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﱪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﱯ‪ ،.‬ﻳﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ)ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺄﻟﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ )ﺳﻮﺳﲑ( ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻌ‪‬ﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻤﻪ ﺑﻘﻲ ﺍﻹﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﻳﻌﻘﺪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻟ)ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ( ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺪ‪‬ﺍﻝ( ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺑﻄﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ )ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺿﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﺟﻬﺎ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﻧﻜﻦ ﺭﺍﺿﲔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺴﺦ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﺋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﻜﺒﺢ ﺃﻱ ﻟﻌﺐ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ(‪ 4‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﳛﺘﻞ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺟﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻻ‬
‫ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻞ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬

‫‪1‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎ ﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.112‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪..197‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.32‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﻭﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺨﺮﻱ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻛﻨﻌﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2004 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.61‬‬
‫‪130‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺋﻘﻲ ﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺰﻳﺎﺡ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺮﻛﻪ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﻭﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻟﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺴﻢ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﲔ –ﺍﻹﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﻟﻪ ﻷﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪(-‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﳘﺎ ﻳﺸﻜﻼﻥ ﻭﺟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﺿﻄﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ)ﺩﻟﻴﻞ( ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﳚﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺪﻡ ﻣﱪﺭﺍﺗﻪ ﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﻠﻢ )ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺗﻮﻇﻴﻔﻪ ﻟﻠﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﻮﺿﻪ ﺑﻪ ﰲ ﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﲤﺪﻧﺎ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺑﺮﻳﺌﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺎﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ ﳌﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻪ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺪﺩﻧﺎﻩ ﺿﻤﻨﻴ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻟﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺘﺠﻪ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻭﳚﻤﻌﻪ)‪ (...‬ﻭﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺎ ﻟﻠﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺩﺍﻝ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺭﻣﻮﺯ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻝ‬
‫ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﺮﻣﻴﺰ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.61‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ‪.72‬‬
‫‪131‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﻴﺔ ‪ ،conventionnelle‬ﻭﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﻨﻈﺎﻡ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻮﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻓﻬﻲ ﲢﺪﺩ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ(‪ ،1‬ﻭﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺑﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺘ‪‬ﻖ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻈﻞ ﺩﺍﻻ ﲤﺜﻴﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻻ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﻘﺎﻕ ﻫﻮ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﱰﻟﺔ ﺳﻔﻠﻰ )ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻔﺠﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ )ﻟﺘﻮﺍﺯﻳﻬﻤﺎ( ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﻗﺪ ﰎ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻪ ﻭﺗﺮﺗﻴﺒﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺿﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﳎﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﻘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻐﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ(‪،2‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻨﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﺄﻥ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻧﺰﻋﺘﲔ ﳘﺎ ﻧﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻼ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻄﺘﺎ ﺑﺄﺻﻞ ﻭﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﲤﻴﺰ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻝ ﻟﺪﻯ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﻤﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﲔ‪.‬ﻓﺄﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻭﺍﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪) :‬ﻓﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﲔ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺮﻭﺀﺓ‬
‫ﻛﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﺪﺱ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﻏﻴﺎﺑﻪ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻭﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺍ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻟﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﺧﺎﻟﺺ ﻭﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﻘﺔ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻮﱄ ﻭﺟﻬﺘﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ )ﺍﷲ(‪،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.72‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.74‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.123‬‬
‫‪132‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻻﻫﻮﰐ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻗﺮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺣﺘﻀﺎﺭ ﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺰﻋﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ )‪(....‬ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ)ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ( ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﲞﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﺎﳌﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﺼﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﳑﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺗﻘﺎﺩﻣﻴﺔ )‪(Prescriptive‬ﲤﺖ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ)‪ (Archi-parole‬ﻫﻮ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﳌﺒﺘﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﺘﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻛﺼﻮﺕ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﻭﺻﻴﺔ(‪.2‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻟﺴﻨﻴﺔ )ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻴﺌﻬﺎ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﱂ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻐﲏ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻟﺘﺄﺧﺬ ﳐﺰﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﱪﻫﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻓﻤﺜﻠﻤﺎ‬
‫ﰲ)ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ( ﻟﺪﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﰊ ﻻ ﻏﲎ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﺸﺮﻁ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ(‪.3‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻓﻨﺠﺪﻩ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻮﺣﻲ ﺻﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪:‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ):‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﻨﺢ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺇﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﻭﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ(‬
‫ﻣﺜﹼﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﻱ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺑﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺑﺘﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺴﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.76‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.81‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.123‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Jacquet derrida, MARGES DE LA PHILOSOPHIE, op.cit,P.179.‬‬
‫‪133‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﺻﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺃﺻﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ‬
‫ﳒﺪﻩ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻫﺪﻓﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ )ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ )ﳝﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﲤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻓﻼ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ)‪ (...‬ﻻ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ ﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﻼ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺒﻊ‬
‫ﺣﺠﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﻜﹼﺮ ﻭﻻﺩ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺏ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﺄﺧﺮ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻇﺮﻭﻑ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺘﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻐﲑﻫﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﻐﲑ ﻛﻠﻤﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﺗﻐﻴﲑ ﻋﺒﻘﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻌﻮﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺑﺪﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺷﻜﻼﹰ ﻃﻔﻴﻠﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﺘﻄﻔﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ)ﻛﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ( ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺏ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳊﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﻜﻠﻮﺑﻴﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺳﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻗﺘﺤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﻃﺎﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺸﺨﺼﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﻌﺎﻣﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﳝﻴﺰ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﺑﲔ ﻧﻮﻋﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﳘﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺴﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪.‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺣﺴﻨﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺳﻴ‪‬ﺌﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺴﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﻂ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺣﺸﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻨﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ(‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﳝﺜﻞ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﺘﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻘﻮﻩ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻻ ﻳﻨﻌﺰﻝ ﻓﻴﻪ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳏﺠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺆﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.42-27‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.119‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.118‬‬
‫‪134‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺭﻭﺳﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﲣﺎﺫ ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺑﺘﻌﻤﻴﻘﻪ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻗﺔ ﻭﲝﺮﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺘﻤﻜﻴﻨﻪ ﺃﻟﻐﺎﺯ‪‬ﺍ ﺧﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺒﺜﺎﻕ ﻣﻦ ﲢﺖ ﻗﻴﻢ ﻣﺘﻔﻖ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳏﺘﺮﻣﺔ)‪ (...‬ﻳﻮﺻﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺭﻭﺳﻴﻪ ﻣﻘﺼﺪﻩ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﻻ ﺭﻳﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﻴﺸﻜﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻣﺎﻻﺭﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﻴﺎﱄ )ﳉﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﲑ ﺭﻳﺸﺎﺭ( ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻗﺒﻊ ﰲ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻜﺮﺭ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺮﺟﻮﻋﻪ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﰲ )ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ( ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻹﳍﻲ ﳐﻄﻮﻃﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻴﻠﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺤﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﻭﺍﳊﺼﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺪﺍﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺃﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﻓﻬﻲ )ﲤﻴﺖ( ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ )ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﻦ ﳛﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻘﺮﻳﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﳍﻮ ﻛﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻳﺪ)ﺭﺳﻢ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺜﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ )ﺣﱪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺭﻕ(‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺕ ﻭﺗﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﳍﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﲤﺠﻴﺪ‪ :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﰲ ﺟﺪﺍﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺇﳍﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ)‪.3((...‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺼﻴﺎﻏﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺑﺈﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻮﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﻴﺰﺕ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻗﺼﺎﺋﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﺯﻣﻨﻴﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺣﺎﻭﻝ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﺨﻴ‪‬ﻠﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺼﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻤﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﲑﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺸﺨ‪‬ﺺ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.136‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.117‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.117‬‬
‫‪135‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪):‬ﺃﹶﻣ‪‬ﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺾ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻭﺍﻹﻣﺴﺎﻙ ﰲ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻣﻦ؟ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﻳﺪ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﻋﻲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﱵ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﺠﺄ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺸﻮﺩﺓ ﺗﻈﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﺰﺍﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺘﺠﺎﻧﺲ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺣﺪﺓ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻃﻘﻮﺱ ﺷﻌﺎﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺩﻳﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﻖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﻖ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻏﺎﻣﻀﺔ ﰲ ﻧﺺ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﳊﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﻜﻠﺖ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ /‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﻖ ﻻ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﻼ ﻣﻼﺣﻖ‪ -‬ﺑﻞ ﳎﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺳﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﲣﻠﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻠﺐ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺘﺒﲔ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﻖ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﺘﺘﺒﻊ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻐﻠﻐﻠﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻧﺺ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﳍﺬﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻠﺤﻖ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻠﺤﻖ(‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ‪-‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ‪ 3‬ﻭﻋﻨﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪:-‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.147‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻓﻨﺴﺖ ﺏ‪.‬ﻟﻴﺘﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳛﲕ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪،2000 ،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪294‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﻣﻦ )ﻣﻦ ﺳﺘﺔ ﺃﺳﺮ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺃﺳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺯﻭﺟﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﻭﺇﺑﻨﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﻫﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﲬﺲ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺯﻭﺟﲔ ﻭﻃﻔﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻃﻔﻠﲔ ﻭﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﺻﻠﺔ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﺇﺫ ﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺑﻨﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺥ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺑﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ )‪ (...‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺑﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺑﻨﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻝ ﻓﺎﻷﻗﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻌﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﻳﺴﻤﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻭﻻﺩ‪‬ﻢ ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻌﲏ‬
‫ﺯﻭﺝ ﺃﻭ ﺯﻭﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻷﻗﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ )ﺍﳌﻨﺤﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺧﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺧﺘﲔ )‪ (...‬ﻓﻴﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﺑﻌﻀﺎ ﻛﺄﺥ ﺃﻭﺃﺧﺖ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻄﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻭﺝ ﰲ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﺗﺴﻜﻦ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺎﺋﻞ ﰲ ﺃﻛﻮﺍﺥ ﻣﺆﻗﺘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻏﺼﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻌ ﻒ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺨﻴﻞ‪،‬ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺗﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﻢ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺴﻤﲔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺷﻬﺮ ﺍﳌﻤﻄﺮ ﻳﻘﻴﻤﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﺻﻐﲑ ﻳﺸﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪‬ﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻴﺸﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﺭﻋﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺬﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﻧﻴﻮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﻎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺼﻮﻟﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻄﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﻉ‪.‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳛﻞ ﺍﳉﻔﺎﻑ ﻳﻘﻮﻣﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﺠﺮﺓ ﻛﻞ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﲝﺜﺎ‬
‫‪136‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻷﻥ ﺃﻭﺟﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻘ ‪‬ﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﺰﻳﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺣﻀﺖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻣﺰﻋﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺇﺫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺗﺮﺍﺙ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻗﺎﺩﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﺭﻭﺳﻮ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻌﻮﺏ ﺑﻼ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼ ﻝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﺃﲜﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪.1‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ‪،‬ﻓﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺻﻴﻐﺖ ﻟﺘﺜﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﺠﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻦ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻤﺴﻚ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺎﺩ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻨﺬ )ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﻴﺪﺭﻭﺱ( ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫)ﻟﺪﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻫﻲ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺻﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﻏﻔﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪.‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻜﺮﺗﻪ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺼﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪.‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﻫﻢ ﺳﺎﺋﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﻄﺮﻕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺒﺎﺋﻞ ﻧﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺭﺍ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻨﺎﻣﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺑﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻄﻌﻬﺎ‪،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻜﺎﺩﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﻭﺍﺱ‪):‬ﳚﺘﺎﺯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺒﺔ ﺧﻂ ﺑﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬

‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺍﺋﺪ ﻣﻦ)ﻳﺮﻗﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻗﻮﺭﺍﺽ ﻭﺟﺮﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺎﻛﻬﺔ ﻭﻋﺴﻞ ﺑﺮﻱ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﺼﺒﻮﻥ ﺧﻴﺎﻣﻬﻢ ﳌﺪﺓ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻮﻣﲔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺳﺒﻮﻉ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪):‬ﺗﺒﺪﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻌﻴﺶ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﺻﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺪﻳﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﺮﺗﺪﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﲔ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻣﻼﺑﺲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻴﺰﻫﻢ ﻓﻘﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﺎﺋﻞ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻳﺘﺼﻔﻮﻥ ﺑﻘﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻣﺔ‪ 1:60 ،‬ﻟﻠﺮﺟﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪ 1.50‬ﻟﻠﻨﺴﺎﺀ)‪ (...‬ﺍﻧﺘﻤﺎﺅﻫﻢ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺯﻣﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪, O‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ ﻫﻨﺪﻳﺎ ﳏﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻧﻌﺰﺍﻻﹰ ﺩﳝﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ﺍﻣﺘﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺮﻭﻥ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻳﻌﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻘﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﰲ‬
‫ﻛﺒﲑ‪‬ﺍ‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺩﺭﻳ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﺣﺰﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺻﺒﺢ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻛﻨﻌﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2003 ،1‬ﺹ‪-354-353‬‬
‫‪.356‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﺃﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻐﻴﺚ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﳌﺜﻘﻔﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪1 ،5-4‬ﻓﱪﻳﻞ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ ‪.142‬‬
‫‪137‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻬﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺠﻞ –ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻜﺎﺩﺍ‪ -‬ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﻮﻣﺘﺮ )‪ (...‬ﻓﺎ‪‬ﺎﻫﻞ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﲣﻄﻴﻄﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴ‪‬ﺰﻩ ﻋﻦ ﻏﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﻏﺎﻝ ﺍﶈﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺿﺤﻰ ﺑﻼ ﺟﺪﻭﻯ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺿﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﺪﻟﻴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺪﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺒﺪﻝ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺇﻫﺘﺮﺃﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻳﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻷﺭﺽ ﺍﳍﻨﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﳛﺴﺒﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﻨﲔ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺰ ﳋﻂ ﺍﻟﱪﻕ ﻃﻨﲔ ﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﳓﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﲡﺪ ﺍﳋﻂ‬
‫ﳑﺪﺩﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﻠﻘﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻛﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺠﲑﺍﺕ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺜﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﻫﺸﺔ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳋﻂ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺸﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﳜﻔﻒ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ)‪(...‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﺮﺍﺵ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﺧﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻜﺎﺩﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﻮﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻗﻮﺍﺱ ﺍﳌﻘﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﺄﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻏﲑ ﳏﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻟﺔ(‪ 1‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻳﻘﺮﺃﻩ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻜﺎﺩﺍ‬
‫‪ picada‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﺪﺍﺋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﲤﻴﺰ ﳎﺮﺍﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻏﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻮﺍﻓﻪ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺄﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‪،2‬ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﳛﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ)ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﻘﻄﻮﻉ(‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳌﻘﻄﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﻔﺔ)ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱪﻳﺔ( ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻼ ﻋﻨﻴﻔﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻤﻬﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﲤﻬﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﳑﻨﻮﻉ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺘﻌﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺇﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳋﻂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﻫﺎﱄ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﻳﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﻢ ‪‬ﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺮﺗﻐﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﺠﻮﻟﻴﻮ )‪ (...‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺃﻟﻘﺎﺑﺎ ﻛﺄﺭﻧﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻜﺮ(‪ 3‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻭﻱ ﺷﺘﺮﻭﺍﺱ ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻼﻋﺐ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﺑﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺙ ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺕ ﺗﺸﺎﺟﺮﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺔ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺠﺄﺕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﳘﺴﺖ ﰲ ﺃﺫﻧﻪ ﺑﻜﻼﻡ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺠﺖ ﻏﺮﳝﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻜﻴﺪ‪‬ﺎ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﻏﺎﺿﺒﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻟﺘﺒﻮﺡ ﺑﺴﺮ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.349‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.228‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.357‬‬
‫‪138‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻘﺎﺳﻴﻢ ﻭﺟﻬﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﺎﺣﺖ ﺑﺎﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺛﺄ ‪‬ﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﺄﰐ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺒﻮﺡ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻣﺎ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺷﺘﺮﻭﺍﺱ)ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﻬﻼ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻷﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﲰﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﻭﺣﺪﺙ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻃﺆ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻌﻄﻮﱐ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺎﺭ(‪ ،1‬ﺇﻥ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻳﺼﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﺻﻞ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﺭﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻧﺒﻴﻠﺔ‪)،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻋﺮ‪‬ﺿﺘﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺑﻴﺦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺻﻞ ﻳﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﰲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻥ ﻣﻌﻤﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﲔ )ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﲔ( ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﻔﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳛﺚ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ‬
‫ﺍﶈﻈﻮﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﺇﻏﻮﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺎﺭ ﻭﺇﺑﻌﺎﺩﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﺀ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ(‪ 2‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﻳﻀﻌﻪ ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﺟﻲ )ﻓﺄﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺗﻪ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﺤﺐ ﻣﺎﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺯﻉ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻱ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻬﻨﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﲔ ﺑﺎﻷﺻﻞ ﻣﺘﻄﻔﻠﲔ ﻭﻣﻔﺴﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﺧﺮ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﻌﺠﺐ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ )ﻏﲑ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻝ( )‪ (...‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻧﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﻫﻲ ﳎﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﳍﺠﺔ ﻭﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻬﺠﺔ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪):‬ﺗﻈﻢ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﺪﺕ ﳍﺠﺎﺕ ﳎﻬﻮﻟﺔ ﲨﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻐﲑ ﺁﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﲝﺴﺐ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻌﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ)‪ (...‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.357‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺷﺘﺎﺀ ‪1996‬ﺹ‪202‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.202‬‬
‫‪139‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺳﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻀﺎﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ ﻟﺘﺤﻮﳍﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺗﻜﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﺰﻭﻡ ﺑﺄﺩﺍﺓ ﻧﻔﻲ(‪ ،1‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ )ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﺼﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑ( ﺗﻨﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺒﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻠﻤﻮﺳﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺷﺮﻁ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ)ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﳏﻮﺍ ﻹﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺸﻄﻮﺑﺎ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻃﻤﺲ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻩ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻟﻔﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ)‪(...‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻀﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﺮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻄﺐ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻥ ﻹﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﲰﻴﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ(‪ .2‬ﻓﺄﲰﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺇﻧﺘﺠﻬﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻄﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﺻﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻞ ﳎﺘﻤﻊ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﻤﺲ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺍﱃ ﺗﻌﺼ‪‬ﺐ ﻋﺮﻗﻲ ﻏﺮﰊ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻌﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﻀﺮﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻞ ﺫﻛﺎﺀ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺗﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻞ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﶈﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻟﻘﺎﻫﺎ ﲜﻨﻴﻒ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ )ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ(‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺛﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻪ ﻋﻦ ﲡﺮﺑﺘﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻓﺎﺕ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺑﺈﲰﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺩﺍﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺮﻙ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﰒ ﺑﺈﺳﻢ ﳎﺘﻤﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﻌﻮﺛﻪ )‪ 3((...‬ﻭﻫﻮ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﺃﺻﻮﻟﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺕ ﻭﺑﻘﺎﺋﻪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻠﻄﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻳﺼﻒ ﰲ ﻣﺪﺭﺍﺕ ﺣﺰﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻨﻜﺮﻩ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫﻩ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‬
‫ﻧﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ )ﺍﳊﺎﺩﺙ ﻋﺠﻴﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﻗﺔ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﻇﻞ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺣﻜﻤﺎﺀ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.158‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.229‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.204‬‬
‫‪140‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫)‪ (Nambikwara‬ﳐﻠﺼﲔ ﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﻌﺎﺭﺿﺘﻬﻢ ﻭﺑﺸﺠﺎﻋﺔ ﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎﺋﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺃﺭﺍﺩﻭﺍ ﺇﺩﺧﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‬
‫ﺃﻱ‪ ‬ﻣﻌﲎ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﳎﺎ‪‬ﺔ ﺣﻜﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ؟ )ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻮﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‬
‫)ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻐﻠﻐﻼﻥ ﻭﺳﻄﻬﻢ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ :‬ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﺑﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺎﺀ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﲟﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻧﺸﻄﹰﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺭ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻋﺔ )‪ (...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻔﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻛﺎﺷﻔﹰﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻘﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺩﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺮﻑ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﻴﺤﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﻳﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﺮﺍﺀ ﻭﻏﺮﺑﻴﻮﻥ ﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﺳﻠﻌﺎ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺎﺕ‬
‫ﳏﻠﻴﺔ‪ (...)،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﳜﻤﻦ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪-‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪) -‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻌﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺳﻢ ﺃﻳﻀ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﻄﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﻄﻮﻁ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺮﺟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﱐ‪) ،‬ﺍﹼﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﻨﻌﻮ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺸﻮﺭ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺍﻛﻪ(‪ (3‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻭﺯﻋﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺃﻗﻼﻣﺎ ﻭﺃﻭﺭﺍﻗﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻳﺎﻡ ﺑﺪﺅﻭﺍ ﰲ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺧﻄﻮﻁ ﺃﻓﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻤﻮﺟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﻛﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻠﻴﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﱂ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﲝﻴﺚ ﻃﻠﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺣﺰﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﺒﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺳﻢ ﺧﻄﻮﻁ ﻣﺘﻌﺮﺟﺔ ﻭﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻘﺮﺍﺀ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺘﻪ )ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻧﺼﻒ ﳐﺪﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺑﺘﻤﺜﻴﻠﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﻛﻤﻞ ﺑﻴﺪﻩ ﺧﻄﹰﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﺡ ﻳﺘﻔﺤﺼﻪ ﺑﻘﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺄﻧﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻨﺒﺜﻖ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻧﺒﺜﺎﻗﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻳﺮﺗﺴﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﻴﺎﻩ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﻢ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ )‪(...‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻔﻘﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﺿﻤﻨﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥﱠ )ﳋﺮﺑﺸﺘﻪ(‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨ‪‬ﻰ)‪ (...‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﺛﺔ ﺩﻻﻟﺘﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺮ‬

‫‪1‬ﺳﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﻮﻓﻤﺎﻥ‪ -‬ﺭﻭﺟﻲ ﻻﺑﻮﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺍﺩﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺜﲑ‪ -‬ﻭﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،4‬‬
‫‪،1994‬ﺹ‪.19‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﺹ‪.19‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.204‬‬
‫‪141‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻔﻬﻢ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﻏﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻪ ﺛﻘﺎﰲ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ( ‪ 1‬ﻓﺎﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺭﺅﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻨﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﺪﻫﻢ ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻣﻮﻥ ﲟﻘﺎﻃﻌﺘﻪ ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﻔﻮﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻼﻥ ﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺘﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺼﺮﻑ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺼﻒ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺧﻀﻌﺖ ﳍﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﻧﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﺯﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻏﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﻋﺮ ﺍﳊﺰﻥ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﺍﳌﺼﺤﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻮﻕ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻐﺮﺏ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﻄﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﻮﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻳﺮﲰﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃ‪‬ﻢ ﻳﺴﻤﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻳﻜﺎﺭﻳﻮﻛﻴﺪ ﺟﻮﺗﻮ ﺃﻱ )ﺭﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻮﻁ(‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﺛﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺰﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺮﺓ‬
‫)ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﺩﺓ( ﻟﻴﻄﻠﻖ ﺣﻜﻤﺎ ﺟﺎﺋﺮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺸﺄﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳋﻄﻮﻁ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﲰﻬﺎ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳎﺮﺩ ﳏﻜﺎﻩ ﳋﻂ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺧﻄﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﲰﻪ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻬﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺩﺧﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﻌﻨﻒ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳚﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺳﺎ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪-‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪) :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﺣﺔ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﺍﳌﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﱪﺑﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﻏﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺴﻚ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻛﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﺪﻡ ﺃﺳﺮﻉ ﻓﺄﺳﺮﻉ ﺻﻮﺏ ﻫﺪﻑ ﲣﻄﻪ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﲔ‬
‫ﺗﻈﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺟﺰﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﺎﳌﺎﺿﻲ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻜﻔﻰ ﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺘﻪ ﺑﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻈﻞ ﺳﺠﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺟﺮﺍﺝ ﻳﻨﻘﺼﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻘﺼﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﲟﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.205‬‬

‫‪142‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻌﲔ(‪ 1‬ﻓﺸﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺷﺮﻃﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺷﻌﺐ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺷﻜﻼ ﺣﺎﻣﻼ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳛﻤﻞ ﲤﺮﻛﺰﺍ ﻋﺮﻗﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻗﺒﺎﺋﻞ ﲡﻬﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺭﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺟﺔ ﻭﺑﺮﺍﺀ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﻞ ﳚﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪.‬‬

‫‪.1‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪206‬‬

‫‪143‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ‪Déconstruction‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪:‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺧ )ﺕ(ﻻﻑ ‪différance‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻰﺀ‬
‫‪ :-4‬ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ‪Margin‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ‪Supplement‬‬
‫‪ -6‬ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫‪ -7‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ‪Logocentrism‬‬
‫‪ -8‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‬
‫‪ -9‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪de la gramatologie‬‬
‫‪-10‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫‪ Ittérabilite-11‬ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ‬
‫‪ -12‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫‪-13‬ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻧﻌﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ )ﺟﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻜﱰ( ﰲ ﺃﻛﺘﻮﺑﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1966‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ)ﻟﻮﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺟﻮﻟﺪﻣﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺰﻓﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ ﻭﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻭﺟﺎﻙ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪،‬ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺘﻪ‬
‫ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ )ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ( ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﺿﻤﺖ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﺧﻼﺕ ﲤﻴﺰﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻛﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ؟ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﺃﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ؟)ﺃﺷﺪﺩ ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﰐ )ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ( ﻭ)ﺳﻴﺘﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ()‪(...‬ﻣﺎ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ! ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ!(‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ‪ Déconstruction‬ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺇﺧﻀﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺇﱃ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴ‪‬ﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﻓﻜﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺒﲏ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺿﺪ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻔﻜﻚ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺎﺩﺙ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻨﻌﺎ ﻟﻨﱪﺯ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﻧﻪ ﻭﻫﻴﻜﻠﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻔﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻌ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻔﺴﺮ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ‪‬ﺍ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﻣﺒﺪﺃﹰ ﻭﻻ ﻗﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﻮ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺣﺼﺮ ﺃﻭ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻳﺬﻫﺐ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺪﻱ)‪.2((...‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪):‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻀﺎﻣﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻊ ﻣﺎﻟﻴﺲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺗﻀﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺻﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺸﻄﺎﹰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍﹰ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺍﺩ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻪ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎﹰ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﰲ ﺯﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﺰﺯ ﻻ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﺗﻴﻬﺎ ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﻣﻨﺘﺰﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻴ‪‬ﺎﺩﻱ‪ -‬ﻧﺎﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﻧﻠﻲ‪ -‬ﻣﻌﺰ‪ ‬ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،‬ﻁ‪،2015 ،1‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.19-11‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩﺍﻥ ‪ ،1982 ،19­ 18‬ﺹ ‪.254‬‬
‫‪145‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﳔﺮﺍﻁ ﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﻨﺬﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﺪ ﳝﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺇﺫﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻤﻴﻠﺔ ﲢﻜﻢ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎﹰﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺘﻠﻜﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﳏﺘﻮﺍﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﳜﻀﻊ ﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳒﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺪﻻ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻔﻆ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲢﻮﻱ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺠﺰ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻮﻓﲑﻩ‪)،‬ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻣﻜﻦ ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‪ (...)،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺘﱪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴىﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﻨﺼﻮﺹ‪،‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺔ ﻧﺺ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺪﺓ ﻧﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻛﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻮﺣﺔ ﻧﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺒﲎ ﺍﳌﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻧﺺ(‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻔﻬﻤﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻭﺃﺑﺪﺍ‬
‫ﲣﻀﻊ ﳍﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻆ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺟﺪﻟﻴﺔ )ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ( ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺍﻋﻲ ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ )ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻻ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﻭﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ)‪(...‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺭﲪﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺍﺩﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻛﻼ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺭﺟﺎﺀًﺍ)‪ (...‬ﺃﺿﻒ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺺ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ "ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﻳﻚ ﺍﶈﺎﻟﻒ" ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ(‪.3‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺯﻫﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻮﱄ‪https://youtu.be/1_iR4kjPJuE ،‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺃﲪﺪ ﺍﻷﺷﻘﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﺩﻭﺭﺩ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﻓﺄﳒﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺟﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،6587‬ﺍﳋﻤﻴﺲ ‪ 12‬ﺃﻏﺴﻄﺲ‪ ،2010‬ﺹ‪.10‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻯ ﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪3 .22-21‬‬
‫‪146‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ "ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ" ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﺎﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﱯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﳛﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻟﻄﻤﺄﻧﺔ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻮﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻻ ﻳﺪﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﻨﺠﻢ)‪ ،(..‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺃﺳﻮﺀ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻣﲑ(‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﻔﻜﻚ ﻻ ﳔﺮﺏ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻫﺪﻡ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻘﺖ ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻨﺤﺎﻭﻝ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪) ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﺳﻠﻔﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻪ ﻓﻬﻮ – ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻣﺮﻩ‪ -‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺿﻤﻦ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﱂ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻨﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺴﺎﺏ ‪.2‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻓﻔﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺈﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻟﻔﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺘﺪ ﻣﻦ )ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ( ﺇﱃ‬
‫)ﻫﻴﺠﻞ(‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻧﻘﺪ )ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ( ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﲤﺮﻛﺰﻫﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ )ﻓﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﺪﺀًﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺣﱴ ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺭﻳﻜﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻓﺮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭﺃﺳﺲ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻭ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﺎ ﻓﺘﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻫﺎ ﻭﺧﻠﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ(‪ 3‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ )ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﻟﻠﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺗﺒﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺳﲑﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ)ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻘﻮﻳﺾ ﻣﻴﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺗﻌﲔ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ‪1‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺛﻼﺛﺎ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪J.Deerida, La Carte Postale de Socrate à Freud et au- delà ,Flammarion,‬‬
‫‪Paris,1980,P.249.‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺗﻴﻤﻮﺛﻰ ﻛﻼﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺍﻻﺩﰊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪-‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ -‬ﺑﻼﻧﺸﻮ‪ -‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،-‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪،2011 ،1‬ﺹ‪.223‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﺭﺍﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.25‬‬
‫‪147‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﺰﺀًﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﻛﻼﻡ‪/‬ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻰ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪/‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻴﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ /‬ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺮﻯ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ ﰲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲔ ﳛﻈﻰ ﲟﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺃﺭﻗﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻴﺪ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻔﻲ ﺃﻭ ﲡﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻘﻮﻳﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﻘﻮﺽ‬
‫ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻭﻻ ﺑﻘﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺗﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲔ)‪ (...‬ﻭﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺪﻣﲑ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺇﺯﺍﺣﺔ ﳎﻤﻞ ﻧﺴﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﲣﻮﻥ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﺎﻥ ﺇﻥ ﺟﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﻌﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﺽ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﻠﺮ ﰲ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻣﺎﻛﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻜﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﻏﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻼﺭﻣﻴﻪ)‪ (...‬ﻭﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬

‫ﺧﺎﺹ ﳉﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ :‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻮﺍﻧﺒﺎﳍﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ(‪.1‬‬

‫ﻳﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪):‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻘﻼﹰ ﻓﻌ‪‬ﺎﻻﹰ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻴﻀﺎﹰ ﺧﺼﺒﺎﹰ ﻭﻣﻨﺘﺠﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ " ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻭﻗﺎﺭﺉ" ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺷﺨﺼﺎﻥ)ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻭﻗﺎﺭﺉ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﺆﻟﻒ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪2‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ)ﺗﺘﺸﺎﺑﻚ ﻭﻇﺎﺋﻒ ﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ )ﺗﻼﻭﺓ‪ -‬ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪ -‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ(‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺸﺎﺑﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻭﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ‪.1‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪.42،43 ،‬‬

‫‪2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.209‬‬
‫‪148‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫)ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ( ﰲ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻟﻴﺘﺮﻳﻪ‪ :‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ‪ /déconstruction‬ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ‪ /‬ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ‬

‫ﳓﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﻮﻳﺶ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ )‪.(...‬‬
‫ﰲ ﻟﻮﻣﺎﺭ ‪) :Lemare‬ﻋﻦ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪ 17‬ﰲ )ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ(‪ -1 :Déconstruire.‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﻮﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻗﻄﻊ ﻣﺎﻛﻨﺔ ﻟﻨﻘﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺃﺧﺮ‪ - 2 .‬ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﳓﻮﻱ)‪ (...‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻷﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺇﺣﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﺷﺒﻴﻬﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺜﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺯﻥ)ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﳉﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻭﺗﻜﻤﻦ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎﻩ ﰲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎﺝ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ )ﻟﻮﻣﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ(‪(.‬‬
‫‪ :Se déconstruite -‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﹼﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﻠﹼﻊ)‪ (...‬ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺑﻨﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺗ‪‬ﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻔﻘﻬﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻛﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﰲ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺃﺻﻘﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﻕ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﺪ ﰒ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻜﻜﺖ ﻭﲢﻠﹼﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻐﲑ ﻭﺣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﻓﻴﻠﻤﺎﻥ‬
‫‪)Villemain‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺑﻌﺚ ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ ﻳﺎﺑﺎﱐ ﰲ ‪ ،1985‬ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﺼﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺃﻭ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﺩ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﴰﻮﻟﻴﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺍﻗﻴﺘﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺃﻱ ﲨﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺱ ﻫﻲ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺗﻔﺘﻘﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻗﺒﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻼﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﺘﺼﻔﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﱏ ﻓﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲨﻠﺔ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﻱ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺳﻴﺠﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﳋﻮﺽ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻠﻮﺭﺓ ﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ)‪.3((...‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﺿﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺭﺍﺡ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻟﻴﺘﺮﻳﻪ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺆﺩﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.209‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.58‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻏﺮﺍﻧﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.164‬‬
‫‪149‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃﺔ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺄﺩﺍﺀ ﻣﻜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﻭﺑﺪﺍ ﱄ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﻔﺮﺣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻼﺅﻡ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﺭﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﺢ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ Dé‬ﻭ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :Construction‬ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﳎﻤﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻮﻳﺾ ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻮﻳﺾ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﳌﻌﻨﲔ ﳘﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳍﺪﻡ ﻭﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﳌﻘﻄﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳍﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻌ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀ ‪‬ﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺗﻨﻘﺾ‪ ‬ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﳝﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻏﲑ ﺗﺴﺎﺅﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﺋﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﳒﺪ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ )ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ(‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﱀ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﻣﻔﺮﻃﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺰﻉ ﺃﳘﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺴﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻋﻴﺔ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺯﺍﺀ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻛﻼﺳﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻤﻲ ﻟﺸﻴﺌﲔ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻬﲔ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺗﺮﺍﺗﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﻴﻔﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻃﺮﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺤﻜﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﺃﻛﺴﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ )ﻗﻴﻤﻴﺎ ﻭﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺎ()‪(...‬ﻭﺫﺍ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ)‪(...‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳓﻦ ﺃﳘﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺘﺠﺎﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﻣﺴﺎﻙ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﳕﺮ ﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﺪ ﻓﻨﺘﺮﻙ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﳓﺮﻡ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺋﻴﻪ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺫﺍﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﺮﺍﺗﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺗﺸﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺧﻼﻓﺎ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﻔﻨﻮﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻮ‪‬ﻢ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻭﻗﺘﺎ ﺿﺎﺋﻌﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻴﺘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺗﱯ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺩ ﺧﻠﺨﻠﺔ ﺗﺮﺍﻛﻴﺒﻬﺎ‪،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ )ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1992 ،1‬ﺹ‪.43-42‬‬
‫‪150‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺮﺍﺗﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﱰﺍﺣﺔ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺻﻞ ﺑﲔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻐﺪﻭﺍ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﻕ ﲢﺘﺎ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻚ ﺟﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺧﺎﺻﺎ ﺑﺘﻌﲔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﱂ ﻳﻨﺼﺎﻉ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻟﻼﺣﺘﻮﺍﺀ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﻀﺎﻡ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﺷﺮﻃﲔ ﻟﻺﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻧﺺ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺛﺘﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ ﺍﻥ ﳛﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻭﺟﺎﺑﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺳﻴﻼﻥ ﻭﺍﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺀ ﳍﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﺎﺀ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﳜﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻓﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺀ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﺎ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﻬﺞ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ ﻑ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﺼﺺ ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ‪) letrré‬ﻟﻴﺘﺮ(ﻓﻘﺮﺓ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ‪ différer‬ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ‬
‫‪ ،differre‬ﻭﳌﻌﻨﺎﳘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﲎ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ‪ différer‬ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﻨﻴﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻮﻳﻒ ﻭﺍﻹﻃﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺑﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺇﺷﺒﺎﻉ ﺃﻭ ﺃﳒﺎﺯ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،(...)،‬ﺇ ﹼﻥ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ différence‬ﲝﺮﻑ )ﺍﻟ‪ (e‬ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ‪ différer‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻮﻳﻒ ﻭﺍﻹﻃﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺑﻮﻋﻲ ﻭ­ﺑﻼﻭﻋﻲ­ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﺍﳌﺆﻗﺖ ﻳﺒﺎﻋﺪ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻖ ﺇﳒﺎﺯ ﻭﺇﺷﺒﺎﻉ » ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ « ﺃﻭ » ﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ«‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺇﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ ﻑ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺧ‪‬ﺎﻟﹶﻒ‪ / ‬ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻒ ‪ différer‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫]ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ‪ [différent‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﻴﺎﺳ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﹸﺑﺘ‪‬ﻜﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ‪ différance‬ﲡﻤﻊ ﺻﻨﻔﹰﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.61‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.30‬‬
‫‪151‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﻧﺴﻘﻴﻪ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻼﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ – ﺑﻞ ﺗﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺘﻪ – ﰲ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺣﺎﲰﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺯﻋﻢ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺑﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ)‪ . 2((...‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﻄﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﻛﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺛﻞ ‪ même‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻌﻠﻦ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺎﺕ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺯﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﳏﺴﻮﺱ ‪/‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﺱ ‪ /‬ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ‪ /‬ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﱪﺭﺍ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﳊﺮﻑ ﺍﻟ ‪ a‬ﺑﺪﻝ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺍﻟ‪ e‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﲢﺪﺙ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺣﺮﻑ‪ .‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻷﲜﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺎ ﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﻷﲜﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻃﺮﺕ ﺑﺄﻥ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﲜﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺍﻟ ‪ ، a‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻞ ­ ﺷﺌﻨﺎ ﺃﻡ ﺃﺑﻴﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ =) difference‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ( ﺣﲔ‬
‫ﻧﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻞ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﻠﻞ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺴﻠﻞ ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻱ ﻣﺴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﺮﻑ ﻳﺸﺘﻐﻞ ﻭﻫﻮ ﳐﺘﺒﺊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﺴﻠﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺇﻣﻼﺋﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻫﻔﻮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺃﻣﻠﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺻﺎﻣﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﲎ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺣﺮﻑ ﳛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﻑ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺃﻱ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺣﻼﻝ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﲰﺎﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻄﺄ‬
‫ﺇﻣﻼﺋﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺧﻄﻮﺭ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﰲ ﺳﺬﺍﺟﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻭﻻ ﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﺃﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥﹼ ﺧﻄﺎﰊ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﻭﻻ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.14‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.15‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﳝﺎﻥ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.31‬‬
‫‪152‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻋﺘﺬﺍﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳍﻔﻮﺓ ﺍﻹﻣﻼﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻣﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻳﺜﺎﺑﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﺓ ﻃﺎﺑﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﱯ(‪،1‬‬
‫ﺣﺮﻑ ﺍﻟ ‪ a‬ﻫﻮ ﺣﺮﻑ ﻣﺘﺨﻔﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺮﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻘﻴ‪‬ﺪﺓ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼﻑ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻻ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﺮﻁ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﺻﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ )ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻔﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺸﻲﺀ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﻚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﻭ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻛﺸﻲﺀ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻷﻥ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﳝﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻻ ﻧﻨﻔﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻨﺎ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ(‪3‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮﻱ ﻛﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺙ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺷﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻛﻤﻨﺒﻊ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﻚ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻃﺮﺃﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻜﻢ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﰲ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ ﰲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ ﳏﻞ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺑﻞ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻻ ﳏﺪﻭﺩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ(‬
‫ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ ﻑ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺻﻔﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻣﻐﺎﻣﺮ‪‬ﺍ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﺎ ﻻ ﻫﻮﺗﻴﺎ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻛﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻐﺎﻣﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﻷﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ‬

