soghra babapour; jafar shanazari
Abstract
From the complex and controversial issues of epistemology, both in Islamic philosophy and in Western philosophy, is the question of how the mind and the reality communicate with one another. The main argument in the epistemology of the debate is to reconcile the concepts with what is present in reality, ...
Read More
From the complex and controversial issues of epistemology, both in Islamic philosophy and in Western philosophy, is the question of how the mind and the reality communicate with one another. The main argument in the epistemology of the debate is to reconcile the concepts with what is present in reality, That is, how to adapt mental forms to objective forms. The realists believe in the correspondence between the mind and the reality. But a group of philosophers have opposed this idea and considered mental concepts apart from foreign ones, or even consider foreign objects as images of mental concepts. This is while the consistency of mind and real in the transcendent philosophy one of the most principled issues. Mullasadra intended to resolve the issue by discussing unity quiddity in mental existence and the objective gradation unity of supreme existence. Kant proposes his Copernican Revolutionary Theory that if the known conform to our minds, this is more consistent with the prior knowledge of objects. Therefore, the mind has a special activity and Specifies the type of epistemic it gains. The present article examines the quality of matching the mind and the real from the viewpoint of MullaSadra and Kant, and looks for similarities and differences between them in conformity.
