Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Lesson Sixteen: Empiricism

Positivism

In the previous lessons we briefly mentioned the kinds of ideas while at the same time introducing opposing opinions held concerning them. Here we explain more fully some of the famous noteworthy positions to be found in Western sources.

We know that most of the thinkers of the West basically deny the existence of universal ideas, and so naturally they do not accept the power by means of which these ideas are perceived, called the ‘intellect’. In the present age, positivisits have not only developed the same taste, but also have gone beyond it. They hold that true perception is limited to sense perception, to perception which is obtained as a result of contact with the sense organs by material phenomena, and which, following the cessation of the relation with the external world, remain in some weaker form.

They believe that man constructs verbal symbols for objects of perception which are similar to one another, and that when he speaks or thinks, he brings to mind all cases of the same kind, or he repeats the same verbal symbols which were posited for those cases. And in reality, thinking is a kind of mental speaking. Hence, that which philosophers call universal ideas or intelligible concepts, in their view, are nothing but those same mental words. Only when these words directly represent objects of sense perception, and their instances can be perceived by the sense organs, and can be shown to others, are they considered as meaningful and verifiable, otherwise they are considered words without meaning. In truth, they only accept a portion of the whatish concepts, and these only as mental words whose meanings are their particular sensory instances. However, they do not accept the secondary intelligibles, especially metaphysical concepts, not even as meaningful mental words. On this basis, they consider metaphysical topics as unscientific and absolutely meaningless.

They limit experience to sensual experience, and do not pay attention to inner experiences which are acquired through knowledge by presence. At least they are considered unscientific because in their view, the word “scientific” is only applicable to cases which can be proven for others by the senses.

In this way, positivists consider discussion of instincts and motives and other psychological matters which are perceived by inner experience as unscientific. Only external behavior is held as the subject of psychology fit for scientific discussion. Consequently, they void psychology of its content.

According to this philosophy, which can be called “empiricism” or “extreme empiricism”, there is no place for scientific discussion and research which could result in certainty about metaphysical topics. They consider all philosophical topics to be nonsense and worthless. Perhaps philosophy has never faced such a hard headed enemy. Therefore, we had better discuss it more fully.

A Critique of Positivism

Positivism, which is truly one of the most base tendencies of human thought in all history, has numerous failures, the most important of which will be indicated below:

1. With this tendency, the most firm foundations of knowledge, that is, knowledge by presence and propositions evident by reason (‘aql ), are lost. With this loss no intellectual explanation can be presented for the correctness of knowledge, and its correspondence to reality. Positivists have tried to define true knowledge in another way. Truth is held to be knowledge which is accepted by others, which can be proved by sensory experience. Obviously, the change in terminology does not solve the problem of the value of knowledge. The agreement and acceptance of those who do not attend to this difficulty cannot create any value and worth.

2. Positivists rely on sense perception, which is the most unstable and dubious basis for knowledge. Sensory knowledge, more than any other type of knowledge, is exposed to error. Noting the point that sensory knowledge, in reality, occurs inside of man, they have closed off the way to logical proof of the external world. There is no way for them to answer the doubts of the Idealists.

3. The difficulties which we mentioned with regard to the nominalists also apply to the positivists.

4. To claim that metaphysical concepts are meaningless is absurd and obviously invalid, for if words which refer to these concepts were generally devoid of meaning there would be no difference between them and nonsense, and the denial and affirmation of them would be equivalent. For example, that fire is the cause of heat could never be equivalent to its opposite. Even if one denies causality, he denies a proposition whose concepts he understands.

5. According to the positivists, there is no way for scientific laws to be regarded as universal, definite and necessary, for these characteristics do not admit of confirmation by the senses. Cases are acceptable to them if and only if they are cases in which sensory experience is obtained (without paying heed to difficulties which arise due to the fallibility of sense perception which applies to all cases of it). That whereof sensory experience cannot be obtained, one must be silent, and one must absolutely withhold one’s affirmation and denial.

6. The most important dead end down which positivists have been led is the subject of mathematics, which is explained and solved by intellectual concepts, that is, the same concepts which are meaningless in their view, as though they had been disgraced, while no sage would dare to consider the propositions of mathematics meaningless or unscientific. Hence, a group of new positivists had no choice but to accept a kind of mental knowledge for logical concepts, and have sought to join mathematical concepts to them. This is an example of confusing logical concepts with other concepts. It is sufficient to show the invalidity of their view to point out that mathematical concepts have instances in the external world, i.e., in technical terms, their characterization (ittiṣāf ) is in the external world. The characteristic of logical concepts is that they do not correspond to any but mental concepts.

The Priority of Sensation or Intellect

Among Western scholars there are other forms of empiricism than positivism, which are more moderate and less fraught with difficulties. Most of them accept intellectual perception, but they still believe in some kind of priority for sense perception. Opposing them, there are other groups which believe in the priority of intellectual perception.

The subjects which are presented under the heading of ‘the priority of sensation or intellect’ are divided into two groups: one group is related to the evaluation of sensory and intellectual knowledge, and the preference of one over the other, and must be discussed in the lesson on the value of knowledge; the other group relates to their relative dependence or independence from one another. Are sensation and intellect separate and independent, or is intellectual perception integrally related to sensation?  The second group of subjects may also be divided into two parts: one is related to ideas and the other to affirmations. The first subject which is discussed here is the priority of sensation or intellect with respect to ideas. In our view, after accepting the specific form of concepts, called universals, and accepting a special conceptual power called the intellect (‘aql ), this question presents itself: is the function of the intellect merely to change the form and to abstract and generalize sense perceptions, or does the intellect have independent perception, such that sensory perception at most can serve in some cases as a condition for intellectual perception?

Those who believe in the priority of sensation hold that the intellect has no function other than abstraction, generalization, and changing the form of sensory perceptions, in other words, there is no intellectual perception which does not follow upon sensory perception. Opposed to them, the Western rationalists believe that the intellect has independent perceptions which necessarily result from its existence, in other words, it is innate. The intellect does not require any previous perceptions in order to have these intellectual perceptions. However, the correct view is that the intellectual perception of ideas which are universal concepts are always preceded by other particular individual perceptions. Sometimes that particular perception is an idea which results from sensation. Sometimes presentational knowledge, which is basically not a kind of idea. In any case, the function of the intellect is not to change the form of sensory perceptions.