‫‪ .1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪31‬‬

‫‪ .2‬ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻮﺵ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﱐ‪ ،1985 ،‬ﺹ ‪86‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.185‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺷﺘﺎﺀ‬
‫‪ ،1993‬ﺹ‪.235‬‬
‫‪153‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻨﺤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺘﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﻫﺪﻑ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﲟﻘﺘﻀﻰ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﳍﺎ ﺳﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺑﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻮﺍﺀﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻣﺘﻼﻛﻪ ﺍﻣﺘﻼﻛﹰﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﹰﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ‬
‫ﻑ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺣﺴﻲ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲰﺎﻋﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺼﺮﻳ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺗﻴ‪‬ﺎ)ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﻁ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺣﺴﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫ﲰﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﺩﺍﻝ ﻭﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﲎ ﻭﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻭﺗﻌﺒﲑ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﺻﻠﺐ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ ﻑ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻭﻳ‪‬ﻌﺮﻑ )ﻳﺘﻤﻴﺰﻩ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﻔﻮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﲑﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺸﻲﺀ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﻚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﻭﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﳝﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﳓﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻻ ﻧﻨﻔﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻮﻧﻨﺎ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ(‪2‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮﻱ ﻛﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺙ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺷﺮﻳﻄﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺪﺭﻙ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻛﻤﻨﺒﻊ ﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﺼﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﻚ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ ﻑ ‪ différance‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺣﻼﳍﺎ ﳏﻞ ‪ différance‬ﻓﺘﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻭﻫﻲ)ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﺘﺖ(‪.‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﺍﻹﺧ)ﺘ(ﻼ ﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻰﺀ‪:‬‬
‫)ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ)‪ (Difference‬ﻭﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﺇﺭﺟﺎﺀ‬
‫)‪ (Differing‬ﻭﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﺗﺄﺟﻴﻞ )‪ (Deferment‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ )‪(Defer‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻳﺆﺟﻞ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﺯﻳﻨﺎﰐ‪ ،‬ﺭﺣﻼﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺨﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1993 ،1‬ﺹ‪.107‬‬
‫‪2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ :‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪-6‬‬
‫‪1 ،7‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪ ،2013‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،،‬ﺹ ‪.185‬‬
‫‪154‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻳﺮﺟﻰﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﻌﻨﻴﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﳛﻼﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ )‪" = (Différe‬ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ "ﻭﻳﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﻭﻳﺘﺄﺟﻞ"‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ(‪،1‬ﻓﻤﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﲢﻮﻱ ﻣﻌﻨﲔ ﳘﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺟﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺧﲑ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ‪:Margin‬‬
‫ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﺎﺷﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺔ‪) marge ،‬ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ( ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﻭﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪) marque‬ﲰﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ( ﻭ‪) marche‬ﺍﳌﺴﲑﺓ( ‪:‬ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ )ﻋﻼﻣﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺴﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﳑﺎ ﻧﺘﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ‪:Supplement‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻠﺤﻖ ﻳﻨﻀﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺇﻧﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺇﺣﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﺮﻭﺳﻮ‪ .‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺗﻜﻤﻴﻼ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺗﺴﺪ ﻧﻘﺼﺎ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺎ ﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎ ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻧﻴﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﺻﻠﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺆﺷﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪) .‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺟﻮﺍﻧﺐ ﺍﳌﻠﺤﻖ ﺇﺛﺎﺭﺓﹰ ﻟﻠﻘﻠﻖ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻓﺘﻘﺎﺭﻩ ﻟﻠﻤﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳌﺴﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺬﻭﻗﻪ ﺃﻭ ﲰﺎﻋﻪ ﺃﻭ ﴰﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺭﺅﻳﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺪﺳﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ(‬
‫‪-6‬ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﻠﹼﺖ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺀ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻧﺎ " ﳌﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ"‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﴰﻠﺖ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﹼﻞ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻭﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺻﻮﺭﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻌﲏ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﲟﺎ ﳛﻀﺮ – ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ -‬ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻓﻴﺘﺨﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻣﻊ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻔﺮﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2017 ،1‬ﺹ‪.80-79‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻓﻨﺴﺖ ﺏ‪.‬ﻟﻴﺘﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.294‬‬
‫‪155‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺗﻪ)‪(...‬ﲟﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺼﻞ ﰲ ﺻﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﻣﻨﻪ ﺍﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ)‪(...‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻔﺘﺄ ﻳﻨﺄﻯ ﻋﱪ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻐﺎﻣﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﲣﺘﻠﻂ‬
‫ﲟﻐﺎﻣﺮﺓ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ‪ ،.‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﻷﻱ ﻋﻠﻢ ﳜﺺ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻨﺎﻳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﻴﺠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﻴﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﲰﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺳﺲ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻳﻮﻣﻲ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ(‪. 2‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﰲ )ﻧﻈﺮﻩ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ )ﺇﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ( ‪ 3‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻗﻲ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻔﻀﻞ ﲤﺮﻛﺰﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺩﻋﻤﺘﻪ ﻭﻣﻜﻨ‪‬ﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﲤﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻘﻼﱐ ﲤﺮﻛﺰ )ﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ( ﺃﻭ )ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ( ﺃﻭ )ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ(‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﱂ ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺇﻻ ﻛﻮﻫﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺳﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺳﻴﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻔﻜﻚ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺧﻄﺄﹰ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﺮ"ﺳﻴﺎﺝ" ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻠﻚ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﺰﺍﻣﻦ ﻣﻊ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺧﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻳﺘﺰﺍﻣﻦ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟ "ﺃﺏ" ﻣﻊ "ﺍﻹﺑﻦ" ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺟﻞ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺗﺴﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻤﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪14‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.37‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.26‬‬
‫‪156‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺎﻭﻝ "ﻓﺘﺢ‪) ‬ﺍﻹﻧﻐﻼﻕ((‪ .1‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻘﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻃﻮﻕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ )ﺳﻴﺎﺝ ‪en‬‬
‫‪ (cloure‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻔﻜﻚ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺒﻪ )ﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﺖ "ﺧﺘﺎﻣﻬﺎ" ﺃﻭ "ﲤﺎﻣﻬﺎ"‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻮﻓﺖ‬
‫ﺃﻏﺮﺍﺿﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﻔﺪﺕ ﺃﻭﺍﻟﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺣﻘﺎ ﻭﺗﺘﻮﻗﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻗﺪ ﻻ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﺎ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪ -7‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ‪Logocentrism‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ‪ Logocentrism‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻫﺪﻡ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻘﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺴﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲟﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ‪):‬ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻜﺎﻙ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺘﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺛﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺼﻴﻞ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﺴﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻏﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﱪ ﺑﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲡﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺃﻻ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ‪ :‬ﺃﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.3(،‬‬

‫‪-8‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﻜﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﻠﻘﺖ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪)،‬ﻓﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻭﻫﻴﻤﻨﺘﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﱪﻳﻘﻴﺔ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻣﺄﺳﻮﺭﻳﻦ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺿﺮ‪‬ﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻟﺴﻮﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﳌﺎ‬
‫ﲤﺘﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻛﺤﺼﻦ ﻣﺎﺭﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﻞ ﻳﺆﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻋﺮﻑ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.35‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.10‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩ ﻛﲑﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻴﺎﺱ ﻓﺮﻛﻮﺡ‪ -‬ﺣﻨﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﺍﳜﺔ‪،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ 2015 1‬ﺹ‪.197‬‬
‫‪157‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﲝﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻫﻨﺔ)‪(...‬ﻓﺎﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﲏ ﲤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﻩ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﺱ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ(‪ 1‬ﻭﻧﻘﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‪):‬ﺗﻀﺨﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺰﺍﺯﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻳﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻭﻫﻢ ﺳﺎﺋﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﻫﻢ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻮ‪‬ﺻﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﻄﺮﻕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪).‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻄﺖ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ‪‬ﺍ ﺧﺎﺻ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻗﺔ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﹼﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﻗﺖ ﺻﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﲦﺔ ﻓﺎﺻﻞ ﺯﻣﺎﱐ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺎﱐ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﺘﻜﻠﹼﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﹼﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ(‪ .3‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﺣﺘﻠﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ‪):‬ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫‪ -9‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪de la gramatologie‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪ la science de littre‬ﳏﻴﻼﹰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﻟﻴﺘﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫‪ dictionnair litré‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻣﻮﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫ ﻣﻦ ‪ gramma‬ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ ،et grammatos‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺣﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﲜﺪﻳﺔ ﰒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪1‬ـ‪ ،2009 ،‬ﺹ‪.212‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﻒ‪ ،،1995 ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺹ‪.212‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‪ -‬ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﳕﻲ‪ -‬ﻋﻮﺍﺩ ﻋﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﻷﻯ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،1996،‬ﺹ‪.124‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﻮﳘﻪ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺇﻗﺎﻣﺘﻪ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ )ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﻱ( ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻲ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺿﻄﻼﻉ ﲞﻄﺎﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺩﺗﻪ ﻭﺗﺼﺤﻴﺤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ )ﺍﳉﺎﻣﺪ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻭﻓﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻗﻮﺍﻟﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺻﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﲪﺎﻳﺔ "ﺃﺑﻴﻪ" ﻭﺇﺳﻨﺎﺩﻩ(‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﱄ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﺠﺮﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ‪) ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺷﺮﻁ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺩﺍﺋﻴﺘﻪ(‪ .،(...)،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.7‬‬
‫‪158‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﺱ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺘﻪ‪.‬ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﺮﺽ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺿﺎﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻌ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺃﲰﺎﻩ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ ‪.1 archi écritur‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺭﺩ ﰲ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﳉﻴﺐ ﺻﺪﺭ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،1952‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ‪ ‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺧﺎﺹ ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻌﻠﻢ )ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ ﰲ‬
‫ﺟﺬﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺠﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻤ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ؟ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﲤﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺻﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ‪ ، Logique‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﳊﺮﻑ ‪grammatique‬؟ ﺃﻡ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﹰﺎ ﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺃﺛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻟﺪﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﳛﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﳎﺎﻝ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ ‪ Phoné‬ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ‪ ،glossa‬ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ‬
‫‪ .logos‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﹼﺎﺭ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﻓﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﺎﺭ)ﻓﻤﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﲟﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﺎ ﲤﻨﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﻈﻢ(‪. 3‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ‪ Archi – écriture‬ﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺄﰐ‬
‫»ﺑﻌﺪ«)ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ(‪Charles Ramond, Derrida ,op cit,P. 1057. .‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.98‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺑﻴﲑ ﻑ‪ .‬ﺯﳝﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1996 ،1‬ﺹ‪.57‬‬
‫‪159‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-10‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ؟ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﲏ "ﺃﻳﻦ ﻭﻣﱴ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ؟" ﻭﺗﺄﰐ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺑﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻡ ﻣﺘ‪‬ﺴﺮﻋﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲡﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﻨﺪﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﺗﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺑﺪﺍﻫﺎﺕ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﺩﺍﺋﻤ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺑﺬﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻷﳕﺎﻁ ﻭﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻲ ﻟﺼﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﻨﻮﺍﻝ‪ :‬ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﻔﺪ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﳊﺮﺟﺔ ﰲ ﺑﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺎﺋﻊ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﺍﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪) ،‬ﻳﺴﺘﻌﲔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲟﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﺒﲔ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻦ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻷﲜﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳍﲑﻭﻏﻠﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻴﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻳﺘﺄﻫﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻟﻔﺮﺽ ﻫﻴﻤﻨﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺯﺍﺣﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺟﺎﺀ‪.‬ﻭﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻤﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺟﻠﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺆﺭﺧﲔ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﻧﻘﻮﺵ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺃﺛﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺠﻬﻮﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺭﺑﻂ ﺃﲝﺎﺛﻬﻢ ﺑﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪):‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﻛﺘﺐ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﺃﺧﻄﻮ ﳌﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳎﻬﻮﻝ ﱂ ﺃﺭﺍﻩ ﻗﻂ‪ (...)،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﳝﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﺰﻋﺰﻉ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭﻙ(‪.3‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪،،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.99‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.41‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪http://youtu.be/7h9BJkXylE،torj0man Co:‬‬
‫‪160‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳛﺘﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻻ ﺗﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻹﻃﺎﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻻﻥ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻮﻗﻊ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪(...)):‬ﻭﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺩ ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺪﺍﺛﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺪﺩ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺮﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺸﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺍﺭﲢﺎﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﺭﲰﻪ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺒﺜﻮﺙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﻘﻘﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ(‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﺓ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻠﺰﻣﻦ ﲟﺎ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ﻭﺷﻬﺮ ﻭﻳﻮﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺗﻠﻌﺒﻪ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻫﺎﺋﻞ ﻭﻻﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺧﺮﻗﹰﺎ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﺣﺰﺣﺔ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻪ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪)،‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.2‬‬
‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺇﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺟﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺴﻴﻂ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻤ‪‬ﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﳛﺮﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﲝﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻧﺸﺎﻁ‪) .‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ)‪ (...‬ﻧﻘﺶ ﻟﻺﻣﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﻣﻀﺎﺀ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‪.3‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﻠﺖ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺰﺍﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺍﳊﺬﺭ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻘﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﰊ ﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻜﺎﻙ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻀﺔ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻓﺎﺣﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻧﺰﻋﺔ ﻋﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﺪ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.21‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Antonin Wiser, L'espace du style: sur les trois versions d'Eperons(1973-1976-‬‬
‫‪1978)de jacques derrida, Genesis, OpenEdition journals,9mai2017, http//‬‬
‫‪journals OpenEdition.org/ genesis/1768.P147.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻫﻴﻮﺝ ﺳﻠﻔﺮﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﺼ‪‬ﻴ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻨﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﻧﺎﻇﻢ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.165 ،2002 ،1‬‬
‫‪161‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺗﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ)ﺗﻀﺨﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺰﺍﺯﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻳﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻄﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲢﺖ ﻛﺸﻂ ﻭﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻣﺸﻄﻮﺑﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺷﻄﺒﻬﺎ )ﻓﻄﺎﳌﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻏﲑ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺎﳌﺎ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻈﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺮﻭﺀﺓ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻳﺬﻛﺮﻩ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﺴﻤﻰ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺀﺓ ﻳﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻬﺎ ﰒ ﻳﺸﻄﺐ ﻋﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺳﻠﻮﺑﻪ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ )ﲢﺖ ﺍﻟﺸﻄﺐ( ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‬
‫‪- 11‬ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ‪ Ittérabilite :‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺒﻌﺜﺮ ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ‪ :‬ﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﻱ ﻧﺺ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭﻫﺎ ﺑﻼﻣﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇ‪‬ﻧﻤﺎ ﳛﺘﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﺿﻔﺎﺀ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﲢﻮﻳﻠﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﺘﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻼﻣﺘﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﲰﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻧﺎﺗﺞ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﺎﺽ ﺃﻭ ﺁﺕ ﳑﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻛﺜﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -12‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‪ ‬ﻧﺼ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳ‪‬ﺨﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻟﻌﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻧﺼ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﻈﻞ ﳝﻌﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻔﺎﺀ ﺃﺑﺪ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺗﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﳛﺘﻤﻴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺴﺮ‪ ‬ﺍﳌﻄﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﻤﺎ ﻭﺑﺒﺴﺎﻃﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺴﻠﻤﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻷﻱ‪‬‬
‫ﺷﻲﺀ ﳑﺎ ﲤﻜﻦ ﺩﻋﺘﻪ ﺑﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎ(‪.3‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﰐ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﻒ‪ ،،1995 ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺹ‪.212‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻓﻨﺴﺖ ﺏ‪.‬ﻟﻴﺘﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪. 294‬‬

‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.13‬‬

‫‪162‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﺯﺍﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﻲ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﳋﻔﺎﺀ ﻓﻴﺘﻌﺬﺭ ﺣﻞ ﺷﻔﺮﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﺮﻕ ﺧﻔﺎﺀﻫﺎ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﺎ ﻃﻮﻳﻼ ﻟﻨﺠﺪ ﺍﳋﻴﻂ ﺍﳌﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮﻳﺰ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﳋﻴﻂ ﺍﳌﻤﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺧﻴﻄﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﻌﻪ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺍﻹﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ‪ ،1(..،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﲢﻤﻞ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻳﺔ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮﻳﺰ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﻔﺘﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﲦﺔ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻟ ]ﻓﻌﻠﻲ[ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺑﺴﻬﻮﻟﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺸﲑ ﻗﻂ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻁ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﻓﻴﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺢ ﺇﻃﻼﻗﺎ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻒ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪-13‬ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ‪: Dissémination‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ)ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﺷﺮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﲏ ﻣﻘﺪﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ)‪(...‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺑﺬﻭﺭ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺗﺘﻮﺍﻟﺪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺜﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺜﺎﺭ )ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺗﻔﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﻣﻌﻪ ﲨﻌﻬﺎ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺴﻖ ﺣﱴ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻣﻌﲔ ﻓﻴﻤﻀﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﰲ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﻳﻀﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺻﺪﺭ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﱰﻉ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﺔ ﺃﻭﱃ‪ ،4 .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﲏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ)ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳜﺼﺒﻪ ﻭﻻ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.13‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.14‬‬
‫‪3‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﻨﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻮﳒﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪19‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﳝﺎﻥ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.12­11‬‬
‫‪163‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﻌﻠﻠﻪ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺑﻞ ﻳﺒﻌﺜﺮﻩ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ(‪،1‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺒﻘﻲ)ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﲏ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭﻩ(‪ ،2‬ﻭ)ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺘﺠﻬﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﲑ ﻭﺗﺮﺍﻛﻴﺐ ﻭﺗﺸﺒﻴﻬﺎﺕ ﻻ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ(‬
‫ﻭﳜﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﺘﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳜﺮﺝ ﺍﻷﺏ ﺍﻹﺑﻦ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺍﳌﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﺘﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‪.،4‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺮﺳﻢ ﻣﺎﻻ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺏ‪:‬‬
‫ﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ‪،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ )ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ ﺑﻌﲔ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫)‪ (...‬ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻭﺿﻌﻪ ﻛﻤﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺪﺍﻝ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﱄ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﳉﻮ ًﺀﺍ ﺃﺧﲑﺍ ﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻧﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ)‪ ،(...‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ )‪ (...‬ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺿﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﻗﻒ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺮﺍﻗﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ)‪ (...‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﺘﺖ )ﻫﻮ( ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺘﺮﻙ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﲢﺼﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ﲣﻔﻲ‪ -‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺇﺫﻥ ﰲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ )‪ (...‬ﻭﻻ ﺳﺘﺎﺭ‪ :‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺃﲰﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺧﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺳﺘﺎﺭ‪ /‬ﻻ ﺳﺘﺎﺭ(‪ .5‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ( ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ)ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻃﻤﺢ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺗﲔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺘﲔ ‪) Semen‬ﺍﻟﺒﺬﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﻄﻔﺔ( ‪ Séme‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ‪ (...)،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺸﺘﻴﺖ ﻣﻀﻄﻠﻊ ﺑﻪ ﺇﻧﻔﺎﻕ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺒﺬﻳﺮ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻧﺜﺮ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻨﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺬﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﻪ ﺍﶈﺾ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻟﻴﻄﻠﻊ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺬﺭﺍ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻟﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ "ﺗﺘﻴﻪ" ﻭﲡﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﱪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻛﻞﹼ‬
‫ﺣﺒﺔ ﺭﻣﻞﹼ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ(‪.6‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪،‬ﺻﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.23‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, La Dissémintion, Seuil, 1972, P.427.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﺎﺓ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2011 ،4‬ﺹ‪.111‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, La Dissémintion,op.cit.P.426.‬‬
‫‪5‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.99‬‬
‫‪ 6‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻀﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.12-11‬‬
‫‪164‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﺷﻚ ﺃﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻻﻟﺖ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪).‬ﻓﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻳﺸﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻳﺴﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻻ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻳﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺇﳕﺎ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﻭﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﻚ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ)‪(...‬ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺭﲪﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻮﺍﺩﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻛﻼ ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺎﺳﺎ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺟﺎﺀﺍ)‪ (...‬ﺃﺿﻒ ﺍﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ ـﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺧﺺ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ "ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻳﻚ ﺍﶈﺎﻟﻒ" ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ(‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﺳﻠﻔﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻪ ﻓﻬﻮ – ﰲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻣﺮﻩ‪ -‬ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﱂ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻨﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﺴﺎﺏ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, La Dissémintion,op.cit.P.426‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻯ ﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.22-23-21‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺗﻴﻤﻮﺛﻰ ﻛﻼﺭﻙ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.223‬‬

‫‪165‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‪:‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ؟‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‬
‫‪-3‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫‪ -6‬ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ))ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ((‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‪:‬‬

‫‪ -1‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ؟‬
‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻔﻜﻚ ﻧﺒﺪﺃ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺮﻏﺐ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ )ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴ‪‬ﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ(‪)،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻭﺝ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﺯﻭﺍﺝ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻺﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﻠﻘﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺗﱯ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﻘﻠﺐ ﺃﻭ )ﲞﻠﺒﻄﺔ( ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺈﻳﻀﺎﺣﻬﺎ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺎﺭﺉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺩﱐ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺗﻴﺐ)‪(...‬ﺗ‪‬ﻈﻬﺮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺗﱯ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳋﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻮﺍﻓﻘﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺟﺮﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻳﺘﻜﻮ‪‬ﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺩﺧﺎﻝ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺛﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻭﺝ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺯﻭﺍﺝ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﺟﺎﻋﻼﹰ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱂ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﺑﻘﻠﺐ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺗﻐﲑﻩ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﳔﻠﺺ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﳍﺎﻣﺶ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺎﺵ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺬﻛﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺎﻣﺢ‪،‬ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ‪...،‬ﺍﱁ(ﻭﻫﻲ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﲝﺚ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻮﳍﺎ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎ ﺑﻐﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺃﺳﺒﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﻴﻮﻓﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﰲ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻟﻸﲝﺎﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.217 ،2013‬‬
‫‪167‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-2‬ﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ (...)):‬ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺬ ﲟﺎ ﺗﻌﺘﺰﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻭﺿﻌﻨﺎ ﺛﻘﺘﻨﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻮﻡ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻠﻂ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳔﻄﺊ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻐﻠﻂ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺬﺑﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺃﻥ ﳕﺪﺡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﲟﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻛﺬﺑﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﺑﺄﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﻃﺔ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻧﻮﺻﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺧﺪﺍﻋﻬﻢ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻜﺬﺏ‪ .‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﺮﺡ ﺑﺄﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺃﺭﺍﺀ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺕ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺻﺤﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻨﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺫﺑﲔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻟﻌﺐ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻣﻬﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ‪‬ﺍ ﺣﻮﳍﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﻗﺼﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﻴﺾ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻔﻜﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ‪) :‬ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻭﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﲔ(‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺣﺴﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﲢﻴﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻌﻴﺸﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺑﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻘﺮﺃ ﻧﺺ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ )ﺃﻓﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻨﺎﻡ( ﻧﻘﺮﺃ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﳛﻤﻞ )ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻟﻨﺺ ﺳﺮﺩﻱ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﲟﻘﺘﻀﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺔ‪) :‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻖ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﺧﺮﺍﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﺮﺍﻓﺔ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﳋﺸﺒﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲟﻘﺪﻭﺭﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺲ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﻛﺄﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺍﻟﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﻭﻻ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ .2016 ،1‬ﺹ‪.16‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.11‬‬
‫‪168‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ)ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ(‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻳﺄﰐ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﰒ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﰒ )ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻴﻐﺴﱪﻏﻴﺔ‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺣﺒﺔ(‪،‬ﰒ ﻳﺴﻤﻊ ﺻﻴﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﲢﻞ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﺩﺗﺸﺘﻴﺔ(‪ 2‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﻧﻐﲑ ﺃﲰﺎﺀ ﻛﻞ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺪﻋﻮﺓ ﻃﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻃﻴﻒ )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﲔ(‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳒﺪﻩ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﲔ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ( ﲝﻴﺚ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪) :‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ( ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪) :‬ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﺉ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﻣﻊ )ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺑﻮﻟﺲ( ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ ﻟﻠﻜﺬﺏ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻹﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺇﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻌﺪ‪‬ﺍ ﺇﻳﺎﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺩﺧﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺘﺰﻝ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺄ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﻃﺎﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﻞ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺻﺪﻕ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻬﺎ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ‬
‫)ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﻮﺳﻌﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳔﻄﺊ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻐﻠﻂ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻄﻖ ﺑﻜﻼﻡ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ‬
‫ﻭ)ﺍﳋﻄﺄ( )‪ (Se tromper‬ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻮﺩﻭﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ‪Pseudos‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺼﺪﻕ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺭ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻭﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺮﻱ(‪.3‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺿﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺃﺳﺎﺳ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻘﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻓﻴﺸﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺇﱃ )ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻮﺩﻭﺱ( ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Pseudos‬ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ‪) :‬ﻓﺎﻷﻭﻝ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻲﺀ( ‪pragma Pseudos‬‬
‫‪ (ôs‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻝ)‪ (logos‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺬﹼﺍﺏ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻠﻚ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻴﻐﺴﱪﻏﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﱃ ﻛﻮﻧﻴﻐﺴﱪﻍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﺮﻭﺳﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.11‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.13‬‬
‫‪169‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻬﻮ ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﻳﺄﰐ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻗﺼﺪ(‪ 1‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻛﱪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻗﺼﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ )ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻮﺩﻭﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ( ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪،‬ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳒﺪ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﳛﻀﺮ ﰲ )ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ( ﻭﳛﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ)‪ (...‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﲢﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ(‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻮﺩﻭﺱ ﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄﻲ ﰲ ﺩﺭﻭﺳﻪ )‪ (1924-1923‬ﲢﺖ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺒﺴﻮﺩﻭﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ( ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻗﺼﲑﺓ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ)ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻭﻏﺴﻄﲔ ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻓﺘﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﻟﺮﺳﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺑ)ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ( ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻘﺮﺃﻫﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺼﺎﺩﻓﻨﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻳﻘﻴﻤﻪ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﲔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺘﻨﺎﻉ)ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻭﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﺘﺠﺪﺩﺓ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻗﺼﻮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻳﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺧﺪﺍﻋﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﱴ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻗﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺣﻘﹼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻨﻄﻖ ﺑﺄﻗﻮﺍﻝ ﺧﺎﻃﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺫﺑﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻗﻮﺍﻻﹰ ﺣﻘﹼﺔ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺫﺍﻙ ﻛﺎﺫﺑﲔ(‪ 3‬ﻓﺎﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﲔ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻖ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﻘﲔ‬
‫ﺑﺼﺪﻕ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﻪ ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﺛﺒﺖ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻫﻞ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺪﺍﻉ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﻳﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻛﺬﺑﺎﹰ؟ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﳚﺐ ﻓﻬﻢ ))ﺍﳋﻄﺄ((‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.14‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.15‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.17-16‬‬
‫‪170‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪ -Se tromper‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﲞﺼﻮﺑﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺳﻬﺎ‪ -‬ﺃﻛﺬﺑ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺃﻡ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺄ؟(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﹰﺎ ﻟﻠﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻠﻢ ﺑﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﺗﻮﻓﹼﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﺳﲑﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﳊﻨﺚ ﰲ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺩﻳﻜﺎﻟﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﰒ ﻳﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻋ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﳋﺪﻳﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﻟﻴﺲ ﻭﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﻹﻓﺘﺮﺍﺀ ﺃﺷﺪ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺧﻄﻮﺭﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻠﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻧﻮﻋ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺫﻯ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺭ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻛﺬﺏ ﺑﺮﻱﺀ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑ)ﺍﻟﺘﺨﻴﻼﺕ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺧﻔﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻣﻠﺰﻣﲔ ﺑﻘﻮﳍﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻀﺮ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻠﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺨﺪﺍﻋﻨﺎ ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻪ ﻛﺬﺏ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﺗﺄﺛﺮﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻣﺔ‪،Heiligkeit -‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ‪ ،2‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻣﻲ ﻭﻗﻄﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺑ)ﰲ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﻋﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻟﺪﻭﺍﻓﻊ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪ ،1797‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ‪ ):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ )ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ (ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺮﺣﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻣﻘﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳚﻮﺯ ﺗﻘﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ(‪.3‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.17‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﺹ‪.43‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﺩﻋﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﲪﻴﺪ ﻟﺸﻬﺐ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺣﻜﻤﺔ‪01:41 ،hekmah.org ،‬‬
‫ﺳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪171‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻣﻊ )ﺣﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﻧﺪﺕ( ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﳊﻜﻢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺗﺴﻌﻰ ﺣﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﻧﺪﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻟﻔﺖ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺷﻬﺪ ﲢﻮﻻﹰ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺟﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﱂ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻟﻴﺼﺒﺢ )ﻛﺎﻣﻼﹰ‬
‫‪‬ﺎﺋﻴ‪‬ﺎ( ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﻋﺼﺮﻧﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ(‪ .1‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﺠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺺ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺃﻭﺳﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻳﻠﺪ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ )ﺍﳓﻄﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ( ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﶈﺎﻣﲔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻔﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻬﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﳔﻔﺎﺽ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺗﻮﻗﻔﻮﺍ ﻋﻦ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ)ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻓﻦ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﺎﻧﲔ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﻃﻮﻥ ﻟﻸﺩﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﱪ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺪ ﻓﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﳚﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻬﺪﺩﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺍﺀ ﺍﳓﻄﺎﻁ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ(‪ .2‬ﻓﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ )ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﻔﺔ(‪ ،3‬ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺗﺮﺍﺑﻄﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻧﺘﺎﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻀﻴﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻨﺤﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﺍ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻃﺮﺣﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ‪ :‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻜﺬﺏ؟ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ؟ ﻓﻔﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ‬
‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﺬﺏ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﺬﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻧﺎﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﺍ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻠﻜﺬﺏ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳚﺐ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.38‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.39‬‬

‫‪172‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﻭﺍﳉﻬﻞ ﻭﺍﻷﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺒﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﺍﳌﻐﻠﻮﻁ ﺑﻞ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻗﺺ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺨﻠﻞ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﻌﺪ‪‬‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳍﻔﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﲡﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺬﺏ‬
‫ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﲤﺎﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻌﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﱪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻡ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﳊﺎﻕ ﺍﻷﺫﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺌﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻠﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﲝﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ)ﰲ ﺃﻓﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻨﺎﻡ( ﺑﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳋﻄﺄ(‪ 1‬ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ )ﻛﻮﺍﺭﻱ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺜﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﴰﻮﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥ )ﻛﻮﺍﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻖ ﻭﺭﺃﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺍﺏ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳛﺜﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﱡﺮ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ )ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ( ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﳍﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ )ﺍﳋﻄﺄ( ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ )ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ(‬
‫ﻭﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻻ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﺇﻟﺰﺍﻣﻴﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﳜﻪ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺳﺒﺒﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺭﻳﻒ ﻭﺗﺘﻌﺪﺩ ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎ ﺧﺎﺻﺎ ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﻗﺪﻣﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.79‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.88-87‬‬
‫‪173‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪ -3‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪:‬‬

‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ؟ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺢ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﳛﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﲑ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺮﳝﺔ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺒﺖ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺗﻨﺘﻬﻚ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ )ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ( ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﲔ‪)،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺿﺤﺎﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺇﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﺪﻧﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺗﻨﺘﻬﻚ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻷﺟﻞ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪) ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺑﻠﺪ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻐﲑﻫﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻨﲔ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﲔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺞ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﺸﺤﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﻣﻠﺘﺒﺴﺔ‪.‬ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ؟ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻧﺰﻋﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺑﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﻠﹼﻰ ﰲ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻋﺼﻴ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺮﺍﻭﻏﹰﺎ ﻭﳏﻴ‪‬ﺮﺍ ﻭﻣﺘﻼﻋﺒﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻟﻐﺎﻳﺎﺕ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺗﺼﺐ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺼﺐ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﲔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻻ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﳐﻄﻂ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺪﻟﻮﻻﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻓﻠﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻫﻴﺐ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﻄﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﺍ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﻔﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،2003 ،‬ﺹ‪.82‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﻴﻮﻓﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.26‬‬
‫‪174‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺻﺎﺭﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﶈﻠﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ(‪.1‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺣﺬﺭﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻭﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻟﻺﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻃﺎﺋﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﺠﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﺇﺭﻫﺎﺑﲔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﱐ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺻﺎﻣﺘﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻴﻜﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ‪‬ﺎﺟﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﻜﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺼﻒ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﱐ ﻓﲑﻭﺱ ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﺸﻮﻳﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﹸﻤﺖ ﺑﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﰊ‬
‫ﺿﺪﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ‬
‫ﳏﺪﺩﺓ)ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻃﺮﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻐﲑﺍﺕ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﺎﳘﺖ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻻ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻻ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻴﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﺮﻓﺔ ﻳﺴﻴﻄﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﲤﺎﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﻮﺍﻫﺎ(‪ 2‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﻘﺐ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ )ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ )ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ( ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻭﻋﻨﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺮﺏ ﻻ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﺿﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳊﺮﺏ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻋﻢ ﺍﳌﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻋﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺆﻭﻯ ﻟﻺﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.27‬‬

‫‪2‬ﻫﺸﺎﻡ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺃﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ :‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺟﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﺍﻷﻭﺳﻂ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،10262‬ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺎﺀ‬
‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪ 11‬ﺫﻭ ﺍﳊﺠﺔ ‪1427‬ﻩ ‪ 2‬ﻳﻨﺎﻳﺮ ‪ ،Cms.aawsat.com ،2007‬ﺳﺎ ‪37‬‬

‫‪175‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻄﻌ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﻋﺐ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺏ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﺿﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺘﺮﺧﻴﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﻢ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲪﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﻮﺀ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﲔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﺮﺩﱐ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﺎﻋﺪﱐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻴ‪‬ﺔ‬
‫)ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻡ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ ﻭﺍ‪‬ﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻷﻣﱪﻳﺎﱄ ﲟﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﻭﺍ‪‬ﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺑ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺪﻋﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺿﺤﻴﺔ ﳍﻢ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﰊ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺛﲑﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻞ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻣﻮﺕ ﻓﻘﻂ؟ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﰊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺘﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﺠﲑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻗﺘﻞ؟ ﻛﺄﻥ ﳒﻌﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﳝﻮﺗﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳉﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺮﺍﺽ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳕﺪﻫﻢ ﺑﺎﻷﺩﻭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺟﺰﺀًﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻟﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻋﻲ ﻭﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻻﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﺓ ﻣﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺘﺄﻧﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺔ؟‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺎﺭﻕ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻌﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺭﺳﺎﳍﺎ ﻟﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻛﻤﺜﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫)‪ (Rogue‬ﻣﺎﺭﻕ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﺮﻣﺪﻳﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﰐ ‪ Voyou‬ﻭ‪) Rogue‬ﻣﺎﺭﻕ( ﺳﻮﻑ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪90‬‬
‫‪176‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺗﺒﻘﻴﺎﻥ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺯﻭﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ(‪ .1‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ؟ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺪﺩ ﲟﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻋﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺪﺩ ﺑﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺫﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺄﰐ ﰲ ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ )ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫)ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﺰﻋﻢ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺨﺬ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻦ ﺣﺮﺏ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻇﺎﺋﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻃﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻼﻡ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲤﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﻟﻜﻲ ﺗﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﺎﻟﻒ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﳍﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺳﻴﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻃﻠﻴﻌﺔ "ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ"(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﻠﻎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ‪ -‬ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﻣﺎﺭﻗﺔ ‪-‬ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﻭﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﻋﺐ ﻓﻈﺎﻋﺔ ﻻ ﻣﺜﻴﻞ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﻮﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﻗﺎﻣﻮﺍ ﺑﺘﺤﻴﺚ ﻟﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻟﻮﺍ ﺑﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻟﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻦ )ﺩﻭﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﻗﺔ( ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺠﻪ )ﳓﻮﻯ ﺩﻭﻝ ﻣﻘﻠﻘﺔ(‪)،‬ﰲ ‪ 19‬ﺣﺰﻳﺮﺍﻥ ‪ 3(2000‬ﲟﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻝ ﺗﺜﲑ ﻗﻠﻘﺎ ﺩﻭﻝ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﻔﺖ ﺍﻧﺘﺒﺎﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺩﻯ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺈ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻔﺎﺀ‪) ،‬ﻓﻜﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺎﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻼﺡ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﻳﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺪﻋﻲ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻸﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﻳﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻳﺮﺍﻗﺒﻮﻥ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻹﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻞ ﺇﺭﻫﺎ‪‬ﻢ ﻳﺘﺨﺬ ﺷﻜﻼ ﻏﲑ ﺷﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ(‪.4‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ))ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ((؟‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﺴﺎﻡ ﺣﺠﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪ ،2003‬ﺹ‪.86‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ))ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ((؟‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.77‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.85‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻧﻮﺍﻡ ﺗﺸﻮﻣﺴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺳﻼﺡ ﺍﻻﻗﻮﻳﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﻟﺰﺭﻕ ﻭﳏﻤﺪ ﺍﳍﻼﱄ‪ ،‬ﺩﻓﺎﺗﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ‪ ،7‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪ ،2009‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪68‬‬
‫‪177‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪-4‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪:‬‬

‫ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪﻙ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳍﺠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻬﺪ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻳﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺎﺀ ‪11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪ ،2001‬ﻭﲤﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﰊ ﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻃﺎﺋﺮﺍﺕ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻣﺪﱐ ﲡﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺻﻮﺏ ﺑﺮﺝ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﲟﻨﻬﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﺘﺎﻏﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺮ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪.‬ﻟﺘﺼﻄﺪﻡ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻃﺎﺋﺮﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﳍﺪﻑ ﻭﺗﻔﺸﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻻﺷﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ "ﺣﺪﺛﺎ" ﻛﻬﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺇﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻭﺫﺍﻙ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺟﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺟﺬﺭﻳﺔ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﳉﻤﻴﻊ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﺃﺷﺪ‪ ‬ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺭﺳﻮﺧ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ)‪ (...‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ"ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﱘ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺎﺋﺪﻱ" ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺴﲎ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻴﻘﺎﻅ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻔﻜﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ(‪ .1‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻫﺠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﺎﻭﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﺧﻠﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺗﺼﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺻﺎﻣﺖ ﻭﺧﻔﻲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺠﻤﺎﺕ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﻭﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﺴﺒﻮﻕ‬
‫ﺣﺪﺙ ﺟﺮﻯ ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺅﻩ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺟﺮﻯ ﺻﻮﻏﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰎ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻭﺳﺎﻃﺔ ﺁﻟﺔ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺇﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺟﺒ‪‬ﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﻭﲢﻠﻴﻠﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﺙ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻭﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﹼﻞ ﺻﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﺎﳌﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﺛﹼﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪.‬‬
‫‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻻ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪ ،September eleventh‬ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ‬
‫)‪ ،(September eleventh, 9-11‬ﻻ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻣﻦ ﲦﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺇﱃ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﻼﻏﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﱪﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻛﻨﺎﻳﺔ ‪-‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺇﺳﻢ ﻭﺭﻗﻢ‪ -‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.78-77‬‬
‫‪178‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻒ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺮ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻑ‪ :‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻧﺪﺭﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﺼﻒ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﺪﺭﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻨﻪ(‪.1‬‬
‫)‪ ،(September eleventh, 9-11‬ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﺮﺭ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﻠﻨﺎ ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﻃﺮﺩﻧﺎ ﻟﻠﺸﺮ ﻣﺮﺗﲔ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻷﻭﱃ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺗﻌﻮﻳﺬﺓ‬
‫ﻧﻄﺮﺩ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳉﺰﻉ ﻭﺍﳍﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺧﻠﹼﻔﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﰲ ﻧﻔﻮﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﺤﻴﺔ ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻢ‬
‫ﰲ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺑﻪ ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻜﺮﺭ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻋﺎﺟﺰﻳﻦ ﺃﻭﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺎﺟﺰﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻪ‪.،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪) :‬ﻋﻠﻴﻜﻢ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺮﺩﺩﻭﺍ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ‪11 ،‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،September eleventh،‬ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻧﻜﻢ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺛﻮﻥ ﻋﻨﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﱂ ﺗﻔﻜﺮﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺗﺪﻋﻮﻧﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﻢ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ )‪ ،(Major event‬ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻳﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻱ‪ -‬ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻳﻌﱪ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻳﻔﺮﺽ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻗﻮﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺭﺃﲰﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ)ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻣﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ "ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ"‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ)ﻣﺎ ﳛﺪﺙ(ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﻋﻨﻪ )"ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮﻱ" ﻭ"ﺍﶈﻜﻮﻡ ﻣﻌﺎ"ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﳑﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻴﻪ ﺃﻭ ﳑﺎ ﳜﻠﻘﻪ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻨﻘﻞ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﰎ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻪ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ :‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺔ ﺃﻋﻄﺘﻪ ﺷﻜﻠﻪ ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺇﻻﹼ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺁﻟﺔ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ )ﻟﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺻﻮﺭ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﺇﻋﻼﻡ ﺍﱁ‪(...)،‬ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺑﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺗﻘﲏ ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ(‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.53‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.55‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.57‬‬
‫‪179‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺃﻥ ﳝﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﲔ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﻘﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻨﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﺰﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻫﻴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﺿﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻨﻴﻊ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ" ﺣﺪﺙ" ﻻ ﻳﻨﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﺘﻠﺨﺺ ﰲ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰎﹼ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺟﻌﻠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻫﻮ "ﺣﺪﺙ ﻋﻈﻴﻢ" ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻔﻜﻚ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻓﺠﺄﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﺎﻏﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﺶ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺃﺻﻠﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻓﻬﻢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺯﻳﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻘﻮﱄ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻳﻜﻤﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﰲ ﺃﻻﹼ ﺃﻓﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﻻ ﺃﻓﻬﻢ ﻭﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﻻ ﺃﻓﻬﻢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻭﱄ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻧﲏ ﻻ ﺃﻓﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻓﻬﻤﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻭﻃﺮﻳﻘﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﺴﻬﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺑﻪ‪ ).‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻈﻞ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﻨﻔﺘﺤﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺮﺍﻭﻏﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺟﺄﺓ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲤﺘﻨﻊ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﺄ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﳍﺎ ﻣﺜﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻔﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺃﻱ ﺃﻓﻖ ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻻ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻟﻪ؟ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺒﺆ ﺑﻪ؟ ﺣﺪﺛﹰﺎ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﻧﺐ؟ ﻫﻮ ﻫﺠﻮﻡ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺣﺴﺎﺳﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﳍﺠﻮﻡ ﺇﺭﻫﺎﰊ‪ ،‬ﺃﻻ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺟﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺸﻌﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟ ‪ CIA‬ﻭ ﺍﻟ‪.FBA‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻠﻮ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﱪﺟﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺃﻡ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳍﺠﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﺎﻳﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ‪ ‬ﺣﺪﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ )ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺯﻭﺍﻳﺎ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﺤﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩﺓ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.60‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪60‬‬
‫‪180‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺣﱴ ﻗﺒﻞ" ‪‬ﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ"‪ ،‬ﺣﲔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺗﺪﻋﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻼﺡ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺐ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻹﲢﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻓﻴﱵ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﻮﺍ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺀﻫﺎ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﱂ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺃﻓﻐﺎﻧﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺃﺳﻮﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩﺓ ﻓﺎﻹﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﻤﻰ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻭﻗﻊ ﰲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻓﺨﺎﻃﻔﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺋﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻬﺎﺟﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﳌﺪﺭﺑﲔ ﻭﺍﳌﺆﻫﻠﲔ ﻟﻠﻘﻴﺎﻡ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻳﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺆﻻﺀ ﺍﳋﺎﻃﻔﻮﻥ ﻳﺪﳎﻮﻥ ﺍﳒﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭﻳﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﺤﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻈﺎﻓﻮﻫﻢ ﻭﺩﺭﺑﻮﻫﻢ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻻﹼ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻬﺪﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺳﻠﻔﺎ ﻭﻋﺰﺯﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﻯ "ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻫﻀﲔ" ﳍﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻬﺎ ﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ "ﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻻﺩﻥ" ﺇﻻ ﳑﺜﻠﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺬ)‪.2((...‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻬﺪﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺎﺥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻱ ﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻗﻮﻯ ‪‬ﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻛﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺣﺪﺍ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﻬﻴﺰ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﻣﺮﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﳊﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﱏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ‪.‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﺪﺍﺀ ﻣﺲ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﲔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ )ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﺻﻤﺔ)ﺃﻱ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺃﺻﺎﺏ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺘﺎﺟﻮﻥ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟ ‪ capitole‬ﻣﻘﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﳒﺮﺱ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ(‪.3‬ﻓﻤﺸﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺩﻣﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱪﺟﲔ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﺍﳌﺬﻫﻞ ﻵﻻﻑ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻷﻻﻡ ﻏﲑ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.64‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.69-68‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.70‬‬
‫‪181‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍ‪‬ﻴﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺟﻲ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻲ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺭﺕ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫‪-5‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌ‪‬ﺬﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻴﻮﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻨﺤﲎ ﻣﺘﺴﺎﺭﻋ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺬ ﺃﻋﻮﺍﻡ ﻋﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﺮﻯ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲨﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺣﺮﻓﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳑﺜﻠﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﻨﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻜﹼﺎﻡ ﻭﺭﺅﺳﺎﺀ ﺩﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻳﻄﻠﺒﻮﻥ )ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ(‪ .‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻜﻼﻡ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻤﻲ ‪.2(Abrahamique‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺳﺆﺍﻟﲔ ﻣﻬﻤﲔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﺮﺣﻬﻤﺎ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ؟ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ؟ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﻟﻐﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻹﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻟﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ‪‬ﺍ ﻟﻶﳍﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺸﺮﺓ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻔﻮ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻥ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻵﳍﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻐﻀﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻌﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻘﺎﺏ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻵﳍﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺫﺭﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﻜﺐ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮ‪‬ﺍﻑ ﻻ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﲔ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺩﺍ ﺃﻭ ﲨﺎﻋﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻔﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻧﺒﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻗﻬﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﺪﻣﺎﺟﻬﻢ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻤﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ)ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ(‪) ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻌﻔﻮ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳ‪‬ﻜﹼﻔﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻌﻼ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﺍﳌﻨﺸﻮﺩ؟ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻞ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ))ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ((؟‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.80‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺟﻴﻮﻓﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪.220 ،‬‬
‫‪182‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻔﻮ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﻋﻨﻪ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻻﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻣﺴﺎﻙ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺭ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ))ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ((‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﻴﺪﺓ ﺯﻭﺟﲔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﲔ ﻭﳘﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺗﺸﻜﻼﹰ ﻃﺒﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﻘﺪ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﳘﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﻋﺠﻮﺯ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻓﻜﺮ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺴﻮﺩ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﳑﺎ ﻣﻀﻰ(‪ ،2‬ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﶈﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ)ﻋﲔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺎﺕ(‪ ،3‬ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﳓﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ‬
‫‪‬ﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎ؟ ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﳕﺜﻞ؟ ﻭﻣﻦ ﳕﺜﻞ؟ ﻭﻫﻞ ﳓﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻦ ﻣ‪‬ﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ؟)‪(...‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲤﺜﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ؟ ﻭﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﳌﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻔﻈﱵ ))ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ(( ﻭ))ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ((‪ 4‬ﻓﺎﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺻﻄﻨﺎﻉ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻧﻮﻋ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﺎﺋﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺨﻠﻔﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻮﻝ ﻫﻲ ﺧﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻪ ﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻲ)ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫)ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺎﺕ‪ (1789‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺗﻜﻤﻠﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻪ )ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ(‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻭﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻓﺔ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺻﻄﻨﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺛﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺐ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﺬﺍﻫﺐ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﲤﻠﻚ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺷﺮﻋﻲ ﺗﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.222‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2010 ،1‬ﺹ‪.452‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺃﻟﻘﻴﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﶈﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪ ،1980‬ﲜﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻛﻠﻮﻣﺒﻴﺎ )ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ( ﺍﺣﺘﻔﺎﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﳌﺌﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﰎ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰎ ﻧﺸﺮﻫﺎ ﺿﻤﻦ ‪helosopie,‬‬
‫)‪ ،Pno.(avril 1984‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.435‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.435‬‬
‫‪183‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺃﻟﻘﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺃﻟﻘﺎﺏ ﲣﻠﻘﻬﺎ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻠﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻼﺹ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻩ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻋﺎﻳﺸﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﻈﲑ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﻘﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﻚ ﺑﺮﻭﺳﻴﺎ" ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺭﻳﻚ‬
‫ﻏﻴﻮﻡ" ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻧﺒﻪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺊ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻭﺗﺸﻮﻳﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ" ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ"(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺎ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﱪﻳﺮ ﻋﻘﻠﻲ ﻟﺘﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻭﰎ ﺇﻗﺮﺍﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﻓﺎﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺗﻌﻴﺶ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺧﺎﺿﻊ ﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﲔ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﳘﺎ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺳﻔﻠﻰ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ‬
‫ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ ﺑﺼﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﰲ‬
‫ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﺪ ﺳﻌﻰ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ ﺑﲔ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﲢﻮﻱ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﺘﺼﺎﺭﻋﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﺎﻹﺣﺘﻔﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﺎﻡ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺫﻛﺮﻯ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ‬
‫))ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ(( ﰲ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﳕﻠﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺣﺎﻃﺔ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ):‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ﻗﺮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﺳﺴﺖ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻛﻮﻟﻮﻣﺒﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﲟﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﶈﺪﺩﺓ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺿﻤﻦ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺃﻛﺴﻴﻮﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﰲ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻩ(‪.2‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺺ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻔﻜﻜﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻧﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪14 ،‬‬
‫ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ ،2018-11-19 ،،2016 ،‬ﺳﺎ‪http//poste2modernisme.blogspot. com.9:30 :‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.444‬‬
‫‪184‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬

