The research is confined to every science with the subjective view of its subject

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.