The second discussion is about the priority of sensation or intellect with respect to affirmations (taṣdīqāt ). This must be considered as an independent subject which is not a function of the previous subject, for this subject turns on the question of whether after obtaining simple intellectual concepts, they follow upon sensation or are independent of sensation. Is the judgment of unity between subject and predicate in a predicative proposition, or the judgment of accord or opposition of the antecedent and consequent in a conditional proposition, always dependent upon sensory experience? Or can the intellect, after obtaining the necessary imaginative concepts, judge independently, without need of help from sensory experience? Therefore it is not true that one who believes in the priority of sensation with respect to ideas necessarily has the same view with respect to affirmations. Rather, it is possible for one to believe in the priority of

sensation in the one case, but to believe in the priority of the intellect in the other.

Those who believe in the priority of sensation with respect to affirmations, who are usually called ‘empiricists’, believe that the intellect cannot make judgments without the help of sensory experience. Those who believe in the priority of the intellect with respect to affirmations, believe that the intellect has certain assertive perceptions perceived by the intellect independently and without need of sensory experience.

Western rationalists usually consider these perceptions to be inherent in the intellect. They believe that the intellect was created in such a way that it understands these propositions automatically. However, the correct view is that independent intellectual affirmations either originate from presentational knowledge or are obtained through the analysis of concepts of ideas and by comparing their relations with one another. It is only by extending the meaning of “experience” to include knowledge by presence, internal intuitions (shuhūd-e bāṭinī ) and psychological experiences that one can consider all intellectual affirmations to require experience. In any case, intellectual affirmations do not always require sensory experience or the employment of the sense organs.

The result is that neither the opinions of the empiricists nor the rationalists, whether with respect to ideas or affirmations, are exclusively correct. The correct view regarding each case is a certain sense of the priority of the intellect. In the case of ideas, it means that intellectual concepts are not the same as the changed forms of sensory ideas. In the case of affirmations, it means that the intellect does not require sensory experience to make its own specific judgments.

Lesson Seventeen: The Role of the Intellect and Sensation in Ideas

The Fundamentality of the Intellect or Sensation for Ideas

As we have mentioned, Western philosophers may be divided into two groups with regard to the explanation of the appearance of ideas. One group believes that the intellect perceives a series of concepts without need for sensation, like Descartes believed with regard to the concepts of God and soul, from among the immaterial things, and length and shape from among the material things. He call these kinds of qualities of materials which are not perceived directly from sensation ‘primary qualities’. To the contrary, he called qualities such as color, smell and taste, which are perceived by sensation ‘secondary qualities’. In this way he believed in a kind of priority of the intellect. He considered the perception of secondary qualities which are obtained by means of the senses to be fallible and unreliable. In this way, he proved another kind of priority of the intellect, which is related to the discussion of the value of knowledge.

Likewise, Kant related a series of concepts called ‘a priori ’ to the mind. From among them he related the concepts of space and time to the levels of sensation, and he related the twelve categories to the level of understanding. He considered the understanding of these concepts to be essential innate qualities of the mind.

The other group believes that the mind of man is created like a blank slate, with no engraving on it, and that contact with external existents by means of the sense organs causes the appearance of images and engravings on it. In this way various perceptions occur. Epicures is reported to have said, “There is nothing in the intellect unless it has previously been in sensation.” The very same phrase was repeated by John Locke, the English empiricist.

However, their statements about the appearance of intellectual concepts differ. The apparent meaning of some of them is that sensory perceptions are changed in shape and transformed to intellectual perceptions by the intellect, just as a carpenter cuts pieces of wood to make them into various shapes and build a table, chair, door or window. So, intellectual concepts are the very sensory forms whose shapes have been changed. The statements of some others may be interpreted to mean that sensory perceptions provide the grounds and capital for intellectual perceptions, although this is not to say that sensory forms are really changed to intellectual concepts.

The Table of the Categories

We mentioned previously that extreme empiricists, such as the positivists, basically deny the existence of intellectual concepts, and they interpret them as forms of mental words.

Some empiricists, such as the French Condiac, limit experiences which cause the appearance of mental concepts to sense experience. Others, such as the English John Locke, extend them to inner experiences. Among them Berkeley has an exceptional position, and he limits experiences to inner experience, for he denies the existence of material things. On this basis, sensory experience is not possible.

We must add that most empiricists, especially those who accept internal experiences, do not limit the realm of knowledge to the material, and they prove metaphysical matters by the intellect. Although, according to the doctrine of the fundamentality of sensation, and the complete dependence of mental conceptions on sensory conception, such belief is not very logical. The denial of metaphysics is also without reason. Because of this, Hume, who had noticed this point, considered cases which cannot be directly experienced as dubious.

It is clear that extensive detailed criticism of both tendencies would require a separate and weighty text, so that the statements of each thinker could be reported and examined, but this work is not appropriate in this book. Hence, it suffices to briefly criticize their basic ideas without regard to the particular features of each position.

Critique

1. It is not acceptable to assume that from the beginning of its existence the intellect has specific concepts, and that it is mixed with them, or that after a while it understands them automatically and without the effect of any other factor. The conscience of every aware human being denies this, whether the assumed concepts are related to the material or related to the abstract, or whether it accords with both areas.

2. Supposing that a series of concepts are necessary for the nature and constitution of the intellect, it cannot be proved that they represent reality, and at most it can be said that a certain subject is accepted by the nature of the intellect, and it is probable that if the intellect had been created in another form, it would have perceived objects in other ways.

To compensate for this deficiency, Descartes grasped hold of divine wisdom. He said that if God had placed these concepts in the nature of the intellect, contrary to reality and truth, he necessarily would have been a deceiver. However, it is clear that the attributes of Almighty God, and His lack of deception must be proved by intellectual reasons. But if intellectual perceptions are not correct the basis of this argument collapses. The guarantee of its correctness through this argument is circular.

3. Suppose that intellectual concepts came from a change in sensory forms. This would require that a form which changes and is transformed into an intellectual concept would not retain its original form, however, with the appearance of universal concepts in the mind; concomitantly and simultaneously we see that sensory and imaginary forms retain their own states. Moreover, it is only material existents which are apt to change, while perceptual forms are abstract, as will be proved in its proper place.

4. Most of the intellectual concepts, such as the concept of cause and effect, do not have sensory or imaginary forms at all, so they cannot be said to come from changes in sensory forms.