‫ﳍﺬﺍ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺎﻟﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ‪.‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺑﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ )ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺎﻣﻌﻲ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺓ ﰲ ﺯﻣﻨﻨﺎ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻭﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺇﱃ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﻛﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻨﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺆﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﳝﺲ ﻛﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺣﺮﺟﺔ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.448‬‬
‫‪185‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﲡﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻑ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬

‫‪-1‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪:‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻭﻟﺔ ﳒﺪﺍ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﺮﺍﺩﻑ ﻣﻌﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻛﻤﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻢ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻹﺷﺘﻘﺎﻗﻲ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻔﺮ‪‬ﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﻢ‪ corps 1‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ ‪ corpus‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻪ ﺣﻔﻆ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﺎﺋﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﳊﻲ‪.2‬ﻭﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪) :3‬ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻸﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻭﻭﺿﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺷﻐﻠﻪ ﻣﻨﻊ ﻏﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﻓﻴﻪ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﻪ(‪ 4‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺳﻮﺍﺀً ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ(‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Corps: ce mot est issu du latin corpus, corporis «parties matérielle des être‬‬
‫‪animés»,«individu»,«cadaver» et «corporation»(cf.roum. corp, it.corpo,‬‬
‫‪occit,cors et corpora, cat, cos, esp. cuerpo, port.(...)correspondant du grec soma‬‬
‫‪(soma, somato-, -some). La famille latine a donné au français corporal. corporel,‬‬
‫‪corpuscule, corpulent, incorporer et corporation (par l'angl) ainsi que les‬‬
‫‪latinismes corpus et habeas corpus. Ainsi que les latinismes corpus et habeas‬‬
‫‪corpus. (...)voir: Paul Robert, Le nouveau Petit Robert ,Dictionnaires Le Robert,‬‬
‫‪paris, 2004, P555.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacqueline Russe, dictionnaire de la philosophie,Bordas, 2004,P80.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻠﻲ‪ :‬ﻟﻄﺎﳌﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻆﹸ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﻱ ﻟﻠﺪ‪‬ﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫)ﺃ( ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻱ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ )ﺏ(ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻳﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﻮ‪‬ﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺸﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺬﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﲪﺪ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻮﻳﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2001 ،2‬ﺹ‪.1314‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﺾ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺯﺍﺩ ﰲ ﻃﻮﻟﻪ ﻭﻋﺮﺿﻪ ﻭﻋﻤﻘﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ‪ :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻭﺃﹶﺟ‪‬ﺴﻢ ُ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﲡﻲﺀ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺇﺳﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺇﻻ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﳌﺎ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺇﲰﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻻ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻗﺪﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑﻩ ﺇﻻ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻟﻪ ﺃﺟﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻗﻮﳍﻢ‪ :‬ﺃﻡ ﺟﺴﻴﻢ ﻓﻤﺠﺎﺯ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﳉﺎﺯ ﰲ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﻓﻘﻴﻞ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺟﺴﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﳐﺼﻮﺹ ﻓﻬﻮ ﳎﺎﺯ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪:‬ﺃﰊ ﺍﳍﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺢ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺩ ﻁ‪ ،1997،‬ﺹ ‪..158‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،2004 ،‬ﺹ‪.135‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﳎﺪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ، ،2012 1‬ﺹ‪.548‬‬

‫‪188‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪)1Chair‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻻ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻟﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺟﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺑﲔ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻭﺭﻭﺡ(‪ 2‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻋﱪﺕ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻻﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪ Leib‬ﻟﻴﺐ)ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻢ( ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﺎﻷﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻔﻆ ‪ -körper‬ﻛﻮﺭﺑﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Leib‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﳓﻦ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ /‬ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺮﻳﺢ)‪ (...‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺴﻴﻔﺴﺎﺀ ﻭﻻ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺪﺩ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺫﻭﺍﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ‪) :‬ﻣﺎ ﻋﻼ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﺪ‪‬ﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﺒﺲ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺭ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺓ ﺑ‪‬ﺪ‪‬ﻥ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﺟﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺎﻫﺪ‪ :‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﳌﻦ ﻗﻄﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻃﺮﺍﻓﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﻄﻊ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ‪ :‬ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺪﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻗﻴﻞ‪ :‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻹﲰﺎﻥ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺗﻘﺎﺭﺑﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳌﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺃﻏﻠﻈﻪ ﻗﻴﻞ ﳌﻦ ﻏﻠﹸﻆ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻤﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺑ‪‬ﺪﻥ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ ﺍﻹﺑﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻤﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺤﺮ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻛﺜﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﲰﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺨﺬ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺤﺮ ﺑﺪ‪‬ﻧﺔ ﲰﻴﻨﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻬﺰﻭﻟﺔ(‪.4‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﻨﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪ :‬ﺟﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ :‬ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻐﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﻐﺘﺬﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻐﲑ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺍﳉﹶﺴﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ :‬ﲡﺴ‪‬ﺪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪ :‬ﲡﺴ‪‬ﻢ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﰊ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﻞ ﲨﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻜﺮﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﻨﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺻﺎﺩﺭ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ‪ ،3‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،1968 ،‬ﺹ‪.120‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.549‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﲰﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺪﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪ ،2009 ،‬ﺹ‪.19-12‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺃﰊ ﺍﳍﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ‪.159‬‬

‫‪189‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺷﻐﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻦ ﳝﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺪﺩ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻇﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻋﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﺻﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻋﺮﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻭﻟﺖ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﺟﺎﻧﺒ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﺒﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻭﻩ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﺳ‪‬ﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﱴ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﻮﻣﲑﻭﺱ )ﰲ ﻗﺼﺎﺋﺪﻩ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻼﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻠﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺍﻡ ﻟﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﺓ)‪(...‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ sôma‬ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ)‪ ، 1((...‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﻓﺎﺣﺘﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻄﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻋﺘﱪﻩ ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺗﺸﻮﻳﺶ ﻭﻋﻤﺎﺀ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﺼﺔ‪).‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪ ﻓﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﻌﺎﱂ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ)ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺒﺜﻖ ﻭﺗﺘﻨﺎﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﳏﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﻣﺘﺠﻠﻲ(‪ ،3‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻣﺞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.1867-1866‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ‪ ،1‬ﺹ‪.553‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺩﺍﻓﻴﺪ ﻟﻮ ﺑﺮﻭﺗﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺳﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ‪ :‬ﻋﻴﺎﺩ ﺃﺑﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﺭﻳﺲ ﺍﶈﻤﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2014 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.16‬‬
‫‪190‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫‪-2‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻋﺮﻑ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻴﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳐﺎﻟﻔﹰﺎ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺮﻓﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﻧﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻴﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻨﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﺫﺍﺗﲔ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺘﲔ ﺗﻘﺎﻋﺎﻥ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻭﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻛﻞ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻏﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻬﺎ ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻟﺬﻭﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻧﻔﺴ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﺟﺴﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺠﺴﺪﻱ ﻭﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻣﻌﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻗﺪ ﰎﹼ ﺍﻏﻔﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺰﻋﻤﻪ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫﻩ ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺰ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﺴﺪﺍﹰ ﻣﻦ )ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻱ ﻟﻠﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ )ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ(‪ )،‬ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﶈﺾ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻐﻠﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺎﻳﺚ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻳﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻳﻌﻴﺪ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﲏ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﺿﻬﻢ ﺍﻷﺻﻴﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻷﺣﺴﺎﺱ)‪(...‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻛﺤﻞ ﻟﻠﻐﺰ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ)‪.2(...‬‬
‫ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻐﺰ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﳚﻌﻠﲏ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ‬
‫ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻨﲏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻋﲏ ﻛﺬﺍﺕ ﻻﻣﺴﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﳌﺴﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺃﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺸﻚ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻶﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻨﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﲤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﻟﻺﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻟﻸﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Evelyne Buissiére, Cour sur corps, Philosophie, cour soumis à‬‬
‫‪copyright,Septembre, 2008, P260.‬‬
‫‪191‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﳝﻴﺰ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺍﳊﻲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﶈﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﺑﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺮ‪‬ﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻓﻖ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﳒﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺠﺴﺪﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻛﻐﲑﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﲟﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻐﲑ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ )ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ(‪ 1‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﺮﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺧﺎﺭﺟﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﲡﺮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ (...)):‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﰊ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺿﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﺪﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﺃﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻋﻴ‪‬ﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﰲ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻼﰐ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ(‪ .2‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ ‪ :‬ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﻄﺮﻳﻦ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﻏﻢ‬
‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳓﺖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺮﻑ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺎﹰ ﻭﻣﺎﺭﺱ ﺗﺄﺛﲑﺍﹰ ﻛﺒﲑﺍﹰ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺟ‪‬ﻪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ ﺑﺪﺃ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ )ﻋﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ( ﺑﺴﺐ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺰﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺃ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ )ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ( ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻓﻖ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺈﳒﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲡﺮﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻄﻰ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺧﺎﺭﺟﻪ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻳﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻛﻞ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺘﻨﺎ ﲡﺮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺪﺍﻫﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺘﻪ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﺘﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ ﰲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﺩﻣﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ‪ :‬ﺍﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪.2008 ،‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪170‬‬
‫‪192‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻣﺜﹼﻠﺖ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪ )ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻔﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﻟﻠﻔﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ(‪.1‬‬
‫)ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻛﻠﻤﱵ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‪ La chair‬ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ‪ ،Le corps‬ﳑﻴ‪‬ﺰﺍ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﳊﻀﺎﺕ ﻭﺟﺎﻋﻼ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ (...)،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﺤﻢ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻓﻴﺰﻭﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،(...)،‬ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻧﺪﻏﺎﻡ ﺑﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ (...)،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺀًﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻳﺼﲑ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻭﻳﺮﻯ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻣﺮﺋﻲ(‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻋﻄﻰ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﺍ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎﹰ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻓﹰﺎ ﻟﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ)ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﳛﺎﻭﻝ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺇﺫﻻﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﰲ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻘﻮﳝﻪ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﺍﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻨﺪ ﻟﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﹰ‬
‫ﺍﳚﺎﺑﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺿﻌﺎ(‪ ،3‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻋﺘﱪﻩ‬
‫ﺫﻫﻦ ﻛﺒﲑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺘﺄﺛﲑ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻭﺭﻭﺡ ﻣﻌﺎﹰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﺎﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻬﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻱ)‪(...‬ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺍ ﻭﺟﺴﺪﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﺴﻨﺎ ﻭﻋﻴﺎﹰ ﻗﺒﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﻞ ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮ ﻣﺘﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ)‪ .(...‬ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﻬﻞ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ( ‪.4‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳊﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﻭﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻭﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﻭﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻭﻳﺘﺄﻟﹼﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺋﻊ ﺍﳌﺘﺪﺍﻭﻝ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﺬﺍﺕ ‪ Corps Propre‬ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻤﻮﺿﻮﻉ ‪ ،Corps Objectif‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺎﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﻧﺎﻇﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪ .‬ﻳﻠﻤﺲ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Merleau ponty, le visible et l'invisible,coll tel, Gallimard, 1964, 1990, p183.‬‬
‫‪2‬هﺷﺎﻡ ﻣﺒﺸﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻓﻀﺎﺀ ﻟﻠﺘﺨﻔﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺘﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،2015،‬ﺹ‪.3‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﲨﺎﻝ ﻣﻔﺮﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 ،1‬ﺹ‪.80‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﲰﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺪﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.19‬‬
‫‪193‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﳛﻮﻱ ﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻪ ﻭﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﺷﻬﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﺘﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪):‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺰ ﻳﻨﺤﺼﺮ ﰲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺟﺴﻤﻲ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺭﺍﺀ ﻭﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﺍﳉﺎﺏ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ( ﻣﻦ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻴﺔ(‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ (...)):‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺟﺴﻤﻨﺎ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﺻﻼﹰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺟﺴﻢ ﰲ ﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )‪(In-itself‬ﺟﺴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﺇﻋﻄﺎﺅﻩ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺣﺴﻲ ﳎﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﻣﻌﲔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﻣﻌﲔ)‪.2((...‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﺖ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺪﺭﺝ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ‪‬ﻡ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻄﻪ ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺭﺋﻴﺲ ﻭﺃﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺷﻢ ﻭﻧﻘﺶ ﻭﺃﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻪ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻱ ﻧﺺ ﻣﻜﺘﻮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻧﺺ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﺄﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ‬
‫ﲢﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﳎﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﺄﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴ‪‬ﺮﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺳﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻀﺎﺀ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻭﻳﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﺄﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻨﺎ ﳊﻮﺍﺳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺣﻮﺍﺳﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﳕﻠﻚ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻳﺎﺩﻱ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺬﻭﺍﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺪﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﺹ‪.18‬‬ ‫‪ 1‬ﻣﲑﻟﻮ ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻭﱐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﺄﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩ ﻁ‪ ،‬ﺩ ﺱ ﻥ‪،‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﲬﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﺗﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﺘﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ .2008 ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.77‬‬
‫‪194‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺤﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻗﺺ ﺗﻌﺒﲑﺍﹰ ﻋﻦ ﲡﻠﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﲡﺮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ؟‬
‫ﻭﳌﺬﺍ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ؟‬
‫ﻭﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ؟‬
‫‪-3‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺸﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺃﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﳝﺘﻠﻜﻮﻥ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﺍ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﻤﺜﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻳﺼﺎﳍﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻔﺮﺝ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ )ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ(‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﲟﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺒﲑﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻛﺢ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ )ﻓﺤﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻓﻄﺮﻳﺎ ﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺸ‪‬ﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺣﻲ ﺑﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﺗﻠﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﻥ ﲞﻄﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﱪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻓﺎﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﻋﻪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺁﻻﻣﻪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻏﻀﺒﻪ ﻭﺃﻓﺮﺍﺣﻪ ﻭﺍﺿﻄﺮﺍﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﳐﺎﻭﻓﻪ ﻭﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻌﱪﺓ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻄﺮﺣﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺎﻥ(‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ‪):‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﲣﺘﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺗﺮﻣﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻗﺼﺎﳘﺎ ﺍﱃ ﺃﻗﺼﺎﳘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻨﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻂ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﺮﻳﺲ ﻟﻠﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﻮﻱ ﻭﺇﻋﻼﺀ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﳌﻠﻔﻮﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺸﻜﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺣﻨﺘﻮﺵ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺿﻮﺍﻥ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2016 ،1‬ﺹ‪.25‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2000 ،2‬ﺹ‪.76‬‬
‫‪195‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﹸﺪﺧ‪‬ﻠﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﳘﻴﺘ‪‬ﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺇﻻﹼ ﺑﺘﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻭﻣﺮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﻭﺧﺪﻣﺔ ﻭﺗﺰﻳﻦ ﻧﺺ‪ ‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﻟﻔﻈﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻮﻏﻮﺱ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺩﺉ ﺫﻱ ﺑﺪﺀ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﳌﺎﺫﺍ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ؟‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺃ ﺭﺗﻮ ﳊﻈﺔ ﻣﻔﺼﻠﻴﺔ )ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻻﻫﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﻌﺎﻣ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﳌﺴ‪‬ﺮﺡ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻄﺮﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﲞﺎﺻﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻳﻄﻞ ﺑﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺮﻣﻴﻤﻪ ﰲ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻌﺎﹰ‬
‫ﻓﺄﺭﺗﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻫﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻣﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺣﺮ ﻻ ﺗﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ‪.‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﲢﺮ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻟﻌﺸ‪‬ﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺍﳒﺎﺯ ﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ ﻗﺪﳝﺔ‪ :‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ(‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺮﻣﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻗﺎ ﳍﻤﺎ‪) ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﰊ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻭﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻻﺩ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺒﻌﺎﺙ ﻟﻮﻻﺩﺓ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﳜﻠﺼﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺣﻮﺍﺱ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻻﺟﺴﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﻞ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﺃﺻﻮﺍﺗﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺻﺮﺍﺧﺎﹰ)‪(...‬ﻫﻮ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺻﻠﺒﺔ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ)‪(...‬ﻟﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﻜﻮﺗﺔ ﺑﺸﻬﻮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻻ ﺗﻌﻠﹼﻢ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺐ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻌﻠﹼﻢ ﺍﳊﺎﺳﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻠﺤﻤﻬﺎ ﻭﻏﺸﺎﺀﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺗﻌﺶ ﻭﺷﺮﺍﻳﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺗ‪‬ﺮﺓ)‪(...‬ﺩﻭ‪‬ﺍﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺒﺘﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﻈﻠﻤﺎﺕ(‪ . 3‬ﳜﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ‪ 4‬ﻟﻴﻌﻄﻲ ﳕﻮﺫﺟﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﻠﻮﺏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺮﻗﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.80‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻴﺨﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﲢﺮﻳﺮ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ‪ :‬ﳌﺴﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2014 ،1‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.84‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.81‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺃﻧﻄﻮﻧﲔ ﺁﺭﺗﻮ‪ ، (1948-1896) :‬ﳐﺮﺝ ﻭﻣﻈﺮ ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺴﻴﻨﻜﺎ ﻭﺷﻜﺴﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻣﺜﻞ " ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﺩﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﲤﻴﺰ ﺁﺭﺗﻮ ﺑﺘﻨﻈﲑﺍﺗﻪ ﻓﻜﺘﺐ )ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻭﻗﺮﻳﻨﻪ(‪.1938‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺣﻨﺘﻮﺵ‬
‫ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.58‬‬
‫‪196‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻴﻒ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻳﺮﻓﻊ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ ﰲ ﻭﺟﻮﻫﻨﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻐﺰ‪‬ﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻨﻼﺣﻘﻪ ﻫﻨﺎ(‪ 1‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺴﻮﺓ ﺳﺘﻐﺪﻭ ﻛﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﺻﺮﺍﻣﺔ‪).‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺮﺽ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻷﻥ ﳛﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎ ﻭﻻ ﻋﻤﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻃﺎﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ(‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﲑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﻣﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺷﺪﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺴﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺩﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻴﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﲢﻞ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﳏﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺳﻨﺤﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺮﺧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺿﻮﺍﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺼﻮ‪‬ﺗﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻣﺎ ﺳﻴﺤﺪﺙ ﳍﺬﺍ)ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ(؟ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ؟ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻟﻦ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﲢﺘﻞ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻴ‪‬ﻖ‪ ،‬ﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺳﺘﻐﻄﻲ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺣﻘﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ :‬ﻻ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺻﻮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻫﲑﻭﻏﻠﻴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﻮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺑﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻴﺔ(‪ 3‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻭﺗﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺸﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ‪) :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻧﺪﻋﻮ ﺟﺴﻤﺎ؟ ﻧﺪﻋﻮ ﺟﺴﻤﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺟﺴﺪ‪ /‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻉ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﻰ؟)‪ (...‬ﺃﻓﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺟﺴﺪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ(‪ ،4‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻏﲑ ﳏﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺴ‪‬ﺎﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻠﻤﻮﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺃﺭﺗﻮ ﺑﺈﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺹ ‪.77‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.98‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.87‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،،‬ﺹ‪.47-46‬‬
‫‪197‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ "ﺍﳌﻀﺎﻋﻒ")ﻭﻳﻨﻘﻞ ﺁﺭﺗﻮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﻋﻒ ﺇﱃ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎ‪‬ﺔ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺑﻄﺎﻧﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻀﺎﻋﻒ ﻫﻮ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﳎﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻘﻞ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺤﻄﻴﻢ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻤﺜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺨﻄﻂ ﻛﺸﺒﻜﺔ ﻗﻮﻯ ﻳﺘﺄﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﻠﺔ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻼﻫﺘﺰﺍﺯ)‪((....‬‬
‫)ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﺎﻭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻭﻓﺴﺢ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﳊﻤﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳊﻤﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺸﻬﻮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ)‪(...‬ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺗﻐﻴﺐ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﲢﻀﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﺻﻮﻻﹰ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﳚﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﰲ ﻗﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﺿﻌﻔﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺸﺎﺷﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﰲ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳛﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪.‬ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﺎﻭﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﺍﳊﺎﺳ‪‬ﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻨﻔﻮﺍ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﺴﺮﺡ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﳎﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﺫﻭﺍﺗﻨﺎ ﻭﻧﻔﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫‪-4‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻟﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻓﻮﻗﻪ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺷﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ)‪ (...‬ﻧﻘﺶ ﻟﻺﻣﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻣﻀﺎﺀ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﱃ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‪.3‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﺫﺍﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺟﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﱂ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫)ﻓﻌﻨﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﲏ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.48‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻴﺨﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.88-85‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻫﻴﻮﺝ ﺳﻠﻔﺮﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﺼ‪‬ﻴ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻨﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﻧﺎﻇﻢ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.165 ،2002 ،1‬‬
‫‪198‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﺪﻋﻮ ﻭﺑﺴﺮﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻳﻘﲔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﺘﺄﺛﺮﺍﹰ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻹﻏﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻏﺘﺮﺍﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﻠﻜﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ ﻭﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻬﺎ ﻷﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﺩ ﲣﺼﻴﺼﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻻﺑﺪ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﲢﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﳏﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺟﺴﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻄﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻻﹰ ﺟﺴﺪﻳﺎﹰ‪) :‬ﻓﺎﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻖ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻮﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺟﺎﹰ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺎﹰ)‪(...‬ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﻌﻘﺪ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻹﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺳﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺑﺪﻳﻼ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺎﹰ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻮﺍﱐ ﻭﺗﺄﺷﲑﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺪﺩ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﻌﻄﻴﻪ ﻧﺸﻮﺗﻪ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺄﺳﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳒﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻳﺪﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻴﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﳊﻤﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﻧﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﳒﺪ‪،‬ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ ‪:Masturbation‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ )ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﲦﺔ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍﹰ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎﹰ ﺑﻘﺪﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﻭﺣﺪﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺑﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﻤﺮ ﻣﻬﻴﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪،‬ﺹ‪.59-58‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2014 ،1‬ﺹ‪.163-162‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ ‪ :Masturbation‬ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﳛﺼﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻞ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﲟﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﳌﻤﺘﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﺎﺳﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺛﺎﺭﺓ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻹﻳﻐﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﺬﺓ ﰲ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺛﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺯﻧﺔ ‪‬ﺪﺉ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺎﺕ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﺎﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻘﻔﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﻴﺞ ﺍﳉﻨ‪‬ﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﺎﺳﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﳓﻮﻯ ﻓﻦ ﺟﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﺍﺩ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺸﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻨ‪‬ﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﻋﻤﻠﺔ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻣﻨﺤﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻻﳒﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺭﺩﻳﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺪﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻮﻗﺖ ﻭ)ﺍﻷﻣﺰﺟﺔ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻧﺪﻓﺎﻋﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻔﻌﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺍﳍﺮﻭﺏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺿﻲ ﺍﶈﺮ‪‬ﺽ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﻣﲑ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﺒﻮﺫﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺭﺫﻳﻠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﻄﺌﻴﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺸﻌﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻧﺐ ﻭﳐﺠﻠﺔ‪.‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﺸﻴﻼ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.79-76‬‬
‫‪199‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺗﺴﺘﻠﺰﻡ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺰﺍ ﻭﺗﻮﺣﺪﺍﹰ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺀ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﻨﺒﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺭﺍﻗﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﺍﺕ ﻧﺴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻮﻱ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻗﺺ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﳝﺎﺭﺱ ﺗﻮﺣﻴﺪﺍﹰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻭﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﻠﺬﺓ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﲢﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﻣﻨﺄﻯ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺃﻏﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﺩﻭﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻷﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻖ ﺍﳌﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﻳﻀﺎﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺴﻴﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﳕﺎﺀﻫﺎ(‪.1‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺟﺴﺪﻩ ﻭﺃﺣﺎﺳﻴﺴﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﺇﱃ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻳﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﻓﻀﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ‪:Circoncision‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺧﱳ ﻗﹸﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﺮ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ‪.‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺭﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻳﻮﺻﻒ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺗﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺒﻘﻰ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺼﻒ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ )ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻘﺮﺍﺽ ﺍﳊﺎﺩ‪ ‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺺ »ﻳﻘﺺ‪ «‬ﺍﻷﻗﻤﺸﺔ ﻭ»ﻳﻘﺺ«‬
‫ﺍﳊﻜﺎﻳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺁﺧﺬ » ﺍﻟﻘﺺ‪ «‬ﲟﻔﻬﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼ‪‬ﻲ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﻊ ﻭﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻭﺣﻜﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪....‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﻟﺮﻭﺍﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻠﻴﺐ ﺳﻮﻟﺮﺱ ﺃﻥﹼ »ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ« ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﲤﺮ‪ ‬ﻋﱪ‬
‫»ﺷﻔﺮﺓ ﺳﻜﲔ ﺃﲪﺮ«‪ .2‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺘﺮﻙ ﺃﺛﺮﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ُﺃﺛﺮ ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻴﻌﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ﻗﺎﺑﻼﹰ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻨﻴﻪ ﺃﺛﺮﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﻛﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻭﳊﻖ ﺑﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻻ ﻳﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻼ‬
‫ﺭﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﳊﻀﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ)ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﻋﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻊ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﺒﻞ ﻋﱪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﻧﻀﻮﺍﺀ ﺇﱃ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺇﱃ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻢ ﺍﺯﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪،،‬ﺗﺮ ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪،‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2010 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.39‬‬
‫‪2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ :‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪-6‬‬
‫‪1 ،7‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪ ،2013‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.185‬‬
‫‪200‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻭﻝ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﻮﻻﺩﺓ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺑﻮﻻﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺃﺷﺮﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺰﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﺪ ﻫﺬ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ)ﻭﻻ ﻳﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﺴﻤ‪‬ﻰ "ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ"( ﻓﺮﺿﺖ"ﺻﻮﺭﺓ" ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ‪ ‬ﺣﺎﻝ‪.‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ" ﻫﻨﺎ ؟ ﻣﺬﺍ ﻳﺪﻭﺭ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺮﺍﻑ(‬
‫ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﺃﺛﺮ ﳜﻠﹼﻔﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﺗﻮﻗﻴﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﳝﺤﻰ ﻭﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺇﻣ‪‬ﺤﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺊ ﻭﺑﻘﺎﺋﻪ ﳏﻔﻮﻇﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻼﻣﺘﻪ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻗﻨﺎﺓ ﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﻟﻠﺘﻴﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻﺣﻘﺔ ﰲ ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﻣﻌﻤﻢ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻌﺜﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺒﺎﻗﻲ(‪ ،2‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﲤﺮﻛﺰﺍﹰ ﳝﺎﺭﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺮﻛﺘﲔ‪ :‬ﺇﻣ‪‬ﺤﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻭﺑﻘﺎﺋﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻼﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺭﺣﻴﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻗﻨﺎﺓ ﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺑﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻭﺑﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﺣﻘﺔ ﰲ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻁ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺸﺘﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ)‪(...‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻷﺛﺮ ﳝﺤﻲ ﻭﳛﺎﻓﻆ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻓﻬﻮ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻃﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﰲ ﺁﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩﻧﺎ ﻭﻏﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻫﺖ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍﹰ ﻭﻻ ﻏﻴﺎﺑﺎﹰ ﻭﻻ ﺣﻞ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻳﺎﹰ ﺑﺄﻱ‪ ‬ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻓﺎﻷﺛﺮ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻴﻤﻮﻻﻛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ‪،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﰱ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺃﳕﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﰱ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻬﺮ ﺟﻨﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺴﺎﺭﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.70-69‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.27‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻣﻜﺎﻭﻱ ﺧﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻓﺮﺣﺎﺕ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺳﻄﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.96‬‬
‫‪201‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺟﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺧﲑ ﲤﻨﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳒﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪ ﻭﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺟﺪﻟﻴﲔ ﻟﻠﺤﺎﺿﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ )ﻭﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﺧﺘﻔﺎﺀ ﻟﻸﺻﻞ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ) ‪(...‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻻ‬
‫ﳜﺘﻔﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺄﺳﺲ ﺃﺑﺪﺍﹰ ﺇﻻ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻟﻴﺎﹰ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻻ ﺃﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﺋﺬ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺃﺻﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﺷﺮﻁ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻞ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‬
‫ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻟﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻧﺺ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻣﻮﺷﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ)‪ (...‬ﻭﺃﻥﹼ ﻭﴰﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ﺇﻻ ﻛﻤﺤﻮ ﻟﻸﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﶈﻮ ﳜﻠﻒ ﺃﺛﺮﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﻭﺣﻴﻨﺌﺬ "ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺑﺪﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺃﺛﺮ ﳏﻮ ﺃﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻟﻴﻨﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳕﺘﻜﻠﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺗﻮﻓﺮﻩ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻟﻜﻲ ﲢﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻤﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﳎﺎﻭﺯ‪‬ﺎ(‬
‫ﻭﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻴﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﺍﻋﺔ ﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ‬
‫‪ semen‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﳌﻨﻮﻱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻄﺮﻗﻨﺎ ﻟﻪ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺎ ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻟﻠﻨﺺ ﲤﺜﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﺾ ﻟﻠﺒﻜﺎﺭﺓ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﻨﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺃﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،13‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،2005 ،‬ﺹ‪.31‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ –ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻑ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪،‬ﺻﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،2002 ،‬ﺹ‪.32‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﻨﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪32-31‬‬

‫‪202‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ ‪:1 Mutilation‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﺘﺒﻪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣﻀﻰ ﻟﻺﺯﺩﻭﺍﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﺩﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺯﺩﻭﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻟﻐﺮﺍﺋﱯ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﻭ)ﺭﺍﻣﺰ( ﻟﺼﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺿﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻣﻨﺘﻬﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻨ‪‬ﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎﺀ ﻗﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ)‪،(la castration‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳜﺘﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻩ ﺃﻱ ﺳﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻋﻤﻘﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻼﹰ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﻋﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺬﻛﲑ(‪ ،2‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﰲ)ﺭﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻞ(‬
‫ﳍﻮﻓﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﻖ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻧﻪ ﻟﺒﺼﺮﻩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲣﻔﻲ ﻭﺭﺍﺀﻫﺎ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺟﺪﺍﹰ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﻋﻀﻮ ﲦﲔ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲣﻔﻲ ﺃﻱ ﺳﺮ‪ ‬ﻋﻤﻴﻖ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻋﻲ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪):‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻗﻠﻖ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﺮ ﺑﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺃﺻﺢ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻠﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﻨﺘﻬﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﺎﺿﺎﺕ(‪ ،3‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺇﱃ)ﻋﻨﻒ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺩﺍﻣﻴﺔ ﺗﻐﺘﺼﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻜﺴﺮ‪ ،‬ﲤﺰﻕ‪ ،‬ﺗ‪‬ﺘ‪‬ﻤﺰﻕ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﻄﻊ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻨﻘﺴﻢ –ﺇﺧﺼﺎﺀ ﺃﺻﻠﻲ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﱃ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺑﻼ ﺭﺟﻌﺔ – ﳓﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺛﻮﺭﻳﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺪﻳﺪﺍﹰ ﺑﺴﻜﲔ ﺃﲪﺮ ﻳﻘﻄﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺃﺻﻞ)‪(...‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ ﻳﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﻔﺬ ﺇﳚﺎﺑﻴﺎ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻴﻌﺔ ﻟﻦ ﳛﻀﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻦ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ)‪ (...‬ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ)‪ (...‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺸﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ)‪ (...‬ﻻ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻴﻌﺔ)‪ (...‬ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ‪ /‬ﻗﻄﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﺃﺱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻣﺎﹰ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻹﺧﺼﺎﺀ‪:‬ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ‪Mutilation‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Mutilato‬ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﻓﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺟﺰﺋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻌﻀﻮ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﻋﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﺴﻲ)ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻮﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻭ‪ /‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﻴﺔ‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﳝﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 ،1‬ﺹ‪.92‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺳﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﻮﻓﻤﺎﻥ ‪،‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺜﲑ‪ -‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪،‬ﺍﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪،‬ﻁ‪،1994، ،2‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.98‬‬
‫‪203‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺑﺘﻘﻄﻴﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻧﻘﻂ ﺍﳊﺬﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻔﺘﺢ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻠﻨﺔ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﻠﻘﻴﻢ)‪. 1((...‬‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻟﻮﺳﻨﺘﺮﻳﺴﻢ(ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﳉﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻻﺕ ﻟﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﲢﺪﺩ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﻌﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺗﻮﺟ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﳜﺎﹰ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺎﹰ ﺑﺄﺳﺮﻩ ﳛﻜﻤﻪ ﲤﺮﻛﺰﺍ ﻋﻘﻠﻴﺎﹰ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻮﺗﻴﺎﹰ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ‪،‬ﻳﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻀ‪‬ﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺽ ﺳﻠﻄﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﹼﻛﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﰲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺃﺩﱏ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲤﻠﻜﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻤﺎﺯﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺮﻙ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻳﺼﻴﺒﻪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺑﺮﺟﻔﺔ ﺟﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻋﺸﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻹﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﻣﺪﻯ ﻣﻘﺪﺭﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺧﺰ)‪ (...‬ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﺫﻛﻮﺭﺗﻪ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻃﺎﺱ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﳑﺜﻼ‬
‫ﳎﺎﺯﻳﺎ ﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ )‪ (...‬ﳏﺮﻛﺎ ﻟﻮﻟﺒﻴﺎ ﳝﺮﻛﺰ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻗﻮﺗﻪ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟ‪‬ﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ )ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻟﻮﺳﻨﺘﺮﻳﺴﻢ( ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴ‪‬ﻄﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﺘﻬﺎ)‪(...‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺎﻳﺰ(‪.2‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﳋﺼﺎﺀ ﻫﻲ ﺷﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺸﻐﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻗﺪﳝﺎﹰ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺜﺎﺭ ﺇﺭﺗﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﻻ ﳛﺘﺠﺐ ﻛﻔﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺳﺬﺍﺟﺘﻪ ﻭﺑﻼﻫﺘﻪ)ﺑﻼﻫﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻼﻫﺔ ‪‬ﺐ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﳊﺎﺟﺔ ﲤﺜﻴﻞ ﺍﳍﻴﻤﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﲑﺓ( ﻳﻔﺮﺯ‬
‫ﺧﺪﻳﻌﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳋﺼﺎﺀ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ ﳚﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻨﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻼﳘﺎ ﻳﻨﻬﺠﺎﻥ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ‬
‫ﺗﻈﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺑﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻹﻏﺮﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺗﻐﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻈﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘ‪‬ﺎﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺒﺔ ﻳﻠﻌﺒﺎ‪‬ﺎ )ﺃﻱ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺴﺘ‪‬ﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺀ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻗﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻗﻨﺎﻉ(‪ .‬ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻨﻌﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﺃﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻌﻮﺕ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪..99‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺣﺒﻄﺔ ﲰﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.212‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﳝﺎﻥ ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.99‬‬
‫‪204‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﺜﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺿﺎﻉ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻋﻄﺎﻫﺎ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﱂ ﳚﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻳﻀﻴﻊ ﰲ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﻛﻌﻨﻜﺒﻮﺕ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻱ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ)ﻛﺄﻥ‬
‫ﳜﺸﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻣﱰﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﺄﻥ ﻳﻬﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﳌﺨﺼﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺄﻥ ﳛﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﻹﳚﺎﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺩﻓﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺰﺍﻣﻦ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺘﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺃﻣﻜﻨﺔ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺎﺀ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﺎﻝ ﰲ ﳎﻤﻊ ﺩﻳﲏ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎﺩﺍﻣﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺗﺘﺄﺭﺟﺢ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺆﺳﺲ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻨﺴﻖ ﺍﻹﻗﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ)ﻭﺗﱰﻉ ﺍﻷﻫﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻠﻲ ﻣﻠﺘﻤﺴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ،‬ﲢﺮﺭ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺃﻓﻖ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺞ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻘﻴﻢ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﻣﺴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻤﺰ ‪ eperonnante‬ﺍﻷﻗﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﳏﺘﻮﻯ ﻭﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ(‪،2‬‬
‫ﻓﻸﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺰ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳜﺘﺮﻕ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﺨﻔﻲ ﻭﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﺽ‪.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ‪) :‬ﲤﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺇﻏﻮﺍﺋﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺳﻠﻄﺘﻬﺎ(‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺃﻥ )ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ( ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺃﺧﺼﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻱ‬
‫ﲣﺼﻴﺼﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﲑ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ)ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺍﳋﻨﺜﻮﻱ ﻟﻠﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﻣﺘﺨﻒ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺘﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﰲ ﺃﻏﻄﻴﺘﻪ ﻋﻀﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﺪﻭﺍﱐ ﻭﻣﻘﻠﻖ ﻣﻬﺪﺩ ‪ /‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻬﺪ‪‬ﺩ‪ ،‬ﺷﻲﺀ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﳐﺎﻟﻒ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺄﻟﻮﻑ ﲝﻴﺚ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﳒﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﰲ ﳏﺾ ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﻭﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺁﻟﺔ ﺭﺍﻓﻌﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻃﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺼﺎﺀ(‪.4‬‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﺩﻱ ﳍﺎ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﱪﺍﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻛﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻀﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﲜﻤﺎﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪):‬ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.138‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.143‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.91‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.166‬‬
‫‪205‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻧﺸﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﻢ ﻋﻘﺎﺋﺪﻳﲔ ﺃﺳﺎﺅﻭ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺎﺀ( ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺳﺎﺫﺝ)ﻭﻣﻨﺎﻑ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﺇﻣﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﱂ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ(‪ ،1‬ﻭﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳕﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻣﺮﻏﻤﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺿﻊ)ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺧﻄﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻣﺔ‪ -‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺳﻮﻑ ﻳﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺭﻣﺔ‪ -‬ﻳﺪﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ "ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻳﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ )ﻛﺎﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ "ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﻴﻤﺔ" ﳝﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻣﺮﺃﺓ(‪.2‬ﻓﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﳜﺘﻠﺠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﲤﺘﺎﺯ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻔﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺘﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻈﻬﺮﺍﹰ ﺳﻄﺤﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺮﻏﻮﺑﹰﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺘﺮ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﺠﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳌﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻳﺔ ﺍ‪‬ﺮﺩﺓ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﳋﺼﺎﺀ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.93‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.97‬‬
‫‪206‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺃﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺄﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ‬
‫‪-3‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﲑﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪-4‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﲜﺴﺪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ -‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻨﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪-‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪.‬‬

