Abstract

The two theories of immutable essences and imprinted forms which have been presented in order to explain pre-creational knowledge and which have a special role in the area of compulsion and choice, and predestination and fate, have been analyzed and studied by many intellectuals; some have accepted these theories and others have criticized them; Sadra has defended the theory of immutable essences and criticized the theory of imprinted forms. This paper seeks to critique Sadra’s objections to imprinted forms by explaining the essence and manner of occurrence of immutable essences and explaining Divine knowledge through them, and also by studying the circumstance of Divine knowledge through Avicenna’s imprinted forms by finding the common aspects between the two theories; it also seeks to show that Sadra’s objections are valid if imprinted forms are quiddities and cause forms to occur in God’s essence; whereas the study clearly shows that imprinted forms, like immutable essences, are prerequisites of His essence and are existential entities that God’s essence is attributed with and the same way that God’s detailed knowledge can be explained through immutable essences it can also be analyzed through imprinted forms so much so that the God’s detailed knowledge is more deservedly applied to that than to immutable entities.