5. Suppose that sensory forms provide the stock and ground for intellectual concepts, and that they do not really change into them. Although this is less problematic and closer to the truth [than the previous supposition], and is acceptable with respect to some whatish concepts, nevertheless, it is not proper to limit the grounds of intellectual concepts to sensory perceptions. For example, it cannot be said that philosophical concepts are obtained from abstraction and generalization of sensory perceptions, because, as has already been pointed out, there does not exist any sensory or imaginal perceptions equivalent to them.

Inquiry into a Problem

In order to become clear about the role of sense and intellect in ideas, we shall take a glance at the types of concepts and the way in which they appear.

When we open our eyes to the beautiful scenery of a garden, the different colors of the flowers and leaves attract our attention. Various perceptual forms are pictured in our minds. When we close our eyes, we no longer see the beautiful dazzling colors, and this is the same sensory perception which vanishes when the relation to the external world is cut. However, we can imagine the same flowers in our mind, and remember that beautiful scenery. This is imaginary perception.

In addition to sensory and imaginary forms which represent specific things, we also perceive a series of universal concepts which do not describe specific things, such as the concepts of green, red, yellow, purple, indigo, etc.

Likewise the concept of color itself, which can be applied to various different colors, cannot be considered as the faded and vague form of one of them.

Obviously, if we had not seen the color of the leaves of trees and things of the same color, we could envisage neither imaginary forms nor intellectual concepts of them. So, one who is blind cannot imagine colors and one who has no sense of smell has no concept of the various fragrances. Because of this, it is said, “He who lacks a sense lacks a knowledge,” that is, someone who lacks a sense is deprived of a kind of concept and awareness.

So undoubtedly, the appearance of this kind of universal concept depends on the occurrence of particular perceptions. But this does not mean that sensory perceptions are transformed into intellectual perceptions like wood into a chair, or material to energy, or like a specific kind of energy is transformed into another kind, for, as we have said, this kind of transformation requires that the initial state of the thing transformed does not remain while particular perceptions can remain after the appearance of the intellectual concepts. Moreover, transformations are basically material, while perceptions are absolutely abstract, as will be proved in its proper place, God willing.

Therefore, the role of the senses in the creation of this kind of universal concept is only that of a basis or necessary condition.

There is another group of concepts which has no relation to sensible things, but rather describe psychological states, states which are perceived with presentational knowledge and inner experience, such as the concepts of fear, affection, enmity, pleasure and pain.

Undoubtedly, if we did not have inner feelings, we could never perceive their universal concepts. So, a child cannot understand some adult forms of pleasure until after it reaches maturity, and prior to that it has no specific concept of them. Therefore, this group of concepts is also in need of prior individual perceptions, but not perceptions which are acquired with the help of sensory organs. Therefore, sensory experience has no role in the acquisition of this group of whatish concepts.

On the other hand, we have a series of concepts which have no instances in the external world, and only have instances in the mind, such as the concept “universal”, which corresponds to other mental concepts, and there is nothing outside of the mind which can be called “universal” with the meaning of a concept applicable to numerous individuals.

It is clear that this kind of concept is not obtained by abstraction and generalization from sensory perceptions, although a kind of mental experience is needed, that is, until a series of intellectual concepts is acquired by the mind, we cannot discuss whether they are applicable to numerous individuals or not. This is the very mental experience which we have indicated. That is, the mind of man has the power to be aware of concepts within itself, and to recognize them just as he does the objects of

the external world, and has the power to abstract specific concepts from them. The instances of these abstracted concepts are the same as the primary concepts. This is why these kinds of concepts which are used in logic are called “secondary logical intelligibles”.

Finally, we arrive at another chain of intellectual concepts, which are used in philosophy, from which primary self-evident propositions are formed, and hence, these concepts have great importance. Various opinions have been presented with regard to the formation of these concepts, discussion of which would take too much time, but in the discussion of ontology we shall speak of the conditions for the formation of each of these relevant concepts. Here we shall only present as much as is necessary. It is to be noted that these concepts, since they are applied to things in the external world, or in technical terms, their characterization (ittiṣāf ) is external, they are like whatish concepts, but since they do not describe specific whatnesses, and in technical terms, their occurrence (‘arūḍ ) is mental, they are like logical concepts. For this reason they are sometimes confused with these two other groups of concepts. This very mistake is made by the great thinkers, especially Western philosophers.

We have already learned that we recognize our own selves and our psychological states or mental forms and actions of the soul, such as our decisions, with presentational knowledge. We now add that man is able to compare each aspect of the self with the self itself, without paying any attention to the whatnesses of either of them, but by paying attention to their existential relations, and finding that the self can exist without any of them. However, none of them could occur without the self. By attending to this relation it may be judged that each aspect of the soul requires the self, but the self does not require them, but is self-sufficient, needless and independent. On this basis, the mind abstracts the concept of cause from the self and the concept of effect from each of these mentioned aspects.

Clearly, sensory perceptions play no role in the formation of the concepts of need, independence, self-sufficiency, cause and effect. The abstraction of these concepts does not originate with the sensory perception of their instances. Even knowledge by presence and inner experience relating to each of them are not sufficient for the abstraction of the concepts related to them. Rather, comparison between them is necessary, and the specific relation between them must be taken into consideration, and for this reason it is said that these concepts do not have objective equivalents, although their characterization (ittiṣāf ) is external.

In conclusion, every intellectual concept requires a prior individual perception, a perception which provides the grounds for the abstraction of a concept of a species. This perception, in some cases, is a sensory perception, and in other cases is knowledge by presence and inner intuitions. Therefore, the role of sensation in the formation of universal concepts is only that of providing the grounds for one group of whatish concepts. It is the intellect that plays the basic role in the formation of all universal concepts.

Lesson Eighteen: The Role of the Intellect and Sensation in Affirmations

Points about Affirmations

Before speaking about the role of the senses and the intellect in affirmations (taṣdīqāt ) it is necessary to make some points about affirmations and propositions, points which are related to logic. We shall discuss them here briefly and to the extent necessary.

1. As was indicated in the definition ofidea , each idea has no more than a capability to show that which is beyond itself, that is, imagining a specific matter or a universal concept does not mean that what corresponds to it actually takes place. This capability for real representation becomes actual when it takes the shape of a proposition and affirmation, which consists of judgment and represents belief in its purport. For example, the concept of ‘man’ by itself does not denote the occurrence of man in the external world. But when it is combined with the concept of ‘existent’ and the relation of unity, it gives it the form of an affirmation, whose actuality is to be discovered in the external world, that is, one can consider this proposition, “Man exists,” as a proposition which describes the external world.