‫‪-1‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ )ﺍﳊﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺛﺒﺎﺗﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻢ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻨ‪‬ﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﺮﻣﺘﻪ ﻋﻤﻘﺎ ﻭﺳﻄﺤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺼﺪﺭ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﲞﻼﻑ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﲤﻮﺿﻌﺎﹰ‪ .‬ﳓﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺣﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺣﱴ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻛﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﺎﺋﻤﲔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻋﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪):‬ﳌﺲ)ﺃﺣﺴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺭﻫﺎﻓﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﲞﺎﺻﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪) .‬ﺃ( ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻑ ﳊﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ toucher‬ﺑﻨﺤﻮ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺃﺻﻨﺎﻑ ﺍﻷﺣﺎﺳﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻤﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺇﺳﻢ ‪ tact‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻈﻬﺮﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﻄﺤﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﺩﳝﻮﻣﺔ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﳌﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻬﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺸﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻀﻠﱠﻊ ﳐﻤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﺰﺝ‪ ،‬ﺻﻘﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﱁ‪) .‬ﺝ( ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﺱ ﺃﻛﻴﺪ ﻭﺩﻗﻴﻖ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﳑ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺣﱴ ﻻ ﳚﺮﺡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻳﱰﻋﺞ(‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ؟ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﺩﻟﻴﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﺍﹰ‪ (...)،‬ﻓﻤﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﻜﺮ ﻟﻐﺰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻳﻘﻮﺩﻧﺎ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ )ﳓﻮ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﻔﺘﺶ ﻭﺗﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺘﻤﻴﺔ ﺗﺄﰐ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﳊﺴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻥﹼ ﻧﺸﻌﺮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﻠﻤﺲ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.1478‬‬

‫‪2‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.1423-1422‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy, Galilée éd. Paris, 2000¸p12.‬‬
‫‪208‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﺗﺸﻌﺮ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻚ‪)،‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ؟ ﳌﺲ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭﻝ ﳌﺲ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ؟ ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﳌﺲ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﺘﻤﻲ ﲝﻖ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﳉﺴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺫﺍﰐ ﻭﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﳌﺲ‪ .‬ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﺭﺅﻳﱵ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺄﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ‪.‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻹﻓﺮﺍﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻩ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ ﻭﻳﻔﻘﺪ ﺧﺎﺻﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺣﱴ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺴ‪‬ﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺴ‪‬ﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳌﺲ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﳏﻴﻄﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺻﻔﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺣﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼﹰ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﻣﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﺠﺎﻣﻪ ﻭﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﻭﻭﺯﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺮﺍﺭﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﲢﺪ‪‬ﺛﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﹼﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻼﹼﻫﻮﺕ )ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺅﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ"( ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻮﻇﹼﻔﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻜﻤﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻨﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﳋﻼﹼﻕ ﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ ‪ le toucher‬ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﲟﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ )‪ ،(l’haptique‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﹼﺭ ﺭﻓﻀﻪ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺑﲔ ﻛﻞﹼ ﺣﻲ‪ ‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫)ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻳﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺴﲑ ﰲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻼﹼﻫﻮﺕ )ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻼﹼﻫﻮﺕ(‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﺫﺍﰐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺿﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻷﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﲔ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﻧﺲ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﲔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ "ﻇﹼﺎﻫﺮﰐ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳌﺨﺼ‪‬ﺼﺘﲔ ﳍﻤﺎ )ﺃﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﻨﻴﲔ("‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻮ‪‬ﻕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻤﻨﻮﺡ ﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit¸ p12.‬‬
‫‪209‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺮ‪‬ﺭﻩ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻛﻠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﻉ )ﻳ‪‬ﻘﺼﺪ ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﺰﺋﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ(‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﺴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻟﹼﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻣﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳊﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺪ‪" ،‬ﻋﺮﺽ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﳊﺪ‪ "‬ﻳﺆﺩ‪‬ﻱ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ "ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺅﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻋﺔ" ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲ ﻳﺪ‪‬ﻋﻲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮ‪‬ﺅﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﺒﻜﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻠﹼﻮﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺷﻌ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲡﺘﺎﺯﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﱁ‪" ،.‬ﺗﺸﻜﹼﻞ ﻛﻠﹼﻬﺎ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺳﺔ"‪،1(.‬ﻭﺃﻱ ﺗﺸﻮﻩ ﰲ ﺣﺎﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻳﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺑﻌﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺣﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺼﲑ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ(‪ ،2‬ﻭﻳﻀﻴﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ‬
‫ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻨﲏ ﻻ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻭﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻨﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﻻ ﻭﺃﲤﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻪ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﳌﺲ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺻﻠﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﳌﺴﻬﺎ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺪﺛﺎﹰ ﻳﺄﰐ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﻌﺒﻨﺎ ﻗﻠﻴﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻣﺘﻔﺮ‪‬ﺩ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻱ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻱ ﺇﺗﻘﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻔﺎﱐ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺩﺍﺀ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻮﻕ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺯﻟﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺃﻓﺎﻕ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺣﱴ ﻗﺒﻞ ﳌﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﺎﺡ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻫﻞ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳌﺴﻪ؟ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﺑ‪‬ﻤﺎ »ﻳﻀﺤﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ«‪ rire le toucher‬ﺳﻮﻑ ﺃﻣﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫»ﻳﺒﻜﻲ«‪ pleurer‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﺷﻌﺮ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﺤﻚ ﻟﺪﻣﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ(‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Ibid, p116.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Ibid ,p12.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Ibid ,p158.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Ibid ,p158‬‬
‫‪210‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺣﺪﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺣﺴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﳕﻠﻚ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﺲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺘﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ(‪.1‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﺃﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺄﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﱄ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﳌﺴﺖ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﳌﺴﺎﹰ )ﻟﻠﻌﲔ ﻓﻀﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺎﺫ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺭﻏﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺻﻮﺕ ﻭﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﳌﺲ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﺘﻘﻲ ﺃﻋﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﺘﺮﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺩﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﻻ ﻣﻌﲎ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻸﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﰲ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺑﺼﺮﻱ ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﻣﺪﻯ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﺎﰲ ﻭﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺪﱐ ﺑﺈﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺷﻴﺎﺀ )ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻻ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻧﻈﺮﺗﲔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻧﻜﻮﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﲣﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲤﺪﻧﺎ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻴﻨﲔ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﺐ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ ﺑﺎﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﺍﺕ؟ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺎﺏ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﺗﲔ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻯ ﺃﺑﺪﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﻭﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻋﻴﻮﻥ؟ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﻴﻊ ﻻ ﳓﻴﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺿﻮﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺩﻋﻮﻧﺎ ﻧﻜﺮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ؟ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺩﻋﻮﻧﺎ ﻧﺴﺄﻝ »ﻫﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺇﺫﻥ«ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ؟‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻹﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻣﻀﻄﺮﺑﺔ ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻟﻴﻼﹰ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻟﺘﻘﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﺗﻚ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﻯ ﻭﻧﻈﺮﺗﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻴﻨﻴﻚ)‪ (...‬ﻭﻋﻴﻨﻚ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ)ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ(ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺮﻯ )ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Ibid,P160.‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.183‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Ibid ¸ p12.‬‬
‫‪211‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﺄﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﳌﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻸﺻﺒﻊ ‪ ،doigt‬ﺍﻟﺸﻔﺎﻩ ‪ ،lévers‬ﺃﻭ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺵ‬

‫ﻭﺍﳉﻔﻮﻥ ﺗﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻚ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﲡﺮﺃﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻚ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﲡﺮﺃﺕ ﻳﻮﻣﺎﹰ(‪ ،1‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻠﻤﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﺮﺭ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻈﻼﻡ؟ ﻭﻟﺘﻮﻗﻴﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ‬
‫ﳓﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺮﺃﺓ‪.‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻤﻴﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻄﺖ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﺄﳌﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺭﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺼﻴﺔ‪):‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻭﻫﺐ ﻋﺼﻴ‪‬ﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻭﻫﺒﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻹﳍﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻋﺪﻥ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻄﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺍﳌﺰﺩﻭﺝ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻟﺮﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻈﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻫﺠﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﺏ ﺍﻹﻟﻪ ﻭﺍﻹﺑﺘﻌﺎﺩ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﳓﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ‪-‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻘﺪﻭﺭ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ -‬ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ‪ /‬ﺍﻧﻐﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻗﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳ‪‬ﻬﻴﺊ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍ ﺃﻡ ﻻ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ ﺍﳌﻈﻨﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺟﻨﺔ ﻋﺪﻥ)‪ ،2((...‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺇﻻﻫﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺸﻒ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﺠﻮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﻛﹼﺪ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﺩﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻭﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ ):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳊﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻻ ﻧﺮﻯ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ )‪(...‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ‬
‫ﻳﻐﻮﺹ ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﱃ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ‪ :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻘﺮﺑ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ)‪ (...‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺰ ﻳﻨﺤﺼﺮ ﰲ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺟﺴﻤﻲ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺭﺍﺀ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪.‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺭﺍﺋﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻻﻣﺴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﳏﺴﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﱃ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ(‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Ibid ¸ p13.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.185-184‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﲑﻟﻮ‪ -‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.18-17‬‬
‫‪212‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻧﻮﻋﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻋﻤﻰ ﺑﺒﻨﻴﺘﻪ )ﻓﻬﻮ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻯ ﻣﺎ ﻓﻘﺪﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳎﺮﺩ‬
‫ﲡﺮﻳﺪ ﺷﺒﺢ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺧﺴﺮﺍﻧﻪ‪ .‬ﳕﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺸﺪ ﳎﺎﻫﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺴﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺗﺜﻤﲔ ﻟﻺﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻭﲢﺬﻳﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺼﲑﺓ(‪.(1‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﲑﺓ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﺒﺼﺎﺭ‪:‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻰ‬
‫ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﱪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻤﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺴﻤﻊ ﻭﺗﻔﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻛﻴﺰﺓ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻰ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ‪‬ﺒﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻣﺎ ﻭﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻬﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺣﲔ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺭﺅﻳﺔ؟ ﲡﺎﺯﻑ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻰ ﺻﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﳏﺪ‪‬ﺩﺓ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺑﺎﺋﺲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺤﺴ‪‬ﺲ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻠﻤ‪‬ﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻼﻃﻔﻪ ﻛﺜﲑﺍﹰ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻨﻘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺛﻘﺔ ﺑﺬﻛﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺍﳌﻜﻤ‪‬ﻞ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﻋﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﻼ ﺟﻔﻦ ﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﻋﻴﻨﺎ ﻗﺪ ﳕﺖ ﻛﺜﲑﺍﹰ ﻣﻼﺻﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﻈﻔﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﺣﻴﺪﺓﹰ‪ ،‬ﻋﲔ "ﺳﻴﻜﻠﻮﺏ" ﺃﻭ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ‪ /‬ﺍﻷﺻﺒﻊ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﳌﺮﺷﺪ ﰲ ﲢﺴﺲ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺗﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﳌﺼﺒﺎﺡ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ(‬
‫)ﺗﺘﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﻗﺪﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻓﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﻼﻣﺔ ﻣﻠﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺧﻀﺎﻉ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺳﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺗﺄﰐ ﺑﺎﳊﻖ ﻭﺍﳊﺐ)‪.3((...‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻫﻴﺜﺮ ﻫﻮﻓﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺼﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﻴﺪ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪ ،‬ﺹ‬
‫‪.436‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺫﻛﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻰ )ﳎﺘﺰﺃ(‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪،‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2017 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.439‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.183‬‬
‫‪213‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪):‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﲑ ﻇﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ)ﺍﳉﺴﺪ( ﺍﳌﺒﺘﻌﺪ )‪)1((...‬ﺍﻟﻌﲔ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻮ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﺔ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻃﻮﻳﻞ ﻳﻔﻀﻲ ﺍﱃ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ(‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪ Heidegger‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺭﺑﻂ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻼﺗﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ )‪ (le voir‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺘﻴﺶ‬
‫)‪ (inspection‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﻈﻮﺭ )‪ (perspective‬ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺸﻐﺎﻝ )‪(préoccupation‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻲ )‪ (pratique‬ﺑﻜﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻐﻠﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﻳ‪‬ﻘﻠﻘﻨﺎ )‪ (...)،(souci‬ﳑ‪‬ﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺲ ﺍﳌﺒﻴ‪‬ﻦ ﻟﻠﺤﺪ‪ ‬ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺻﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﻠﻔﺖ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺒﺎﻩ ﳎﺪ‪‬ﺩﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ »‪ les mots de «sens‬ﺃﻭ ﺫﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﺮﻫﻒ »‪ «les mots de sensibilité‬ﻻ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﱪﻫﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﳛﺪﺙ ﺑﺎﻧﺘﻈﺎﻡ ﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ ﻷﻥﹼ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺁﺫﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻟﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺁﺫﺍﻥ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺔ ‪ le voir‬ﻻ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺄﺟﻬﺰﺓ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ‪ (...)،‬ﺍﱁ(‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺮﺟﻮﻉ ﻣﺮ‪‬ﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﺭﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ ‪ ،Marleau-Ponty‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺗﻮﺟ‪‬ﻪ ﳓﻮ ﺇﺻﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺯﻱ )ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺯﻥ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﺢ‪ ‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺯﻱ( ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ‪.‬ﻭﺃﻋﻄﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﳍﻤﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪):‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻻﻣﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺮﻯ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﻓﺠﺄﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻣﺴﻚ ﺑﻴﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲎ ﺷﻴﺌﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻼﻣﺴﺔ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺭﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺟﺴﺪﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﳜﻔﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪ :‬ﳊﻈﺔ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﻱ ﺑﻴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺮﻯ ﺗﻼﻣﺲ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﻭﻗﻒ ﺑﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻣﻼﻣﺴﺔ ﻳﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﲎ ﺑﻴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺮﻯ‪.‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻕ ﻻ ﻳﱰﻉ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﳌﺲ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻗﻮﻡ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪134-183‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit,229.‬‬
‫‪214‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ :‬ﻓﺠﺴﺪﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳛﻴﻂ ﺑﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻮﻟﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺘﻈﻢ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺩﺍﻓﻌﻪ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻫﻮﺳﲑﻝ ‪) Husserl‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻ‪‬ﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻮﻥ ﺑـ‪) Signes‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ(‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻄﻰ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ "ﺇﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ‪ ‬ﻏﲑ ﻋﺎﺩﻱ" ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ‪.‬‬
‫)ﻭﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﳊﺎﱄ ﺿﻤﻦ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻛﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﻬﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﶈﺮ‪‬ﻙ(‪،2‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪.‬‬
‫)ﻭﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﰲ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺣﱴ ﻟﻮ ﺑﺪﺍ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻏﺎﺋﺒﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﺮﺃﻫﺎ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺩﻭﻥ ﳌﺲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﻠﻴﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺃﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺍﻹﻏﻤﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﺪﻻﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺄﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﳌﺲ ﲜﺴﺪﻧﺎ ﻛﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻇﻒ ﺃﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻲ ﻭﺍﻫﺒﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﺍﻫﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻫﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫)ﻓﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻣﻐﺎﻣﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺪ)‪(....‬ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳓﺪﺩ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻔﺴﲑﻩ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﳑ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﺘﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺑﺈﺯﻋﺎﺝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳌﺄﻟﻮﻓﺔ ﻭﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻧﻮﻗﻆ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀً ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.23‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Claire Marin, , L'œil et la main: la «métaphysique du toucher» dans la‬‬
‫‪philosophie Français ,op.cit.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Claire Marin, L'œil et la main: la «métaphysique du toucher» dans la‬‬
‫‪philosophie Français ,Ravaisson à Derrida, ),Dans LES ÉTUDES‬‬
‫‪PHILOSOPHIQUES 2003/1(n˚64),PAGES 99À112,Mis en linge sur Cairn.info‬‬
‫‪le 01/03/2003,https//doi.org/leph.031.0099.‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻣﻴﺠﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻳﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﳓﻮﻯ »ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ« ﺳﻨﺎﻥ ﻻ »ﻛﺘﺎﺏ«‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2015 ،1‬ﺹ‪.167‬‬
‫‪215‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﻋﻀﻮ"ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ" ﻭﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻘﺔ‪ ).‬ﻛﺬﺍ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﳋﻂ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ" ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ" ﻟﻴﺲ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺎﹰ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ "ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ" ﺃﻱ ﳕﻂ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻃﲏ ﰲ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻏﲑ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﻜﻦ ﻋﺎﳌﺎ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺎ ﻣﺎ‪.‬ﻭﻻ ﻧﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ‪)،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ "ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ" ﺃﻭ ﻫﻲ "ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ")‪ (...‬ﻓﻤﺠﺮﺩ ﺍﻣﺘﻼﻙ ﺍﻷﻳﺪﻱ ﻻ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﳊﻴﻮﺍﻧﺎﺕ ﺫﻛﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ‪ :‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺎﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻷﻳﺎﺩﻱ(‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﺳﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ)ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲢﻤﻠﲏ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻗﺮﺏ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﻗﻄﻴﻌﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻛﺘﺤﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺤﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﺃﺑﺪﺍﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﻄﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺗﻴﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺗﻔﻜﲑﺍﹰ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺘﻀﻤ‪‬ﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺧﺮﻭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺗﺮﻏﺐ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻧﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻭ"ﺍﻷﻳﺎﺩﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺓ"(‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳌﺴﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺄﺻﺒﻊ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺗﻼﻣﺴﻪ ﺃﺻﺎﺑﻊ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﺻﺎﺑﻊ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﻳﺪﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺀ ﻭﻭﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪) .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻻ ﺃﺭﻯ ﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧﲏ‬
‫ﻻ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ )ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﲏ( ﺃﻥ ﺃﻻﺣﻀﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﺷﺎﻫﺪﻫﺎ‪،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻓﺤﺼﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﻧﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ)‪ (...‬ﻭﺃﺭﺍﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ)‪.3((...‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﺠﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2016 ،1‬ﺹ‪.174‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺑﻮﻃﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﻣﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2019 ،1‬ﺹ‪.158‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺭﺯﻳﻨﻮ ﻓﻨﺪﻟﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍ‪‬ﻴﺪ ﺟﺤﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺗﺼﻤﻴﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭ‪.‬ﺟﺎﻛﻨﺪﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻥ‪ .‬ﺷﻮﻣﺴﻜﻲ –‬
‫ﺭ‪.‬ﻓﻨﺪﻟﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2007 ،1‬ﺹ‪.85‬‬
‫‪216‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﰲ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻴﺪ ﻭﻳﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ»ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﺒﻊ«ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻟﻪ(‪،1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻴﺪ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﻌﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺄﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﳌﺎ ﳝﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻠﺴﻞ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ :‬ﺃﺩﺭﻙ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪﻳﻦ ﲝﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺃﺣﺼﻞ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺴﻲ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻌﻴﻨﲔ ﺃﺭﻯ)‪ (...‬ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻳﺪﺍﻱ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻴﲏ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪ‪...‬ﺍﱁ‬
‫) ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻻﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﳌﻤﻨﻮﺡ ﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻛﺘﺠﺴﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﻯ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ(‬
‫ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻌﺐ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ‪:‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻊ )ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺛﻴﺘﺎﺗﻮﺱ ﻳﻘﺮ‪ ‬ﺑﺄﻥﹼ"ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ"ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ )ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ( ﻓﻔﻲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ" ﻣﻦ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺣﺴﺎﹰ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ"‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﻊ )ﺗﻮﻣﺎﺱ ﻫﻮﺑﺰ("ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺳﺔ"‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺮﻯ )ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ(‪" :‬ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﲣﺪﻋﻨﺎ ﻭﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﻤﺌﻦ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻦ ﳜﺪﻋﻨﺎ ﻭﻟﻮ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ" ﺃﻣﺎ‬
‫)ﻛﺎﻧﻂ( ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﺮ‪ :‬ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ ﻻ ﲣﻄﺊ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻻ ﲢﻜﻢ)‪.4(...‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit,P158.‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﻗﻮﺍﲰﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ »ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺗﺼﻮ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﰲ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ«‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﻧﻮﻗﺸﺖ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻫﺮﺍﻥ ‪ ،‬ﲢﺖ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺰﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،2010-2009 ،‬ﺹ‪-150‬‬
‫‪151‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Mechel Lisse, Lire, toucher: d'une main à l'autre, Jean- François Chassay et‬‬
‫‪Bertrand Gervais [éds], Paroles, textes et images. Formes et pouvoirs de‬‬
‫‪l'imaginaire, Université du Québec à Montréal Figura, centre de recherche sur le‬‬
‫‪texte et l'imaginaire , coll. «Figura», n˚19, vol.2, p. 157-168‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﻦ ﺷﻴﺨﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻃﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ، 2011 ،1‬ﺹ‪.13‬‬
‫‪217‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻣﻊ )ﺑﺮﻛﻠﻲ( ﺳﻴﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻪ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳊﺲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﺴﺨﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﻯ )ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻮﻙ( ﻓﺎﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﺗﺪﺭﻙ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳌﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻈﺎﻫﺮ ﻣﺪﺭﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﳊﺲ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﶈﺴﻮﺱ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﲦﺖ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻫﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﻛﻠﻲ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺜﲑﻫﺎ ﺍﷲ ﰲ ﻋﻘﻮﻟﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻄﺒﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻮﺍﺳﻨﺎ‪.،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﷲ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻧﺪﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺮﻛﻠﻲ‪ :‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ ﺑﺎﳊﺲ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺎﹰ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﰐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺃﻓﺘﺢ ﻋﻴﲏ‬
‫ﰲ ﻭﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﺭ ﻻ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﺮﺭ ﺇﻥ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺳﺄﺭﻯ ﺃﻡ ﻻ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﰲ ﻭﺳﻌﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﺩ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺳﺘﻘﻊ ﺃﻣﺎﻣﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻴﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﺼﺮﻱ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲝﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻊ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺄﻓﻜﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻨﻌﻲ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﺭﺍﺩﰐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼﺑﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺟﻬﺎ‪ 1.‬ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻛﻠﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺭﺍﺋﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺣﺼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺭﺑﻂ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻋﻮﻧﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ‪ ،L'ahaptic‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺴﻲ ﺇﱃ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪L'optique‬ﺍﻟﺒﺼﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻹﻻﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻪ ﺇﻟﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ(‬
‫ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﲑﻯ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻫﺒﺔ ﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻫﻮ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺧﺬ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﺃﻣﻠﻜﻪ ﻭﻻ ﲤﻠﻜﻪ ﻻ ﺃﻧﺖ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳝﻠﻜﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻮﺍﻧﺎ ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻼﹰ ﺑﻞ ﻭﻻ ﻳ‪‬ﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳓﻮﺯﻩ‪ .‬ﻫﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺃﻡ ﻋﺮﺽ ؟ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻼﻋﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ‪ tendre‬ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﻨﺢ ‪ ،offrir‬ﺃﻋﻄﻰ‬
‫‪ donner‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻧ‪‬ﻌﻄﻴﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﺮﺟﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﲟﻌﲎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻭﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺟﺎﻋﻪ‬

‫‪1‬ﻓﺮﻳﺎﻝ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻟﻮﻫﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﺭﻛﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1997 ،1‬ﺹ‪.77-67-62‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit,P158‬‬
‫‪218‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺮﻑ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ .‬ﺧﺬ ! ﻻ ﺳﺄﻋﻄﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﲨﻠﺔ ﺃﻗﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻻﺋﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳ‪‬ﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻧﺴﺒﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﺧﺬ" ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻳﺘﻠﻘﹼﻰ ‪reçois‬‬
‫ﺃﻭ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ‪ ،accepte‬ﻣﺮ‪‬ﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﻤ‪‬ﻦ ﻳﺘﻠﻘﹼﻰ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﻠﻘﹼﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻧﻜﺮ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺆﺍﻝ ﻟﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺮ‪‬ﺓ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻭﻣﱴ ﻳﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﱴ ﳕﻨﺢ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ‬
‫ﻫﻜﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ‪ .‬ﻧﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ‪ ‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﳌﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ‪«toucher de‬‬
‫» ‪ ،l’argent‬ﺃﻱ ﳌﺲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻮﺩ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻛﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﻮﺩ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺇﻏﺘﲎ ) ‪gagner de‬‬
‫‪.(l’argent‬‬
‫ﻭﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ ‪ attendrissement‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ‪le tendre‬‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳ‪‬ﻔﻀ‪‬ﻞ ﺍﻷﻭ‪‬ﻝ ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪ‪‬ﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﺎﱐ ﻛﻔﺌﺔ ﺃﺻﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺑﺸﺪ‪‬ﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ‪‬‬
‫ﺐ ﻭ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻟﻈﹼﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﰲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺁﳍﺔ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺰﻳﺔ )ﰲ ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻏﺎﻣﺾ ﰲ ﺍﳊ ‪‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،(‬ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻔﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﳊﻈﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻠﹼﻲ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﻤﺪ ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﻏﺘﺼﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﻜﻨﺎ )ﻋﺬﺭﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﶈﺒﻮﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳ‪‬ﻤﻜﻦ ﻣﺴ‪‬ﻬﺎ(‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﳌﺮﻫﻒ ‪ tendre‬ﻭﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ‬
‫‪ attendrissement‬ﻟﻜﻨ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﺪ‪‬ﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ )ﺍﳊﻨﺎﻥ( ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴ‪‬ﺔ ‪ ،tendresse‬ﻳ‪‬ﻤﻜﻦ ﻷﻥﹼ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﺼﻒ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﺃﻗﻞﹼ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺷﻌﻮﺭ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻭ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳ‪‬ﻔﺴ‪‬ﺮ ﺑﻐﻤﻮﺽ ﺍﳊﺐ‪.2( ‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Ibid,P112-113.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit,P112.‬‬
‫‪219‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺘﻮﻓﹼﺮ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﻼﻡ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳ‪‬ﻌﺒ‪‬ﺮ ﻋﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﺄﰉ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺰﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﻭ‪‬ﻝ ﻳﺘﺮﻓﹼﻊ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺩ‪‬ﻱ ﺃﻱ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺰﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻣﺜﻼ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺃﻗﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻻﺣﺘﻔﺎﻅ ﺑﺒﻌﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻋﲏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪):‬ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺧﻔﻘﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻫﻞ ﳜﻔﻖ ﻗﻠﱯ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﺃﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎﹰ ﻛﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ؟ ﺃﻡ ﺃﻧﲏ ﺃﺣﺐ ﲰﺖ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ؟ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﺈﻏﺮﺍﺀ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺠﺬﺏ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﺬﺍ ﻭﻛﺬﺍ)‪(...‬ﻭﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﻜﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺼﺎﺏ ﺍﳊﺐ ﲞﻴﺒﺔ ﺃﻣﻞ‬
‫ﻭﳝﻮﺕ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻙ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻖ ﺣﺒﻨﺎ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ "ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺬﺍ ﻭﻛﺬﺍ"‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳝﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻳﻜﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺐ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﻫﻢ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﻢ ﻛﺬﺍ ﻭﻛﺬﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳊﺐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟ)ﻣﻦ( ﻭﺍﻟ)ﻣﺎﺫﺍ((‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻦ ﻓﺸﻞ ﺍﻹﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺗﻨﺸﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﺼﻰ ﲨﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﳜﺘﻔﻲ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ )ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ –ﲟﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺃﺛﺮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﲢﻔﻈﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻏﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺴﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺸﺄ ﺇﻻ ﺑﲔ ﺍﺛﻨﲔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﻠﻜﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﳓﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻞ ﻳﻨﺴﺤﺐ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻟﻐﺰﻩ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﳛﺎﻝ ﻟﻐﺰ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ‪-‬ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ﻣﺎﻫﻮﻳ‪‬ﺎ‪-‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺭﻭﻣﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻣﻀﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍ‪‬ﻬﻮﻟﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﺎﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﳕﻂ ﻗﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺣﺪﺙ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﲤﺎﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﱄ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﺬﺍﻥ ﻳﱰﻋﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﻤﻂ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺒﺎﺀ ﻭﻳﻘﺼﺪ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﺎﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﻻ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﻟﻺﺭﺍﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺰ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﲝﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺤﺎﺏ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ﻭﻳﺘﻮﺍﺭﻯ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﲢﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻡ ﻟﺼﻔﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺭﺯﻡ‪https://bit.ly/20EKkjQ،‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Ibid,P112-113.‬‬
‫‪220‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹﳝﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ )‪،(Lévinas‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ )ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺎ(‪.‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺮ‪‬ﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻠﻤﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﺁﺧﺮ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﲢﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻹﻳﺮﻭﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻞﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﺳﺎﻣﻲ‪ .‬ﲨﻴﻠﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺭﻓﻴﻌﺔ‪،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﹼﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﻳﺘﻢ‪ ‬ﰲ ﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﱄ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻓﻴﻊ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺎﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﲢﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﻀﻄﺮﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﲜﺴﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ -‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪:1‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺳﺌﻞ ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﻚ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﺑﻄﺘﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ)ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺩ؟ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺟﺰﺀ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺩ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﻘﺮﺑﺎ ﻭﻭﺩﻭﺩﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺣﺰﻧﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﺪﻫﺶ‪ :‬ﳓﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺮﺍﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺴﻤﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﺎﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﺬﻫﺎ ﳌﻌﲎ ﻏﲑﻱ ﺩﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺭﺑﻄﺖ ﺑﲔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻧﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻧﺼﻪ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻧﻠﻤﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺘﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﻏﲑﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﺭﲢﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﳚﻴﺐ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺳﺌﻞ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ "ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ" ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ ‪- Le toucher‬‬
‫‪ Jean Luc Nancy,‬ﺑﺎﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ ):‬ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻣﺎ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﻚ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﻭﻟﺪ ﲟﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺑﻮﺭﺩ ‪ ،1940‬ﲤﻴﺰ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺑﺘﻮﺟﻬﻪ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﰐ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺄﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﻨﻌﻄﻒ ﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﺄﺛﺮﻩ ﺑﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺃﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻭﺑﻼﻧﺸﻮ ﻭﺩﻭﻟﻮﺯ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﺘﺮﺍﻙ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،1982‬ﻧﺴﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ‪ ،1986‬ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،1988‬ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻲ ‪ ،1990‬ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ‪،1993‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻮﺭﺗﺮﻳﻪ‪ ،2000‬ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﺎﻉ‪ ،2002‬ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ‪ ،2002‬ﻣﺘﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻢ ‪ ،2007‬ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ ‪ ،2009‬ﻫﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،2010‬ﰲ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺎﱂ ﳓﻦ ﻧﻌﻴﺶ‪ ،2011‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻻﻋﺮﺝ‪2014‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Entretien entre Safaa Fathy et Jean-Luc Nancy ,Penser avec Derrida où qu'il‬‬
‫‪soit, RUE DESCARTES 2016/2 (N˚89-90 )P.194- 203, https//www.‬‬
‫‪Cairn.info/revue-rue-descartes-2016-2-page-194.htm.P194.‬‬
‫‪221‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻻ ﻳﻠﻤﺲ ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ »ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ « ﳝﻜﻦ ﺑﻨﺎﺅﻩ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ –»ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ«‪ -‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ‪»-‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ«‪ -‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎﹰ ﺃﺻﻞﹸ ﺇﱃ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ‪ ،‬ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ ﳌﺲ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﳌﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ)‪ ،1((...‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻫﺎﺏ ﻭﻋﺒﻮﺭ ﳓﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﰲ ﺗﺴﻠﻴﻂ ﺍﻟﻀﻮﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﺘﺐ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﻣﺪﺓ ﳉﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﻚ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﺩﻋﻮﻩ ﺍﻷﻛﱪ ﻣﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻗﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺘﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺃﺭﻏﺐ ﰲ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺃﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﺤﻴﺔ ﺷﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻣﺎ‪،‬ﲢﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﻚ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﲢﻴﺔ ﻻ ﲣﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺒﺎﻗﺔ‪- ،‬ﳌﺲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﳌﺲ‪ ، Le toucher sens toucher-‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻧﺪﺍﺀ ﻧﺎﺟﺢ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻳﻬﺐ ﻭﺧﺠﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪ :‬ﺃﺭﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺭﺳﻢ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻭﱃ ﻟﺘﺤﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﻜﺘﺒﻪ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺛﻼﺛﲔ ﻋﺎﻣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻃﺎﺭﺉ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﺗﻀﺢ‬
‫ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﻗﺮﺃﻫﺎ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻛﻨﺖ ﺑﺪﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻮ‪.‬‬
‫)ﰲ ﳌﺲ ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﻚ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﳚﻤﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺿﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﺺ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﳛﻮﻱ) ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﺍﻣﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺍﻣﺮﺓ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ِﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﻣﻌﲔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﰲ ﲝﺜﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﲑ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ (‪ 3‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﲤﻴﺰﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ‪-‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪-‬ﺑﺎﻹﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺘﻬﺎ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Entretien entre Safaa Fathy et Jean-Luc Nancy ,Penser avec Derrida où qu'il‬‬
‫‪soit, RUE DESCARTES 2016/2 (N˚89-90 )P.194- 203, https//www.‬‬
‫‪Cairn.info/revue-rue-descartes-2016-2-page-194.htm.P195.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Chung Chine-Yi, Derrida's Deconstruction of Jean-Luc Nancy, The Criterion:‬‬
‫‪An Intemational Journal in English, https//www.the- criterion.com,.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Claire Marin, L'œil et la main: la «métaphysique du toucher» dans la‬‬
‫‪philosophie Français ,Ravaisson à Derrida, ),Dans LES ÉTUDES‬‬
‫‪PHILOSOPHIQUES 2003/1(n˚64),PAGES 99À112,Mis en linge sur Cairn.info‬‬
‫‪le 01/03/2003,https//doi.org/leph.031.0099.‬‬
‫‪222‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺰﺋﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﲰﺎﺕ ﲡﻠﻌﺪﻧﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺿﻔﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﺮﲰﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺃﻻ ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻃﺮﺓ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﺪﻳﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺤﺎﺕ ﻣ‪‬ﺴﺒﻘﺔ ؟ ﺃﻻ‬
‫ﻧﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺼﺪﺩ ﺇﺗ‪‬ﺒﺎﻉ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺇﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﲟﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻣﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ ‪ périodisante‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳ‪‬ﺮﺷﺪﻧﺎ ؟‬
‫ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﻓﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺔ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ‪‬ﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺣﻞ‪ .‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻗﻄﻌﺎ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﳎﺰ‪‬ﺋﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﰲ ﺃﻱ‪ ‬ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺮﻫﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﲢﺪ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺀ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻞﹼ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩﻳﺔ ﺗ‪‬ﺤﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﺳﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﳌﻘﺪ‪‬ﻣﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﺽ ﻳﺴﺒﻖ ﻣﻘﺪ‪‬ﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻴﺊ‪ .‬ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺣﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﻮﺻ‪‬ﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﻋﻼﻥ‪ .‬ﲞﻼﻑ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﺗﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﻋﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺗﻮﺻ‪‬ﻞ ﺇﱃ ﳌﺲ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﰲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻤﺎﻧﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻫﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺻ‪‬ﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺇﻗﺘﺤﺎﻡ ﻣﻌﺠﻤﻪ )ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﻡ‪ ‬ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻣﻊ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺟﺮﺍﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻠﺒﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﻌﻴﻨﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻏﺪﺕ ﻛﻞﹼ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﺒﻖ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺗﻨﺬﺭ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺣﺪﺙ ﺑﲔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1985‬ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ‪ ، 1991‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺻ‪‬ﻞ ﺇﱃ ﳌﺲ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﺑﻞ ﻣ‪‬ﻐﺘﺼﺐ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﻟﻮﺝ ﻭﻣﺘﺤﻜﹼﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﳏﻞﹼ ﺍﳉﺪﻝ ﱂ ﺗﺘﻢ‪ ‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﰲ ﻭﻗﺖ ﳏﺪ‪‬ﺩ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻭﻗﻌﺖ‬
‫ﰲ ﻳﻮﻡ ﻣﺎ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺴﺒﻮﻗﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻭﻣﺘﺒﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﻘﺼ‪‬ﺔ ﻛﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﰲ ﺣﺪ‪ ‬ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ( ﺃﻗﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺟﺎﻥ ﻟﻮﻙ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit Ibid,P113.‬‬

‫‪223‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺇﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﻟﻠﺘ‪‬ﻮ‪ ‬ﺭﺳﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣ‪‬ﺔ )ﳑﻜﻦ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،(‬ﰲ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﲢﺪ‪‬ﺙ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ "ﺟﺮﺍﺣﻴﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺟﺮﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ‪،‬ﺣﺘ‪‬ﻰ ﻭﺇﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺿﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻶﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﹼﺘﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﺎ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴ‪‬ﻴﺘﺎﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻐﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ )ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻛﻞﹼ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﻵﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌ‪‬ﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻌ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﻼﹼﻕ )‪ (la technè‬ﻟﻸﺟﺴﺎﻡ ﻛﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺇﺿﺎﰲ ﺁﱄ‬
‫)ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﻨﺎﻋﺔ( ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﱄ ﻳ‪‬ﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻕ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ ﺑﲔ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﻗﻞﹼ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ‪‬ﺘﻢ‪ ‬ﺑﺎﳉﺴﻢ ﰲ ﺣﺪ‪ ‬ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺃﺷﲑ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ﻋﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲢﻮ‪‬ﻟﺖ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺟﺪﻝ‪ .‬ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﻭﻻ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‬
‫ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﺻﺎﺭ ﳛﻤﻠﻪ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻤﻪ ﺍﳊﻲ‪ ‬ﻫﻮ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺇﻣﺮﺃﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺭﺟﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﲟﺜﺎﺑﺔ) ﺍﻟﺪ‪‬ﺧﻴﻞ "‪ "L’intruis‬ﺑﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻳﻨﺎﻳﺮ (‪.1999‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪ :‬ﻟﺪﻱ‪) ‬ﻣﻦ‪" ،‬ﺃﻧﺎ" ؟ ﺃﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ )ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻤﺔ ‪la‬‬
‫‪(chair‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺑﺎﻟﻀ‪‬ﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﱘ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺘﻤﺎ ﺩﺧﻴﻞ ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻫﻮ ﺍﶈﺮ‪‬ﻙ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳉﲔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ ؟ ﺗﻠﻘﹼﻴﺖ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻗﻠﺒﺎﹰ ﺁﺧﺮ )ﻗﻠﺐ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺁﺧﺮ(‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺣﻮﺍﱄ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺯﺭﻋﻮﻩ ﰲﹼ‪ .‬ﻗﻠﱯ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ )ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ( )ﻛﻞﹼ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳ‪‬ﺤﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺑﺎﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ‪«le‬‬
‫»‪ propre‬ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﹼﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﲟﺎ ﻓﻬﻤﻨﺎﻩ‪ .(...) ،‬ﻗﻠﱯ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ )ﳑﻜﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ( ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﺎ ﺃﻭ ﱂ ﻳ‪‬ﺴﻠﹼﻂ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻀ‪‬ﻮﺀ )ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﺡ( ﻳﻮﻣﺎ‪(...‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﲢﻠﻴﻠﻪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﺃﻱ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ( ﻣﻔﺠﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻳﻊ ﻭﻣﺒﻬﺮ‪ ،‬ﺫﻭ ﺩﻗﹼﺔ ﻭﻧﺰﺍﻫﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﻣﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰ‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪) ‬ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﺪﻳﻖ ﻳﻠﺘﻒ‪‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit Ibid,P113‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy,op.cit Ibid,P114‬‬
‫‪224‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺇﺫﻥ ﺳﺮ‪‬ﺍ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﻪ ‪(l’ami se replie alors discrètement sur son sujet‬‬
‫ﳌﺲ ﻣﺮ‪‬ﺗﲔ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮ‪‬ﺓ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺘﻤﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ )ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻖ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻵﺧﺮ ‪ ، la greffe‬ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﲏ‪ ،‬ﳎﻴﺊ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮ ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﻨﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ )ﻗﻠﺐ ‪ (coeur‬ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﻴﺊ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﲢﻘﹼﻘﻪ ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮ‪‬ﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺗ‪‬ﺼﺎﻝ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺪﻱ‪ ‬ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺘ‪‬ﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﱂ ﻭﺍﻟﺮ‪‬ﻓﺾ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌ‪‬ﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻌ‪‬ﺎﻝ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳋﻼﹼﻕ )‪ (la technè‬ﻟﻸﺟﺴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺻ‪‬ﻞ ﺇﱃ ﳌﺲ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺻﺎﺭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﻤﻮﺱ ﺑﻞ ﻣ‪‬ﻐﺘﺼﺐ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻭﻟﻮﺝ‬
‫ﻭﻣﺘﺤﻜﹼﻢ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻤﺲ ﰲ ﺻﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻭ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﺪ‪ ‬ﺫﺍﺗﻪ )ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ( ﺃﻗﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻓﻜﺮ ﺟﺎﻥ ﻟﻮﻙ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻏﺔ )‪ (L’identité vide‬ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻳ‪‬ﻤﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺗﺄﻟﹼﻢ‬
‫‪ je souffre‬ﺗﺆﺩ‪‬ﻱ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﻨﻴﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ )ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﲔ ﻳﺘﻼﻣﺴﺎﻥ(‪ ،‬ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﻼﺣﻈﺔ ﺗﺘﻜﺮ‪‬ﺭ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﲤﺘ‪‬ﻊ ‪ .je jouis‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺗﺄﻟﹼﻢ ‪ je souffre‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺣﺴﺎﺳﲔ ﻳﺘﺨﻠﹼﻰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﰲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﲤﺘ‪‬ﻊ ‪ je jouis‬ﻓﺎﻷﻧﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺪ‪‬ﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﻣﺮ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺷﻚ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻧﻘﻄﱵ ﻣﺎﺀ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻭ ﻻ ﺃﻗﻞﹼ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ )ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺭﺩﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳓﺘﺮﻡ ﻏﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺍﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻡ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ‪ ،2‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﱪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪)،‬ﺇﻥ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Ibd, p115.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻐﻴﺚ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﳌﺜﻘﻔﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪1 ،5-4‬ﻓﱪﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﺹ ‪.143‬‬
‫‪225‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﻖ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﹼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻔﺘﻮﺡ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﳌﻦ ﻳﻬﻤﻪ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ(‪.1،‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.10‬‬

‫‪226‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ)‪ (Altérité‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪Autre‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ‪L'autre‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ /‬ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫‪ -6‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪:‬‬

