چکیده:
)Does the objective interact with the rules of the mind? - Is the theory of 'validity' proposed by Allameh Tabataba'i, which is a result of the philosophical foundations of Sadr al-Muta'allihin in a way, not a more appropriate solution? ... In this article, an attempt has been made to discuss the answers of philosophers such as Kant, Bu Ali, and Mulla Sadra. In response to these questions, it is appropriate to begin our discourse with a phrase from Ibn Sina: It must be known that resurrection and the afterlife are of two types: first, that which is stated in Sharia, and there is no way to prove it except through the path of Sharia (revelation) and the confirmation of the Prophet's news, and this type is the resurrection of the body or bodily resurrection... and second is a resurrection that is unattainable and provable through reason and demonstrative syllogism, while the Prophet has also testified to it, and this is the happiness and misery related to souls (Al-Shifa, Al-Ilahiyyat, p. 423). What the Sheikh means by reason is a faculty in humans that has the ability to recognize things using demonstrative syllogism. Therefore, what matters is that we know what demonstrative syllogism is and how things can be recognized through it? To know these matters, the logical books of the Sheikh must be examined. In Al-Shifa, he defines demonstrative syllogism as follows: 'Demonstration is a certain, harmonious syllogism.' Is it physical and natural, or does it have a different role?
خلاصه ماشینی:
On the other hand, these are also synthetic judgments; meaning they are not obtained solely from the analysis of the concepts of their subjects—which are those same abstract intellectual concepts—but are the product of mental intuition, the comparison of the aforementioned concepts with one another, and the extraction of their secondary implications based on intellectual intuition, just as occurs in mathematics and geometry; such that the mind, by comparing, for example, particular triangles that are either derived from the senses (with a little indulgence) or are the product of imagination, attains the general and intelligible concept of a triangle.
To summarize, the intellect can, in terms of the formal structure of thought, express general characteristics pertaining to all possible worlds, but it can never, based on this formal structure or data pertaining to a specific world, explain or prove the specific characteristics of another world, unless it can obtain special data pertaining to the second world through some way, either via the senses or at least through revelation or mystical intuition; the same thing that Sadr al-Muta'allihin later utilized and expanded his philosophical system with, whereas Avicenna did not pay attention to it, and this very point reveals the secret of the difference in the positioning of these two great sages regarding the issue of bodily resurrection; meaning that Avicenna does not consider it within the realm of rational-philosophical inquiry, whereas Sadr al-Muta'allihin includes it within his philosophical system.
As a result, according to Kant's view, the only way to explain synthetic a priori propositions is to accept a role for the mind alongside the contribution of sensory data, so that universality, necessity, and infinity in such judgments can be justified.
(
, 
, 
)
