Abstract

The question of "existence as a predicate" enjoys an outstanding significance from the historical and comparative point of view.Kant, the eminent German philosopher claimed that existence could not be a real predicate for its own subject, since existence is not a concept that could add anything to an object. According to Kant, existence in its logical sense is, merely, copula, rather than either of the terms. The copula on the proposition, of the other hand, does not indicate something that owns a real referent. Its exclusive role is, rather, to establish a nexus between the predicate and the subject.Mulla Sadra, the great Muslim Philosopher, has acknowledged the concept of being as an independent, and predicative concept. His remarks concerning the contents of the simple proposition, i.e. "A is existent" are similar to that of Kant in some respects and different from them, in others. In so far as the content of the proposition signifies the subsistence and the realization of the subject, rather than the subsistence of something for the subject, their respective remarks are quite similar, but in so far as Mulla Sadra, on the basis of his philosophical stance "the principiality of being" demonstrates that what is principial in the external reality is "existence" rather than "quiddity", he is quite different from the philosophical view point of Kant. The quiddity in his opinion is a mentally posited that is either abstracted from the limits of being, or is the manifestation of the limits of being in the mind.A comparative study of Mulla Sadra 's and Kant's views concerning the existence as a predicate, of any other issue in general, without taking into account their whole systems as well as the basic principles of Mulla Sadra's ontology will be impossible. The being that is applied by Mulla Sadra, like other Muslim Philosophers, as a predicate in the existential proposition is totally different from that of Kant. Mulla Sadra just as his predecessors examined the concept of being, God, and reality from an aspect, wholly different from that of Kant. Accordingly, Kant and Muslim philosophers despite their similar methods of applying the concepts in their philosophical arguments believe in two exactly distinctive worlds. Therefore, to compare them, it is not possible to consider certain concepts such as "being" or "necessity", and ask about the soundness of either one. However, the chief aim of this paper is to carry out a comparative study of the philosophical systems of the two philosophers.The present article, is a comparative study of Kant's denial of existence as a real predicate, on the one hand, and Mulla Sadra's acknowledgement and demonstration of such predicates, on the other. Hopefully, this study will pave the ground for an inquiry into one of the most important philosophical problems, and through the demonstration of such philosophical propositions, the way for a study of the "reality of being" in Mulla Sara's philosophy will be prepared.