‫ﺇﻥ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ)ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ(‪ 1‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺃﻏﺴﺖ ﻛﻮﻧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺸﲑ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻀﺤﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﲢﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻻ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓﹰ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪)،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ‪-‬ﺑﲔ ﺇﺛﻨﲔ‪ -‬ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﲟﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﺎﻋﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻔﻴﺰ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﻹﺻﻐﺎﺀ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﺴﺘـ)ﻪ( ﻭﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﻫﻮﻳﱵ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺍﺩﰐ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺹ ﰊ ﻭﻣﺎ ﳕﻠﻜﻪ ﻣﻌﺎ ﻷﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺍﻟ» ﺃﻧﺎ «ﰲ ﺍﻟ»ﳓﻦ« ﳝﻠﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮﻳﺘﻪ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺍﺩ‪‬ﺎ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،3‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﻣﻨ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺑﲔ)‪ (Altruisme‬ﻭ)‪ ،(Altérité‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﳒﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻳﺘﻄﺮﻗﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﻠﻂ‪ ،‬ﺗﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ)‪ .(Altruisme‬ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﳍﻮﻳ‪‬ﺔ ‪(.Identité‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Altérité:(...)dérivé de alter (autre-autrui: altruisme). Le sens d'emprunt‬‬
‫‪correspond à la notion philosophique de «différence par changement». à la fois‬‬
‫‪«diversité» et «altération». Alain Rey, Dictionnaire Historique de la langue‬‬
‫‪Française, Dictionnaires Le Robert, paris, 2010, P60.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻛﺎﰐ ﻟﻮﺑﻼﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺎﺷﻮﺭ ﻓﲏ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻳﺲ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪،2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺪﺍﺳﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪،2007‬ﺹ‪.37‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﺽ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﻧﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻼ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﻃﻖ ﻏﲑ ﻻ ﻧﺎﻃﻖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺍﻧﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻌﺮﺽ‪ .‬ﺇﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺫﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﲔ‪ :‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻛﺎﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﺭ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺼﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺩ‪-‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻋﺮﺿﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻏﲑﻳ‪‬ﺘﻪ ﻟﺘﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﺃﺣﻮﺍﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺘﲔ ﱂ ﻳﺘﺒﺪﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﺽ ﰲ ﺷﻴﺌﲔ‬
‫ﻓﻜﻠﻤﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﳌﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺩ‪ -‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺒﻊ ﻏﲑ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﻤﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﺎﹰ ﻣﺎﺀ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﺮﺿﺖ ﳍﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺩ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺣﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻪ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻮﺟﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻨﺲ ﻳﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺑﻔﺼﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻀﺎﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳋﻼﻑ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﲟﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻬﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻠﺰﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻒ‬
‫ﻓﻴﺨﺎﻟﻒ ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﲑﺍﺩ ﺟﻬﺎﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﺷﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1998 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.570‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.46‬‬
‫‪228‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﰲ ﺍﻻﺷﺘﻘﺎﻕ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﻲ)‪ (Alter‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪) Alteritas‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻔﺼﻞ(‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ)ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ(‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﲨﻴﻞ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪):‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺌﲔ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﻴﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺌﲔ ﻳ‪‬ﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﺎﺑﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻔﻆ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻼ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻼ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ)ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﳊﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﻧﻴﺔ )ﺑﺮﻣﻴﻨﺪﺱ ﻭﺛﺎﺋﻴﺘﺎﺗﻮﺱ ﻭﻓﻴﻼﺑﻮﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻮﻓﺴﻄﺎﺋﻲ( ﺇﱃ ﻛﱪﻯ »ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ«ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﺎﳘﺖ ﰲ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻓﺴﻄﺎﺋﻲ ﴰﻠﺖ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ»ﺍﻵﺧﺮ« ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺟﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﱪﻯ« ﺍﳋﻤﺴﺔ »ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻜﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ« ﳍﺬﺍ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﱐ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻣﻲ ﻟﻼﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻮﺟﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻛﻞ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺸﻐ‪‬ﻞ ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ »ﺍﻷﻧﺎ« ﻭ»ﺍﻵﺧﺮ« ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺑﻌﲔ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ »ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ« ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ»ﻟﻼﺧﺘﻼﻑ«(‪. 3‬‬
‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻨﺎ ﳓﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻧﺼﻄﺪﻡ ﲟﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎ ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺸﻮﺷﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻭﻧﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﲑ؟ ﻭﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ؟‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Paul Foulquié – Raymond Saint- Jean, dictionnaire de la langue philosophique,‬‬
‫‪p.u.f, 1962, p 62-63.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﲨﻴﻞ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،1982 ،‬ﺹ‪.122‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻏﺮﺍﻳﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ؟‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻭﺣﻴﺪ ﺑﻮﻋﺰﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻳﺲ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﺴﺪﺍﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪،2007‬ﺹ ‪.28‬‬
‫‪229‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫‪ -2‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪:1Autre‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﳎﱪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻐﲑ ﻭﺍﻋﻄﺎﺋﻪ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ )ﻓﺎﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺸﻜﺎﻝ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻻ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﰊ ﺇﱃ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﳕﻂ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﱵ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺎﺏ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻫﺎﺏ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻭﺇﱃ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺫﻫﺎﺏ ﻳﻮﺳﻊ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﺅﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺇﻣﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻭﳏﺒﺔ ﻭﺇﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻳﻌﲏ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻨﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻌﻪ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﺷﺒﻬﺎﹰ ﺇﱃ ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ ﻭﺑﲔ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ )ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻨﺎﻇﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺁﺧﺮ‪،‬ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﻟﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺃﻛﺎﻥ ﺧﺼﻤﺎﹰ ﺃﻡ ﺣﻠﻴﻔﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺳﻴﺤﻞ ﳏﻞ ﺍﳉﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﻣﺘﻐﲑ ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﺫﺍ ﺿﻤﲑ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﳑﻴﺰ ﺗﺴﺎﻧﺪﻫﺎ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ(‬
‫ﻓﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﹰﺎ ﻛﻠﻴﺎﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻔﺘﺶ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺠﺪ ﻭﻟﺘﺤﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺘﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺶ ﻋﻦ » ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ « ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ‪‬ﺪﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪.‬ﻛﻮﻥ ﻋﻤﻞ ﳚﺮﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ ﳚﺮﻱ ﰲ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﺎﻕ ﻟﻴﺼﻨﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﱂ ﻳﺴﺎﺑﻘﻪ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻨﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ‬

‫‪1‬ﻳﺸﲑ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺻﻄﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺇﱃ)ﻋﻠﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﻔﻆ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻼ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻏﲑﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ ،‬ﲨﻴﻞ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.12‬‬
‫‪.2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺍﳍﻼﱄ‪-‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﻟﺰﺭﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2010 ،1‬ﺹ ‪6‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺭﳝﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺎﻧﺘﻴﻴﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ‪ :‬ﻧﺴﻴﻢ ﻧﺼﺮ‪،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻮﻳﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1984 ،3‬ﺹ‪147 -6‬‬
‫‪4‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪160‬‬
‫‪230‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻜﺘﺸﻒ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺇﺫﺍﹰ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺎﺟﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺘﺤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻻ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎﹰ ‪،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﺰﻳﺪﰲ » ﻭ ﺳﺎﺋﻞ «ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﻳﺔ ﻟﺘﻬﺬﻳﺐ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺘﺠﺰﻩ ﰲ ﺗﻌﻴﲔ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺴﺎﻫﻢ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﰲ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﺍﹰ‪») ،‬ﺇﻋﺮﻑ ﻧﻔﺴﻚ ﺑﻨﻔﺴﻚ « ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻠﻮ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻫﻴﻜﻞ ﺩﻳﻠﻒ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺒﻴ‪‬ﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺶ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻮﺍﻑ ﻣﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳌﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﺗﺴﺎﻋﺎﹰ ﻛﺒﲑﺍﹰ ﺗﻐﺪﻭﺍ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﹰ ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻔﺘﺶ ﻟﺘﺠﺪ ﻭﻟﺘﺤﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺘﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻔﺘﺶ ﻋﻦ » ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ « ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ‪‬ﺪﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‬
‫‪- 3‬ﺃﻵﺧﺮ‪:L'autre‬‬
‫ﺃﻱ)‪،3(L'autre‬ﻣﺸﺘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ )‪ ،(Alter‬ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ )ﻧﻘﻴﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪) Même‬ﻭﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺷﱴ ‪،Divers‬ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ‪ Différent‬ﺃﻭ ﳑﻴ‪‬ﺰ‬
‫‪.Distinct‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪157-155‬‬

‫‪2‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪،‬ﺹ ‪160-157‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪:‬ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻭﻋﻴﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺃﻻﻧﺎﻧﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﻟﻼﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ ‪ ،Ego‬ﳛﻴﻞ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻪ ﲟﺼﺎﳊﻪ ﻭﺍﳓﻴﺎﺯﻩ‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﺄﻟﻮﻑ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﱵ ‪ Je‬ﺃﻭ ‪ ،Moi‬ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﺻﻔﺘﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻇﺎﱂ ﺑﺬﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺼﻨﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻓﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﰲ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺒﺎﺩﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻭﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺒﺪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.824‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﲨﻴﻞ ﺻﻠﻴﺒﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺹ ﺹ ‪.141-139‬‬
‫‪231‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻱ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺎﻍ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺳﺘﻴﻮﺍﺭﺕ ﻣﻴﻞ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ‪An Examination of Sir William‬‬
‫‪.Hamilton's Philosophy‬‬
‫ﺭﻏﻢ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﳒﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﲎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺧﺎﻣﺲ ﺃﺟﺰﺍﺋﻪ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴ‪‬ﺚ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﱂ‬
‫ﺗﺘﺤﺮﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺑﺴﺘﻤﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺇﻻ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼ‪‬ﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻬﻢ ﺃﺳﻼﻓﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺎ ﺟﻌﻠﻬﻢ ﻳﻔﺸﻠﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺇﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻣﺘﻄﺮﻑ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﱐ ﻭﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺭﻭﻡ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺿﻌﻪ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺜﲑ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻭﺑﺬﺍ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻜﺎﻓﺌﺔ ﻷﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﻳﻦ ﺃﻭﺭﺑﻴﲔ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﲔ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻭﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻨﻮﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﲢﺪﻱ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﻱ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ :‬ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﳜﺘﺼﺮ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺭﺩ ﻵﺧﺮﻳﺘﻪ‪.1‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻓﻪ ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﰊ ﰲ ﻣﻌﺠﻤﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ‪ :‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﶈﺎﻳﺜﺔ ﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻊ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﰲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺣﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﳏﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻷ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻐﲑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ)ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻻﻋﻼﻡ( ﺹ‪.57‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،Solipsisme:‬ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﳚﺮﻱ ﻋﺮﺿﻪ ﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﺰﻭﻡ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻧﺎﺟﻢ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﱄ)ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ( ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﻌﻴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﲡﻠﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻟﻠﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﻧﺘﻤﺜﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﺍﻻﹼ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺷﺨﻮﺹ ﺍﻷﺣﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻗﻞ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﻫﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪،‬ﺹ ‪.1313‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳉﺰﺀ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ‪ Sujet‬ﻣﺸﺘﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ‬
‫‪.Subjectum‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪Paul Foulquié – Raymond Saint- Jean, dictionnaire de la langue :‬‬
‫‪.philosophique,P299‬‬
‫‪1‬ﺗﺪ ﻫﻮﻧﺪﺭﺗﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺇﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳒﻴﺐ ﺍﳊﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪1‬ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ‪ ،2003 ،‬ﺹ ‪.36‬‬
‫‪232‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻳﺘ‪‬ﻢ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
‫)ﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ‪ Intropathie‬ﻓﻌﻞ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﺪﺍﻥ ‪ Pathos‬ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ)‪ (...‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻷﺧﺮ ‪Autre‬ﰲ ﻟﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﳏﺴﻮﺱ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻛﺔ(‬
‫ﻭﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻹﻳﺘﻴﻘﻲ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑ)ﻭﺇﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎﹰ ﺍﻳﺘﻴﻘﻴﺎ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻭﺳﺘﺘﻌﻤﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﺃﴰﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮ ﻭﺗﻌﺎﰿ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻛﻤﺮﺗﻜﺰﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺗﻜﺰﺍﺕ ﻳﺘﻌﲔ ﺇﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺑﻘﺼﺪ ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺦ ﻣﻌﺠﻤﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﻴﺖ)‪.2((...‬‬
‫ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﳒﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻹﻳﺘﻴﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺷﺮﻃﺎﹰ ﻣﻬﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﳊﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ‪،‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﻏﻴﺎﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﺑﺪﺀ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺍﳋﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺃﺧﻼﻕ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻏﻴﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﺧﻔﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﻭﺇﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻣﻔﺘﺘﺢ ﻏﲑ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﻟﻸﺧﻼﻕ ﻣﻔﺘﺘﺢ ﻋﻨﻴﻒ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﺭﺑﻂ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺳﺦ )ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻳﺶ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻭﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺑﻴﺬﺍﰐ(‪ 4‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎﻳﱪﺭ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺜﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻱ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﻗﻮﺍﲰﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ »ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺗﺼﻮ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﰲ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ«‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﻧﻮﻗﺸﺖ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻫﺮﺍﻥ ‪ ،‬ﲢﺖ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺰﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،2010-2009 ،‬ﺹ‪-150‬‬
‫‪.151‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ﻏﺎﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻻﻳﺘﻴﻘﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺎﺳﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﺞ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪،2017 ،‬ﺹ‪.252-251‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.274‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ﻏﺎﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪252‬‬
‫‪233‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬

‫ﻳﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺘﺠﻠﹼﻰ ﻛﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﻭﺍﻫﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﳛﻀﺮ‬
‫ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪) ،‬ﻓﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺗﻌﺪﺩﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻺﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ " ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﻳﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺻﻮﻍ ﻓﺬ ﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻛﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻛﻠﻴﺎ ﻳﻌﱪ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ)‪(...‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻶﺧﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻄﻰ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ؟ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ)ﻣﺪﻣﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﳛﻆ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺳﺒﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻨﺤﻪ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﻳﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻻﻧﺜﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﰲ ﻭﺻﻒ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺷﻄﺮ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻬﻴﻤﻦ ﳏﺼﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲤﺎﻣﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻻﻧﺜﻰ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺇﳕﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﺗﻮﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﻓﻀﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺮ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﳘﻠﺘﻪ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺇﻻ ﲝﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻏﺎﺏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻌﺠﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺑﺪﻭ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻘﺴﻰ ﻭﻣﻬﻤﺶ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻏﲑ ﻣﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﻻ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻥ ﻧﺼﺮﺡ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﻮﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺑﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﻓﻜﺮﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻲ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﲤﻜﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻏﻴ‪‬ﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﰐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺎﺗﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺑﺎﳋﺼﻮﺹ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺑﺪﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻮﻫﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﻮﺙ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺹ‪.11‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺗﺪ ﻫﻮﻧﺪﺭﺗﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.36‬‬
‫‪234‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﳓﻦ ﻧﺘﻮﺍﺻﻠﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺗﺘﺤﻜﻢ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻥ ﻧﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺇﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ)ﻓﻬﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻬﺪ ﳉﻬﺔ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﺪ ﺍﳌﻬﺪ‪‬ﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻬﺪ‪‬ﱢﺩ‪ :‬ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﳊﺸﻮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺻﻔﺔ(‬
‫ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﳓﻮﻯ )ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‪ :‬ﻓﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺮﺁﺓ‪ 2(.‬ﻓﺎﻷﺧﺮ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺇﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،3‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻻﺧﺎﻣﺲ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺇﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ )ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﺑﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﺎﹰ ﺇﻧﻪ ﻧﻈﲑﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﻈﲑﻱ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻱ ﳍﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ(‬
‫ﻳﻀﻤﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﻘﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻟﻪ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،1‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳒﺎﺯ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺟﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﺠﻬﺔ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺍﰐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳒﺎﺯ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.51-50‬‬

‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Magali Nachtergael, Jaque derrida, l'autre en soi,p2.‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻒ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻲ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ‪.‬ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺑﻞ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﳌﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫» ﻫﻨﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ « ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﲟﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﲟﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﻫﻮ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﳊﺪﻭﺱ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﺤﻀﺮﺓ »‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻴﺪ« ﰲ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﺠﻞ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﻓﺎﻋﻠﻴﺘﲔ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻄﺘﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﲟﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﱃ ﺗﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ" ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍ ﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺭﺍﺩ ﻗﻮﺍﲰﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.217‬‬
‫‪235‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﻒ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﳒﺎﺯ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﻨﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺫﺟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻻ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﺑﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺩﺭﻛﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ ﰲ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻬﺎ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ‪) ،‬ﺑﻞ‬
‫ﺑﺈﳒﺎﺯ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻩ ﺍﳌﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻔﻪ ﺑﲔ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﻠﻴﺎﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻨﺠﺰﻫﺎ) ‪( ...‬ﺍﱁ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﳉﻲ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﻘﺔ ﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺎ‪ .‬ﻛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﺮﻱ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻲ ﳍﺎ ﻃﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﺎﻫﻮﻱ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﺒﺜﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﺃﲰﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ))ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫‪ ((Iterabilite‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻧﺒﺜﺎﻕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ))‪ Itara‬ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻨﺴﻜﺮﻳﺘﻴﺔ(( ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭ‪ .‬ﺍﳌﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﻳﺪﺷﻦ ﺣﱴ‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳛﻀﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﻛﺎﳊﺎﺿﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺮﺍﺭ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻓﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪):‬ﻭﳑﺎ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﲢﺪﻳﺪﺍﹰ ﺃﻥﹼ " ﳛﻴﺎ" ﻻ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻋﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻢ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻡ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺎﻓﺔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ‪ :‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎ )‪( ego et ' Alter‬ﻳﺸﻜﻼﻥ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺍﹰ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﻣﻠﺘﻘﻰ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻘﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﻌﻮﺑﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻋﻘﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﱄ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻻ ﻳﺆﺧﺬﺍﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻭﻳﻘﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩﳘﺎ‪.،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﳍﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﻧﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ‪ Alter ego‬ﻳﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎ ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺣﻘﺎ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ‪ pour soi‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺪ ﻛﻴﻨﻮﻧﺘﻪ ﻟﺬﺍﰐ ﺇﻥﹼ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪،‬‬
‫ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.10‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪640‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺳﺮ ﻵﻧﻪ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺇﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪ .2005‬ﺹ‪.156‬‬
‫‪236‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻣﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻤﻌﲎ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﻣﻮﺕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻧﺘﻌﻠﻢ ﺃﻥ ﳓﻴﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺑﲔ ّﺇﺛﻨﲔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ( ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ 3‬ﰲ ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺑﺄﻥﱠ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﲝﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪ‪‬ﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻮﰐ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﻟﻠﻔﻈﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺣﻲ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻮﻕ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻔﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﰲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻴﺖ ﻳﺼﺎﺣﺒﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻴﺖ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪") :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ" ﺃﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ" ﺃﻭ "ﺃﻧﺎ ﺣﻲ" ﺃﻭ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ "ﺣﺎﺿﺮﻱ ﺣﻲ ﻫﻮ" ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻫﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﳍﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﻻﹼ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺑﺮﺋﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺎﺋﺒﺘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﻴﻂ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺖ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﹰ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻐﲑ ﺷﻚ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ "ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺑﺎﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ "ﻛﻮﱐ ﻣﻴﺘﺎ"‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ(‪.4‬‬
‫ﻭﳑ‪‬ﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻼﺣﻈﻪ ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻓﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻗﺪﺍﺳﺔ ﺭﻭﺣﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴ‪‬ﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺻﻐﻲ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺣﲔ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﻣﺎﹰ ﻻ ﺃﻣﻠﻚ ﺷﻴﺌﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﲔ ﺃﻛﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻄﺎﻟﺔ ﻗﺎﺗﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺗﺼﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺎﺗﻨﺎ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺩﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻧﻔﺘﺄ ﻧﺴﺪﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧﺖ ﻣﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻧﺖ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻄﻴﻊ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﺣﺎﻭﻟﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻀﻴ‪‬ﻖ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻐﺎﺛﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺪﻟﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻮﺕ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2006 ،2‬ﺹ ‪.16‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻨﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﻣﻬﺎﲨﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ ﻭﻟﻜﻜﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻳﻀﻊ ﺷﺮﻃﺎ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺕ ﻛﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﳚﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺭﻏﻢ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻊ ﲡﺎﻭﺯ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﲪﻠﺖ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻻ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،.2005 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.150‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.135‬‬
‫‪237‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﳝﻠﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺻﻮﺗﻪ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﺇﻻﱠ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺫﻋﻦ ﻭﺃﻟﺘﻘﻂ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪ .‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺃﻣﺘﺜﻞ ﻟﻪ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻗﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻃﻴﻔﹰﺎ‪) 2‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﺎﺋﺒﺎﹰ ﻭﻏﺮﻳﺒﺎﹰ ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺷﺨﺼﺎ ﱂ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﻓﻶﺧﺮ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﺻﻮﺭﺍﹰ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﻭﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻠﻤﺤﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻷﺳﺒﻖ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ (....)،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻱ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﳝﺜﹼﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻻﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﻔﺘﻮﺡ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺘ‪‬ﺤﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﳌﻦ ﻳﻬﻤﻪ ﺃﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ(‪.‬‬
‫‪-5‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ /‬ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ )ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﱄ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻱ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ(‪ 4‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﰐ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﺄﺳ‪‬ﺲ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ)ﺍﻟﻐﲑ(‪ .‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺛﻨﻴﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﹼﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ‪ 5‬ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻓﺄﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺳﻠﻄﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2000 ،1‬ﺹ ‪.28-27‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﻴﻒ؟ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻄﻴ‪‬ﻒ ﻫﻮ ﺩﻣﺞ ﻣﺘﻨ‪‬ﺎﻗﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺼﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺟﺴﻤﺎﹰ ﻟﺘﻌﺪ ﺷﻜﻼﹰ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎﹰ ﻭﺟﺴﺪﻳﺎﹰ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺒﻘﻰ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ »ﺷﻴﺌﺎ" ﺗﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻪ‪ :‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﹰ ﻭﻻ ﺟﺴﺪﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺤﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﻄﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﲣﺘﻔﻲ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﳎﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻭ ﰲ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﻴ‪‬ﻒ ﻓﺜﻤﺔ ﳐﺘﻒ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻪ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻔﻲ ﻓﺎﻟﻄﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪29-28‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.10‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫– ‪Magali Nachtergael, Jaque derrida, l'autre en soi, http: // halshs.archives‬‬
‫‪ouvertes.fr/halshs-00746127,27 oct 2011, p2.‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﻭﻛﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻗﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻘﻒ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻤﺎﺋﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞﹼ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻃﺮﺣﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺷﻜﱠﻞ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪238‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﻣﻌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﺎﺩﻑ‬
‫ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ‪ Identité‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳉﻤﻠﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﳛﻤﻞ ﻧﻮﻋﹰﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ‬
‫»ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ«‪ Avec Soi‬ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ »ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ«‪» .Chez Soi‬ﻣﻊ«‪ Avec‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫»ﰲ«‪ ،Chez‬ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﳜﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺸﻖ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﻑ ﳚﻤﻊ ﻭﻳﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻺﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻜﺲ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﳌﺜﻞ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻞ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳﺔ )ﻓﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺟﺔ ﻭﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻘﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺤﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ ﺍﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺃﺑﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻮﻯ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺎﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺰﺍﺋﺮﻱ ﺍﳌﻮﻟﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺘﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻏﲑﻱ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻳﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺤﻦ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻻ ﳕﻠﻚ ﺇﻻﹼ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﺮﺟﻌﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺁﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ)ﻣﺘﻤﻮﺿﻌﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻭﻋﺎﺋﺪﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ ﰲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻑ(‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻫﻮﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺸﻔﹼﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﺎﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺗﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﳚﺪﺭ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺎﻫﻴﺔ ‪ Ipésit‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﻻ ﲣﺘﺰﻝ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﺍ‪‬ﺮﺩﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﻝ "ﺃﻧﺎ" ﰲ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﻛﻼﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻗﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻌﲏ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺃﺳﺘﻄﻴﻊ – ﻋﻮﺿﺎﹰ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻮﱄ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﺰﺃ "ﺃﻧﺎ"‪-‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﱪ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque Derrida, L'autre cape, Minuit, Paris, 1992, P16.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Ibid, p17.‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.77‬‬
‫‪239‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﳒﺪ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻭﺳﺎﻃﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪ"‪ "Pse‬ﰲ ﺗﺮﺍﺗﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ - ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ‪ Ipse‬ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻜﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺴﻂ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻬﺎﻳﺔ ‪.1(Hospes‬‬
‫ﳚﻌﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻓﺔ ﻟﻺﺑﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﻇﻒ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ‪‬ﺎ))ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﺍﺭﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ)‪(....‬ﻟﻴﻔﺤﺺ ﺍﻹﺑﺴﻲ ﻣﺮﺍﺩﻑ "ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ" ﺃﻭ "ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺮﺟﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﻭﻋﻠﱠﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ "ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺪﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺣﻮﻝ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﺘﻒ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺑ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺃﺯﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺭﻫﻴﻨﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﻟﺘﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺮﺟﺴﻲ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺑﺈﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪ Khôra‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﺪﺭﺟﺔ ﰲ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﺭﻗﺎﺕ ﺍ‪‬ﻨﻮﻧﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﲤﺠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ(‪ 4‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ‪ -‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،5-‬ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑﻳﻦ )ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟ"ﺃﻧﺎ"ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ )‪(Ergo sum‬ﺍﻟﱵ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.40‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ )ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻥ؟ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻏﺪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.320‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Évelyne GROSSMAN, UNE«AUDACE FOLLE», europ revue littéraire‬‬
‫‪mensuelle, Jaque derrida 82 année-N˚901/ mai 2004, http://www. Europ‬‬
‫‪revue.net,19:44, P5.‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻄﺎﻓﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﺳﻴﻄﺮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﺍﹰ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﱃ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﻟﻔﻆ ﻳﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﻳﻌﲏ " ﺃﻓﻜﺮ" ﳍﺬﺍ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ "ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ " ﺇﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﲢﻮﻳﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻮ ﻛﻞ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﺍﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺇﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﻔﻌﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﱄ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﺱ ﻳﻜﺸﻒ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﺮﻕ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﲔ ﺃﻗﻮﻝ " ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ " ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻲ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻭﳑﻴﺰﺓ ﻟﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ )ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ( ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ‪ :‬ﺇﻧﲏ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﻥ ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﳍﺬﺍ ﻓﺈﻥ )ﺃﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ( ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﺎﺋﻦ ﻣﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺣﱴ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ ﻻ ﻧﻌﺮﻑ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺳﻮﺍﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪".‬ﺃﻧﺎ "‪ :‬ﺿﻤﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺒﲔ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﻭﻟﻴﺎﻡ ﺟﻴﻤﺲ ﻗﺎﻝ " ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ "‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺸﻌﺮ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﲝﻀﻮﺭ ﺷﺨﺼﻪ " ﺷﺨﺺ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪240‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺗﻠﻲ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ )‪ Co gito‬ﺗﻌﺒ‪‬ﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺃﻭ"ﻛﻴﺎﻥ"ﻳﺮﻳﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ‬
‫ﲟﻌﺰﻝ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳋﺎﻟﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻮﻧﻪ ﻋﺠﺰ ﻋﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺣ‪‬ﺮﻡ‪ ‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﺣﺮﻡ‬
‫ﲡﻠﻲ ﺍﳋﻠﻖ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎﺀ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﻭﳐﺘﻠﻒ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻟﻠﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﰐ ﳑﺜﻼ ﻷﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﻬﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻘﺴﺎﻣﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻟﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﺎﻧﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺩ‪‬ﻯ ﺇﱃ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻧﻈﻢ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﺳﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪):‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﻳﻘﻠﻞ ﺣﱴ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﲏ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺑﻠﻮﻏﻪ ﺇﻻﹼ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳛﺪﺩﱐ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﰐ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻷﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻏﲑﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻣﻲ ﻓﻠﻜﻲ ﻻ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻋﺒﺜﻴﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺍﻻ‬
‫ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﺃﺑﺪﺍﹰ ﺇﱃ ﻭﻋﻴ‪‬ﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻐﻠﻒ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ )‪(...‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﲡﺴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻛﻮﱐ ﰲ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﺗﺎﺭﳜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﺟﻴﺘﻮ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﺘﺸﻔﲏ ﰲ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ .‬ﻷﻥ ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﺪﻱ ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻠﺐ ﻣﲏ ﺣﺮﻳﱵ ﻭﺃﱐ ﺃﺧﺘﺰﻟﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﻫﻮﻳﱵ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﰲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺼ‪‬ﺮﺍﻉ ﺍﳌﻤﻴﺖ ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﲏ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺋﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻘﺘﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺇﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﺍﻉ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺜﺎﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ )ﻣﻨﺪﻳﻼ( ﻭﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻌﻜﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻪ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻀﺎﻝ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳌﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﺼﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺧﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ )ﻓﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻭﻋﻲ ﻣﻌﺎﺭﺿﺘﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻭﻣﺔ ﲢﺘﻔﻆ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺲ ﻛﺂﺧﺮ ﺫﻱ‬

‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ " ﺃﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ " ﺇﺫﻥ " ﻓﺘﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﺰﻳﺪﺍﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻓﻜﺮ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻓﺄﻧﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﺋﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻓﺆﺍﺩ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.10‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺣﻴﺪﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﺮﺍﺀ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻻ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺇﻻ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻐﺮﺍﺏ ﺹ‪.8‬‬
‫‪2‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺆﺍﺩ ﺷﺎﻫﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺩﻁ‪ ،1998 ،‬ﺹ‪10‬‬
‫‪241‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺭﺍﺩﻳﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﰲ ﺃﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﳑﺎﺛﻠﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﺼﺮﻱ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ)ﻫﻞ ﺳﻴﻈﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻀﺎﻝ ﺿﺪ ﺍﳌﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﺼﺮﻱ‬
‫‪ apartheid‬ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎﹰ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺳﻠﻜﻬﺎ ﻣﻨﺪﻳﻼ ﻭﻓﻜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﻋﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﺑﺎﹰ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺟﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺑﺈﲰﻪ؟ ﻫﻞ ﺳﻴﻈﻞ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﹰ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺎﹰ ﻻ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻓﺮ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻲ؟(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﻨﺪﻳﻼ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻣﺘﲔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‪ :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﺍﻹﻓﺮﻳﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻳﻼ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺯﻋﻤﺎﺋﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳔﺮﻁ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،1944‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺄﺳﺲ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﺑﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻧﻐﺮﺱ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻭﳎﻠﺲ ﻟﻠﻮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺕ‪.‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﳎﻠﺲ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻠﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻹﻋﺠﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻦ ﺑﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻮ‪ -‬ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻭﺑﻮﻓﺎﺀ ﺍﳌﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻠﻤﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺩﻳﻜﺎﱄ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﳌﺪﺍﻓﻌﲔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﲔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ ﺿﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩ ﻭﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﺎﻓﺊ ﻟﻠﺜﺮﻭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻭﻗﺎﺋﻊ‬
‫ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﺪﻳﻼ ﻳﻨﺬﺭ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻤﺜﹼﻞ ﰲ ﺷﻌﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﳛﻤﻞ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺷﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﺷﻌﺐ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻣﻮﻟﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺁﺧﺮ‪....‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﳌﻀﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻳﺲ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﺴﺪﺍﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪،2007‬ﺹ‪.43‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2013 ،1‬ﺹ ‪-74‬‬
‫‪.75‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.80-76-75‬‬
‫‪242‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻳﺒﺤﺚ ﻋﻦ ﻛﺮﺍﻣﺘﻪ ﻭﺣﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ)ﺷﻌﱯ ﻭﺃﻧﺎ(‪ 1‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ)‪ (....‬ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻛﻞ ﲤﻴﺰ ﻋﺮﻗﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ(‪،2‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻮﻱ ﺗﻨﺎﺣﺮﺍﹰ ﻋﺮﻗﻴﺎﹰ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺎﹰ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻗﻠﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻀﺎﺀ ﻭﺃﻏﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺳﻮﺩﺍﺀ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺼﺮﻑ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻳﻼ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﲰﺔ ﻟﻸﻗﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺃﺳﺴﺖ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﺎﹰ‬
‫ﺩﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺎﹰ ﻣﺰﻋﻮﻣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﻛﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﺮﻗﻲ –ﻗﻮﻣﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺳﲑﻓﺾ ﻣﻨﺪﻳﻼ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﺎﻟﻒ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻴﱪﺍﻟﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﺪﻋﻮﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻀﺎﻝ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻻﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﺳﺘﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﲢﺎﻟﻒ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺰﻛﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻗﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻗﻠﻴﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳛﻮﻱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ‪ .‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻹﺗﻔﺎﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﰎ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺛﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﱂ ﲢﺘﺮﻡ ﻭﻋﻘﺒﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﻒ ﻛﺒﲑ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﳉﻨ‪‬ﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻠﻚ ﻛﻞ ﺳﻜﺎ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍﺩ‪ ‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻴﻀﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻜﻦ ﻷﻳﺔ ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﺘﺴﺐ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻣﺎ ﱂ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻣﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺐ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺤﻜﻢ ﻭﺳﺘﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﻛﻞ ﺍ‪‬ﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﲝﻘﻮﻕ ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭﻳﺔ]‪ [...‬ﻭﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭﻳﺎﹰ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ(‪ .4‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻟﻐﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺳﻮﻯ ﺃﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﺻﻌﺪﺓ‪ -1 :‬ﺻﻌﻴﺪ »ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﺩﻳ‪‬ﺔ«‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻔﻌﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻜﺎﺳﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺃﻭﻻ)‪ ،(Réflexivité‬ﰒ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﺃﺑﻌﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣ‪‬ﻠﻴ‪‬ﺔ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ )‪ -2 ،(Réflexion‬ﺻﻌﻴﺪ »ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺪﺩﻱ ﺑﺎ‪‬ﺎﻭﺯﺓ « ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺑﺄﺷﻜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺿﺒﻄﺖ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﺻﻴﻐﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﺺ‪ ‬ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟـﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺜﻠﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳊﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﻋﱪ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ‬
‫»ﺍﻹﻏﺘﺮﺍﺏ«) ‪) Étrangéreté, Entfremdung‬ﻭ»ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺦ«)‪» -3" ،(Aufhebung‬ﺻﻌﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺪﻱ ﺑﺎﳌﺰﺍﲪﺔ «‪ :‬ﺑﺄﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻨﺎﻓﺴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﺘﻌﺎﳉﻪ ﰲ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﻭﺭﺍﺋﻴﺔ)‪ ،(Spéculaire‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺁﺓ )‪ ،(Miroir‬ﺑﺄﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻭﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺍﻳﺎ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺭﺅﻳﺎ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻵﺧﺮ‪...‬ﳓﻮﻳ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﺍﳍﻮﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ :‬ﺃﻭﻫﺎﻡ ﺍﳍﻮﻳ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﲝﺎﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،2018 ،‬ﺹ‪.28‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﺳﺲ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪74 -72‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.78‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.79‬‬
‫‪243‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻨﻔﻪ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻴﻄﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻗﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻛﺜﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻹ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻴﺜﺎﻕ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻏﲑﻳﺔ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺐ ﺑﺮﻣﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﻗﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩﺍﺀ )ﻭﺳﻴﺼﺒﺢ‬
‫‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺎﺀ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﺎﻝ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺮﻱ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﺫﺍﻭﺍﺗﺎ ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻃﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻬﻤﻴﺶ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪-‬ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩ‪ -‬ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺴﺎﻭﻳﺎﹰ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺘﻬﻤﻴﺸﻪ‪-‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺾ‪-‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻧﺎﻩ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﻭﲤﺘﺪ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪).‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺘﻮﻗﱠﻒ ﻋﻨﺪ ﳎﺮ‪‬ﺩ ﺍﲣﺎﺫ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻷﻧﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﹰ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺒﲑ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺤﻮﻱ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺗﺘﻌﺪﻯ ﺫﻟﻚ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺒ‪‬ﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﺘﺘﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻊ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺎﻛﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ »ﻏﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ « ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪» ،‬ﻏﹶﻴ‪‬ﺮ‪«‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ)‪ (Temporalité‬ﺍﳌﻨﻮﻃﺔ ‪‬ﺎ(‪.2‬‬
‫‪-6‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﺎﺭ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺁﺧﺮ ﳛﺎﻝ ‪‬ﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻱ )ﻓﻴﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻠﻤﺔ ‪ Gentiles‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻻﺗﻴﲏ)‪ (gentilis) (gens‬ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﻟﻺﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺩﻭﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺇﻻﹼ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺗﺬﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺧﻄﺄ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﺆﻛﺪﺓ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻌﲏ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ‪ Gentiles‬ﻻ ﻳﻜﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻳﻔﻀ‪‬ﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ‪-‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﲤﺎﺛﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻱ ‪ goi‬ﺍﳌﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫‪ goyyim‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﲏ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪) :‬ﺷﻌﺐ( ﺃﻭ)ﻗﻮﻡ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﻭﻏﲑﻫﻢ‪،‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.80‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﳏﻤ‪‬ﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.28‬‬
‫‪244‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﳋﺮﻭﺝ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺜﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ‬
‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻠﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺑﲏ ﺇﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ )ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ( ﻭ)ﺍﻵﺧﺮ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﳐﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﳛﺪﺩ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﳑﻴ‪‬ﺰﺓ ﻭﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻛﻴﻒ ﻻ ﻭﻫﻢ ﳐﺘﺎﺭﻭﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺍﻋﻄﺎﺀ ﺍﻣﺘﻴﺎﺯﺍ ﻟﻠﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺳﺎﻣﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﻄﻔﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺏ ﻭﺃﻗﻮﺍﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺰ‪‬ﻣﻦ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﻐﲑ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺣﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﲏ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﱵ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ‪)،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﳋﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﻐﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻮﺟﻬﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻧﻔﺼﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﺪﻭﻧﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﱐ ﳒﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﻣﺎ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﱐ )ﺭﻳﻜﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺯﺍﺩﺭ( ﻟﻨﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻣﻀﻰ ﺑﺼﻤﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﻤﺖ ﻋﻤﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﺪﻭﻳﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ‪ 3‬ﻭﻻ ﻟﺪﻓﺎﻉ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﺮﺍﺋﻦ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﺯﺩﺭﺍﺀ ﺣﻴﺎﻝ ﻛﻞ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺌﺔ(‪.4‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻧﺼﻮﺹ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺒﻌﺪ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﺎﻟﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻘﺪﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻐﲑﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻮﺹ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗ‪‬ﺴﺄﻝ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻚ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺎﺋﻠﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﻼ ﺭﲪﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﻈﻔﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﺘﻨﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺭﻗﻴﺔ ﻃﻪ ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2008 ،1‬ﺹ‪.46‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺑﺪﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎﺑﺮ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.118 ،2014 ،1‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﳛﻤﻞ ﲤﺮﻛﺰﺍﹰ‪ ،‬ﻋﺮﻗﻴﺎﹰ ﻳﺸﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﻋﺮﺍﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺳﲑﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﳒﺪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﺳﻴ‪‬ﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﱄ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﲑﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻃﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺒﻪ ﻭﲡﻬﻪ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻳﲏ ﺃﻭ ﻃﺎﺋﻔﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺧﺮ ﺳﺮ ﻵﻧﻪ ﺁﺧﺮ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.156‬‬
‫‪245‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﺎﻟﺘﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺳﺆﺍﻟﻪ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩ ﻳﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﱪﺍﱐ‬
‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻭﻃﻴﺪﺓ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ‪ ،1‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﱂ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﰲ ﺃﻱ ﳎﺎﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍ‪‬ﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳊﺠﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺬﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻟﺪﻱ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺣﻮﺍﻝ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺳﻮﻏﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻛﺂﺧﺮ(‪ ،2‬ﺇﻧﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﻟﺪ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﻭﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﺸﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻲ ﱂ ﻳﻔﻜﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺣﻲ ﻟﻠﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻻ ﻳﻨﺄ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﻫﻮ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻛﺂﺧﺮ(‪.3‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺗﻘﺮ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﻟﻠﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻜﺲ ﻣﺎ ﺻﺮﺡ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﻴ‪‬ﻘﺔ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻣﻨﺬ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻻﻭﱃ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺻﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﻴﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacque Derrida, la déconstruction et l'autre, Gallimard, revue les temps‬‬
‫‪modernes, 2012, 3-n669-670,http//www.cairn.info, p7.‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Ibid, p7.‬‬
‫‪246‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﲡﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ‪Hospitalité‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ‪Don‬‬
‫‪ -3.‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ‪: Amitié‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﲡﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪.‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺟﻢ ﺑﺎﳉﺎﻧﺐ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻘﻴﻢ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺎﻣﺢ ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺗﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﺻﺒﺢ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻄﺮﺣﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﻭﳒﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻳﺘﻄﺮﻕ ﺇﱃ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﹼﱵ ﺗﺒﲎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺎﻣﺢ ﻭﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ )‪(...‬ﺍﱁ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ" ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ" ﻻ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﺴﺖ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻭﻣﺎ ﳝﻴﺰﱐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ "ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ" ﻫﻢ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳕﻴ‪‬ﺰ ﺫﻭﺍﺗﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻨ‪‬ﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻧﻌﻴﺶ ﻣﻌﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺃﻭﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺎﱂ ﺃﺗﺸﺎﺭﻙ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻓﺎﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻊ(‪.1‬ﺃﻱ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻛﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺃﺳﻢ )ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻴﺶ( ﰲ "ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ "‪ ،1929‬ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﺃﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ( ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﲢﻮﻳﻞ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﱄ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ "ﺍﻟﺮﺩ" ﳚﺪ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺍ‪‬ﺮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻧﻪ ﳚﺪ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺳﺎﲝﺎﹰ ﳐﺘﻠﻂ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﰲ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻨﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ ﲡﺮﻳﱯ ﻻ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﳎﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﺍﳌﺎﻫﻮﻱ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﳊﺪﺱ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﳝﻜﻦ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺪ‪‬ﺱ‪ ‬ﻋﺎﱂ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ )‪ (Lebenswelt‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻫﻲ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﻓﻖ ﺍﳌﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺈﳒﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺎﺭﺳﻪ »ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻣ‪‬ﻞ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩﻱ«‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ »ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺪﺍﺩ« ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Marten Heidegger, L'Etre et Temps, Gallimarde, 1964, P150.‬‬
‫‪248‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻃﺮﺡ ﺃﺳﺌﻠﺔ "ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﲑ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﻠﻮﻍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺩﺍﺩ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺸﺊ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻛﻞ ﺻﻼﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻀﻤﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺎﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺇﱃ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﳒﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﻓﻠﻴﺲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﰲ ﺗﻠﻘﺎﺋﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﻳﺴﺄﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﻋﻤﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻴﺎﹰ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻃﺮﺣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﻀﺒﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎ ﻭﺑﺴﺬﺍﺟﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﰒ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﻘﻠﻨﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺸﻲﺀ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﲟﻮﺿﻌﻪ‪.1‬‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ)‪:(Hospitalité‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﳚﺮﻱ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻏﲑ ﳑﻜﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﳛﺪﺩ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﲣﻄﻴﻪ ﻭﲡﺎﻭﺯﻩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﻏﲑ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﻭﺍﳌﻐﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﳜﺮﻕ ﻛﻞﹼ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﲟﺎ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﻳﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻔﺮﻭﺿﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻒ ﻭﺍﳌﻀﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻠﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻭﻟﻠﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ)‪(Hospitalité‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻜﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﻛﻘﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ)ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﰲ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﻣﺸﻬﺪ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻔﺴﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﻌﲎ ﺑﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﺗﺪﺍﺧﻼﺕ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﳜﺺ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﳍﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺣﺎﻝ‬