At least two concepts are obtained even from simple presentational knowledge, which is never compound or multiple (such as the feeling of fear), when reflected in the mind: one is the whatish concept of fear, and the other the concept of being, and by their composition they are reflected in the form of “There is fear,” and sometimes by adding other concepts, it takes the form of “I am afraid,” or “I have fear.”

It must be noted that sometimes an idea which seems to be simple and without judgment really breaks down to an affirmation, for example, the purport of this proposition, “Man searches for truth,” is this, that man, who is an existent in the external world, has the property of searching for truth. So, in reality, the subject of the proposition, ‘man’, which apparently is a simple idea, breaks down into this proposition, “Man is an existent in the external world,” and so the predicate, ‘searches for truth’ applies to this. This sort of proposition which breaks down into implied components is called by logicians‘aqd al-waḍ‘ .

2. The subject of a proposition sometimes is a particular idea which refers to a specific existent, such as “Everest is the highest mountain in the world,” and sometimes a universal concept and applies to an infinite number of instances. In the second case, it is sometimes a whatish concept, such as “Metals expand when heated,” and it is sometimes a philosophical concept, such as “An effect without a cause does not come into existence,” and it is sometimes a logical concept, such as “The contradictory of a universal negative is a particular affirmative.”

3. In classical logic, propositions are divided into two forms, predications and conditionals. Predications are composed of subjects and predicates and the relation between them is ‘unity’, such as, “Man is a thinker.” Conditionals are composed of antecedent and consequent, and the relation between them is either necessary, such as, “If a plane figure is triangular, then the sum of its angles is equal to that of two right angles,” or it is one of

exclusive disjunction (ta‘ānud ), such as “A number is either even or odd,” that is, if a number is even, it will not be odd, and if it is odd, it will not be even. However, other forms also may be imagined for propositions, and all of them may be returned to predications. [All propositions are composed of predicational propositions.]

4. The relation between subject and predicate sometimes has the attribute of ‘contingency’ (imkān ), such as in this proposition: “One human individual is bigger than another individual.” Sometimes the attribute is necessary, such as in this proposition: “Each whole is larger than its parts.” Logicians call these attributes ‘the matter of the proposition’ ( māddah qaḍiyyah ). When these attributes are explicitly mentioned in a proposition, they are called the ‘mode of the proposition’ ( jahat qaḍiyyah ).

The matter of a proposition is usually mentioned implicitly, and is not an element of it, although the predicate may be assimilated to the subject, and the matter or mode of the proposition take the form of a predicate and an element of the proposition. For example, in the above proposition one may say, “One human individual’s exceeding the size of another is possible,” and “A whole's exceeding the size of its parts is necessary.” This kind of proposition is really a representative of the quality of the relationship of the subject and predicate of another proposition.

5. The unity considered to be between a subject and predicate sometimes is a conceptual unity, such as, “Man is human,” and sometimes it is a unity of instance, such as, “Man searches for truth,” in which the subject and predicate do not have a conceptual unity, but they are united by instance. The first kind is called “primary predication” (ḥaml awwalī ) and the second kind is called “common predication” (ḥaml shāyi‘ ).

6. In common predication the predicate of the proposition is ‘existent’ or the equivalent, and the proposition is termed a ‘simple question’ (halliyyah basīṭah ) whereas in other cases it is termed a ‘compound question’ ( halliyyah murakkabah ). 1 The first is like, “Man is an existent,” and the second like, “Man searches for truth.”

The acceptance of simple questions depends on this, the concept of “existence” must be accepted in terms of a independent concept which may be predicated (predicative concept). But most of the Western philosophers accept the concept of existence only as a nominal concept which is not independent. Discussion of this may be found in the part on ontology.

7. In compound questions, if the concept of the predicate is obtained through analysis of the concept of the subject, the proposition is called ‘analytic’, and otherwise it is called ‘synthetic’. For example, the proposition, “All children have fathers,” is analytic, for when the concept of child is analyzed, the concept of father is obtained from it. But the proposition, “Metals expand when heated,” is synthetic, for from the analysis of the meaning of ‘metal’ we cannot obtain the concept of expansion. In the same way, the proposition, “All men have fathers,” is synthetic, for from the analysis of the meaning of ‘man’ the concept of ‘having a father’ is not obtained. Also, “Every effect requires a cause,” is analytic, and “All existents require a cause,” is synthetic.

It must be noted that Kant has divided the synthetic propositions into two kinds,a priori anda posteriori , and considers mathematical propositions to belong to the former. However, some positivists attempt to reduce them to analytic propositions.

8. In classical logic, propositions are divided into self-evident and theoretical (non-self-evident). Propositions are self-evident whose affirmation does not require thinking and reasoning, while theoretical propositions are those whose affirmation requires thinking and reasoning. Self-evident propositions are divided in to two subdivisions: primary self-evident propositions, whose affirmation does not require anything except the exact imagining of the subject and predicate, such as the proposition of the impossibility of the unity of contradictories, which is called ‘the mother of all propositions’. The other is secondary self-evident propositions whose affirmation depends on the use of sensory organs, or things other than the imagination of the subject and predicate. They are divided into six groups: those pertaining to the senses, to conscience, to speculation, to innate constitution, to experience, and to testimony.

The truth of the matter is that not all of these propositions are self-evident. Only two groups may really be considered to be self-evident. First, the primary self-evident propositions, and second, those pertaining to conscience, which are the mental reflections of knowledge by presence. Those pertaining to speculation and innate constitution are merely close to being self-evident propositions. The other propositions must be considered theoretical and in need of argument, and they will be discussed in the [following] lesson on “The Value of Knowledge”.

Inquiry about a Problem

Although the problem of the priority of sense or intellect is not usually discussed independently, we can discover the views of the rationalists and empiricists by considering the origins of these schools. For example, the positivists, who limit real knowledge to sensory knowledge, are naturally, if stubbornly, on the side of the priority of the senses with regard to this problem, as well. They consider every non-empirical proposition to be either meaningless or of no scientific value. Some empiricists place more moderate emphasis on the role of sensory experience, and they more or less accept a role for the intellect. However, the rationalists emphasize the importance of the role of the intellect, and they more or less believe in propositions independent of experience. For example, Kant, in addition to considering analytic propositions to be without need for experience, also considered one group of synthetic propositions, including all the problems of mathematics, to be prior to experience and without need of it.

