Applying the idea of self-presentation to all other sciences
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.