Does every science have a subject?

The first: Should every science be distinguished by a specific subject, or not? It was said: Yes, every science must have a subject, and it may prove that. On the other hand, sometimes it is said: There is no proof

On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary:

Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary.

As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises:

The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person.

The second: Every science has one objective in its kind.

Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science.

And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject.

It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in

On the necessity of having a specific subject for every science, and another that is said: there is evidence to the contrary: Sometimes we are talking here about the proof that there is a specific topic for every science, and at other times about the proof that it is not necessary. As for the first statement, which is: is there proof of the necessity of having a specific subject for every science or not? This was proved by a combination of two premises: The first: the philosophical rule that says: (The one does not emanate from but one) after believing that just as giving charity in the one with the person, then it only comes from one with the person. The second: Every science has one objective in its kind. Therefore, this single purpose resulting from the dispersed issues reveals the existence of a true collector between them, which is the subject of science. And the realization of the speech in the second introduction is: that it should not be intended from a single purpose that results from issues of knowledge to be the purpose at the level of codification and lesson; It is clear that the purposes differ according to different people, so we may see a person whose purpose is not related to the codification or study of a particular science except to a small amount of it, and we may see a person whose purpose is attached to more than that, and another person whose purpose is linked to complete knowledge, and the purpose may be a sang of a purpose. It can only be achieved by studying many sciences, such as the purpose of acquiring ijtihad, for example, as there is no single common goal between all the issues of science until it reveals the unity of the subject. It is necessary that what is meant by the purpose is the effect on the same knowledge that is established in

In that: the locus is not a complete cause of the presentation until it ensues, for the wooden one, for example, is not sufficient to realize the clinical so that the clinical is subjective to it. Yes, it may be agreed that a substance is a substance whose imposition is in line with the imposition of the subject and the end, as is the substance of a plant to which symptoms of growth, nature of nutrition, life and death are exposed. This is because the agent has no shortcomings in it like the end, but rather awaits the preparation of the material, for the material entails the continuity for the completeness of the rest of the causes. The third: The final cause, when the rest of the causes are devoid of proof, inevitably entails the end, so although the end is on the one hand the cause of the end, but on the other hand it is considered a cause and an origin for the end, and on this basis it is correct that the subject of knowledge is an end, and knowledge is Searching for its causes, such as the science of medicine, where its subject is health, and it searches for human states, movements and forces present in the human body, etc., as it imposes health as an end for all of these matters, and the philosophers have argued that whenever there is something, it needs a cause. Finality, not that the final cause is related to the imposition of choice in action. The final cause of actions, forces, and movements in the body is health, so health is a subject of medical science, in which it talks about its causes, premises and prohibitions as well. This is all the talk in the first point, and according to the truth, jokes about solving the problem appeared in the second and third point as well.

And after their intent has become clear, their words can be directed with a statement: that knowledge of the predicate of the subject is of two types: The first: that it be mere knowledge of proof without knowledge of necessity and the impossibility of non-existence, such as knowledge of Zayd’s poverty with the possibility of his wealth, and this knowledge for them is not demonstrative, and it is subject to demise; Because proof is not necessary, and if proof is not necessary, it can be questioned. The second: It is the knowledge of proof based on necessity and the impossibility of nothingness, such as the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this is demonstrative knowledge according to them. It is clear that the affirmation of the predicate of the subject by necessity is only in the subjective predicate in the sense that we have explained from the subjective, for the predicate is subjective and necessary to the subject if the subject is the origin of the predicate without an intermediary, or it is the origin of the middle and the middle is the origin of the predicate, so the confusion for them at this point arises From neglecting the sum of what we mentioned from the two introductions.

And after their intent has become clear, their words can be directed with a statement: that knowledge of the predicate of the subject is of two types: The first: that it be mere knowledge of proof without knowledge of necessity and the impossibility of non-existence, such as knowledge of Zayd’s poverty with the possibility of his wealth, and this knowledge for them is not demonstrative, and it is subject to demise; Because proof is not necessary, and if proof is not necessary, it can be questioned. The second: It is the knowledge of proof based on necessity and the impossibility of nothingness, such as the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this is demonstrative knowledge according to them. It is clear that the affirmation of the predicate of the subject by necessity is only in the subjective predicate in the sense that we have explained from the subjective, for the predicate is subjective and necessary to the subject if the subject is the origin of the predicate without an intermediary, or it is the origin of the middle and the middle is the origin of the predicate, so the confusion for them at this point arises From neglecting the sum of what we mentioned from the two introductions. And after their intent has become clear, their words can be directed with a statement: that knowledge of the predicate of the subject is of two types: The first: that it be mere knowledge of proof without knowledge of necessity and the impossibility of non-existence, such as knowledge of Zayd’s poverty with the possibility of his wealth, and this knowledge for them is not demonstrative, and it is subject to demise; Because proof is not necessary, and if proof is not necessary, it can be questioned. The second: It is the knowledge of proof based on necessity and the impossibility of nothingness, such as the knowledge that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this is demonstrative knowledge according to them. It is clear that the affirmation of the predicate of the subject by necessity is only in the subjective predicate in the sense that we have explained from the subjective, for the predicate is subjective and necessary to the subject if the subject is the origin of the predicate without an intermediary, or it is the origin of the middle and the middle is the origin of the predicate, so the confusion for them at this point arises From neglecting the sum of what we mentioned from the two introductions.