In order that our discussion not become too lengthy, our review will not include discussions of every empiricist and rationalist scholar, and we shall simply explain the correct view of this problem:

With regard to the fact that in primary self-evident propositions precise imagination of the subject and predicate is sufficient for a judgment of their unity, it becomes quite clear that this kind of affirmation does not require sensory experience, even if the imagination of the subject and predicate requires sensory experience. The problem is that after the subject and

predicate are imagined exactly—whether this imagination depends on the use of the sense organs or not—does the application of the predicate to the subject require the use of the senses or not? It is assumed that in primary self-evident propositions that the mere imagination of subject and predicate is sufficient for the intellect to judge their unity.

The same judgment applies to all analytical propositions, for in these propositions the concept of the predicate is obtained from the analysis of the concept of the subject. Obviously, the analysis of a concept is a mental affair and without need for sensory experience. The application of predicates which are obtained from their subjects is also necessary, and is like “thubūt al-shay’ li nafsih ” (the attribution of the thing to itself).

The same judgment also applies to primary predications, and requires no further discussion.

Likewise the propositions which are obtained through reflection in the mind of presentational knowledge (inner experiences (wijdāniyyāt )) have no need for sensory experience at all, for in these propositions even imaginative concepts are also obtained from knowledge by presence, and sensory experience is not relevant to them at all.

With regard to the fact that mental forms in whatever shape—whether sensory, imaginary, or intellectual—are understood with knowledge by presence, affirmation of their existence, as actions and reactions of the soul, is a kind of inner experience and does not require sensory experience, even if without obtaining sensory experience some of them, such as sensory forms, would not be acquired. However, after acquiring them, and after the mind analyzes them into existential and whatish concepts, does the judgment of the unity of these concepts which include the subject and predicate of a proposition require sensory experience? It is obvious that the judgment of simple questions which are related to matters of inner experience does not require the use of the sense organs, but it is a self-evident judgment, and signifies infallible presentational knowledge.

As to affirmation of the existence of instances of sensible things in the external world—although according to some it is obtained at the moment of the occurrence of sensory experience—with attention it becomes evident that the fixation of judgment requires intellectual proof, as the great Islamic philosophers, such as Ibn Sīnā, Mulla Ṣadrā, and ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī have explained, because sensory forms do not guarantee correctness and complete correspondence with instances in the external world.

Therefore, it is only in this kind of proposition that sensory experience plays a role, but not a complete and definitive role, but rather an indirect and preparatory role.

Likewise, in universal sensory propositions, which in the terminology of logicians are called “experiences” or “experienced things”, in addition to requiring the mentioned intellectual judgment for affirming their external instances, there is another requirement for an intellectual proof of the generalization and proof of their universality, as was mentioned in lesson nine.

The reconfirming of knowledge in every proposition and science, due to the necessity of its purport and the impossibility of its contradictory,

requires the ‘mother of propositions’ (umm al-qaḍāyā ), that is, the proposition of the impossibility of bringing two contradictories together (ijtimā‘ naqīḍayn ).

In conclusion, no certain affirmation is obtained merely by sensory experience, but there are numerous certain propositions which do not need sensory experience. By attending to this truth, the poverty of the thought of the positivists becomes quite clear.

Reference

1 The term ‘question’ here does not indicate an interrogative. Simple and compound questions are merely two kinds of propositions. Simple questions are propositions that posit the existence of something, as in “A exists,” or “A is.” Compound questions are statements in which one thing is affirmed of another, e.g., “A is B.” (Tr.)

Lesson Four: The Technical Meanings of “Science” and “Philosophy”

Introduction

In the first lesson it was indicated that the expression “philosophy” was applied from the beginning as a general term for all the true sciences (as opposed to conventional sciences), and in the second lesson we indicated that in the Middle Ages the realm of philosophy was extended to include some of the conventional sciences such as literature and rhetoric. In the third lesson we learned that the positivists set scientific knowledge in opposition to philosophical and metaphysical knowledge, and they considered only the empirical science to be worthy of the name “scientific”.

According to the first meaning, which was also prevalent in the Islamic period, philosophy has various divisions, each of which is called a special science, and naturally there was no conflict between science and philosophy. However, the second meaning appeared in Europe during the Middle Ages, and was abandoned by the end of that period.

According to the third meaning, which is presently current in the West, philosophy and metaphysics are set in opposition to science. Since this meaning also has gained currency to some extent in Eastern countries, it is necessary to explain something about science, philosophy and metaphysics and the relations among them. Additionally, the divisions of the sciences and their classification will be mentioned.

After the treatment of this topic, we will remark on some especially important points about equivocation, differences in meaning and the technical meanings of a word, neglect of which is a cause of much confusion and fallacy.

Homonymity

In all languages (as far as it is known), words can be found each of which has a literal meaning, a commonly accepted meaning and a technical meaning. This is called homonymity,ishtirāk al-lafẓī . For example, in Farsi, the termdūsh has the meaning of ‘last night’, ‘shoulder’ and ‘shower’, and the termshīr is used for ‘lion’, ‘milk’ and ‘faucet’.

The existence of homonymity plays an important role in literature and poetry, but in science, and particularly in philosophy, it brings about many difficulties, especially since the different meanings for a word are often so close to each other that distinguishing them becomes difficult. Many errors are made due to this sort of homonymity, and occasionally even authorities fall into this trap.

For this reason, some of the great philosophers, such as Ibn Sīnā, obliged themselves to clarify the meanings of various terms and differences among their technical senses before engaging in precise philosophical discussion in order to prevent confusion and error.

By way of example we will mention a case of homonymity which has many applications and often leads to misunderstandings, and that is the termjabr .

The literal meaning ofjabr is to compensate or remove a deficiency, later is was used with the meaning of “bone setting”, and perhaps it assumed this meaning because bone setting is a way of compensating a kind of deficiency, and possibly it was first used for bone setting and later was generalized to the compensation of any sort of deficiency.

A third meaning of this word is to force or place under pressure, and perhaps it assumed this meaning as a result of generalization of a requirement of bone setting, that is, since bone setting usually requires that the broken member be placed under pressure in order that the bone may be fit together, this meaning was generalized to include any pressure exerted by someone on another which forces the other to do something involuntarily. Perhaps this was first used for cases of physical pressure and then for cases of mental pressure, and finally this concept was expanded to include any sort of feeling of pressure, even when not brought about by another person.

