عنوان مقاله [English]
Rational unity is one of the central issues in transcendental wisdom. The weight of its proof and the inferences made on its basis goes to paying careful attention to the method and the specific principles of transcendental wisdom. Its proofs, much like the problem itself, keep distance from conventional philosophy. In this regard, some recent scholars, with the mentality that Sadra’s views and those of other theologians share the same method and basis for the doctrine of unity have interpreted the doctrine and its arguments and with the claim of adopting a critical view have produced no result other than creating doubt. Hakim Sabzevari has provided an argument for the doctrine of unity which is based on Sadra's specific principles. His argument is based on observing equivalent intellects when understanding generalities with not mentioning the idea of reality and tenuity’. One of the recent scholars, who has tried to claim that the argument is more general than the claim itself, has distorted the argument and consequently the doctrine of rational unity because of the inefficiency of using the reality and tenuity idea in proving the doctrine. The purpose of this article is to analyze the claims and evaluate the quality of the underlying assumptions. It is concluded that studies with no sufficient depth have made some researches go astray and create doubts about the most exalted theories of transcendental wisdom.