Abstract
This study presents a comparative philosophical analysis of two major thinkers who represent different historical and intellectual traditions: Mulla Sadra in the Islamic world and Immanuel Kant in modern Western philosophy. The central problem addressed in this research concerns the ways in which these two philosophers conceptualize reality and knowledge, and how their metaphysical foundations lead to distinct methodological frameworks. The hypothesis is that fundamental differences in ontological presuppositions result in different approaches to the structure and limits of knowledge. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical methodology based on textual analysis of primary philosophical works and secondary interpretations. Mulla Sadra, by emphasizing the primacy of existence, gradation of being, substantial motion, and knowledge by presence, considers reality as an autonomous, multi-layered and dynamic unity that can be grasped through both rational and intuitive means. Kant, by contrast, draws a strict distinction between noumenon and phenomenon and highlights the a priori structure of the mind, viewing reality as constructed and limited to human experience. The results indicate that although both thinkers engage with similar epistemological questions, their methodologies and underlying metaphysics produce sharply contrasting conceptions of knowledge and reality.
Keywords:Mulla Sadra; Immanuel Kant; philosophical methodology; epistemology; ontology; primacy of existence; transcendental idealism.
 
Introduction
The problem of how human beings relate to reality and how knowledge is formed has long occupied the center of philosophical reflection. Mulla Sadra, working in the intellectual environment of the Islamic world, and Immanuel Kant, situated in the Enlightenment of modern Europe, represent two powerful and divergent responses to this enduring question. Mulla Sadra’s Transcendent Philosophy proposes an ontologically grounded framework in which existence is the ultimate foundation of both reality and knowledge. Kant’s transcendental idealism, on the other hand, proposes that knowledge is determined by the cognitive structures of the human mind rather than by reality as it is in itself. Both philosophers address similar questions about the nature and limits of human knowledge, but they do so within radically different metaphysical and methodological contexts. This study aims to identify and analyze those differences systematically, showing how each framework reflects a distinct philosophical worldview.
Materials and Methods
The research is based on a descriptive–analytical approach with a comparative methodology. It involves the close reading and structural analysis of philosophical texts by both Mulla Sadra and Kant. The analysis proceeds in three stages.
1.Identifying metaphysical foundations: Sadra’s ontological realism and Kant’s transcendental framework.
2.Examining epistemological consequences: participatory knowledge versus representational knowledge.
3.Comparing methodological approaches: intuitive–metaphysical synthesis versus transcendental–critical analysis.
This method allows for a systematic comparison of philosophical structures rather than a mere juxtaposition of concepts, revealing the deep methodological divergences between these two traditions.
Results
The comparative analysis yields several key findings. First, the two philosophers operate on fundamentally different ontological assumptions. Sadra regards existence as the ultimate ground of reality, independent of mental construction, characterized by gradation and intrinsic dynamism. Reality is accessible not only through rational argument but also through intuitive and spiritual insight. Kant, conversely, denies epistemic access to reality as it is in itself (noumenon) and confines knowledge to phenomena structured by space, time, and categories. Second, the two systems diverge in their understanding of knowledge. For Sadra, knowledge is a mode of existence itself; knowing is an ontological participation in reality. His notion of knowledge by presence reflects a direct, non-representational relation between the knower and the known. Kant views knowledge as representational, produced by the synthesis of sensory data and the mind’s a priori conceptual framework. Third, their methodological orientations reflect these metaphysical commitments. Sadra combines rational demonstration, mystical intuition, and theological insight, aiming for a holistic vision of reality. Kant applies a critical–transcendental method, analyzing the conditions of the possibility of experience without making ontological claims about what lies beyond.
 
Discussion
These differences reveal two contrasting philosophical attitudes toward the relation between mind and reality. Sadra works within an ontological realist paradigm in which reality precedes and grounds knowledge. Knowledge is not a construction but an uncovering, a direct participation in the fabric of being. His method integrates rational reasoning and intuitive unveiling, reflecting the close relationship between metaphysics, epistemology, and spiritual experience in classical Islamic philosophy. Kant represents a critical and modern paradigm in which epistemology precedes ontology. For him, what can be known is strictly determined by the structure of human cognition, and reality beyond experience is inaccessible. While Sadra’s framework extends knowledge to metaphysical and transcendent realms, Kant limits it to empirical phenomena and assigns metaphysical ideas to the realm of practical reason. Despite their profound differences, both philosophers share a concern with establishing a systematic methodology for understanding knowledge. Both reject naïve realism, though in different ways: Sadra through ontological gradation and union, Kant through transcendental structure and critical delimitation. This shared orientation toward methodological rigor makes their comparison philosophically productive, especially for contemporary debates on the nature and scope of human cognition.
Conclusion
The comparative analysis of Mulla Sadra and Immanuel Kant demonstrates that their divergent metaphysical foundations lead to fundamentally different epistemological and methodological positions. Sadra grounds knowledge in an ontological structure that transcends the limits of sensory experience and embraces intuition as a legitimate mode of knowing. Kant, in contrast, grounds knowledge in the structure of the human mind, restricting its reach to phenomena and establishing clear boundaries for human reason. These two approaches reveal not only two distinct philosophical systems but also two epistemic horizons: one expansive and participatory, the other critical and delimiting. By placing these two traditions in dialogue, this study highlights the possibility of integrating insights from both: the metaphysical depth of Sadrian philosophy and the epistemic clarity of Kantian critique. Such an integrative perspective may contribute to contemporary philosophical discussions on the nature of reality, the scope of human knowledge, and the role of methodology in bridging different intellectual traditions.