Up to this point we have reviewed the concept ofjabr from the perspective of its literal and commonly accepted meanings. Now we should introduce the technical meaning of this expression in science and philosophy.

One of the scientific meanings ofjabr is that which is used in mathematics, that is, a kind of calculation in which instead of numerals letters are used, and perhaps this meaning was coined because in algebraic calculations positive and negative quantities compensate each other, or because the unknown quantity on one side of an equation becomes known by attending to the other side or by transferring its members, which is a kind of compensating.

Another technical meaning is related to psychology, which is used as the opposite of free will. Similar to this is the problem of ‘free will and determinism’ which is studied in theology. This term is also used in ethics, law andfiqh , the explanation of which would take too long.

Since the distant past the concept ofjabr (as opposed to free will) has been confused with certainty, necessity and philosophical necessity ( wujūb falsafī ). In reality, the term was mistakenly used for certainty and necessity, as in foreign languages “determinism” is viewed as equivalent to it. In conclusion, the illusion is created that every case in which the necessity of cause and effect is accepted, there cannot be free will, and conversely, the denial of necessity and certainty are taken to imply free will. The effect of this illusion on several philosophical problems is manifest, among which is that the [early] theologians denied causal necessity in the case of voluntary agents, and following this, they accursed philosophers of failing to consider God the Exalted as voluntary. On the other hand, the jabriyyūn (determinists) considered the existence of a certain fate as a reason for their own position, and opposing them, the Mu`tazilites, who believed in the free will of man, denied that there is a certain destiny. Although the certainty of destiny is irrelevant to jabr , in reality these disputes, which have a long history, occurred because of confusion between the concept of jabr and that of necessity.

Another unfortunate example is that some physicists have raised doubts about or denied causal necessity in the case of some phenomena of

microphysics, and opposing them, some Western theists have attempted to prove the existence of the Will of God on the basis of the denial of necessity for these phenomena, imagining that the denial of necessity and rejection of determinism in these cases would imply the proof a free power!

In conclusion, the existence of homonymity, especially in cases in which the meanings are near to or similar to one another, brings about problems in philosophical discussions. These difficulties are redoubled when in a single science a term has many technical meanings, as in the case of the expression ‘intellect’ ( ‘aql ) in philosophy, and the terms ‘essential’ ( dhātī ) and ‘accidental’ ( ‘araḍī ) in logic. Therefore, the need to explain meanings and to determine the intended meaning in every discussion is clear.

The Technical Meaning of “Science”

Among the expressions which have various and confusing applications is the term‘ilm (science, knowledge). The literal meaning of this word and of its synonyms in other languages, such asdānesh anddānestan in Farsi, are clear and require no explanation; but‘ilm has various technical meanings, among which the most important are:

1. Certain belief corresponding to reality, which is the opposite of simple and compound ignorance, even if used in a single proposition.

2. The set of propositions considered to be relevant to one another, even if the propositions are singular and specific. And it is in this sense that‘ilm is also applied to the science of history (knowing specific historical events), the science of geography (knowing the specific conditions of different areas on the globe), the science ofrijāl [the study of the transmitters of hadiths] and biography.

3. The set of universal propositions which are considered pivotal in some field, each of which is applicable to numerous instances, even if these propositions are conventional, and it is in this sense that‘ilm is applied to conventional as opposed to ‘real’ (ḥaqīqī ) sciences, such as vocabulary and grammar. However, singular and specific propositions, such as those mentioned above, are not considered‘ilm in this sense.

4. The set of universal ‘real’ (ḥaqīqī ) (i.e. not conventional) propositions which are pivotal in some field. This sense includes all the theoretical and practical sciences, including theology and metaphysics, but it does not apply to singular and conventional propositions.

5. The set of real propositions which can be justified by sense experience. This is the very sense in which the positivists employ the term, and on this basis the non-empirical sciences and learning are not considered to be‘ilm (science).

The restriction of the expression ‘science’ (‘ilm ) to the empirical sciences is not a matter of controversy as far as this merely concerns the coining of terms and fixing terminology, however, the fixing of this term by the positivists is based on the particular view of those who imagine that the scope of certain and real human knowledge is limited to sensible and empirical things. They consider thinking which goes beyond this to be meaningless and fruitless. However, unfortunately, this sense has come to prevail across the surface of the earth, according to which science is set in opposition to philosophy.

The scope of certain knowledge, the refutation of positivism and the proof that there is real knowledge beyond the realm of sense and experience shall be postponed until the discussion of epistemology. We next turn to the explanation of the concept of philosophy and metaphysics.

The Technical Meaning of “Philosophy”

Thus far we have become acquainted with three technical meanings ofphilosophy : the first meaning includes all of the real sciences; the second meaning additionally includes some of the conventional sciences; the third meaning is specific to non-empirical knowledge and is used for the opposite of science (in the sense of empirical knowledge).

In this sense, philosophy includes logic, epistemology, ontology (metaphysics), theology, theoretical psychology (as opposed to empirical psychology), aesthetics, ethics and politics, even if in this area there are more or less differences of opinion and sometimes it is employed only for first philosophy or metaphysics, and this may be considered a fourth technical meaning of “philosophy”.1

The expression “philosophy” also has other technical uses, which usually occur modified by an adjective or a genitive construction, as in “scientific philosophy” and “the philosophy of the sciences”.

Scientific Philosophy

This expression is also used in various ways.

A. Positivism. Auguste Compte, after condemning philosophical thought and metaphysics and denying universal rational principles, divided the basic positive sciences into six fundamental branches, each of which has its own characteristic laws, as follows: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and sociology. He wrote a book calledCourse of Positive Philosophy in six volumes, and he treated the totality of the sixfold sciences in accordance with his so-called positive method. He devoted three volumes of the set to sociology, even though the basis of this positive philosophy lies in some dogmatic non-positive claims!

In any case, the contents of this book, which is in fact program for the investigation of the sciences and especially the social sciences, is calledpositive philosophy , or scientific philosophy .

B. Dialectical Materialism. Marxists, contrary to positivists, emphasized the necessity of philosophy and the existence of universal laws. However, they hold that these laws are obtained from the generalization of the laws of the empirical sciences, not from rational and metaphysical thought. Hence, they called the philosophy of dialectical materialism “scientific philosophy”, for, according to their own claims, it is obtained from the achievements of the empirical sciences, even if it is no more scientific than the philosophy of positivism. Basically, scientific philosophy (if “scientific” is taken to mean “empirical”) is an oxymoron, such as “a clean shaven man with a beard”, and in comparative discussions, their claims have been subject to criticism.

