المستخلص: |
One of the most important philosophical questions raised by Hume was the meaning, truth and justification of some philosophi¬cal issues like causality, existence, substance, necessity, etc. Kant tried to put all his epistemology in an overall framework so that these is¬sues earn their suitable place in a philosophical study. His treatment of those issues as a priori concepts which shape all of our concepts is the most important improvement in philosophy. He argued that we can understand phenomena by these categories of concepts and emphasized on the importance of these categories for every kind of epistemology that originates from experience. Just this philosophical problem was seriously analyzed by Mullā Ṣadrā in another part of the world in Iran two centuries before Kant. But his treatment was different from Kant’s. He distinguished between primary and secondary intelligibles in philosophy and logic. Then he accounted for the meanings of concepts like causality, existence, ne-cessity and so on as «secondarily philosophical intelligibles». In this paper, I compare these two ideas with each other and ex-plain their advantages and disadvantages.
|