چکیده:
The criterion of how some concepts can be self-evident is one of the latest issues introduced in Epistomology. There is the question of why and how some concepts are self-evident، but others are not. As it were، what is the secret how some concepts are self-evident? As to this issue، Muslim thinkers have suggested their own views categorized into four theories: generality، simplicity، reduction to intuitive knowledge and differentiation. In what follows، the author has proposed the four above theories for his examination using the analytic-descriptive method. In the end and despite some objections، the differentiation theory is assumed as the sound theory. This theory suggests that because there are many different categories of self-evident concepts، each category has its own criterion different from that of other categories. Thus، there cannot be one single criterion.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Among the conceptions mentioned in the works of philosophers as self-evident, one can point to these cases: existence, thing, unity, multiplicity, necessity, possibility, knowledge, hunger, joy, heat, coldness, etc.
In addition to the possibility of answering through the distinction between primary predication and common predication regarding the concept—in a way that there is no obstacle to an axiomatic concept being theoretical in terms of common predication—it can be added that such a definition is verbal, and in reality, it is a logical terminological explanation or a philosophical application; therefore, providing such a definition for an axiomatic concept does not prove that it is theoretical and requires thought and reflection (Hosseinzadeh, 1388, pp.
Such concepts are not definable, and a true definition cannot be provided for them; because a true definition of them leads to circularity or infinite regress; therefore, concepts or conceptions that are the most universal are axiomatic; such as existence, non-existence, impossibility, necessity, contingency, necessity, thing, and unity (Hosseinzadeh, 1388, p.
Consequently, all axiomatic concepts are referred back to presential knowledge; therefore, they do not require thought, reflection, or definition.
Criticism and Review: It seems that this theory cannot explain the secret of the axiomicity of all axiomatic conceptual notions; because, first, axiomatic conceptions are not limited to those obtained from presential knowledge.
In other words, that conception does not require definition; therefore, to ensure conceptual axiomicity, we do not always need to refer to presential knowledge;2 Third, the question arises that if we accept that many sensory, imaginary, intellectual, negative, etc.
(
, 
, 
)