C. Another sense of scientific philosophy is synonymous to “methodology”. It is clear that every science depending on its sort of problems, requires its own specific methods of research and verification. For example, the problems of history cannot be solved in the laboratory by

means of the analysis and synthesis of various elements, and likewise, no philosopher can establish the year in which Napoleon attacked Russia or whether he was victorious or defeated by means of philosophical and mental analysis and inference. These sorts of problems are to be solved by means of review of the relevant documents and the evaluation of their validity.

In general, science in the general sense may be divided in to three types according to the methods of research and inquiry used for solving their problems: intellectual sciences, empirical sciences, and narrative and historical sciences.

A science by the name of ‘methodology’ has appeared in order to review the kinds and levels of the sciences and to determine the general and specific methods of each of the three types of science, which is occasionally called scientific philosophy, as it is also sometimes called practical logic.

Reference

1 Cf.Falsafah ‘Umūmī yā Mā ba‘d al-Ṭabī‘ah, the Farsi translation of Paul Foulquie,Traité élémentaire de philosophie, (Paris: 1951),Vol. 3, Métaphysique, Ch. 6, "The Fundamental Problems of Metaphysics"; Khulāsah-ye Falsafah,

Lesson Five: Philosophy and The Sciences

The Philosophy of the Sciences

In the previous lesson we mentioned that sometimes the term “philosophy” is used in genitive constructions such as “philosophy of morals”, “philosophy of law”, etc..

We shall now explain this sort of usage.

This sort of expression is sometimes used by those who restrict the term “science” to the empirical sciences, and who use the term “philosophy” for fields of the human sciences which are not susceptible to proof by sensory experience. Instead of saying, “the science of theology”, for example, such people say “the philosophy of theology”, that is, the use of “philosophy” in the genetic construction is merely for the sake of indicating the kind of matter under discussion and its topics.

Likewise, those who consider problems which are both scientific and evaluative to be “unscientific”, and who hold that there is no objective basis in reality for them but consider them to be merely governed by the desires and inclinations of people, sometimes consider these sorts of problems to belong to the realm of philosophy. So, for example, instead of speaking of the “science of morals” they say, “the philosophy of morals”, and instead of speaking of “the science of politics” they say, “the philosophy of politics”.

Sometimes this sort of expression is used in another sense, and that is to explain the principles of other sciences. In addition, matters such as the history, founders, goals, methods of research, and the course of development of a science are also discussed under this rubric.

This sort of expression is not peculiar to the positivists and those of like mind to them, but those who consider philosophical and evaluative knowledge to be “science” and who consider their methods of research and inquiry to be “scientific”, also use this sort of expression. Sometimes, in order to avoid confusion with the previous usage, they add the word “science” to the genetic construction. For example, they say, “the philosophy of the science of history” in contrast to “the philosophy of history”, or they say, “the philosophy of the science of morals” in contrast to “the philosophy of morals” in the previous sense.

Metaphysics

One of the terms which is used in contrast to “science” is the term “metaphysics”. Hence, it is necessary to explain something about this word.

This term is derived from the Greekmetataphysica by dropping the extrata and transforming thephysica to “physics”, to take the form “metaphysics”. It has been translated into Arabic asmā ba‘d al-ṭabī‘ah (that which is after physics).

According to that which has been narrated by the historians of philosophy, this word was first used as a name for one of the books of Aristotle, which occurred following hisPhysics , and which included general discussions of existence. In the Islamic Age this came to be calledumūr ‘ammah (general affairs), and some of the Islamic philosophers have considered it suitable to use the expressionmā qabl al-ṭabī‘ah (that which is prior to physics).

Apparently, this discussion is different from that oftheology or uthūlūjiyyah . But in the books of the Islamic philosophers, these discussions are combined, and together they are given the name “divinity in the general sense”. Likewise, theology is specified by the name “divinity in the specific sense”.

Some have taken the term metaphysics to be equivalent to “trans-physical”, meaning that which is beyond physics, and they consider the use of this name for this part of ancient philosophy to be an instance of using a general name for something more specific, for in divinity, in the general sense, God and abstract things (beyond physics) are also discussed. However, it seems that the first meaning is the correct one.

In any case, metaphysics is used for a collection of theoretical intellectual problems, which are a part of philosophy (in the general sense). Nowadays, the term philosophy is sometimes restricted to these problems, and one of the new meanings of “philosophy” is metaphysics. The reason that the positivists considered these kinds of problems to be unscientific is that they are susceptible to verification by sensory experience. Likewise, Kant considered theoretical reason to be insufficient for the verification of these problems and he called them “dialectical” or debatable from two standpoints.

Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics and The Relations among Them

Keeping in mind the different meanings mentioned for science and philosophy, it becomes clear that the relation among science, philosophy and metaphysics differs in accordance with these different meanings. If “science” is used for awareness, in an unqualified sense, or if it is used for a group of related propositions, it becomes more general than philosophy, for it would then include particular propositions and the conventional sciences. If it is used in the sense of real universal propositions, it becomes equivalent to philosophy in its ancient sense. If it is used in the sense of empirical propositions, it becomes more specific than philosophy in the ancient sense, and it contradicts the modern meaning of philosophy (i.e., the set of nonempirical propositions). Likewise, metaphysics is a part of philosophy in the ancient sense, and is equivalent to it in one of its modern meanings.

It should be noted that the contrast between science and philosophy in the modern sense, as is intended by the positivists and those similar to them, is used to denigrate the value of philosophical problems and to deny the nobility and station of reason and the value of intellectual understanding, while this is not correct. In discussions of epistemology it will be made clear that the value of intellectual understanding is not merely no less than that of sensory and experiential knowledge, but is even of an even higher level than these. Even the value of experiential knowledge itself will be found to be due to the value of intellectual understanding and philosophical propositions.

Therefore, the restriction of the term science for empirical knowledge and the term philosophy to that which is non-empirical is acceptable if merely a matter of terminology, but one must not misuse the contrast

between these terms to pretend that the problems of philosophy and metaphysics are just idle speculation. Likewise, the label “scientific” does not establish any advantage for any sort of philosophical tendency, and basically, this label is like a patch which does not match the fabric of philosophy, and it can be considered a sign of the ignorance and demagoguery of those who affix it. The claim that the principles of a philosophy such as those of dialectical materialism are obtained from empirical laws is wrong, for the laws of no science are generalizable to any other science, let alone to all of existence. For example, the laws of psychology and biology cannot be generalized to physics or chemistry or mathematics, and vice versa. The laws of these sciences have no use outside their own realms.

