چکیده:
Drawing from that, Professor Haeri Yazdi has strived extensively in explaining and analyzing the proof, both in his investigations of theoretical reason and in an article published in the book 'Philosophical Essays'. However, his statements regarding unity, in which he at one point critiqued the late Rafiei Qazvini, have been subject to criticism by other thinkers; in this article, Mr. Haeri's viewpoint is examined with a focus on his article, demonstrating that his statements are not free from controversy.
خلاصه ماشینی:
One of the arguments that Mulla Sadra has established to prove the unity of the knower and the known is a proof called 'al-Tadayuf' (Relativity), which can be boldly considered one of the most important and, at the same time, one of the most controversial and complex proofs presented to prove the unity of the intellect with the intelligible; however, this name, meaning the proof of relativity, is a name that Sadr al-Muta'allihin has not used anywhere, and apparently, Haji Sabzawari was the first to use this term, which in its naming refers to one of the premises of this proof, in which rulings related to 'mutadayifin' (relatives/relational entities) are used.
One of the interesting dialogues that took place in the context of this proof relates to Mr. Haeri Yazdi's critique in the book 'Theoretical Intellectual Inquiries' regarding the late Rafii Qazvini's interpretation of the unity of the intellect and the intelligible, which this critique was itself criticized by Professor Dinani; Mr. Haeri then rose to respond to him in another article, which we will address in this article by focusing on Mr. Haeri's second article to critique and examine his viewpoint in this matter.
He continues by addressing the formulation of the late Rafii Qazvini and says: "The intention of the second premise is that the existence of the actually intelligible is like pure relation and addition, for which no existence or independence can be conceived" and he points out that "this is the interpretation that the contemporary scholar Mr. Rafii Qazvini has derived from this discourse; but it is not acceptable to us" (Ibid).
(
, 
, 
)