‫‪1‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻧﺴﻨﺪﻧﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.131‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻳﻒ ﺷﺎﺭﻝ ﺯﺭﻛﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﺠﺮﺓ ﻭﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻱ ﺑﻐﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﳎﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،2017،،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺲ‬
‫ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ‪،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪،‬ﺹ‪.59‬‬
‫‪249‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺣﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻠﺠﺄ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﱡﺠﻮﺀ‪ -‬ﻭﰲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﻑ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ(‪ .1‬ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﺍﻷﲰﻰ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺒﲎ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻡ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺇﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺩﻳﲏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺗﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻮﻋﲔ‪ :‬ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺳﺲ ﻭﺑﻄﺎﻗﺔ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻧﺘﺴﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﺔ ﻻ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺄﻱ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ‪.‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﲦﺔ ﻣﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﺬﺭﺓ ﺍﳊﻞ ﻭﻻ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻃﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﳏﺪﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻟﻶﰐ ﻛﻞ ﻣﱰﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻞ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺎ ﳜﺼﻨﺎ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺄﻟﻪ ﺇﲰﻪ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻮﺟﺐ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻪ ﺷﺮﻃﺎ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻘﻮﻕ ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻃﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﻫﻮﻧﺔ ﺩﻭﻣﺎ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻹﻏﺮﻳﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻣﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﻴﺤﻲ ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻛﻞ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻭﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ ﺍﳌﺪﱐ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ(‬
‫ﻳﻘﻒ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻱ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺑﻨﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ)‪ (...‬ﺧﻠﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﳓﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ)‪(...‬ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻛﻠﻬﺎ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻔﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺤﺚ(‪ 3‬ﻭﻳﻌﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ)‪ (Adieu à Emmanuel Lévinas‬ﻛﻤﺎﻳﻠﻲ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ ‪ hospitalité‬ﺗﺄﰐ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﲢﻤﻞ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺘﲔ ﺳﺒﻘﺘﻬﻤﺎ‪) ،‬ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ( )‪(attention‬ﻭ)ﺗﺮﺣﻴﺐ(‪ ،4((accueil‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺣﺎﻣﻼ ﻟﺪﻻﻻﺕ ﻻ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪1‬ﺻﻔﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪...‬ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ "ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ"‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ‪1 ،9‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪ ،1998‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.165‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺧﻄﻮﺓ ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻠﻴﻜﺔ ﺑﻦ ﺩﻭﺩﺓ ﺳﻴﻘﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﺴﺪﺍﺳﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ‪،2007‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.48‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﺠﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﱰﻝ ﺍﳌﻔﻘﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﰲ ﻫﺎﺟﺲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،2017،،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺲ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.16‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Jacques Derrida, Adieu à Emmanuel Lévinas, Paris, Galilée, 1997, P, 51.‬‬
‫‪250‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻓﻤﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎ ﳌﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪.1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻻ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﻭﺣﺮﺏ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺻﺮﺍﻉ ﻭﻧﻔﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﺒﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﻫﻮ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺒﻠﻐﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﻌﱪ ﻋﻦ ﻏﲑﻳﺔ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﲑ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﲟﻌﲎ ﺃﻧﺎ ﱂ ﺃﺑﻠﻐﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺮﻳﺌﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻨﺎﻏﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺼﻔﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻟﻐﺰ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺧﺮﺟﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻟﻐﺰ ﻓﻬﺬﺍ‬
‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﲢﺘﺠﺐ ﻋﺰﻟﺘﻪ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻠﺒﺎﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺘﺴﺎﻭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻛﺄﻧﺎ‬
‫ﺁﺧﺮﻯ ‪.2(alter ego‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻗﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻠﻤﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﻛﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﺃﻱ ﻫﻲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻴﻨﺔ )ﻓﺎﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﺤﺴﺐ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺁﺧﺮﻳﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻘﲑ "ﻭﺍﻷﺭﻣﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻴﺘﻴﻢ" ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺍﻟﻐﲏ ﻭﺍﳌﻘﺘﺪﺭ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﲤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺧﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻨﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﺍﳌﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﻤﻮ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺴﻌﻰ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻳﻠﻌﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻳﺘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﻫﻲ ﺑﺪﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﺗﺘﺤﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻭﺟﻬﻪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.92‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.93‬‬
‫‪251‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺟﺎﻫﺪﺍ ﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪﺃ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻠﻐﻲ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻨﻔﻌﺔ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺇﻃﺎﺭ ﳛﻔﻆ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻵﺧﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺫﻟﻚ )ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ(‪.1‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﳝﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﻴﺎ ﻭﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻠﻪ ﳝﻠﻚ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﻖ ﻫﻮ ﺇﺳﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﺜﻠﻪ ﻭﳛﻤﻴﻪ ﻓﺎﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻻ ﲤﻨﺢ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺎﺩﻡ ﳎﻬﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺨﺺ ﻻ ﳛﻤﻞ ﺇﺳﻢ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺴﺒﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﳝﻠﻚ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺎ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺼﻔﻪ ﺑﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺑﺮﺑﺮﻳﺎ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺒﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ )ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﺑﻨﺎ ﻟﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﺃﺑﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺃﻵﻥ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻋﻤﻰ ﻭﺑﺼﲑ‪‬ﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﲑ‪‬ﺍ ﻋﻮﺽ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻰ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﻰ)‪(...‬ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﲑ ﺣﺎﺫﻕ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻮﺷﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻡ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻳﻄﺮﺩﻩ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻮ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺻﻴﻎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺣﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮﺀ ﻭﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﻭﻣﻌﺎﻳﲑﻩ ﻭﺷﺮﻭﻁ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺘﻪ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﻳﻔﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺴﻴ‪‬ﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻠﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪ‪‬ﻭﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﺪﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﲨﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺻﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺍﻟﻌﻨ‪‬ﻒ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﺒﺪﺃ ﻣﺴﺄﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻹﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﻫﻞ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻧﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﻬﻢ ﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻠﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﻳﻔﻬﻤﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻲ ﻧﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻪ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺇﺫﺍ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ‪ :‬ﳛﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﰲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﲔ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﲔ ‪ :‬ﺃﺣﺪﳘﺎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻔﻴﺪ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﺇﱃ ﺣﻖ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺣﻘﻮﻗﻴﺔ ﲢﺎﻭﻝ‬
‫‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﺔ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻨﻊ ﺍﳓﺸﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﰲ ﺷﺆﻭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ (...)،‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ ﺍﳋﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺴﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻌﱪ‬
‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻟ"ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻦ" ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺎﹰ ﻭﺭﲟﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺤﻴﻼﹰ‪ .‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﺇﺫﻥ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ‪" ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻳﺴﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ" ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ ﺷﻌﻮﺭﺍﹰ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ "ﺍﻷﻧﺎ" )ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﺍﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻭﺗﺪﻣﲑﻩ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﻮﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺪﻭﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﲡﺎﻫﻪ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻼﻣﺒﺎﻻﺓ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻬﻤﻴﺶ‪..‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺍﻓﻊ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﺩﻭﺍﻓﻊ ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﺎ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﱃ ﺇﺫﺍﺑﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﻟﺼﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﺎ ﳉﺄﺕ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻗﺼﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻴﻌﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﺔ ﻣﻔﻘﻮﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﺷﺤﺎﺗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪، 2008 ،1‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.22‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ -‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ ﺗﺪﻋﻮ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،،‬ﺹ‪.14-11‬‬
‫‪252‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻳﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﻟﻐﺘﻨﺎ ﻫﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻩ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﺎ؟ ﻭﳔﻀﻌﻪ ﻟﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻀﻴﻒ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﻒ ﰲ ﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﺿﻴﻔﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻀﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ)‪ (host‬ﺿﻴﻔﺎﹰ )‪ ،(guste‬ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻀﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺪ‪‬ﻋﻲ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﳌﺎﻟﻚ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻒ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﰲ ﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻠﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻮﻓﹼﺮﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ ﻳﺘﻠﻘﺎﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌ‪‬ﻤﻖ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺘﺴﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪.1‬‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ ﻳﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ‪ ،2‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻐﺘﺮﺏ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻡ )ﻓﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺑﻠﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺏ ﻭﳝﻜﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻜﺲ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻡ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﻡ)‪.3(...‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﰲ ﺣﺪ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﳝﺜﻞ ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻻﹰ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺷﺮﻃﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮﻯ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﻻ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻒ‬
‫ﻭﻻ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳌﻀﻴﻒ‪)،‬ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻞ ﳛﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳌﻀﻤﻮﻧﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﻄﻼﻕ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﺆﻯ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻦ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ؟ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻞ ﲡﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺖ ﻫﻮ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺘﺢ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ(‪.4‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻳﻌﻠﻮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﲔ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳛﻘﻖ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﺤﻘﹼﻖ‪)،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻴﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻻ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﺩﻳﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺄﻣﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﺟﺐ‪ :‬ﻷﻧﺎﻗﺘﻬﺎ ﳚﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻻ ﺗﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻒ ]ﺍﳌﺪﻋﻮ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﺮ[ ﻻ‬
‫)ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ( ﻭﻻ ﺣﱴ )ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ((‪ 5‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻓﻜﺮﻧﺎ ﰲ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎ ﻣﻦ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﺠﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﻧﻴ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﱰﻝ ﺍﳌﻔﻘﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﰲ ﻫﺎﺟﺲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.18‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﳜﺘﺰﻝ ﰲ ‪‬ﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺇﱃ ﻧﻘﻄﺘﲔ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﳍﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻴﻼﺩ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻓﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺩ ﺗﻨﺘﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ ﻭﺗﺴﺎﻓﺮ ﻣﻊ ﺣﺎﻣﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻟﻠﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺓ ﺃﻱ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﺜﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻭﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻓﺎﺓ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﰲ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﺔ ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻌﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﱃ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺜﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.168‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺻﻔﺎﺀ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.166‬‬
‫‪ 4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ -‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ ﺗﺪﻋﻮ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،،‬ﺹ‪.106‬‬
‫‪ 5‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.51‬‬
‫‪253‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺨﻠﺺ ﺇﱃ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻣﺮ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻭﻭﺍﺟﺐ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﱄ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻧﺪﺍﺀ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﻏﲑ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﻣﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻧﻮﻋﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺴﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﺪﻳﻦ ﺃﻱ ﻭﺍﺟﺒﹰﺎ ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻃﻼﻗﻴﺔ )ﻭﻟﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﻨﻮﺣﺔ ﺑﺄﻧﺎﻗﺔ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻦ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳑﻨﻮﺣﺔ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﻭﻟﻦ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﻓﺮﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﺍﺋﺮ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺭﺉ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺣﻀﻲ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﳋﻄﱯ‪ 2‬ﰲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ)ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ( ﲡﺴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫)ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺍﳊﺎﺿﺮ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻳﻘﺮ ﲟﺎ ﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﰲ ﺗﺮﻣﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﺘﻬﺠﺎ ﲝﻠﻮﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﻀﺎﺋﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻮﻉ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﻓﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﺕ ﻟﻶﺧﺮ ﲟﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎﻟﻪ ﰲ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﻭﺗﻔﺮﺩﻩ)‪.3((...‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﺃﻧﺎ ﻟﻴﺲ ﱄ ﺇﻻ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻐﱵ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﱵ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺑﻴﱵ ﻭﺳﺘﺒﻘﻰ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺃﺣﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺴﻜﻨﲏ ﻭﺃﺳﻜﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ﺳﺘﺒﻘﻰ(‪ 4‬ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺿﻴﻔﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ‪‬ﺎ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻘﺒﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﻫﻮﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺗﺮﻣﻴﻤﺎﹰ ﳍﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ -‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ ﺗﺪﻋﻮ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،،‬ﺹ ‪.52‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ‪ :‬ﻭﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1938‬ﰲ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺑﺎﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺱ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﺑﺒﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﻭﺳﺎﻫﻢ‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﺻﺪﺍﺭ ﳎﻼﺕ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﻐﻞ ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﺍﳌﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺣﺚ ﻭﺭﻭﺍﺋﻲ ﻭﺷﺎﻋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﲨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﳌﺰﺩﻭﺝ)ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ (1980‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ )ﺑﲑﻭﺕ ‪ ،(1980‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺷﻮﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ )ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪(1984‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺿﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺷﻌﺮ )ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ ‪(1986‬ـ ﺻﻴﻒ ﰲ ﺳﺘﻮﻛﻬﻮﱂ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔ)‪ ،(1986‬ﺗﻮﰲ ﰲ ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﺸﻔﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻧﻮﺑﺔ ﻗﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﰲ ‪ .2009‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳉﺮﻳﺢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳑﺪ ﺑﻨﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2009 ،1‬ﺹ‪.3‬‬
‫‪3‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﱐ ﺑﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪2‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Lemonolinguisme de l'autre, Paris, Galilée, 1996, P13.‬‬
‫‪254‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﻲ ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻳﺮﻳﺪﻩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺤﺎﻭﺭ ﻣﻌﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺘﺘﺒﻌﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺃﺛﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﳔﻠﻖ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻓﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻭﳓﺎﻭﺭﻩ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ‪ ،‬ﳓﺎﻭﺭﻩ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺠﺪﺩ ﻭﳐﺘﻠﻒ )ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻣﺘﺠﺪﺩﺓ – ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻌﺎﱃ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ -‬ﻭﺑﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺎ ﲤﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﳊﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻀﻤﻮ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﺑﺈﻧﻘﺎﺫ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﳛﺘﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺣﺪﻭﺛﻬﺎ)ﺍﻹﺑﺎﺩﺓ( ﳏﺮﻗﺔ ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﺿﺤﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﻭﻳﺼﻐﻲ(‪ ،1‬ﻓﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺿﻴﺎﻓﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺭﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﺭﺟﻞ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ )ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﺍﺿﻴﻌﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺒﲏ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﺑﻄﻠﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻨﺨﺪﻉ‪ ،‬ﻳﺮﻯ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻔﺮﺿﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻴﻞ(‬
‫‪-2‬ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ‪.Don‬‬
‫ﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﱃ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻭﺩﻭﺭﻫﺎ ﰲ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ‬
‫ﲡﻌﻠﻨﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺳﺨﺎﺀً ﻣﻌﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ ‪‬ﺐ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﻭﰲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﺄﺧﺬ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﳑﺎ ‪‬ﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﻫﻮﺍﺕ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺗﺘﺮﺑ‪‬ﺺ ﺑﻨﺎ‪ -‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ‪،‬‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺗﻔﺎﺩﻳﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﻖ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﻋﻴﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺴﻤ‪‬ﻰ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺻﻔﺤﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻗﺪ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﺫﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻼ ﻫﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺻﻔﺢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﺻﻔﺤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻫﺒﺔ)‪ .3((...‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻤﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺼﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻭﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ؟‬
‫ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻓﻴﻘﻮﻝ‪) :‬ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ‪ ،‬ﻧﻌﻢ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ‪ ،‬ﻗﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻥ ﺷﻚ ﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﻻ ﺗﻔﻬﻤﻮﻥ ﺷﻴﺌﺎ ﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ "ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ"‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻫﻲ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﻫﱪﻣﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﳉﻴﻮﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،1995 ،‬ﺹ‪.163-162‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Hèléne Cixous, Chronique du temps : Jacque derrida 10 ans aprés, www.‬‬
‫‪Montagne. fr, p2.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻘﺎﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ -‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳﻂ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2018 ،1‬ﺹ‪.21‬‬
‫‪255‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫"ﺇﺳﻢ"‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺎﻝ "ﺻﻔﺢ‪ "‬ﺑﺎﳌﻔﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻳﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﺜﻼ ﰲ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪( pardon)،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻣﺮ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻻﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﰲ ﻧﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﻘﹼﺪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺍﱃ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻻﺗﻴﲏ)‪ ،(Perdon‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﱪﺗﻐﺎﻟﻴﺔ)‪ ،(Perdao‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻹﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺔ)‪.1((Perdono‬‬
‫ﻭﳛﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ ﻟﻠﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﻣﺜﻞ )ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ( )ﻓﺎﻟﺼﻔﺢ )‪) pardon‬ﺷﺒﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳍﺒﺔ ‪ Don‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻧﻌﺜﺮ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ )ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ( ﺍﻟﻼﺗﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪﺍ ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻧﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ )‪) ،(Donner‬ﻭﻫﺐ ‪/‬ﺃﻋﻄﻰ(‪ ،‬ﻭ‪ ،par- donner‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺃﺻﻔﺢ ﻋﻦ)ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﳍﺒﺔ(‪...‬ﺃﻱ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻊ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ ﻭﻻ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﻳﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻋﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﰲ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻪ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﲟﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻪ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻘﺎﺩﻡ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺒﺘﻌﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮﻯ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻨﺴﻰ ﻭﻳﺴﺘﻘﺮ ﰲ ﺫﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻴﺎﻝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺎﳊﺪﺙ‪ (événement)3‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﺯﻣﲏ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﳍﺎ)ﻟﻜﻲ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺪﺙ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻫﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻫﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻫﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺳﺮﺩ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ)‪ ،4((...‬ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﲢﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺃﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﳊﻈﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻡ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺣﺪﺙ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻈﻞ ﻏﲑ ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺣﻔﻆ(‪.5‬‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Pardonner L'impardonneable et l'imprescriptible, Paris, Galilée,‬‬
‫‪p09.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺭﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻮ ﻭﺍﳌﺼﺎﳊﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺴﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ 126‬ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻞ ‪.109 ،2018‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺍﳊﺪﺙ‪ :‬ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻜﺮﺭ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻔﺮ‪‬ﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﺎ ﺃﻭﻟﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Donne le Temps, Galilée, Paris, 1991, P 156.‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Donne le Temps, P156.‬‬
‫‪256‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﳊﺪﺙ ﰲ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ )ﻳﺮﻓﺾ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﳜﺘﺰﻝ ﻣﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ )ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮﻱ( ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻪ )ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻹﳒﺎﺯﻱ( ﰲ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺗﺸﻜﹼﻠﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺣﺼﺮﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﻛﺐ ﺣﺪﺛﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻧﻌﻄﻲ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻧﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺃﻱ ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﳌﺎ ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﺇﻳﺎﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﳏﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻨﺴﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻫﺒﻨﺎﻩ ﻭﻳﻨﺴﻰ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻭﻫﺐ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻓﺔ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺒﺪﻭ‬
‫ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻇﺮﺑﻪ ﺣﻆ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻄﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺑﻼ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﺒﺆ‪ ،‬ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﳍﺒﻪ ﻭﺣﺪﺙ ﻻ ﻳﺮﺩﺍﻥ ﺷﻴﺌﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ ﳌﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺿﻰ‪ ،‬ﺇ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻣﺒﺪﺉ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﺒﺪﺉ(‪ ،2‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻣﺘﻌﻤﺪ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﲔ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻗﺼﺪﻱ ﻳﻬﺪﺩ ﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﻨﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻷﺟﻞ)‪ (Pour‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻨﺢ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻧﻮﻋﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳋﺼﻮﺻﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﲢﺖ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ " ﺻﻌﻘﺔ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ" ﻭﳛﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻧﺎ ﻭﺁﺧﺮ ﳜﺘﻠﻔﺎﻥ ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻐﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺼﺒﺢ ﲤﻠﻜﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﻫﻲ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻭﻫﻲ ‪‬ﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺐ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻳﺄﺧﺬ ﳝﻠﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻤﻠﻚ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺍﳌﺮﺃﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﻫﺐ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﳏﻞ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﺗﺘﺼﻨﻊ ﻭﺗﻀﻤﻦ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﻄﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﳌﻠﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ(‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻈﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﺪ‪ :‬ﻧﻮﻯ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪ ،‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2017 ،1‬ﺹ‪.368-367‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Donne le Temps, P.157‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪148-147‬‬
‫‪257‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫‪-3‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ‪: Amitié‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻣﺜﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ 1‬ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺗﺎﺣﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫)ﻓﺎﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺎﹰ ﻭﺛﻴﻘﺎﹰ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪.2(،‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺟﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺳﻠﻢ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﺎﺩ ﻻ ﲣﻠﻮﺍ ﺃﻳﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻟﺖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺍﺭ ﺗﻌﺎﻗﺒﻬﺎ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻭﺃﻛﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﻧﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﺎﻃﻒ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﲔ ﺷﺨﺼﲔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺸﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻃﻒ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﳌﺪﻧﻴﺔ ‪.‬ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺣﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻫﺎ ﺃﲰﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻄﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﺭﺑﺎﻃﺎﹰ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺳﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻳﺜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﶈﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﲢﻘﻴﻖ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻟﻜﻤﺎﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﲝﺜﻬﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺣﺼﺮ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ‪ 3‬ﺩﻭﺍﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﰲ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻫﻲ)ﺍﳌﻨﻔﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺘﻌﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻀﻴﻠﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﻴﻠﺔ ﳌﺎ ﺗﺘﺴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺒﻞ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎﹰ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ‪ :Amitié‬ﻟﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻗﻮﺓ ﺍﳌﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﺄﺧﻮﺫﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻲﺀ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻕ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﺔ ﻣﻜﺘﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺒﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻀﻴﻞ ﻣﻨﺸﺆﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺎﻃﻒ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻴﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺃﺳﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﻭﺍﺓ ﺑﲔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺻﺪﻗﺎﺀ ﺗﻌﺰﺯﻫﺎ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺣﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﺨﺎﻟﻄﺔ‪ ..‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﻭﻫﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪.374 ،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﻞ ﺃﻧﺘﻘﺎﺋﻲ ﺑﲔ ﺷﺨﺼﲔ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻳﲔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﻳﻨﺎﻗﻀﻪ ﺑﺎﻧﻌﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻲ ﻭﻳﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﱄ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﺪﺭﻳﺔ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺟﻊ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.52‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Giorgio Agamben, L'Amitié, TR: Martin Rueff, Payot & Rivages, Paris,2007,‬‬
‫‪P7.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﲢﺪﺙ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺘﲔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﻘﻮﻣﺎﺧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺗﻨﻘﺴﻢ ﺇﱃ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ‪:‬‬
‫ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﻨﻔﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﺬﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﳋﲑ ﺍﳋﻠﻘﻲ ﻓﺎﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﲡﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻔﺴﻪ‪ .‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺗﻨﱯ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺎﻃﻒ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪.‬‬
‫‪258‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﲢﻘﻖ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻼﺣﻢ ﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﺎ ﻣﺪﻧﻴﺎ)‪ ،1((...‬ﻓﺮﺑﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺣﺴﺒﻪ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳚﻌﻞ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﻐﲏ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻟﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﺒﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻔﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﲔ ﻛﺎﺋﻨﲔ)ﻓﺎﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺣﻴﺪﺓ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﶈﺒ‪‬ﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺴﺐ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺃﺷﻴﺎﺀ ﺗﺪﻓﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺐ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﻋﺎﻃﻔﺔ ﺍﶈﺒﺔ(‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻣﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻲ ﺷﻲﺀ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺍﺋﻊ )ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ‬
‫ﻷﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻪ)‪.3((....‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻘﺪ ﻟﻌﺐ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﻱ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﱪﻯ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﺧﺬ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﲑ –‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ -‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻷﻧﺎ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻟﻴﺸﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺪﺧﻞ ﰲ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻔﻲ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺎﻷﺣﺮﻯ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺒﲏ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ" ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ" )‪):(Politique de l'amitié‬ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ‪ (...)O mes amis, il n'y a nul amy‬ﺇﺫ ﱂ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ ﻛﻴﻒ ﳝﻜﻨﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻧﻌﺘﻜﻢ ﺑﺄﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ؟ ﺑﺄﻱ ﺣﻖ؟ ﻛﻴﻒ ﺗﺄﺧﺬﻭﱐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳏﻤﻞ ﺍﳉﺪ؟‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﲰﻴﺘﻜﻢ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺩﻋﻮﺗﻜﻢ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﳚﺮﺅ ﻋﻠﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺃﻧﺘﻢ ﺍﻧﻔﺴﻜﻢ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ؟(‪ ،4‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻊ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻊ ﺷﺨﺺ ﳏﺪﺩ ﻭﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﺎﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ )ﻳﺎ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﱂ ﻳﻌﺪ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ ‪O mes amis, il n'y a nul‬‬
‫‪ ،(amy‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳎﺮﺩ ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﺃﻗﺮﺃﻩ ﰲ ﳍﺠﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺫﻟﻚ‬

‫‪1‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﺷﺤﺎﺗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.21‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﻣﻴﺸﻴﻞ ﺣﻨﺎ ﻣﺘﻴﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻨﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺎﻳﺮ‪ ،2017‬ﺹ‪.94‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪Aistote, Éthique à Nicomaque, TR : J-Tricot, Éditions les Échos du‬‬
‫‪Maquis,v.:1,0,janvier 2014,P 214.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Politique de l'amitié, P.17‬‬
‫‪259‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﳛﻤﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻗﺎﺭﺉ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺟﺌﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﳌﻮﻧﱵ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﳍﺎ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺄﻟﻮﻓﺔ‪-‬ﺟﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫)ﳏﺎﻭﻻﺕ ﺿﻤﻦ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ(‪.‬‬
‫)ﻭﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﲑ ﻣﻮﻧﱵ ﻷﺻﺎﻟﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﻧﺴﺒﻬﺎ ﻷﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﳒﺪﻩ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺷﻴﺸﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺗﻔﺴﲑﺍﺗﻪ ﻟﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ)ﺃﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ( ﰲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﻪ )‪ ،(De amicitia‬ﻭ)‪،(Tusculanes‬ﻭﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻋﻄﺎﺋﻪ ﻟﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﻳﻀﻤﻦ ﻧﻮﻋﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻷﲰﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ )‪(Ordinaires‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺩﻳﺔ )‪ (Coustumières‬ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﲢﺘﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ ﺁﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺋﻲ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﻧﻬﺎ ﲣﻔﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ )ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺍﻭﺓ(‪ ،‬ﻭﳓﻦ‬
‫ﰲ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﻨﺎ ﻟﺘﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﳒﺪ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﻒ ﻭﺟﻬﺎ ﻟﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻣﺎ ﳚﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﺘﺤﺮﻙ ﻭﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺖ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻳﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺇﱃ ﻋﺪﻭ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺣﺰﺣﺔ ﻷﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺷﻜﻠﺖ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﻧﺒﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺜﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺍﳊﺐ‪)2‬ﺗﻌﲏ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺐ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳏﺒﻮﺑﺎﹰ ﻭﻳ‪‬ﺘﻀﻤﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻹﻏﺮﻳﻖ)‪ (Philien‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﳍﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺍﶈﺐ)‪ (L'ami-aimant‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺍﶈﺒﻮﺏ)‪ ،(L'ami-aimé‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Politique de l'amitié, P.18‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺐ‪ Amour :‬ﺇﺳﻢ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺑﲔ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﻴﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺫﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺧﺼﻮﺻﺎﹰ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﳊﺼ‪‬ﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﺎﺟﺔ‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﺷﺒﺎﻋﻬﺎ‪ :،‬ﻛﺎﻟﻌﻮﺍﻃﻒ ﺍﳌﱰﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺐ ﺍﻷﻫﻞ ﻟﻸﻭﻻﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻃﻒ ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺎﻓﻠﻴﺔ)ﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﺼﺒﻴ‪‬ﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳌﻨﺎﺯﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ )ﺣﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﺐ ﺍﻷﻧﺎﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺐ ﺍﳌﻬﻨﺔ( ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳌﻴﻞ ﻣﺎﺩﻳﺎﹰ ﺧﺎﻟﺼﺎﹰ ﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻓﻌﻞ)ﺃﺣﺐ( ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﻢ )ﺣﺐ‪.(‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻄﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﱰﻭﻉ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻜﻞ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﺩﺭﺟﺎﺗﻪ‪ .‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﲟﻔﺮﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ‪‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﲨﺎﻻﹰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﺰﻋﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻛﺴﺔ ﺟﻮﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻸﻧﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﺧﲑ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻣﻌﻨﻮﻱ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺣﺐ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻣ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻬﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﲡﺮﻱ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻬﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻲﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻧﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﳌﺼﻠﺤﺔ ﻭﺣﱴ ﺍﻧﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺩﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻝ ﻣﺜﻼ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.56-55‬‬
‫‪260‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻣﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ)‪ ،1((....‬ﻭﺷﺮﻁ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﰲ ﺍﳊﺐ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻺﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﳏﺒﻮﺏ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻳﻮﻇﻔﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺼﻒ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ ﻭﻫﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﺏ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻳﺎ ﳍﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﻓﺔ ﺳﻌﻴﺪﺓ! ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﻭﰲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﳊﻠﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﺗﻄﺮﻕ‬
‫ﰲ ﻣﻀﺎﻣﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺗﺒﲔ ﱄ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺗﻮﻇﻴﻒ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﲢﺎﺏ )‪(L'aimance‬ﻟﺘﺴﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺐ ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﺘﻜﻠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺃﺣﺐ)ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﻧﺎﺗﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻡ( ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺃﻭ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺒ‪‬ﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻯ(‪ ،2‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺃﻥ ﻳ‪‬ﺠﻴﺪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﶈﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﳏﺒﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺧﲑ ﻟﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﳛﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﻠﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻹﳔﺮﺍﻁ ﻟﻠﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﲣﻄﻴﻄﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺐ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺬﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳉﻨﺲ)‪،(Gesschlecht‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﻟﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻃﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻫﻠﻲ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﺿﻲ ﺃﻭﻻﹰ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻻ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺲ)‪ ،(Physis‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻨﻮﻧﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻈﻬﺮ ﻭﻛﺄﻧ‪‬ﻪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﺷﻚ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻮﻟﺪ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺪﻓﻊ ﺃﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﻤﻮ‪ ،‬ﺃﻥ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ؟ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﻳﻈﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺀ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﺘﻌﺮ‪‬ﻑ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻻﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﻲ ﻭﻻ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﻟﺪﺓ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸ‪‬ﻌﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Politique de l'amitié, Galilée, Paris, 1994, P 25.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Politique de l'amitié, P 25‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺩﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ‪،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.83‬‬
‫‪261‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺮﺑﻂ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﹼﺬﻳﻦ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﲣﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺳﺲ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﻭﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﺳﺲ ﰲ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻜﺲ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻈﻬﺮﻩ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍﹰ ﻣﺎ ﲤﺜﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺩﻭﻣﺎﹰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﱴ ﺃﺭﺩﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﱰﺍﺡ‬
‫ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ﺑﻨﱪﺓ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﻔﻆ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺿﺮﺏ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺆﺍﺧﺎﺓ‪ (La Phratriarchie).‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻀﻢ‪ ‬ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﻢ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﻮﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺳﻨﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﲏ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻴﻴ‪‬ﺪ‪ ،‬ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻠﻀﻢ‪‬‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻳﺄﻣﺮ ﺑﺄﻥ ﻧﻨﺴﻰ)‪.1((...‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ‪2‬ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪):‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥﹼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﻈﺮﺓ ﻫﻲ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻠﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺳﻴ‪‬ﺎﺳﻲ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺘﻐﲏ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻫﻲ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻏﲑ ﺭﺍﺽ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺸﺮﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺩﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺗﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﻧﺎﻗﺼﺔ ﻭﰲ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺩﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺎﻣﺔ ﺧﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳊﺪﻭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻻ ﺗﺰﺍﻝ ﱂ ﺗﻮﻗﻆ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺘﺨﻔﻲ ﻭﻣﺴﺘﺘﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﰲ ﻋﻤﻘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ‪ .‬ﻻ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺃﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻫﻮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺩﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺗﺄﺛﺮﺕ ﺑﺎﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻭﺟﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻴﲔ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.84‬‬

‫‪ 2‬ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ‪:‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻧﻨﻈﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﻝ ‪‬ﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻓﺈﻧﻨﺎ ﻧﻼﺣﻆ ﻣﺎﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻ‪ :‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻈﺮﻱ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻧﺎﱐ ﳑﺜﻼ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺪﻭﻧﺘﲔ ﺍﻷﻓﻼﻃﻮﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺳﻄﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻤﺮﺓ ﺇﱃ " ﺍﳌﺎ‪-‬ﺣﺪﺙ‪ -‬ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺮﺻﺪﻫﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻭﻏﲑﻩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎ‪ :‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻮﺛﻴﻖ ﺑﲔ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﻕ‪ /‬ﺍﺑﺴﺘﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﻭﻕ – ﻭﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﳐﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻨﻈﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ ﺟﺪﻭ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻠﺔ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﻮﻥ‪ /‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳕﻮﺫﺟﺎ‪، www.intelligentsai.t ،‬ﺹ‪.27‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،2010 ،1‬ﺹ‪.67‬‬
‫‪262‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻛﺎﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﺮﺕ ﺑﻈﻮﺍﻫﺮ ﻛﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ .1‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺘﻈﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻮﻫﺮ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻨﺎﺀً ﻏﲑ ﻣﻜﺘﻤﻞ ﻭﻧﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﺪ‬
‫ﺳﺘﺒﻘﻰ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻗﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﱴ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺩﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﺒﻘﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ ﻏﲑ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺸ‪‬ﺮﺡ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃ‪‬ﺎ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﳑﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻧﻘﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﻮﻑ ﺿﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﻬﺎ ﻷﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻀﻤﻦ ﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻘﺎﺀ‪) :‬ﻳﻌﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺗﻴﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻵﻧﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ ﰲ ﺇﺟﺮﺍﺋﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ)ﻗﻠﺒﺎﹰ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺎﻟﺒﺎﹰ‪ :‬ﺇﺭﺟﺎﺀ ﻭﺇﺟﺮﺍﺀ(‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺭﺟﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺑﻼ ﺷﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﺑ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﰲ "ﺭﺟﺌﻴﺘﻬﺎ")‪.3((...‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻻﻋﺪﺍﺀ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻠﻤﺴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻐﺪﻭ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ‬
‫ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻨﺎﻑ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻓﻜﻴﻒ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺃﺧﻮ ﻋﺪﻭﺍ؟‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻏﲑ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﺑﻂ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﺑﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻷﺑﺪ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺒﻘﻰ ﻋﺪﻭﻧﺎ ﻋﺪﻭ ﻟﻸﺑﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﻨﻜﺮ ﰲ ﻗﻨﺎﻉ ﻋﺪﻭ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪﻭ ﺻﺪﻳﻖ‬
‫ﻭﺻﺪﻳﻖ ﻋﺪﻭ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﲑ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻲ )ﻛﺎﺭﻝ ﴰﻴﺚ( ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺟﻌﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺧﻄﺮ ﳚﺐ ﺃﻥ ﳒﺎ‪‬ﻪ ﻭﻧﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻨﻪ)ﺇﻥ ﺍﳌﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﺘﻠﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺛﺎﺑﺘﺔ ﻭﺇﻧ‪‬ﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺗﺘﺒﺪﻝ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﰲ ﻣﺴﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﳉﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻭ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻋﺪﻭﺍﹰ ﻓﻔﻲ ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻋﺪﺍﻭﺓ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﻝ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﻳﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﳏﺚ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Jacque derrida, Politique de l'amitié, p339.‬‬
‫‪3‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ)ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﺎ ﺍﻵﻥ؟‬
‫ﻣﺎﺫﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻏﺪ؟ ﺹ‪.331‬‬
‫‪263‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ )ﻣﺼﺎﱀ( ﺩﺍﺋﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻀﻤﻦ ﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺧﻮﺓ)‪.1((....‬‬
‫ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ‪) :‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻘﺎﺋﻲ ﺑﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪1974‬ﰲ ﻣﻘﻬﻰ ﺑﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺳﺎﻥ ﺳﻮﻟﺒﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻟﻘﺎﺋﻨﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺈﻫﺪﺍﺋﻲ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﺻﺪﺍﺭ )ﺩﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻗﻮﺱ(‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﱵ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻛﻨﺖ ﻗﺪ ﺑﻌﺜﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻭﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﱪﻳﺪ ﻋﻤﻠﲔ ﱄ ﳘﺎ )ﺳﻔﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻡ( ﻭ)ﺍﳊﻤﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ( ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻋﺘﻬﺎ ﻭﺇﱃ ﻏﺎﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻛﺘﻮﺑﺮ ‪ 2004‬ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﻴﻨﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻭ ﺑﺂﺧﺮ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻳﺴﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻓﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﻘﻄﺔ ﺗﺄﺳﺴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺪﻗﺎﺀ ﳛﻴﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﻭﺃﻗﻴﻢ ﺃﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺗﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻗﻲ )ﺷﺎﻛﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻱ( ﻋﻦ ﺭﺃﻳﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪:‬‬
‫)ﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥﹼ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻐﺎﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻻﺑﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺫﻛﺮ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻛﻦ ﻷﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻣﺎﹰ ﻛﺒﲑﺍﹰ ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﳕﻮﺫﺝ ﻟﻠﻤﺜﻘﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳚﻤﻊ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻘﺎﻟﻴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺍﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﺍﻣﺘﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪.‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﳌﺜﻘﻒ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﻄﻲ ﻟﻠﺠﺎﻧﺒﲔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻤﻠﻪ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﲦﻴﻨﺎﹰ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﳏﻮ ﳍﻮﻳﺘﻪ ‪.‬ﻭﻻ ﺍﻧﺪﻣﺎﺝ ﰲ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻭﺃﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻘﻒ ﻫﻮ ﺍﶈﺮﻙ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻟﻨﺎ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺎﹰ ‪-‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻫﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻧﻘﺼﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﳌﻄﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،-‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻧﻘﺘﺴﻢ ﻣﻌﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻨﺎ ﻭﻧﻨﺎﻗﺸﻪ ﰲ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﻣﻊ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﲡﻤﻌﻬﻤﺎ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ‬

‫‪1‬ﻋﺼﺎﻡ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺧﻮﺓ ﺍﻻﻋﺪﺍﺀ‪ ،‬ﺇﻳﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﻤﻌﺔ ‪ 20‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﱪ ‪ 15:26 ،2009‬ﺳﺎ‪www.elaph.com ،‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪Abdelkébir khaatibi, Jacques derrida en effet.Dessins par Valerio Adami,‬‬
‫‪Edition Al Manar, Paris, P 7.‬‬
‫‪ 3‬ﺷﺎﻛﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺭﺣﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺟﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺪﻯ‪ ،www.almadapaper.net ،‬ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺎﺀ ‪19‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪ ،2018‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ‪09:00 :‬ﺳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪264‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﺍﻛﺮﺓ ﳏﻤﻠﺔ ﺑﺄﲰﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺕ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺬﺍ )ﻓﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﲡﻤﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻓﻜﺮﻳﺔ ‪‬ﺘﻢ ﺑﺎﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻛﻔﻜﺮ ﻭﻋﻤﻞ(‪،1‬‬
‫ﻭﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ )ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ( ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ )ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﱯ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺣﻮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﰲ ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﲟﺪﻳﻨﺔ )ﻟﻮﻳﺰﻳﺎﻧﺎ( ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻧﻄﻼﻗﺎﹰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺣﺐ ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫‪ 1938‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻭﻝ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻟﻨﻔﺘﺮﺽ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﲏ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﳌﻠﺘﻘﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﰲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﻟﻮﻳﺰﻳﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍﹰ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻠﺪﻩ ﻭﻋﻦ ﺑﻠﺪﻱ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍﹰ ﻋﻨﺎ ﲨﻴﻌﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻗﻤﺖ ﻭﺩﻭﳕﺎ ﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺃﺟﺮﺡ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ‪ ،‬ﺑﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻹﻓﺎﺩﺓ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﳏﻤﻠﺔ ﺑﻜﻞ ﻣﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﶈﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺃﻛﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻪ‬
‫)‪،2((...‬ﺃﺟﺮﺡ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﺗﺮﻙ ﻧﺪﺑﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻠﻘﺎﺀ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﻯ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺣﺐ )ﻣﺰﺩﻭﺝ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ( ﻗﺪ ﺍﲣﺬ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺃﻣﺎﹰ ﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺫﺍﻛﺮﺗﻪ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﱂ ﺗﻌﺪ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻪ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻭﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﻟﻪ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺃﺻﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﻣﻀﺎﻋﻔﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺪﻋﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ ﻫﻲ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﺠﺔ ﻟﻸﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﲣﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﻘﺎﺵ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺎﳉﺔ ﺍﳉﺬﺭﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﻛﻼﺕ ﺳﻮﺍﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ‪.....‬ﺇﱁ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﻻ ﲣﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ‬
‫ﲣﻠﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﲰﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻬﺎ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﲡﺴﺪ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﺣﺘﺮﺍﻡ‬

‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Mouraq El Khatibi, Derrida et khatibi: Une amitié pensante d'une double‬‬
‫‪langue, Libération, 11-11-2015.‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.37‬‬
‫‪265‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻫﻮ ﲢﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻶﻧﺎ‪ ،‬ﺁﺧﺮ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﻟﻸﻧﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺘﻮﺍﺟﺪ ﻣﻌﻪ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ‪ .‬ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﲢﺎﺏ ﻭﻳﻌﲏ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻭﺃﻧﺖ ﺗﻜﺘﺐ ﺃﻥ ﲢﺐ ﻣﺎ ﺗﻜﺘﺒﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﲞﱵ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻮﺩﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺗﺎﺀ ﰲ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺃﻻ ﲣﻔﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺀ ﻧﻔﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺮﻛﺰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻻﺳﺘﺒﺪﺍﺩﻳﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻟﻌﻞ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﻮﻣﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻹﺧﻼﻝ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺬﻫﺎﺏ ﻭﺍﻹﻳﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺣﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺣﺘﺠﺎﺏ ﰒ ﺍﻟﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﱂ ﻭﺍﳊﺴﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺀ ﻫﻬﻨﺎ ﺭﻫﺎﻥ ﺩﻻﱄ ﻭﺃﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﻭﻕ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺒﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺍﶈﺒﺔ ﻏﺸﺎﻭﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﻬﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻟﻮ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻣﺴﺘﻈﻬﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺰﻭﺝ‬
‫ﻏﲑ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻃﻞ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﻛﻦ ﰲ)ﺍﺗﺴﻜﻨﻮﺍ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ(ﺃﻭ ﰲ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳛﻘﻖ ﺍﳌﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻳﺾ ﻟﻠﺸﻲﺀ ﺫﺍﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺴﻜﲎ ﺑﺪﺀﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺸﻴﺪ ﺍﳉﻮﺍﺭﺡ ﻏﲑ ﺍﳌﻌﻨﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﻧﺼﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺿﺮﺍﻭﺓ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻮﺕ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻹﻧﺼﻴﺎﻉ ﻟﻨﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻷﻣﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪ‪):‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻛﺜﲑﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﺘﱪ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻛﺄﺣﺪ ﺃﻛﱪ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻋﺼﺮﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺷﻌﺮﺍﺋﻪ ﻭﻣﻔﻜﹼﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﻃﻘﲔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺁﺳﻒ ﻷﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﱂ ﻳﻨﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻘﻬﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺎﻃﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﻻﳒﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻬﻤ‪‬ﲏ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺷﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻥﹼ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﻘﻴﻤﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﻧﻜﻔﻮﱐ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﻫﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ ﻣﺘﲔ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻛﺜﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﺈﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﻪ ﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﺯﺩﻭﺍﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻧﻠﻤﺲ ﺣﺴﺎﺳﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﲡﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻭﻳﺘﺮﻙ ﺑﺼﻤﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﲤﻴﺰﻩ ﻋﻤ‪‬ﺎ ﻳﻜﺘﺐ ﻭﺇﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺘﻪ ﻭﺗﻌﺪﺩﺕ‬