The Division and Classification of the Sciences

The question will be posed here concerning what basically is the motivation for the separation of the science from one another. The answer is that recognizable problems form a broad spectrum, and although within this spectrum some problems have a close relation to one another, others are completely alien to one another.

On the other hand, the acquisition of some kinds of knowledge is dependent on that of others, and at least the understanding of one kind may help in the understanding of another, while for other sorts of knowledge this sort of relation does not exist.

With regard to the fact that the acquisition of all the kinds of knowledge is impossible for a student, and assuming that it would be feasible, not all people have the motivation for it. Likewise, the talents and tastes of individuals with regard to the acquisition to different sorts of subjects are different, and given that some sorts of knowledge are related to one another and that the acquisition of some are dependent on others, for this reason, teachers since long ago have decided to classify appropriately related topics together, and to so determine the specific sciences and types of knowledge. Different sciences are categorized and the need of each science for others is clarified, and consequently their relative priorities are determined so that, firstly, one who has a specific talent and taste will be able to find that which he seeks from among the masses of innumerable problems and he may find the way to reach his goal. Secondly, one who would acquire a different field of knowledge should be able to find where to begin, so that the way may be prepared for knowledge of this other field and to facilitate its acquisition.

In this way, the sciences have been divided into various parts, and each part, in turn, has been placed in a specific category and level, which include a general division into the theoretical and practical sciences, and the theoretical sciences are divided into the natural sciences, mathematics and divinity, while the practical sciences are divided into ethics, household economics and politics, which were mentioned before.

The Standard for Distinguishing among the Sciences

Now that the necessity for classifying the sciences has become clear, another question may be posed. What are the criteria and standards for the categorization of the sciences and for distinguishing among them?

The answer is that the sciences may be classified according to various standards, the most important of which are:

1. According to the methods and procedures of research. Earlier we indicated that all problems cannot be the object of study and research by a single method, and we also indicated that all sciences, with regard to their general methods of inquiry, can be divided into three groups:

A. The rational sciences, which may be investigated by means of rational proofs and mental inferences alone, as with logic and divine philosophy.

B. The empirical sciences, which are verifiable by empirical methods, such as physics, chemistry and biology.

C. Narrative sciences, which can be investigated on the basis of narrated and historical documentation, such as history, biography (`ilm al-rijal ) and Islamic jurisprudence (`ilm al-fiqh ).

2. According to the goal and telos. Another standard on the basis of which the sciences may be classified is the benefits and consequences which result from them. These are the goals and ends which the student takes into consideration when learning them, such as material and spiritual goals, or individual and social goals.

It is obvious that one who desires to find the way for the realization of his own spiritual perfection needs to study various matters which are not needed by one who is interested in obtaining wealth through agriculture or industry. Likewise, a leader of society needs another kind of knowledge. Hence, the sciences may be classified in accordance with these various goals.

3. According to the subject matter. The third standard according to which the sciences may be distinguished and separated is their subject matter. With regard to the fact that every problem has a subject, and a number of problems are collected under an inclusive topic, this inclusive topic may serve as that about which the various subordinate questions pivot, as numbers are the subject of arithmetic, volume (continuous quantities) is the subject of geometry and the human body is the subject of the science of medicine.

The classification of the sciences in accordance with their subject matters provides a better way to secure the goal and motivation for separating the sciences since by using this method the internal relations and harmony among problems and their order and arrangement is better preserved. For this reason, since long ago it has been noted by great philosophers and scientists. However, in subdivisions other standards may be taken into consideration. For example, one may establish a science called theology, whose problems turn about the subject of God the Almighty. Then it may be subdivided into branches which are philosophical, gnostic, or religious, each of which may be investigated by a specific procedure. In reality, the standard for this subdivision would be the method of research. In the same way, the subject of mathematics may be divided into various branches each of which may be indicated on the basis of a specific goal, such as the mathematics of physics and the mathematics of economics. In this way, the composition of different standards is brought about.

Whole and Universal

The inclusive topic which is taken into consideration for the subjects of a problem and on the basis of which science appears with the meaning of a collection of related problems, sometimes is a universal topic and has many individual instances, and sometimes it takes the form of a whole and has numerous parts. An example of the first kind is the topic of number or amount, which has various types and classes each of which is composed of the subject of a specific problem. An example of the second kind is the body of man which has numerous organs, limbs and parts, each of which is the subject of a section of the science of medicine.

The basic difference between these two sorts of subjects is that in the first kind, the topic of the subject of the science is applied individually to the subjects of its problems which are its particulars, as opposed to the second sort in which the topic of the subject is not applied individually to the subjects of the problems, but rather is predicated to the collection of parts.

The Branches of the Sciences

From what has already been explained, it has been found that the classification of the sciences is for the sake of facilitating teaching, and to fulfill the aims of education to the extent possible. In the beginning when human knowledge was limited it was possible to classify all of it into a few groups. For example, it was possible to consider zoology to be a single science and it would even include problems related to man. However, gradually when the circle of problems expanded, especially after various scientific instruments were made for the investigation of empirical problems, the empirical sciences more than others, were divided into various branches, and every science was divided into more particular sciences. This process is still increasing.

In general, the subdivision of the sciences takes several forms:

1. One form is that in which the small parts are taken from the subject as a whole, and each part becomes the subject of a new branch taken from the mother science, as endocrinology and genetics. It is clear that this kind of division is specified to sciences in which the relation between the subject of the science and the subject of the problems is the relation between a whole and its parts.

2. Another form is that in which more particular types and more limited classes are taken from the universal topic, as entomology and bacteriology. This sort of subdivision occurs in sciences in which the relation between the subject of the science and the subject of the problems is that between universal and particular, not between a whole and its parts.

3. Another form is that in which the various methods of research are considered a secondary criteria and while retaining the unity of the subject, new branches appear. This occurs in cases in which the problems of a science may be investigated and solved in different ways, as in philosophical theology, mystical theology and religious theology.

4. Another form is that in which different goal may be considered as subcriteria and problems appropriate to each goal are introduced as a specific branch of the mother science, as was mentioned in the case of mathematics.