The meaning of the subjective viewer: As for the first point: is it correct what was mentioned in the definition of the subjective symptom, or not? The Iraqi investigator (may his secret sanctify) and others discussed about that, but we restrict ourselves to mentioning the words of the Iraqi investigator (may his secret sanctify) (1), which is the most pleasant of what was reported in the case, then we discuss it, and we say: The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally. (1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17. (2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence. In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not. (3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.

The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say: The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally. (1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17. (2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence. In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not. (3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.

The Iraqi Muhaqiq (may his secret be sanctified) (1) who is the most pleasant of what has been reported in this regard, then we discuss it, and we say: The Iraqi investigator has stated in the Maqam: that the symptom: is either subjective, meaning the subjective mentioned in the Book of Colleges, i.e.: gender, season, or type (2), or an external necessary that does not need a cause like heat in relation to fire, or an external that needs an intermediary. And on the third: either that intermediary is a reasoning reasoning, i.e.: it is not the one that is presented for the offer, but rather it is a reason for the offers of the offer (3) on the one presented, or a restrictive one, that is: it is the one that is actually presented for the presentation. The first three sections must be recognized as being subjective; As it is presented to the subject in reality, as for the first, it is fixed to the thing with the highest levels of affirmation, because it is one of its essences, and as for the second, it is fixed for the thing that is necessary for it, and there is no mediation between it and the thing presented, and as for the third, it is also present in reality on the thing; Because the intermediary is only a causal means, and in that it does not differentiate between what they mentioned of the categories of intermediary being different, specific, equal, internal or external, or more general internally or externally. (1) See the articles, part 1, p. 5-7 according to the edition of the Scientific Press in Najaf. As for the edition of the Academy of Islamic Thought in Qom, see: Part 1, pg. 39-47, and Nihayat al-Afkar, Part 1, pg. 13-17. (2) If we take the appendix of the term mentioned in the Book of Colleges, the meaning here is broader than that; It includes subjects other than gender, separation, and gender, as represented by the Iraqi investigator (may God have mercy on him) in Al-Abyadiya and Al-Mujuwdiyyah, stripped of whiteness and existence. In summary: the criterion is that the display is extracted from the station of the same thing, whether that thing is a genus, a class, or a species, or it is not. (3) Like the proximity of the fire that causes heat to show on the water. See Nihat al-Afkar, vol. 1, p. 13, and articles, vol. 1, p. 40, according to the edition of the Islamic Thought Academy.

Alerts: The warning remained on several matters: The first: that the fundamentalists mentioned in the maqam the presentation that is presented by means of a distinct matter, and they made it a strange presentation (1), and this section is one of the additions of the scholars of origins, and is not present in the original division. And the clarification of the joke in that: that the scholars of fundamentals intended by speciality, blindness, and equality of speciality in truth and applicability, and blindness or equality in it. (1) Perhaps clarifying the meaning is the following: By offers, they meant the local offers, so whenever an external mediation was imposed between the offer and its place, this means that the offer was presented to that medium, and that medium was presented to the store, and the believable ratio between that medium and the place was the contrast, and the offer was a strange presentation to the store, and its example: deepening The sleep that is accidental to sleep, and the sleep is accidental to the person who is the place, and sleep is different in the befriending ratio with man, so the depth of sleep is a strange symptom for man, while if we take the resource ratio between sleep and man, the ratio between them is blinded by sleep from man; Because its resource is man and many other animals, and we do not find an example of variation.

It is true of the completeness of its individuals and an increase, and the meaning of equality is equality in truth and applicability, i.e.: each of them is true of what the other affirms without the other, so they were forced to make a title opposite to these titles, which is the difference, while the sages are not intended by the blind, the special, and the equality that, Rather, what they want from it is blindness, specialization, and equality in the resource, whether it applies to it or not. This is what ought to be desired; Because the balance in the subjectivity of the symptom with the intermediary and its non-individuality is that the intermediary is equal in the second sense and its absence, so if an accident is presented to a substance by means of another subjective presentation of it, this mediation, although it is different from the substance in the first sense, but with that its presentation is considered a subjective presentation of the substance that has been presented to him by a command Equal, and the secret in that is what preceded that the effect of an effect is an effect, and that what presents a subject to one thing is incidental to another thing in itself and is subjective to it, and that is why al-Tusi’s researcher stated in Explanation of the Signs that the presentation that is presented to the thing by means of an equal command is like what is presented to it by means of His dismissal, or by another offer of equal value, is subjective to him. On this basis, the definitions refer to one of these divisions, i.e. to the general, specific, or equivalent. The second: I have come to know that what is noticeable for the sages is the originating subjectivity, not the local subjectivity, except that it may be said: The place - which is the bearer of the supply - is also the origin and cause of the presentation; This is because it is a substance for it, so it is one of the four causes of the wise, as they said: A thing needs four causes: the effective cause, the material cause, the formal cause, and the final cause. Therefore, the place is a reason for display; Because it is a material cause of it. However, we say: the offer is not considered subjective to the subjectiveness of its location; and the joke