‫‪ 1‬ﲞﱵ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻮﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺔ ﺍﳊﺐ‪...‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﰲ ﻣﺴﺎﺀﻟﺔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪1 ،9‬ﺃﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪ ،1995‬ﺃﻷﺟﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.64‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﹼﺭ ﲡﻨﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﺍﻧﻄﻮﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﻛﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،www.alaraby.co.uk ،‬ﺍﳋﻤﻴﺲ ‪20‬‬
‫ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪ ،2018‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻋﺔ ‪15:00 :‬ﺳﺎ‪.‬‬
‫‪266‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫)ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺸﻐﻞ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺗﺪﻓﻌﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﺴﻜﻮﻥ ﺑﻠﺬﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺷﻜﺎﻝ(‪.1‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻡ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺙ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻪ ﻳﺘﺠﻪ ﺇﱃ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻟﻐﺘﻪ ﺍﻷﻡ ﺳﺮﺍﹰ ﱂ ﳛﺴﻦ ﺍﳊﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥﹼ ﺃﺳﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺗﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﺓ‪-‬ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻷﻡ‪ -‬ﲤﺜﻞ ﰲ ﻃﻴﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻠﹼﻚ‪ ،‬ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻃﻨﲔ‬
‫ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻀﺎﻋﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺄﻥﹼ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺍﻹﻧﺼﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﻧﺪﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺑﻌﺪﻣﺎ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺻﺪﻯ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺪﺍﺀ ﻳﺘﺮﺩﺩ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪) :‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺑﻠﻐﻪ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻴﻪ ﻛﺮﺟﻊ ﺻﺪﻯ ﻟﻐﺔ ﺛﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﳛﻤﻞ ﰲ ﺃﺫﻧﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻃﻨﲔ ﻟﻐﺔ ﻣﻀﺎﻋﻔﺔ(‪.2‬‬
‫ﺇﻥﹼ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﺎﹰ" ﻳﺘﻌﺬﺭ ﲡﻨﺒﻪ" ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻘﺎﻝ)ﳌﻦ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﻜﻔﻮﱐ ﳍﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻳﻔﻴﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺜﹼﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺣﻴﺜﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻬﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﻴﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻹﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺮﺑﻂ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ‬
‫ﲟﺴﺘﻌﻤﺮﺍ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﳏﻤﻴ‪‬ﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺴ‪‬ﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﺄﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ "ﻗﺪﻭﺓ"‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﳌﻦ ﻳﻬﺘﻢ ﲟﺸﺎﻛﻞ "‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ" ﻭ "ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﺭ" ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻐﻒ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻴﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﱪ‪‬ﺭ‪ ،‬ﻛﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﺜﻘﻔﲔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﲔ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺍﻃﻨﲔ ﻣﻦ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ(‪.3‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﻫﻮ ﺍﳌﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﱐ ﻭﺍﳉﺎﻣﻊ ﺑﲔ ﻟﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﻼﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻭﺍﻧﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻨﺼﺖ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺑﻞ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳛﺘﻮﻳﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ ﻟﻘﻠﺐ ﺇﻥﹼ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻜﺘﻤﻠﺔ ﺗﻘﻒ ﻗﺒﺎﻟﺔ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﻣﻜﺘﻤﻠﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﳌﻨﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ) ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳛﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻌﱪ ( ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﻐﻠﻘﺔ ﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﻫﻮﻳﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ‬

‫‪1‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻭ ﳊﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻧﺰﻭﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪1 ،63‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪ ،2010‬ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪.19‬‬
‫‪ 2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻻﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ‪ ،‬ﺹ ‪.71‬‬
‫‪3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﹼﺭ ﲡﻨﺒﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﻄﻮﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﻛﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺪﺭ ﺳﺒﻖ ﺫﻛﺮﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪267‬‬
 ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫ﻳﺆﺩﻳﻪ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻧﺘﻈﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﻗﻴﻖ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺖ‪ ‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﳓﻮﻯ ﻗﻄﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻭﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻣﻌﲎ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﺎﺋﺾ‪ ،‬ﻭﻇﻼﻝ ﻭﺃﺛﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﻓﺮﻕ ﺩﺍﺋﻢ ﻭﺳﲑﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻫﻰ ‪.‬‬

‫‪ 1‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺃﲪﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻜﻲ‪،‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﻟﺒﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬

‫‪ ،2005‬ﺹ‪.336-73‬‬

‫‪268‬‬
‫ﺧــﺎﺗــﻤﺔ‬
 ‫ﺧﺎﲤﺔ‬
‫ﳑﺎ ﺳﺒﻖ ﳔﻠﺺ ﺍﱃ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﻻ‪:‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﳉﻲ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺟﺎﺀ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﲡﻌﻠﻚ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺗﺮﺍﺙ ﻓﻜﺮﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻫﻮ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎﹰ ﺻﺎﺭﻣﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﲝﻞ ﻋﺎﺋﻖ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻄﺮﻭﺣﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻛﻞ ﺣﻜﻢ ﻫﻮ ﺣﻜﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻠﻖ ﻭﺃﺧﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ ﺍﻻﺣﻜﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ‪.‬ﻓﺈﻥﹼ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﺬﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻴﺪ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺸﻴﺔ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ)ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺍﻣﺎﺗﻮﳉﻲ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﲟﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ ﻭﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻘﺪﱘ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻷﻫﻢ ﻧ‪‬ﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﲡﻌﻠﻚ ﻣﻊ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﺿﺪﻩ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺃﳘﻬﻢ )ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻛﻠﻮﺩﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ( ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺧﺘﺎﻡ ﻫﺬ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﺮﻳﺪﻱ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻟﻌﺒﺖ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻱ‬
‫ﰲ ﻛﻞ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻬﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺪﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ ﺇﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻌﺒﲑ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳌﺪﻟﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﺤﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺇﻥﹼ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﲢﻮﻳﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﰲ ﺍﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻌﺮﻑ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺘ‪‬ﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‪.‬‬

‫‪270‬‬
 ‫ﺧﺎﲤﺔ‬
‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﺮﺩﺓ ﻳﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﳍﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﳕﹼﺎ ﻳﺸﲑ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺇﱃ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﲎ ﺍﳌﺘﺮﺳﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺴﻖ ﺍﳌﺸﻜﹼﻞ ﻟﻠﺨﻄﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻧﻔﻜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﳝﺮ ﻋﱪ ﻭﺳﺎﻃﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺎﻟﻨﺺ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺨﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﳜﻔﻲ ﺳﻠﻄﺘﻪ ﻭﺑﻨﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ ﻭﻫﻴﻤﻨﺘﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﰲ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻣﻌﲎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺣﺴﻤﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻨﺎ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ‪‬ﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻷﻱ ﻧﺺ‪.‬‬
‫ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﲢﻀﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺭﺉ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻴﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻭﻳﻘﺮﺃﻩ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﻔﻚ ﺷﻔﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻴﻪ ﺍﳌﺘﺨﻔﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻻ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﺎﹰ ﻭﻻ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻻ ﲢﻠﻴﻼ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﲑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﻧﻔﺴﻪ ﺻﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﺎﹰ ﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺳﺲ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑﻌﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﳘﻬﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻭﻻ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺃﻧﺴﺐ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﻔﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻏﲑ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻺﺧﺘﺰﺍﻝ ﲟﻘﺪﺭ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﱐ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﺋﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﲢﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﺩ ﺩﻻﱄ ﻛﺒﲑ‪ .‬ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻧﻌﻮﺽ ﺣﺮﻑ) ‪ (e‬ﲝﺮﻑ)‪.(a‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻣﺴﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻋﺎﳉﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﳒﺪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﲝﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻭﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﲑﺓ ﰲ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ ﻋﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪271‬‬
 ‫ﺧﺎﲤﺔ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺩﺳﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻌﺐ ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﲑﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺗﺘﺠﻠﻰ ﺃﳘﻴﺘﻪ ﰲ ﻛﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﻣﻦ ﳝﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺣﻀﻮﺭﻩ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﺑﻪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻳﺘﺤﺪﺩ ﺑﺎﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭﻩ ﺻﻴﻐﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺤﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﱐ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻇﻞ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻋﺮﻑ ﺍﻷﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﳋﻄﻴﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﻟﻴﺲ ﺇﻻ ﻋﺮﺽ ﺃﻭ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﺻﻄﻠﺢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
‫ﻛﻮﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﻋﺮﻑ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﺑﺄ‪‬ﻧﻪ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻳﺴﺘﻤﺪ ﺻﻔﺎﺗﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ‪،‬‬
‫ﻷﻧﻪ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻭ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻫﺪﺍ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺑﻜﻞ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺋﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﲦﺔ ﻓﺎﳉﺴﺪ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻘﻼﻝ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﺃﻭﻟﺖ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﺎﹰ ﻛﺒﲑﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﻟﻪ ﻭﰎ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺴﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻟﻪ ﺣﱴ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﳒﺪ ﻟﻔﻈﺔ ﺧﺖ ﺃﻭ ﺧﺎﺕ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﱵ ﲢﻴﻞ ﺇﱃ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻪ ﻭﺷﻬﻮﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺳﻴﻐﺪﻭ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻣﻴﻢ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﺧﺘﺮﺍﻗﺎﹰ ﳍﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻟﻪ ﺍﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺮﰊ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ ﻭﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﻭﻻﺩ‪‬ﺎ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﻧﻌﻴﺪ ﳍﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺒﻌﺎﺙ ﻟﻮﻻﺩﺓ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺠﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺟﺜﺔ ﲢﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﱃ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺃﺟﺴﺎﺩ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﺘﺤﺮﻛﺔ ﻣﺘﺤﺮﺭﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪.‬ﻷﻥﹼ ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻟﻌﺒﺔ ﻳﻠﻌﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﻨﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺘﻌﺪﺍ ﺍﻟﻠﹼﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﻮﺏ ﻭﺗﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯﻩ ﳓﻮﻯ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﱵ ﳝﺜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺸﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻛﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﳉﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻨﺎﻳﺎﻩ ﺗﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺷﻢ ﻭﺗﺮﻙ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺪﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺟﺮﺡ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻪ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﱂ ﻫﻮ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‪.‬‬

‫‪272‬‬
 ‫ﺧﺎﲤﺔ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺑﻌﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺛﺒﺎﺗﺎﹰ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﺴﺎﺀﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻌﲎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﳜﻠﺺ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻧ‪‬ﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﺩﻟﻴﻼﹰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﺍﹰ‪ (...)،‬ﻓﻤﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﻳﺴﺘﻨﻜﺮ ﻟﻐﺰ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ ﻭﻳﻠﻤﺲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲﺀ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﳚﺐ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﺪﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻓﺮﺍﻁ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻳﻀﺎﹰ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺣﺪﻩ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺎﻹﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻛﻞ ﺇﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﺄﰐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﻢ ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻭﺣﱴ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻟﺘﺤﺴﺲ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭﻻ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﳌﺲ ﺍﻻﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﱃ ﳏﻴﻄﻬﺎ ﻭﺻﻔﺎ‪‬ﺎ ﻛﻤﺎ ﳝﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻜﺎﻙ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﺑﺎﳌﻮﺿﻊ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﺜﻼ ﺍﻻﺣﺴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﻣﲔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺭﺽ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻨﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﻋﻦ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﺠﺎﻣﻪ ﻭﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﻭﻭﺯﻧﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺣﺮﺍﺭﺗﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻣﻨﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﻔﻜﺮﺗﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻹﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺷﻜﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻂ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰﻱ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ ﻋﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﰐ ﰲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗـﺄﺧﺬ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻻﹰ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺘﻪ ﻓﺘﺸﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻓﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺴﺎﻣﺢ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪273‬‬
‫ﺍﳌـــﻼﺣــﻖ‬
 ‫‪1‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

‫‪1‬ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻴﺔ ﰎ ﺇﻗﺘﺒﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪ ،‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪.‬‬
‫‪275‬‬
 ‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬

‫‪ Jacque Derrida‬ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻭﻟﺪ ﺑﺎﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ 1930 ،‬ﰲ ﺣﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﲟﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻜﻨﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ ﺟﺎﺀ ﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻖ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺑﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1950‬ﰲ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺼﺒﺢ ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﺭﻳﺲ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻫﺎﺭﻓﺎﺭﺩ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﲔ ﻋﺎﻡ‬
‫‪ 1965‬ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫﺍ ﺑﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﻐﻞ ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻲ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﺑﲔ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﻭﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺑﺮﺯ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ) ﺑﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺑﻜﱰ(‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺸﺄ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻌﻬﺪﺍ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺩﻭﱄ ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،1983‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻃﻮﻳﻠﺔ ﻭﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻋﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﰒ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﰒ ﺟﺎﺀﺕ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﺍﻣﺶ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ‪.‬‬

‫‪276‬‬
277
278
279
 ‫ﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﰲ ﻟﺜﻮﺍﻧﻴﺎ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1906‬ﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﰲ ﺷﺒﺎﺑﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﱪﻳﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺳﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1923‬ﺇﱃ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻒ ﲢﺖ ﺇﺷﺮﺍﻑ " ﺷﺎﺭﻝ ﺑﻠﻮﻧﺪﻳﻞ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﺩﻳﻦ " ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ " ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ " ﻛﺎﻥ ﳍﺎ ﺑﺎﻉ ﻛﺒﲑ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻰ ﲟﻮﺭﻳﺲ‬
‫ﺑﻼﻧﺸﻮﺍﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻗﻤﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﺳﺒﻮﺭﻍ ‪ ،‬ﻭﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1975‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﳎﻤﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺣﻮﻟﻪ ‪.‬ﺑﲔ ﻋﺎﻣﻴﻲ‬
‫‪ 1928‬ﻭ ‪ 1929‬ﺣﻀﺮ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﰲ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﺒﻮﺭﻍ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻗﺮﺃ ﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ‬
‫ﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪ ،‬ﲢﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﻧﺪﻟﻌﺖ ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺟﻨﺪ ﰲ ﺻﻔﻮﻓﻬﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻛﻤﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺘﲔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻻﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻥ ﻭﻗﻊ ﰲ ﺍﻻﺳﺮ ﺳﺖ ‪ 1940‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺘﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺯﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻛﻞ ﺍﺳﺮﺗﻪ ﰲ ﻫﺘﻪ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻞ ﺑﺎﺷﺮ ﺗﺎﻟﻴﻒ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﳌﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻧﺸﺮ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1947‬ﺑﻌﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ ﺍﺻﺒﺢ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﺍ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﺭﺱ ﺍﻻﺳﺮﺍﺋﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1961‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﺍﻃﺮﻭﺣﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻭ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻖ ﺍﻻﺑﺪﻱ ﻋﲔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﳍﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺫﺍ ﳉﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻮﺍﺗﻴﻴﻪ ﻭ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1967‬ﻋﲔ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺫﺍ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻒ ﲜﺎﻣﻊ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﰒ ﺷﻐﻞ ﻛﺮﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻒ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺑﻮﻥ ‪ 1973‬ﺗﻘﺎﻋﺪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺑﻮﻥ ‪. 1976‬‬

‫ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ‪:‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﻭﻧﺸﺎ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺃﺳﺮﺓ ﺍﺭﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 427‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﳌﺴﻴﺢ ﰲ )ﺩﱘ ﻛﻠﻴﺘﻮﺱ( ﺍﻻﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﰲ ﺳﻦ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﻫﻘﺔ ﺷﺎﻋﺮﺍ ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﳌﺎ ﺑﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ )ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ( ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺫﺍﻟﻚ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﲢﻮﻝ ﰲ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﲣﺬ ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﺭﻓﻴﻘﻪ ﻳﻌﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑﻱ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻤﻪ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪﻩ ﻭﻳﻌﻠﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﺧﻼﻕ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﺟﻌﻠﻪ ﻳﻌﻴﺶ ﻓﺮﺍﻏﺎ ﻋﻨﻴﻔﺎ ﺑﲔ ﻭﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﺪﺍﱐ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻌﺮ ﻭﺑﺮﻭﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺳﻘﺮﺍﻁ ﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺍﻻﻟﺘﺤﺎﻕ ﺑﺎﻟﺴﻘﺮﺍﻃﲔ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ ﰲ " ﻣﻴﻐﺎﺭﺍ "‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﻋﺎﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺛﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻌﺪﺓ ﺃﺳﻔﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﱃ ﺃﺛﻴﻨﺎ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺘﻪ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 387‬ﰲ ﺣﺪﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻛﺪﳝﻮﺱ ﻭﻣﻦ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻃﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﺭﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻻﻛﺎﺩﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺩﺭﺱ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﻟﻒ ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺍﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺔ ﻗﻀﻰ ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺲ ﺣﱴ ﻣﺎﺕ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 347‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﺎﻫﺰ ﻋﻤﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﲔ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺔ‪.‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﶈﺎﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﻧﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ‪ :‬ﻫﺒﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﲑ‬

‫‪280‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﺒﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ‪ .‬ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻬﻮﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﳌﻴﻨﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﳌﺄﺩﺑﺔ ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﺨﻮﺧﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻣﻴﻨﻴﺪﺱ‬
‫‪،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻔﺴﻄﺎﺋﻲ‪.‬‬

‫ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﻓﻴﻠﻬﻠﻢ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺭﻳﺶ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ‪:(1831 ­ 1770):‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﰲ )ﺷﺘﻮﺗﻐﺎﺭﺩ( ‪)،‬ﻓﻮﺭﺗﻴﻤﺒﲑﻍ(‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﳌﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻥ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﻲ ﺣﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻭﺍﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺳﻊ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻴﻼﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﲑﺓ ﰲ )ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺘﻪ ﺗﻮﺑﺒﻨﻐﲔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﻓﻘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻻﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺼﺤﺒﺔ ﺻﺪﻳﻘﻪ )ﻫﻮﻟﺪﺭﻟﲔ (‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺳﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﺷﺎﻋﺮﺍ ﻛﺒﲑﺍ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺄﺕ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻤﺎ ﺻﺪﺍﻗﺔ ﲪﻴﻤﺔ ﻭﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﰎ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻪ ﰲ )ﺗﻮﺑﻴﻨﻐﺮ ﺷﺘﻴﻔﺖ(‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺟﺬﺑﺘﻪ ﻭﺳﺤﺮﺗﻪ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺳﺒﻴﻨﻮﺯﺍ ﻭﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻛﺎﻧﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺕ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ ﲟﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻟﲑﺍ ﺃﻣﺎ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺗﻨﺸﺮ ﺇﻻ ﺑﻌﺪ ﻭﻓﺎﺗﻪ ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ‪، 1807‬ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍﺕ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪،‬ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳊﻖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺳﻴﻐﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪Sigmund Freud :‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﺳﻴﻐﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1856‬ﰲ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﺒﻮﺭﻍ ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺑﻠﻎ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻠﺖ ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺇﱃ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺎﺵ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﻋﻤﻞ ﺣﱴ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ، 1938‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻓﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳒﻠﺘﺮﺍ ﺑﻊ ﺍﻻﺣﺘﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺯﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﻤﺴﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﺎﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﻠﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﻜﺎﻥ ﰲ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻇﻠﻢ ﺃﻫﻞ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻇﻞ ﰲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﻥ ﻃﻴﻠﺔ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺗﻠﻤﻴﺬﺍ ﻣﺘﻔﻮﻗﺎ ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻪ ‪،‬ﲢﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1873‬ﻭ‬
‫ﲢﺼﻞ ﱃ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ، 1881‬ﻭ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1885‬ﻧﺎﻝ ﻣﻨﺤﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﻴﺔ ﰲ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﲢﺖ ﺇﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺟﺎﻥ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﺷﺎﺭﻛﻮ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﺧﲑ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻣﻬﺪ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻲ‬
‫ﲜﺪﻳﺔ ‪،‬ﻭ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺴﺐ ﺗﺸﺨﻴﺼﻪ ﻟﻠﻬﺴﺘﲑﺍ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻮﱘ ﺍﳌﻐﻨﺎﻃﻴﺲ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﻻﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ‪،،‬ﻭﻟﺪ ﻋﻮﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﱃ ﻓﻴﻨﺎ ‪، 1886‬ﺍﺷﺘﻐﻞ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﰲ ﻋﻴﺎﺩﺗﻪ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺗﻮﰲ ﰲ ﻟﻨﺪﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻡ ‪1939‬ﻡ‪.‬‬

‫‪281‬‬
 ‫ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺭﻳﻚ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ‪Friedrich Nietzsche :‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ ﻓﺮﻳﺪﻳﺮﻳﻚ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1844‬ﰲ ﺳﻜﺴﻮﻧﻴﺎ­ ﺑﺮﻭﺳﻴﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺑﻦ ﻟﻘﺲ ﻟﻮﺛﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺬﻫﺐ ‪ ،‬ﺃﲰﻪ ﻟﻮﺩﻓﻴﻚ ﺗﻮﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ، 1849‬ﲤﺖ ﺗﻨﺸﺌﺔ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻪ ﰲ ﳏﻴﻂ ﺃﻧﺜﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1858‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻖ ﺑﺎﳌﺪﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻮﺭﺗﺎ ﻭﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻭ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻷﳌﺎﱐ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻟﻜﻨﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻢ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﲣﺮﺟﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻮﺭﺗﺎ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ 1864‬ﺫﻫﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ﺍﱃ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻮﻥ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺩﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭ ﻓﻘﻪ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﳜﻲ ﻭ ﺍﳌﻘﺎﺭﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ، 1865‬ﺗﺮﻙ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻫﻮﺕ ﻭ ﺫﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﻟﻴﺒﺘﺰﻍ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﻗﻊ ﲢﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﲑ ﺷﻮﺑﻨﻬﺎﻭﺭ ﻭ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻛﺈﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﻭ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﲟﺎ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﱪ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻻﻣﻌﺎ ﺣﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﺎﺀ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻋﺘﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺯﻝ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺸﻐﻞ ﻛﺮﺳﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺘﺎﺫﻳﺔ ﰲ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻠﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺳﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺳﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻌﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫‪..‬ﺩﺭ‪‬ﺱ ﰲ ﺑﺎﺯﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1869‬ﺇﱃ ‪ 1879‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺍﺿﻄﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺎﻋﺪ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻋﺘﻼﻝ ﺻﺤﺘﻪ ‪...‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪. 1900‬‬

‫ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻧﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ‪Ferdnand de Saussure :‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ﰲ ﺟﻨﻴﻒ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1857‬ﰲ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻼﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺍﺷﺘﻬﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺎﳒﺎﺯﺍ‪‬ﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺱ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺟﻨﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺀ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺀ ‪ ،‬ﺫﻫﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻻﻳﺒﺰﻳﻎ‬
‫ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻣﻀﻰ ‪ 18‬ﰲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺴﻜﺮﻳﺘﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺑﺮﻟﲔ ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﻭﰲ ﻫﻮ ﺳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻝ ﻣﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﺑﻌﻨﻮﺍﻥ ‪ :‬ﻣﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﺋﻲ ﻷﺣﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻨﺪﻭ‪ -‬ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻳﻨﺒﺊ ﺑﺎﳌﺸﺎﺭﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﻮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﰲ ‪1880‬‬
‫ﻧﺎﻗﺶ ﺃﻃﺮﻭﺣﺘﻪ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﳊﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﻄﻠﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺮ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ﺇﱃ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﻭ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1881‬ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻮ ﰲ ﺳﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﲔ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺍ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻃﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﳝﺔ ‪ ...‬ﻟﻴﻌﲔ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺫﺍ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺴﻜﺮﻳﺘﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﻭ‪-‬ﺃﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺟﻨﻴﻒ ﺗﻮﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻧﺸﺮ ﺩﻳﺴﻮﺳﻮﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1916‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﺣﺪﺙ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺗﻐﲑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻠﺴﺎﻥ‪.‬‬

‫‪282‬‬
 ‫ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ ‪Henri Bergson‬‬

‫ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻭﻟﺪ ﺑﺒﺎﺭﻳﺲ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1859‬ﻭﺗﻮﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،1941‬ﺣﻀﻲ ﺑﺸﻬﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﱵ ﻗﺪﻣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﺎﺛﲑﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻮﻝ ﺭﻳﻜﻮﺭ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺪ ﰲ ﻓﺎﻟﻴﻨﺲ ‪ ،1913‬ﻭﺗﻮﰲ ﰲ ﺷﺎﺗﻴﻨﺎﻱ ﻣﺎﻻﺑﺮﻱ ‪،2005‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﺣﺪ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻠﲔ ﰲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﳊﺮﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﳜﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮﻱ ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩﻩ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺗﺄﺛﺮﻩ ﺑﻔﺮﻳﺪﻳﻨﺎﺩ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺰﻯ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺃﳘﻴﺘﻪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﳊﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳋﻄﺎﺏ ﻭﻓﺎﺋﺾ ﺍﳌﻌﲎ‪)،‬ﺇﻥ ﺁﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺑﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺭﻳﻜﻮﺭ ﺗﻨﻄﻠﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻮﺯ ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﻮﺻﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﳌﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺍﺭ‪‬ﻨﺖ ﺑﺘﺤﻮﻻﺕ ﻭﻗﺮﺍﺀﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﲡﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺎﺷﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺮﻛﺖ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻋﺎ ﻋﻤﻴﻘﺎ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﳉﻤﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﳑﺎ ﺟﻌﻞ ﺍﳌﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﻳﺘﺴﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻤﻮ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﰲ ﻭﺍﳌﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪:2009 -1908 :‬‬

‫ﻳﻌﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺷﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﲔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﺭﺟﻊ ﺇﱃ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻟﻠﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻱ ﰲ ﲨﻴﻊ ﺃﲝﺎﺛﻪ ﻭﺑﺎﳋﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﳎﺎﻝ ﺍﻷﻧﺘﺮﻭﺑﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻧﺸﺄﺗﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻎ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺎﺷﻘﺎ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺳﻴﻘﻰ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻓﻨﺎﻥ ﻭﺣﺨﺎﻡ‪ ،1932-1927 ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻃﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺣﺎﺯ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺇﺟﺎﺯﺓ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺭﺣﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﱪﺍﺯﻳﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1934‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﻐﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻌﻮﺩ ﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺇﱃ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺴﺎﻓﺮ ﺇﱃ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،1943‬ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺃﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺻﺔ ﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻃﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﲎ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﺍﺑﺔ‪ 1947-1946 ،‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﺎﳌﻠﺤﻖ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﰲ ﺑﻨﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1950‬ﺃﺻﺒﺢ ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﰲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،1964 ،‬ﻧﺎﻝ ﻭﺳﺎﻡ ﺟﻮﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﳍﻨﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻴﻜﻮﺍﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺍﺭﻳﺎﺕ ﺣﺰﻳﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ ‪Maurice Merleau Ponty‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻟﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﲑﻟﻮ ﺑﻮﻧﱵ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ، 1809‬ﺩﺭﺱ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺟﺎﻧﺴﻮﻥ ﺩﻭﺳﺎﻱ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﻟﻮﻱ ﻟﻮ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ‪،‬ﺣﺼﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻬﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻧﺪﻻﻉ‬

‫‪283‬‬
‫ﺍﳊﺮﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﳌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻧﻈﻢ ﺍﱃ ﺻﻔﻮﻑ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺓ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻌﺮﺽ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺬﻳﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪ ﺍﻻﳌﺎﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﺣﺘﻼﳍﻢ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ‪ ...‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﺳﻨﻬﺔ ‪ 1945‬ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﳌﺴﻮﻡ ﺑﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻻﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﺍﳊﺴﻲ ﻥ ﻋﲔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ 1949‬ﰲ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﺃﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﺎﻓﺲ ﺍﻻﻃﻔﺎﻝ ﰲ ﺟﺎﰲ ﻛﻮﻟﻴﺞ ﺩﻭ ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺲ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﺑﻮﻥ ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﰲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 1952‬ﺷﻐﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﻛﺮﺳﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺎﺫﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﰲ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪ ،1961‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﻫﻢ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ :‬ﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻧﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻋﺐ)‪ ،(1947‬ﺍﳌﻌﲎ ﻭﺍﻟﻼﻣﻌﲎ)‪ ،(1948‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﻆ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ)‪ ،(1953‬ﻣﺎﻋﻤﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻟﻴﺔ)‪ ،(1955‬ﻣﺸﺎﻫﲑ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ)‪ ،(1956‬ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ)‪.(1960‬‬

‫‪284‬‬
‫ﺛﺒﺖ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ‬
A priori ‫ﻗﺒﻠﻲ‬
Absence ‫ﻏﻴﺎﺏ‬
Acte ‫ﻓﻌﻞ‬
Actualité ‫ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺔ‬
Actuel ‫ﻓﻌﻠﻲ‬
Adéquation ‫ﺗﻀﺎﺑﻖ‬
Adverbe ‫ﻇﺮﻑ‬
Alter ‫ﻏﲑ‬
Altérité ‫ﻏﲑﻳﺔ‬
Âme ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ‬
Amour ‫ﺍﳊﺐ‬
Analogie ‫ﳑﺎﺛﻠﺔ‬
Animation ‫ﺇﺣﻴﺎﺀ‬
Apparition ‫ﻇﻬﻮﺭ‬
Appréhension saisie ‫ﺇﺣﺎﻃﺔ‬
Articulation ‫ﲤﻔﺼﻞ‬
Association ‫ﺍﺷﺘﻐﺎﻝ‬
Beauté ‫ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ‬
Bedeuten ‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‬
Body ‫ﻓﻦ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
Bouche ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻢ‬
Cadavre ‫ﺍﳉﺜﺔ‬

286
Chair ‫ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ‬/‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
Chose ‫ﺷﻴﺊ‬
Circoncision ‫ﺍﳋﺘﺎﻥ‬
Cœur ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐ‬
Communication ‫ﺗﻮﺍﺻﻞ‬
Contingence ‫ﺟﻮﺍﺯ‬
Conviction ‫ﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﻉ‬
Corps du christe ‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺃﳌﺴﻴﺢ‬
Corps étranger ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺐ‬
Corps extrême ‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ‬
Corps glorieux ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺘﻄﺮﻑ‬
Corps machine ‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺍﻵﻟﺔ‬
Corps objet ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻉ‬
Corps politique ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬
Corps propre ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳋﺎﺹ‬
Corps sans organes ‫ﺟﺴﺪ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺀ‬
Corps virtuels ‫ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺿﻲ‬
Corrélation ‫ﺗﻀﺎﻳﻒ‬
Couche ‫ﻃﺒﻘﺔ‬
Croyance ‫ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ‬
Danse ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻗﺺ‬
Dérivation ‫ﺍﺷﺘﻘﺎﻕ‬

287
Discours ‫ﻗﻮﻝ‬
Distinction ‫ﲤﻴﻴﺰ‬
Don ‫ﺍﳍﺒﺔ‬
Douleur ‫ﺍﻷﱂ‬
Droit ‫ﺣﻖ‬
Durée ‫ﺩﳝﻮﻣﺔ‬
Ecoulement ‫ﺳﻴﻞ‬
Emotion ‫ﺍﻻﻧﻔﻌﺎﻝ‬
Empreintes génétique ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺼﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﺍﺛﻴﺔ‬
Enchevêtrement ‫ﺗﺸﺎﻛﻚ‬
Epoche ‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
Equivocité ‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭ‬
Etant ‫ﻛﺎﺋﻦ‬
Etre ‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
Expérience corporelle ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪﻳﺔ‬
Expression ‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬
Expressivité ‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑﻳﺔ‬
Extériorisation ‫ﺇﺧﺮﺍﺝ‬
Factualité ‫ﺣﺪﺛﲕ‬
Féminin ‫ﺍﻷﻧﺜﻮﻱ‬
Fiction ‫ﺧﻴﺎﻝ‬
Flux ‫ﺳﺮﻳﺎﻥ‬

288
Formalisme ‫ﺷﻜﻼﻧﻴﺔ‬
Forme ‫ﺷﻜﻞ‬
Geistigkeit ‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
Généralité ‫ﻋﻤﻮﻣﻴﺔ‬
Genre ‫ﺟﻨﺲ‬
Geste ‫ﺇﳝﺎﺀ‬
Graphème ‫ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺧﻄﻴﺔ‬
Graphie ‫ﺧﻂ‬
Histoire juridique du ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻧﻮﱐ ﻟﻠﺠﺴﺪ‬
corps
Idée ‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓ‬
Identité ‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ‬
Image ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭﺓ‬
Image du corps ‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬
Incarnation ‫ﺣﻠﻮﻝ‬
Inconcient ‫ﺍﻟﻠﺸﻌﻮﺭ‬
Inconscient ‫ﺍﻻﺷﻌﻮﺭ‬
Inconscient ‫ﻻﻭﻋﻲ‬
Indéfinité ‫ﻻ ﳏﺪﻭﺩﻳﺔ‬
Indication ‫ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ‬
Indice ‫ﻗﺮﻳﻨﺔ‬
Infini ‫ﻻ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻩ‬

289
Infinité ‫ﻻ ﺗﻨﺎﻫﻲ‬
Instant ‫ﳊﻈﺔ‬
Instinct ‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﺰﺓ‬
Intention ‫ﻗﺼﺪ‬
Intentionnalité ‫ﻗﺼﺪﻳﺔ‬
Intériorité ‫ﺑﺎﻃﻦ‬
Interprétation ‫ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ‬
Intersubjcetivité ‫ﺗﺬﻭﺍﺕ‬
Intuition ‫ﺣﺪﺱ‬
Intuitivité ‫ﺣﺪﺳﻴﺔ‬
Judaisme ‫ﻳﻬﻮﺩﻳﺔ‬
Jugement ‫ﺣﻜﻢ‬
Lebendigkeit ‫ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻥ‬
Limite ‫ﺣﺪ‬
Main ‫ﺍﻟﻴﺪ‬
Manifestation ‫ﺑﻴﺎﻥ‬
Masturbation ‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻤﻨﺎﺀ ﺑﺎﻟﻴﺪ‬
Même ‫ﻋﲔ‬
Miroir ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺁﺓ‬
Mise hors circuit ‫ﺗﻌﻄﻴﻞ‬
Mode ‫ﺿﺮﺏ‬
Modification ‫ﲢﻮﻳﻞ‬

290
Mondanité ‫ﻋﺎﳌﻴﺔ‬
Monde ‫ﻋﺎﱂ‬
Monstration ‫ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ‬
Morphè ‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ‬
sexuelles Mutilation ‫ﺍﳉﺪﻭﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﳉﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
Nature ‫ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻃﺒﻊ‬
Nécessité ‫ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺓ‬
Neutralisation ‫ﲢﻴﻴﺪ‬
Non identité ‫ﻻﻫﻮﻳﺔ‬
Omnitemporalité ‫ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ‬
Origine ‫ﺃﺻﻞ‬
Ouïe ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻊ‬
Parole ‫ﻛﻼﻡ‬
Peau ‫ﺍﳉﻠﺪ‬
Pénis ‫ﺍﻟﻘﻀﻴﺐ‬
Perception ‫ﺇﺩﺭﺍﻙ‬
Personne ‫ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ‬
Phénoménalité ‫ﻇﻬﻮﺭﻳﺔ‬
Phénomène ‫ﻇﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬
Phénoménologie ‫ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
Phonème ‫ﻭﺣﺪﺓ ﺻﻮﺗﻴﺔ‬
Phonétique ‫ﺻﻮﺗﻴﺎﺕ‬

291
Pluriovocité ‫ﺍﺷﺘﺮﺍﻙ‬
Portrait ‫ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ‬
Prédication ‫ﲪﻞ‬
Présence ‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‬
Présent ‫ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‬
Présentation ‫ﺇﺣﻀﺎﺭ‬
Présentification ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺤﻀﺎﺭ‬
Présomption ‫ﲣﻴﻴﻞ‬
Pronom ‫ﺿﻤﲑ‬
Propre ‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ‬
Réduction ‫ﺭﺩ‬
Région ‫ﺟﻬﺔ‬
Religion ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
Renvoi ‫ﺇﺣﺎﻟﺔ‬
Répétition ‫ﺗﻘﻮﻡ‬
Représentation ‫ﲤﺎﺛﻞ‬
Rien ‫ﻻ ﺷﻲﺀ‬
S’exprimer ‫ﺗﻌﺒﲑ‬
Sensibilité ‫ﺣﺴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‬
Sexualité ‫ﺍﳉﻨﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
Signe ‫ﻋﻼﻣﺔ‬
Signifiant ‫ﺩﺍﻝ‬

292
Signification ‫ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‬
Silence ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻤﺖ‬
Souvenir ‫ﺫﻛﺮﻯ‬
Sphère ‫ﺩﺍﺋﺮﺓ‬
Stratification ‫ﺗﺰﻣﲔ‬
Subjectivité ‫ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
Substance ‫ﺟﻮﻫﺮ‬
Sujet ‫ﺫﺍﺕ‬
Supplément ‫ﺑﺪﻝ‬
Symbole ‫ﺭﻣﺰ‬
Tatouage ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺷﻢ‬
Technique ‫ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ‬
Telos ‫ﻏﺎﻳﺔ‬
Temporalisation ‫ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻚ‬
Temporalite ‫ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
Temps ‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‬
Théatre ‫ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ‬
Touche et soin ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ‬
Toucher ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‬
Trace ‫ﺃﺛﺮ‬
Transcendantalité ‫ﺗﻌﺎﱄ‬
Transmission ‫ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻎ‬

293
 ‫‪Transplantation‬‬ ‫ﺯﺭﻉ ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎﺀ‬
‫‪Valeur‬‬ ‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫‪Validité‬‬ ‫ﺻﺤﺔ ﺻﺪﻕ‬
‫‪Verbum‬‬ ‫ﻛﻠﻤﺔ‬
‫‪Vie‬‬ ‫ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬
‫‪Violence‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ‬
‫‪Virginité‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫‪Visage‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫‪Voix‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ‬
‫‪Volonté‬‬ ‫ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ‬
‫‪Vouloir dire‬‬ ‫ﺍﻋﺘﺰﺍﻡ ﻗﻮﻝ‬
‫‪Xénotransplantation‬‬ ‫ﺯﺭﻉ ﺟﺴﻢ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﰲ ﺟﺴﺪ ﺇﻧﺴﺎﻥ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Ymen‬‬ ‫ﻏﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﺭﺓ‬

‫‪ . ‬ﰲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺍﻹﺻﻄﻼﺣﻲ ﰎ ﺍﻹﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‪‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻝ ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﳉﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ .‬‬
‫‪294‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﺍﻷﻋﻼﻡ‬
 ‫ﺃﺭﺳﻄﻮ‪.197،198 :‬‬
‫ﺃﺭﺗﻮ‪.225،226،128 :‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﺳﻜﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻳﻠﺪ‪.199 :‬‬
‫ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪:‬ﻭ‪.183،185،221،140،141،142،143،144 ،2،79،116،‬‬
‫ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪:‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻐﻴﺚ‪ :‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﺲ ﺃﻏﺴﻄﲔ‪.197:‬‬
‫ﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻨﺎﺱ‪.93:‬‬
‫ﺇﳝﻴﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﻛﺎﱘ‪.89:‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﺘﺮ ﺃﺑﻴﻼﺭ‪86:‬‬
‫ﺗﺰﻓﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ‪:‬ﺃ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﻋﺼﻔﻮﺭ‪ :‬ﺝ ‪.183،185،‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃ‪،‬ﺏ‪،‬ﺩ‪،‬ﻭ‪،‬ﺯ‪،‬ﺡ‪،‬ﻁ‪،38،39،40،18،20،22،23،35،36،2،‬‬
‫‪،4243،44،45،46،47،48،49،50،51،52،53‬‬
‫‪60،63،66،67،70،73،74،76‬‬
‫‪،184،183،182،181،156،157،158،159،88،116،118،119،77،79‬‬
‫‪،209،208،207،206،204،203،102،101،199،198،196،189،186‬‬
‫‪،233،232،231،230،229،228،226،225،224،215،213،211،210‬‬
‫‪.250،155،256،266،277،279،280،283،288،290،241،240‬‬
‫ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪.200،199،181:‬‬
‫ﺟﻮﻥ ﺳﺘﻴﻮﺍﺭﺕ‪.254 :‬‬

‫‪296‬‬
 ‫ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﻚ ﻧﺎﻧﺴﻲ‪:‬ﺏ‪،‬ﺝ‪.244،243 ،‬‬
‫ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺩ‪.98 ،96،97 ،90،95،‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﺃ‪.90،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ :‬ﺃ‪ ،‬ﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩ‪ ،‬ﺡ‪،23 ،21 ،20 ،15 ،14 ،13 ،12 ،9 ،6 ،5 ،4 ،3 ،2 ،‬‬
‫‪،49 ،47 ،46 ،45 ،44 ،43 ،42 ،41 ،40 ،39 ،38 ،36 ،35 ،34 ،32‬‬
‫‪254 ،223 ،222 ،183 ،51 ،50‬‬
‫ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪.154،155 :‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻼﺭ‪.91 :‬‬
‫ﺣﻨﺔ ﺃﺭﻧﺪﺕ‪.199 :‬‬
‫ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪.149،150،151،152 ،23‬‬
‫ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ‪.254 ،86 :‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ‪ :‬ﺃ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﻳﻨﻮﻓﻴﻴﻪ ﻟﻴﻮﻥ‪.87 :‬‬
‫ﺭﻳﻔﺎﺋﻴﻞ ﺍﻭﻧﺘﻮﻓﺎﻥ‪.92:‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﻐﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﻩ‪.120،121،122،123-‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﻐﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ‪:‬ﻩ‪.231،200 ،‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﻧﺒﻴﻞ‪ :‬ﺏ‪،‬ﺝ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ :‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪ :‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ :‬ﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪:‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺰ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ‪.222 ،14،15،16:‬‬

‫‪297‬‬
 ‫ﻓﺮﻳﺪﻳﺮﻳﻚ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪:‬ﺩ‪،‬ﻩ‪.232 ،118،119 ،‬‬
‫ﻛﻮﺍﺭﻱ‪.200:‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﻝ ﻣﺎﻛﺲ‪:‬ﺝ‪12،126،127،128،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ :‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﻂ‪.111،210 ،199 :‬‬
‫ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪:‬ﻩ‪.155،156،157،158،159 ،‬‬
‫ﻟﻮﺳﻴﺎﻥ ﺟﻮﻟﺪﻣﺎﻥ‪:‬ﺃ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﻧﺘﺎﻱ‪.200:‬‬
‫ﻣﲑﻟﻮﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪.225،224،223 ،101،102،103 ،100 ،99:‬‬
‫ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ :‬ﺏ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﲎ ﻃﻠﺒﺔ‪ :‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴ‪‬ﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺸﻴﻞ ﺁﻳﻜﻴﻢ ﺩﻱ ﻣﻮﻧﺘﲔ‪.86:‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ‪.90 :‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﺍﻭﻧﻔﺮﻳﻪ‪.92:‬‬
‫ﻫﻮﻣﲑﻭﺱ‪.221 :‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ‪.89 :‬‬
‫ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ :‬ﺩ‪،‬ﻭ‪.116،129،130،131،‬‬
‫ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ :‬ﺩ‪.197،189،183 ،62،63،64،66،67،68،69،70،72،77،78،‬‬
‫ﻫﻮﻣﲑﺱ‪.121 :‬‬
‫ﻭﺑﺮﻭﻧﺸﻨﻴﻎ‪،87 :‬‬

‫‪298‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪.1‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﻘﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺢ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻻ ﻳﺘﻘﺎﺩﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ -‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻧﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﺘﻮﺳﻂ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻄﺎﻟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2018 ،1‬‬
‫‪.2‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺑﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2016‬‬

‫‪.3‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﻣﻨﺘﺰﻋﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻴ‪‬ﺎﺩﻱ‪ -‬ﻧﺎﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﻧﻠﻲ‪ -‬ﻣﻌﺰ‪ ‬ﺍﳌﺪﻳﻮﱐ ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﳉﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،‬ﻁ‪.2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪.4‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺑﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﺒﺤﻲ ﺩﻗﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪2015 1‬‬
‫‪.‬‬
‫‪.5‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩ ﻛﲑﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻴﺎﺱ ﻓﺮﻛﻮﺡ‪-‬‬
‫ﺣﻨﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﺍﳜﺔ‪ :،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪. 2015 ،1‬‬

‫‪.6‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2013 ،1‬‬
‫‪.7‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ‪ -‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﻧﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪. 2013 1‬‬
‫‪.8‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻯ ﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ)ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ ﻁ‪.2013 ،1‬‬
‫‪.9‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻯ ﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ)ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬‬

‫ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2013 ،1‬‬

‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻬﻤﺎﺯ ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2010‬‬

‫‪ .10‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻋﻦ ﺍﳊﻖ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2010‬‬
‫‪.11‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ -‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﻔﻮﺭ ﻣﺎﻧﺘﻴﻞ ﺗﺪﻋﻮ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻛﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﺠﻴﺐ ﻟﻠﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪2009،‬‬
‫‪300‬‬
‫‪.12‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺑﻮﻝ ﺩﻱ ﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2009 ،1‬‬
‫‪.13‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻧﻮﺭ ﻣﻐﻴﺚ‪ -‬ﻣﲎ ﻃﻠﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪. 2008 ،2‬‬
‫‪.14‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﻃﻴﺎﻑ ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﻠﺐ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2‬‬
‫‪. 2006‬‬

‫‪.15‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﻛﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻫﻢ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻉ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﻀﺎﺭﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪.2005 ،1‬‬
‫‪.16‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2005‬‬
‫‪.17‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻔﻌﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﺗﻮﻣﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪. 2005 1‬‬

‫‪.18‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﻭﺍ‪‬ﺘﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺨﺮﻱ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻛﻨﻌﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪1‬‬
‫‪.2004‬‬
‫‪ .19‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ))ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﺔ((؟‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﺴﺎﻡ ﺣﺠﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪. 2003 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .20‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﲪﻰ ﺍﻷﺭﺷﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻭﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺪﻧﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﻮﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2003 ،1‬‬
‫‪.21‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣﺪﺙ ﰲ ﺣﺪﺙ ‪ 11‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﻔﺎﺀ ﻓﺘﺤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.2003 ،‬‬

‫‪.22‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2000 2‬‬
‫‪.23‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﺪﻟﺔ ﺃﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪.1998 ،‬‬
‫‪.24‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ :‬ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎﺕ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﺎﻭﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﻮﺑﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1998 ،1‬‬

‫‪301‬‬
 ‫ﻠﺪ‬‫ ﺿﻤﻦ ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ ﺍ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬،‫ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬.25
.1993 ‫ ﺷﺘﺎﺀ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‬،‫ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ‬

،1‫ ﻁ‬،‫ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‬،‫ ﻓﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻫﻲ‬:‫ ﺗﺮ‬،(‫ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ )ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬.26
.1992
. 1985 17 ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‬،‫ ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺮﻣﻞ‬،‫ ﺗﺮ ﻛﺎﻇﻢ ﺟﻬﺎﺩ‬،‫ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬.27
،‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‬،‫ ﺗﺮ ﺍﻧﻄﻮﺍﻥ ﺟﻮﻛﻲ‬،‫ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺎﺗﺐ ﻳﺘﻌﺬﹼﺭ ﲡﻨﺒﻪ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬.28
،www.alaraby.co.uk

:‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬

1. Jacque Derrida,Voyous,Galillée,paris,2003.
2. Jacques Derrida, Le toucher, Jean Luc Nancy, Galilée éd.
Paris, 2000.

3. jacque Derrida, sur parole, edit, l'aube, paris, 1999.

