نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 دانشجوی دکتری / گروه فلسفه، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
2 عضو هیئت علمی / گروه فلسفه، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
3 عضو هیئت علمی /گروه فلسفه اخلاق، دانشکده الهیات، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
عنوان مقاله [English]
The position of God and the arguments of proving the Necessary is one of the most important topics that Kant should have determined his position on according to his epistemological principles. Kant considers knowledge to be meaningful only in the realm of material affairs, for this reason, in his opinion, discussing such affairs as the soul or God, which are not temporal and spatial, is fundamentally wrong. In order to show this mistake, in the transcendental dialectic section of the book Critique of Pure Reason, he calls the idea of “God” as the transcendental idea of pure reason, and in his opinion, he proves that, in order to reach this idea, reason can be reached neither through experience nor through transcendence. This viewpoint is the outcome of Kant’s approach in epistemology and ontology. Kant, in his epistemological approach, deals in detail with the possibility and truth of synthetic a priori propositions and believes that the possibility of a priori knowledge in metaphysics and physics depends on the possibility synthetic a priori propositions. In contrast to this viewpoint, there is the viewpoint of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy, which not only does not believe that theoretical reason should be suspended in the metaphysics, but also believes that many philosophical issues, including the issue of proving the existence of God, can be solved through the correct application of theoretical reason. It seems that Mulla Sadra’s philosophy has the ability to resolve conflicts and fallacies from the ideal of pure reason, both in terms of epistemology and ontology. Therefore, in this article, we have tried to criticize Kant’s viewpoint according to Mulla Sadra’s philosophy and answer his objections.