4. Derrida jacque, sur parole, edit, l'aube, paris, 1999.
5. Jacques Derrida, Adieu à Emmanuel Lévinas, Paris, Galilée,
1997
6. . Jacque derrida, Lemonolinguisme de l'autre, Galilée, Paris,
1996.
7. Jacque derrida, Politique de l'amitié, Galilée, Paris, 1994.
8. J- derrida, spectre de marx ,Galillée,paris1993.
9. Jacque Derrida, L'autre cape, Minuit, Paris, 1992.

10. Jacque Derrida, Donne le Temps, Galilée, Paris, 1991.

302
11. Jacque Derrida, la déconstruction et l'autre, Gallimard,
revue les temps modernes, 2012, 3-n669-
670,http//www.cairn.info.
12. Jacque Derrida, Pardonner L'impardonnable et
l'imprescriptible, Galilée, Paris.
13. Jacque.Deerida, La Carte Postale de Socrate à Freud et au-
delà ,Flammarion, Paris,1980..
14. Jacquet derrida, MARGES DE LA PHILOSOPHIE,
Minuit, Paris, 1972.
15. Jacque derrida, L'ecriture et la Defférence, Seuil,
PARIS,1967.
16. : Jacques derrida,De la Grammatologie, , Minuit, Paris,
1967.

. ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻊ ﻓﻴﺪﻳﻮ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬

:‫ ﺗﺮ‬،‫ ﻫﻞ ﲢﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺺ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﺃﻡ ﻟﺼﻔﺎﺗﻪ‬:‫ ﺍﳊﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
https://bit.ly/20EKkjQ ،‫ﺭﺯﻡ‬
،‫ ﺯﻫﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﳌﻌﻮﱄ‬:‫ ﺗﺮ‬،‫ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
https://youtu.be/1_iR4kjPJuE
:‫ ﺗﺮ‬،‫ ﳊﻈﺔ ﺍﳋﻮﻑ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ‬،‫ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
http://youtu.be/7h9BJkXylE،torj0man Co

303
 ‫ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺃﲪﺪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪1‬‬ ‫‪.1‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪.2006 ،‬‬
‫ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ ﺑﻨﺸﻴﺨﺔ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﳜﺮﺝ ﻋﻦ ﻃﻮﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪2011 ،1‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬
‫ﺃﲪﺪ ﺃﺑﻮ ﺯﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﻮﺙ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳉﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬ ‫‪.3‬‬
‫‪.1955‬‬
‫ﺍﺩﻣﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺃﺯﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺑﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﻕ‪،‬‬ ‫‪.4‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،2008 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﱘ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺭﺟﺐ‪،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬ﻁ‪،2002 ،1‬‬
‫ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﲝﻮﺙ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻮﺳﻰ ﻭﻫﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﰲ‬ ‫‪.6‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2010 ،1‬‬
‫ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﻣﻼﺕ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺗﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﻧﺎﺯﱄ ﺍﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.1970،‬‬ ‫‪.7‬‬
‫ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬ ‫‪.8‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪.2007 ،‬‬
‫ﺇﺩﻳﺚ ﻛﺮﻳﺰﻭﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﻋﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﺎﺑﺮ ﻋﺼﻔﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺳﻌﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﺒﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬ ‫‪.9‬‬
‫‪.1993‬‬
‫‪ .10‬ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﳏﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻓﺎﻳﺪﺭﻭﺱ ﻷﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﳉﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﻣﲑﺓ ﺣﻠﻤﻲ ﻣﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪. 2000 ،‬‬
‫‪ .11‬ﺇﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺎﺡ ﺇﻣﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﳉﺪﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .12‬ﺇﻣﻴﻞ ﺩﻭﺭﻛﺎﱘ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﺃﻧﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻮ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪..1966 ،1‬‬

‫‪304‬‬
‫‪ .13‬ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﶈﺎﻛﺎﺓ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﺓ‪ ،‬ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪.2011 ،4‬‬
‫‪ .14‬ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻭ ﺑﻮﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻷﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﻦ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻫﻨﺪﺍﻭﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .15‬ﺍﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺑﺪﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎﺑﺮ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2014‬‬
‫‪ .16‬ﺇﳝﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺑﺪﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎﺑﺮ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2014‬‬
‫‪ .17‬ﺑﺴﺎﻡ ﺣﺠﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2003 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .18‬ﺑﻴﲑ ﻑ‪ .‬ﺯﳝﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺃﺳﺎﻣﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1996 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .19‬ﺑﻴﺘﺮ ﺑﺮﻭﻙ‪-‬ﺗﲑﻯ ﺇﳚﻠﺘﻮﻥ‪ -‬ﺳﻮ ﺇﻟﲔ ﻛﻴﺲ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﲑ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻭﺍﻷﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬‬
‫‪‬ﺎﺩ ﺻﻠﻴﺤﺔ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.2000 ،‬‬
‫‪ .20‬ﺗﻴﻤﻮﺛﻰ ﻛﻼﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﺍﻻﺩﰊ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪-‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ -‬ﺑﻼﻧﺸﻮ‪ -‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،-‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2011 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .21‬ﺝ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺮﻭﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﺗﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﲪﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﳒﻠﻮ ﻣﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪.1964 ،‬‬
‫‪ .22‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﳌﻨﻌﻢ ﺍﳊﻔﲏ‪ ،‬ﻣﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1964 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .23‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻟﻮﻳﺲ ﻓﺎﺑﻴﺎﱐ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ﻭﻓﻼﺳﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﰲ ﻣﺌﺔ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻭﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2015‬‬

‫‪305‬‬
‫‪ .24‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﺎﺟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﺭﻑ ﻣﻨﻴﻤﻨﻪ‪ -‬ﺑﺸﲑﻯ ﺃﻭﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻮﻳﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.1958‬‬
‫‪ .25‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻏﺮﺍﻧﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻌﺮﺝ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻨﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﻤﺮ ﻣﻬﻴﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2007 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .26‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻳﻜﺎﺭﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺆﺍﺩ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .27‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﻻﻛﺮﻭﺍ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺓ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳛﲕ ﻫﻮﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﻮﺭ ﻋﺒﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.2016 ،‬‬
‫‪ .28‬ﺟﺎﻳﺘﺮﻳﺎ ﺳﺒﻴﻔﺎﻙ‪ -‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺻﻮﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻻﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.2002 ،‬‬
‫‪ .29‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﻱ‪ -‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻳﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2003 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .30‬ﲨﺎﻝ ﻣﻔﺮﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2009 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .31‬ﲨﺎﻝ ﻣﻔﺮﺝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﳌﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻹﺧﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2009 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .32‬ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﺑﻮﻟﻴﺘﺰﺭ‪ -‬ﺟﻲ ﺑﻴﺲ ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺎﻓﲔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻛﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺷﻌﺒﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﻛﺎﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .33‬ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﺯﻳﻨﺎﰐ‪ ،‬ﺭﺣﻼﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻨﺘﺨﺐ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1993 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .34‬ﺟﻮﻟﻴﺎ ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻴﻔﺎ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﻌﻠﻢ ﻧﻘﺪﻱ ‪ /‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺗﺮ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﻓﺰﺍﺯﻱ ﻧﻮﺍﻓﺬ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺭﻗﻢ‪ ،8‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ 1،‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪.1999‬‬

‫‪306‬‬
‫‪ .35‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺻﺎﺑﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺷﺮﻗﻴﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1993‬‬
‫‪ .36‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳏﺠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺆﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .37‬ﺟﻮﻥ ﻟﻴﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﲬﺴﻮﻥ ﻣﻔﻜﺮﺍ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﺗﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺴﺘﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2009 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .38‬ﺟﻮﻧﺎﺛﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﲪﺪﻱ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻐﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫‪.2000‬‬
‫‪ .39‬ﺟﻴﻮﻓﺎﻧﺎ ﺑﻮﺭﺍﺩﻭﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﰲ ﺯﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺍﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻟﻸﲝﺎﺙ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2013 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .40‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻭﱐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﻮﻥ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪.2003 ،‬‬
‫‪ .41‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2014 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .42‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﺷﺤﺎﺗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2008‬‬
‫‪ .43‬ﺭﻭﺍﺋﻊ ﺷﻜﺴﺒﲑ‪ ،‬ﻣﺄﺳﺎﺓ ﻫﺎﻣﻠﺖ ﺍﻣﲑ ﺍﻟﺪﳕﺎﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺟﱪﺍ ﺇﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺟﱪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1979 ،5‬‬
‫‪ .44‬ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩ ﻛﲑﻳﲏ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻴﺎﺱ ﻓﺮﻛﻮﺡ‪ -‬ﺣﻨﺎﻥ ﺷﺮﺍﳜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺃﺯﻣﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺣﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪. 2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .45‬ﺭﺷﻴﺪ ﺑﻮﻃﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﳊﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺇﻣﺎﻧﻮﻳﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪ ،2019 ،1‬ﺹ‪.158‬‬
‫‪ .46‬ﺭﳝﻮﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺎﻧﺘﻴﻴﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ‪ :‬ﻧﺴﻴﻢ ﻧﺼﺮ‪،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻮﻳﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،3‬‬
‫‪.1984‬‬

‫‪307‬‬
‫‪ .47‬ﺳﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﻮﻓﻤﺎﻥ‪ -‬ﺭﻭﺟﻲ ﻻ ﺑﻮﺭﺕ‪،‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺍﺩﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺜﲑ‪ -‬ﻭﻋﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1994 ،4‬‬
‫‪ .48‬ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ﻏﺎﺑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻭﺑﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻻﻳﺘﻴﻘﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺎﺳﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳋﻠﻴﺞ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪.2017 ،‬‬
‫‪ .49‬ﲰﺎﺡ ﺭﺍﻓﻊ ﳏﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪:‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺆﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪.1991 ،‬‬
‫‪ .50‬ﺳﻴﻐﻤﻮﻧﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭ ﻟﻴﻢ ﺷﺘﻴﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺖ ﲢﻠﻴﻞ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩ‪.‬ﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺩ‬
‫‪.‬ﺱ‪.‬ﻁ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .51‬ﲰﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﺪﻭﻉ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪.2009 ،‬‬
‫‪ .52‬ﺻﻼﺡ ﺇﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺳﲑﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻗﺒﺎﺀ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .53‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ ﳊﻜﻴﻢ ﺑﻨﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪،2003 ،‬‬
‫ﺹ‪140‬‬
‫‪ .54‬ﺩﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2000 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .55‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﺎﻋﻴﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﰲ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺣﻀﺮﻣﻮﺕ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻴﻤﻦ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2004 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .56‬ﻋﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻰ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻬﻢ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻨﻴﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﺅﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫‪. 2007‬‬
‫‪ .57‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﺎﺏ ﺍﳌﺴﲑﻱ‪ -‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻳﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ ﻭﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2003 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .58‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﺭ ﺭﺣﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﻫﻢ ﺭﻭﺍﻓﺪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺩﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺧﻴﻀﺮ ﺑﺴﻜﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻧﻔﻲ‪ -‬ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ‪.2014‬‬

‫‪308‬‬
‫‪ .59‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﲑ ﺍﳋﻄﻴﱯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺳﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳉﺮﻳﺢ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳑﺪ ﺑﻨﻴﺲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2009‬‬
‫‪ .60‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﳊﺒﻴﺐ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻳﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ » ﺍﻟﻔﻦ ﻭ ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ « ﺃﻭ ﺍﻹ‪‬ﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﺍﰊ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪.2008 ،‬‬
‫‪ .61‬ﻋﻤﺎﺩ ﻧﺒﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ -‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺎﺕ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻻﳌﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺘﻮﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺪﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2014 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .62‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﱄ‪ ،‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺿﺪ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﻭﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2006 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .63‬ﻏﺎﺳﺘﻮﻥ ﺑﺸﻼﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻓﺾ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﲪﺪ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﻁ‪.1985 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .64‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺘ‪‬ﺨﻮﻡ‪،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪.2014 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .65‬ﻓﺎﻟﲑﻱ ﻟﻴﱭ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻼ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﻠﻴﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺎ‪.1977 ،‬‬
‫‪ .66‬ﻓﻨﺴﺖ ﺏ‪.‬ﻟﻴﺘﺶ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺩﰊ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺛﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳛﲕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.2000 ،‬‬
‫‪ .67‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﻧﻘﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺌﻨﺎﻑ ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪.2000 ،‬‬
‫‪ .68‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎ ﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﻭﺱ ﰲ ﺍﻷﻟﺴﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣ‪‬ﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺻﺎﱀ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪.1985 ،‬‬
‫‪ .69‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﻮﺋﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺃﻓﺎﻕ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1985‬‬
‫‪ .70‬ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻥ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻳﻮﺋﻴﻞ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﻋﺰﻳﺰ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺃﻓﺎﻕ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1985‬‬

‫‪309‬‬
 ‫‪ .71‬ﻓﺮﻳﺪﺭﻳﻚ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺭﺍﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2011 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .72‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﺻﱪﻱ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪.1989 ،‬‬
‫‪ .73‬ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﻧﻮﺭﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ ﺻﱪﻱ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﺮﻳﺦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪.1989 ،‬‬
‫‪ .74‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺩﺭﻳ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﺣﺰﻳﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺻﺒﺢ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﻛﻨﻌﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺸﻖ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2003‬‬
‫‪ .75‬ﻟﻮﻳﻚ ﺩﻭﺑﻴﻜﲑ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻢ ﻓﺮﺩﻳﻨﺎﻧﺪ ﺩﻭﺳﻮﺳﻮﺭ ﻭﻓﻘﺎﹰ ﳌﺨﻄﻮﻃﺎﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺭﳝﺎ ﺑﺮﻛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .76‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﳊﻘﻴﻘﺔ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺳﺒﻴﻼ‪ -‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﳍﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺡ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .77‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺇﻧﺸﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺑﺴﺎﻡ ﺣﺠﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1994 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .78‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻦ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪،‬ﺝ‪ 2‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺇﲰﺎﻋﻴﻞ ﻣﺼﺪﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪.2003 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .79‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ -‬ﺍﳒﻠﺰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﻔﻴﻒ ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﳉﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.2015 ،‬‬
‫‪ .80‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺃﲪﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻜﻲ‪،‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﻟﻠﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2005 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .81‬ﻣﻨﺬﺭ ﻋﻴﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺗﻴﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺺ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2004 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .82‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﲔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﺍﳍﻮﺍﻣﺶ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،1‬‬
‫‪.2017‬‬
‫‪ .83‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،1‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪. 2013 ،1‬‬

‫‪310‬‬
‫‪ .84‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﳝﻴﲔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪ ،2‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2013 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .85‬ﳎﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺟﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺳﻊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺿﻔﺎﻑ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .86‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺍﳍﻼﱄ‪-‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﻟﺰﺭﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2010 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .87‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﺒﺎﻉ‪ ،‬ﲢﻮﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﻟﻸﲝﺎﺙ ﻭﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .88‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺭﺟﺐ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﺎﺓ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺭﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻹﺳﻜﻨﺪﺭﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .89‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺷﻮﻗﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻼﺕ ﻭﺗﻔﻜﻴﻜﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2015 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .90‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻃﻮﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﻭﺍﳌﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪.2002 ،‬‬
‫‪ .91‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺣﻨﺘﻮﺵ ﻋﻤﺮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻻﻻﺕ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﺍﳌﺴﺮﺣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﺿﻮﺍﻥ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2016 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .92‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﱃ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﺭﻳﺲ ﻛﺜﲑ‪ -‬ﻋﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﳋﻄﺎﰊ‪،‬ﺍﻓﺮﻳﻘﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2‬‬
‫‪.1994‬‬
‫‪ .93‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﺋﻲ ﻭﺍﻻﻣﺮﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2008 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .94‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﻆ ﺍﳊﻜﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﳏﺠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻣﻴﺔ‪.1995 ،‬‬
‫‪ .95‬ﻣﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ‪ ،‬ﻇﻮﺍﻫﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺆﺍﺩ ﺷﺎﻫﲔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻬﺪ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺩﻁ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1998‬‬
‫‪ .96‬ﻣﻮﻧﻴﺲ ﲞﻀﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ‪،‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺟﺪﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﺭﺗﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻮﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪.2009 ،‬‬

‫‪311‬‬
‫‪ .97‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﺭﺍﻳﺎﻥ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺇﱃ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﺎﻡ ﻧﺎﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺼﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.1،2008‬‬
‫‪ .98‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﺷﻴﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻣﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺪﻱ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻹﳕﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻣﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪.1990 ،‬‬
‫‪ .99‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻔﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﻌﺮﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺳﺎﱂ ﻳﻔﻮﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪،2‬‬
‫‪.1987‬‬
‫‪ .100‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻜﺎﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺭﺧﺒﻴﻼﺕ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﳊﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2017 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .101‬ﻧﻮﺍﻡ ﺗﺸﻮﻣﺴﻜﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻻﺭﻫﺎﺏ ﺳﻼﺡ ﺍﻻﻗﻮﻳﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﻒ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﺰﻳﺰ ﻟﺰﺭﻕ ﻭﳏﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺍﳍﻼﱄ‪ ،‬ﺩﻓﺎﺗﺮ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ‪ ،7‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺒﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻠﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ ﻁ‪. 2009 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .102‬ﻫﺎﻧﺰ ﺟﻮﺭﺝ ﻏﺎﺩﺍﻣﲑ‪ ،‬ﻃﺮﻕ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﲨﺔ‪ :‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﻧﺎﻇﻢ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪ ،1‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪.2007 ،‬‬
‫‪ .103‬ﻫﱪﻣﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﻟﻠﺤﺪﺍﺛﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻃﻤﺔ ﺍﳉﻴﻮﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺭﻳﺔ‪،‬‬
‫‪.1995‬‬
‫‪ .104‬ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻭﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻫﺮﺓ‪.2008 ،‬‬
‫‪ .105‬ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﻏﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﲝﺚ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻌﻄﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﳌﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻮﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪:‬ﺍﳊﺴﲔ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺮﲨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2009 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .106‬ﻫﻴﻮﺝ ﺳﻠﻔﺮﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﺼ‪‬ﻴ‪‬ﺎﺕ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳍﺮﻣﻨﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﺎﻛﻢ ﺻﺎﱀ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﻦ‬
‫ﻧﺎﻇﻢ‪،‬ﺍﳌﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﰲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎﺀ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2002 ،1‬‬
‫‪ .107‬ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺳﻠﻴﻢ ﺳﻼﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﺩﻣﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،‬‬
‫‪.2007‬‬

‫‪312‬‬
 :‫ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‬
1.Abdelkébir khaatibi, Jacques derrida en effet.Dessins par
Valerio Adami, Edition Al Manar, Paris
2.Aistote, Éthique à Nicomaque, TR:J-Tricot, Éditions les
chos du Maquis,v.:1,0,janvier 2014.
3.Antoine Grandjean et Laurent Perreau, Husserl la science
des phénoménes, CNRS ÉDITION, PARIS, 2012.
4.Bernard Golse, Les liens corps esprit, Dunod, Paris,2014.
5.Carles Ramond, Derrida et la Déconstruction, PUF,
PARIS, 2005.
6.Emmanuel Lévinas, totalité et infini, essai sur l'extériorit é,
livre de poche, martinus nijhoff paris, 1971,
7.Evelyne Buissiére, Cour sur corps, Philosophie, cour soumis
à copyright,Septembre 2008.
8.Frédéric Nitezsche¸ Ainsi Parlait Zarathoustra¸ TR: Henri
Albert¸Edition numérique¸ PARIS¸2012 .
9.Giorgio Agamben, L'Amitié, TR: Martin Rueff, Payot &
Rivages, Paris,2007,
10.Husserl, E: Idées Directrices pour une phénoménologie et
un philosophie phénoménologique pure, Tom 1. Introduction
général e à la phénoménologie pure. Trad. Paule Ricœur,
Gallimard, 1950, Collection Tel.

313
11.Husserl, E, Méthode phénoménologique et philosophie
phénoménologique, Conférences de Londres — 1922.
12.Husserl, E :L’Origine de la Géométrie, Trad & Intro.
Derrida, Jacques, 6ème ed, P.U.F, Paris, 2010.
13.Annales de Phénoménologie, 2003, Revue éditée
par’Association pour la promotion de la phénoménologie.
14.Jan patoca, Introduction á la phénoménologie du Husserl,
TR: Erika Abrams, JéRôms Millon, Grenoble, 1992
15.jean-françoins lyotard, Que sais- jeˀ la phenoménologie,
puf, paris, 1945.
16.M. Heidegger, être et temps, tr Boehem et Alphonse de
walhens, Gallimard, paris, 1986,
17.M. Heidegger, L’être Sur L’humanisme, tra : Roger
Munier, Montaigne, paris,
18.Merleau ponty, le visible et l'invisible, coll tel, Gallimard,
1964, 1990.
19.M-Heidegger, Essaie et conféronces, tr: J ean Boufret,
Gallimard, paris, 1986.
20.Pascal Dupond,Laurent Cornarie. Phénoménologie : un
siècle de philosophie, collection dirigée par Jean-Pierre
Zarader.Ellipses édition marketingS.A ,2002.

314
 ‫‪21.Paul‬‬ ‫‪BOUSQuit,‬‬ ‫‪le‬‬ ‫‪corps‬‬ ‫‪cet‬‬ ‫‪inconnu,‬‬ ‫‪Editions‬‬
‫‪l'Harmattan , Paris, 1997.‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﳕﻮﺫﺟﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻙ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﺎﺭﻗﻮﻥ‪/‬‬ ‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﳌﻘﺒﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﳝﻘﺮﺍﻃﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻭ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺧﻀﺮ‬
‫‪www.intelligentsai.tn‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺟﻢ ﻭﺍﳌﻮﺳﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫‪.1‬ﺍﻧﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﻻﻻﻧﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ ﺃﲪﺪ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻮﻳﺪﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2001 ،2‬‬
‫‪.2‬ﺗﺪ ﻫﻮﻧﺪﺭﺗﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺇﻛﺴﻔﻮﺭﺩ ﻟﻠﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﳒﻴﺐ ﺍﳊﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺝ‪1‬ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺐ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﲏ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﺒﻴﺎ‪.2003 ،‬‬
‫‪.3‬ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳉﻨﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪،2004 ،‬‬
‫ﺹ‬
‫‪.4‬ﺟﲑﺍﺩ ﺟﻬﺎﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺳﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻣﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ ﻧﺎﺷﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻟﺒﻨﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻁ‪.1998 ،1‬‬
‫‪.5‬ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻮﺵ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻠﺒﻨﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪. 1985 ،‬‬
‫‪.6‬ﳏﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻴﻌﻘﻮﰊ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ)ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ﻭﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻻﻋﻼﻡ(‬
‫‪.7‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﳎﺪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2012 ،1‬‬
‫‪.8‬ﻣﻴﺸﺎﻝ ﻣﺎﺭﺯﺍﻧﻮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺠﻢ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮ‪ :‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﷲ ﻧﺼﺮ ﺍﷲ‪ ،‬ﳎﺪ ﺍﳌﺆﺳﺴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳉﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻁ‪.2012 ،1‬‬
‫‪.9‬ﳏﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻜﺮﻡ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻣﻨﻀﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭ ﺻﺎﺩﺭ ﻟﻠﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ‪ ،3‬ﺑﲑﻭﺕ‪،‬‬
‫‪1968‬‬

‫‪315‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺟﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪1.Jacqueline Russe, dictionnaire de la philosophie, Bordas,‬‬
‫‪2004‬‬
‫‪2.Alain Rey, Dictionnaire Historique de la langue Française,‬‬
‫‪Dictionnaires Le Robert, paris, 2010.‬‬
‫‪3.Paul Robert, Le nouveau Petit Robert ,Dictionnaires Le‬‬
‫‪Robert, paris, 2004.‬‬
‫‪4.Jacque English, husserl, LE Vocabulaire des philosophie,‬‬
‫‪Ouvrage coordonné par Jean-Pierre Zarader, ellipses,2002.‬‬
‫ﺍ‪‬ﻼﺕ‬
‫‪.1‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺇﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪1 ،5-4‬ﻓﱪﻳﻞ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪.2‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﺿﺎﻓﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ 28‬ﺧﺮﻳﻒ ‪،2014‬‬
‫‪.3‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩﺍﻥ ‪.1982 ،19­ 18‬‬
‫‪.4‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺃﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،13‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.2005 ،‬‬
‫‪.5‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ ،،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺻﻴﻒ‪.1995 ،‬‬
‫‪.6‬ﺍﻟﺘﺒﲔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪1 ،9‬ﺃﺑﺮﻳﻞ ‪ ،1995‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪.7‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻓﺼﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﳍﻴﺌﺔ ﺍﳌﺼﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻜﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﺷﺘﺎﺀ‪.1996 ،‬‬
‫‪.8‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺩﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻭﺍﳋﺎﻣﺲ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﳏﻤﺪ ﺧﻴﻀﺮ ﺑﺴﻜﺮﺓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻧﻔﻲ‪ -‬ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ‪.2014‬‬
‫‪.9‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻧﺰﻭﻯ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪1 ،63‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪.2010‬‬
‫‪.10‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻧﻮﺍﻓﺬ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ‪ ،8‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ‪ 1،‬ﻣﺎﻳﻮ ‪.1999‬‬

‫‪316‬‬
‫‪.11‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﲝﺎﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺮﺑﺎﻁ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ ﻋﺸﺮ‪،‬‬
‫‪،2018‬‬
‫‪.12‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﻳﺘﻔﻜﺮﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،،‬ﻣﺆﺳﺲ ﻣﺆﻣﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻼ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‬
‫‪.2017‬‬
‫‪.13‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻹﺑﺪﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪1 ،9‬ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ‪ ،1991‬ﻣﺼﺮ‪.‬‬
‫‪.14‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺯﻣﻨﺔ ﺍﳊﺪﻳﺜﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪1 ،7-6‬ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪ ،2013‬ﺍﳌﻐﺮﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪.15‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،69‬ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺘﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻷﲝﺎﺙ‪ ،‬ﺧﺮﻳﻒ‬
‫‪.2010،7‬‬
‫‪.16‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺣﻮﻟﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،6­1‬ﻣﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻤﲔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﻳﺴﻤﱪ ‪ ،.2006‬ﳎﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﻳﺲ ﺍﳌﻜﺘﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﳉﺰﺍﺋﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﺴﺪﺍﺳﻲ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪.2007‬‬

‫ﺍ‪‬ﻼﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪http// post2modern‬‬
‫‪Revue les temps modernes, 2012.‬‬
‫‪hekmah.org‬‬
‫ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺋﺪ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،126‬ﺃﻓﺮﻳﻞ ‪.2018‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ‪www.alaraby.co.uk ،‬‬
‫‪Libération, 11-11-2015.‬‬
‫ﺇﻳﻼﻑ‪www.elaph.com .‬‬

‫‪317‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳉﺮﺍﺋﺪ ﺍﻻﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺟﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﳌﺪﻯ‪www.almadapaper.net.‬‬
‫ﺟﺮﻳﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﰊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪ ،6587‬ﺍﳋﻤﻴﺲ ‪12‬‬
‫ﺃﻏﺴﻄﺲ‪.2010‬‬
‫‪Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy, Revue de‬‬
‫‪la philosophie français et de langue française.‬‬
‫‪http// journals OpenEdition.org/ genesis/1768.‬‬

‫ﺭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪-‬ﻓﺘﺤﻲ ﺍﳌﺴﻜﻴﲏ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺰﻣﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﳌﻌﻘﻮﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﳌﻨﺎﻇﺮﺓ ﺍﳍﻴﺪﻏﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻫﻴﺠﻞ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺩﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﺩﻭﻟﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍ‪‬ﻠﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪،‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻧﺲ‪.2003-2002 ،‬‬
‫‪-‬ﻣﺮﺍﺩ ﻗﻮﺍﲰﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺄﺻﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻭﻳﻞ »ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺗﺼﻮ‪‬ﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﰲ ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ«‪ ،‬ﻣﺬﻛﺮﺓ ﻧﻮﻗﺸﺖ ﰲ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻛﺘﻮﺭﺍﻩ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﻭﻫﺮﺍﻥ ‪ ،‬ﲢﺖ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺎﺫ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺰﻳﺎﻥ ﺑﻦ ﺷﺮﻗﻲ‪.2010-2009 ،‬‬

‫‪318‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
 ‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ ﺍﳌﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻫﺪﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻘﺪﻣﺔ ‪ ........................................................................‬ﺃ‪-‬ﻁ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳌﺘﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﱃ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ‪05 ................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﳌﻨﻬﺞ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻲ ‪11 .............................................‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﱄ ‪23 .....................................................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻮﺙ‬
‫ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻘﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﺪﻻﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺼﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﻻﱄ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ‪29 ........................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﻫﻮﺳﺮﻝ ‪35 .........................................................‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﰲ ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ ‪35 ...........................................................‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﰲ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ ‪38 .......................................................‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪:‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻧﻄﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪-‬ﻟﻘﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬
‫‪-1‬ﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪57 ..................................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻣﺎ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ؟ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﱂ ﻳﻄﺮﺣﻪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪59 ...............................‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺩﺓ ﻭﺍﻧﻌﻄﺎﻑ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺡ ‪68 .......................................‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﳊﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪71 .................................................‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻫﻴﺪﻏﺮ ‪72 ..................................................‬‬

‫‪319‬‬
 ‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪:‬ﺍﻟﺘﻠﻘﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﳌﻌﺎﺻﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺻﻮﻝ ‪75 ...................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﳌﻈﻬﺮ ﺍﳉﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﰲ ﻓﺮﻧﺴﺎ ‪82 ......................................‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﳕﺎﺫﺝ ﻟﻠﺒﻮﺍﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻧﺴﻴﺔ ‪84 ......................................‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﰲ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﻟﺬﺍﺗﻪ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺟﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﻝ ﺳﺎﺭﺗﺮ ‪86 ..........................‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﺩﺭﺍﻙ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺮﻟﻮ‪-‬ﺑﻮﻧﱵ ‪89 ..............................................‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ‪ :‬ﳏﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺍﺙ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﰊ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﳍﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺗﻪ ﻟﻠﻔﻼﺳﻔﺔ ‪97 ....................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﻧﻴﺘﺸﻪ ‪99 ..........................................................‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﻓﺮﻭﻳﺪ ﻭﺃﳘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻭﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ‪103 ......................................‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ ﻭﺃﻃﻴﺎﻓﻪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻳﻘﺮﺃ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻴﻮﻋﻲ ‪107 ...................................‬‬
‫‪-5‬ﺍﻻﳓﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﻏﻲ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﳍﻴﺠﻠﻲ ‪111 .........................................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺩﻳﺮﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﻣﺴﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻴﻮﻳﺔ ‪118 ......................................................‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻓﻠﻄﻮﻥ ‪121 ............................................‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻱ ﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﻃﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﺳﲑ ‪125 .............................‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﳊﺴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻴﺢ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺭﻭﺳﻮ ‪134 ........................................‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻴﻔﻲ ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ‪-‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻣﺒﻜﻮﺍﺭ ﻭﻋﻨﻒ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪137 .............................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﳎﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ‪145 .................................. Déconstruction‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎ‪:‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﺧ )ﺕ(ﻻﻑ ‪151 ................................... différance‬‬

‫‪320‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺍﳌﺮﺟﻰﺀ ‪154 .........................................................‬‬
‫‪ :-4‬ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ ‪155 ...................................................... Margin‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ‪155 ................................................ Supplement‬‬
‫‪ -6‬ﻣﻴﺘﺎﻓﻴﺰﻳﻘﺎ ﺍﳊﻀﻮﺭ ‪155 .........................................................‬‬
‫‪ -7‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻮﻏﻮﺱ ‪157 ............................... Logocentrism‬‬
‫‪ -8‬ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ‪157 .....................................................‬‬
‫‪ -9‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪158 ................................... de la gramatologie‬‬
‫‪-10‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪160 ............................................................‬‬
‫‪ Ittérabilite-11‬ﺍﳌﻐﺎﻳﺮﺓ ‪162 ...................................................‬‬
‫‪ -12‬ﺍﻟﻨ‪‬ﺺ ﻧﺴﻴﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺎﺕ ‪162 ....................................................‬‬
‫‪ -13‬ﺍﻟﺘﺸﺘﺖ ‪163 ............................................ Dissémination‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻭﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ‬
‫‪-1‬ﻛﻴﻒ ﻳﻘﺮﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺍﳍﺎﻣﺶ؟ ‪167 .................................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺟﻴﻨﻴﺎﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻜﺬﺏ ‪168 ................................................‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﻹﺭﻫﺎﺏ ‪174 ....................................................‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺗﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﺃﺣﺪﺍﺙ ﺍﳊﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﱪ ‪178 .....................................‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﻔﺮﺍﻥ ‪182 .............................................................‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﻓﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ‪188 .....................................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﰲ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎ ‪191 ...................................................‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻭﺍﳌﺴﺮﺡ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪195 ..................................................‬‬

‫‪321‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﻭﻛﺘﺎﺑﺔ ‪198 .......................................................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﱐ‪ :‬ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻛﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﰲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪208 ...................................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺃﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﺑﺄﻋﻴﻨﻨﺎ ‪211 ..........................................................‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﻭﻋﻼﻗﺘﻪ ﲜﺴﺪ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‪ -‬ﺣﻮﺍﺭ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﻟﻨﺎﻧﺴﻲ ‪221 ..................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ)‪ (Altérité‬ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﰲ ﺍﳌﻔﻬﻮﻡ ‪228 ........................................‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻐﲑ‪230 ....................................................... Autre‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ‪231 .......................................................... L'autre‬‬
‫‪ -4‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪234 ...........................................................‬‬
‫‪ -5‬ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳ‪‬ﺔ‪ /‬ﺍﳍﻮﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ‪238 ..................................................‬‬
‫‪ -6‬ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺍﻟﻴﻬﻮﺩﻱ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ‪244 ..................................................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ‪ :‬ﲡﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﰲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬
‫‪-1‬ﺍﻟﻀﻴﺎﻓﺔ ‪249 ................................................... Hospitalité‬‬
‫‪-2‬ﺍﳍﺒﺔ ‪255 ................................................................ Don‬‬
‫‪ -3.‬ﺍﻟﺼﺪﺍﻗﺔ‪258 .................................................... Amitié :‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﲤﺔ ‪270 .........................................................................‬‬
‫ﻣﻼﺣﻖ ‪275 ........................................................................‬‬
‫ﺛﺒﺖ ﺍﳌﺼﻄﻠﺤﺎﺕ ‪286 ..............................................................‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﺍﻷﻋﻼﻡ ‪296 ...............................................................‬‬
‫ﺍﳌﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﳌﺮﺍﺟﻊ ‪300 ..............................................................‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺱ ‪319 ........................................................................‬‬

‫‪322‬‬
 :‫ﺍﳌﻠﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ ﰲ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻧﻌﻘﺎﺩ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﰲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺟﻮﻥ ﻫﻮ ﺑﻜﱰ ﰲ ﺃﻛﺘﻮﺑﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ‬
‫ ﻗﺪﻡ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺃﺛﻨﺎﺀ‬،(‫ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﲔ ﺍﳌﺸﺎﺭﻛﲔ ﰲ ﺍﳌﺆﲤﺮ) ﻟﻮﺳﻴﺎﳒﻮﻟﺪﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﺗﺰﻓﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ ﻭﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺙ ﻭﺟﺎﻙ ﻻﻛﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﺎﻙ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‬1966
‫ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ‬.‫) ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻌﺐ ﰲ ﺧﻄﺎﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ( ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺔ ﺗﻀﻤﻨﺖ ﻣﻴﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬:‫ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻠﺘﻪ ﳏﺎﺿﺮﺓ ﲢﻤﻞ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻡ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻪ )ﺃﺻﻞ ﺍﳍﻨﺪﺳﺔ( ﻟﻴﺄﰐ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ )ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻈﺎﻫﺮﺓ( ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﳝﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻌﺘﱪﻩ‬‫ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺍﻷﻭﱃ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺮﲨﺘﻬﻬﻮﺳﺮﻝ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻗﺪ‬
:‫ ﻭﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻭﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬.‫ ﻗﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺟﻌﻠﺘﻪ ﻳﻨﻔﺘﺢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻫﻢ ﺍﳌﺴﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻟﱵ ﺗﻨﺎﻭﳍﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬،‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺀﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻳﺪﻳﺔﻟﻠﻔﻴﻨﻮﻣﻴﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺎﺍﳍﻮﺳﺮﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﳌﻌﻠﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻋﱪ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡ‬،(‫ﻓﺎﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺮ ﰲ ﺍﻃﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺗﺜﲑﻫﺎ ﻫﻲ )ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
.‫ ﰲ ﺣﲔ ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ ﻳﺆﺳﺲ ﻟﻌﻼﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺎﱂ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ‬،‫ﻭﻣﺎ ﳛﻴﻂ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻭﲦﺔ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺘﻜﺘﻢ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ‬
.‫ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬،‫ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﻴﻚ‬،‫ ﺍﳉﺴﺪ‬، ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻤﺲ‬،‫ﺍﻟﻐﲑﻳﺔ‬:‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
Résumé:
Le terme Déconstruction est apparu en Amérique lors d'une conférence sur les
langages de la critique et de l'anthropologie à L'Université Johns Hopkins, parmi les
participants figuraient Lucian Goldman, Roland Barth, Jacques Lacan and Jacques
Derrida, au cours de sa conférence, Derrida a présenté une conférence intitulée:
Structure et Tag et jouer dans le discoures des sciences humaines, qui comprenait la
naissance du Déconstruction, les premier débuts de Derrida ont été sa traduction (de
L'origine de la géométrie), puis sa lecture de Husserl à travers son livre(son et
phénomène) qui est une lecture d la phénoménologie par Derrida ,la lecture le rendit
ouvert au plus important. Questions traitées par la Déconstruction, le plus important
est l'idée altérité , de toucher et de corps, la relation avec l'autre dans le cadre de
l'altérité est l'idée la plus intéressante, c'est la différance ,Quant au chair, c'est ce qui se
dit à travers la parole tandis que le toucher est établi pour notre relation au monde et à
l'autre.
Les mots clés: Altérité, Toucher, Chair, Déconstruction, Différance.

Summary:
The term of Deconstruction was appeared in America during a conference about
the criticism languages of and anthropology in Johns Hopkins University, among the
participants were Lucian Goldman, Roland Barth, Jacques Lucan and Jacques Derrida,
during his reading , Derrida presented a reading titled: the Mark and the Play in the
Human sciences discourse, which included the birth of Deconstruction ,Derrida's first
beginning was through his translation of Husserl's (the Origins of Engineering),
followed by his reading of Husserl through his book the (sound and
phenomenon),which is Derrida's reading of huserlian phenomenology, reading made
him open to the most important. Issues dealt with by deconstruction, the most
important was the idea of otherness ,touch and body. The relationship with the other
in the Framework of resting idea is the most interesting thing the differance. As for the
body that is what is stated through speech while touch is established for our
relationship with the world and the other.
Key words: Otherness, Touch, Body, Deconstruction, Differance