the general statement of invalidating reasoning is that they present evidence and proofs to prove education and arrange the premises as we have mentioned. so how can they deny that? from here they said that reasoning is invalid. so it is said how did you know its invalidity and the proof of education? is it through reasoning or necessity? it must be said through reasoning. and whenever he proves the corruption of theories with disagreement in theories he confronts it with disagreement from the sophists in the necessities. there is no difference between the two situations. so if they say how can i be safe from error? and how many times have i repeated something through reasoning? then his disagreement becomes clear so it is said to him how did you know that you were present in this country in which you are? how many times have you believed yourself and seen yourself in another country in which you were not? how can you distinguish between sleep and wakefulness? how can you feel safe about yourself? perhaps you are asleep now in these words. if he claims that i have realized the distinction as a necessity then it is said and i have realized the distinction between what is permissible to make a mistake in from the premises and what is not permissible also as a necessity and there is no difference. likewise how often does a person make a mistake in calculations and then he becomes aware and when he becomes aware he realizes the distinction as a necessity. between the case of being right and wrong if someone from the batiniyya says we deny speculation as a whole and what you have mentioned is not from theories in any way but rather they are necessary definitive premises that we have arranged we say so now you have not understood the meaning of speculation that we are saying so we are not saying except with what you have arranged from the necessary true premises as we will explain. so every syllogism that is not based on the arrangement of necessary premises or on the arrangement of premises inferred from necessity then there is no proof in it. so this is the reasonable syllogism and it is always arranged from two premises either absolute or absolute. or it is divisive and it may be called categorical and conditional. as for the absolute it is like our saying the world is an event and everything that occurs has a cause. these are two premises the first of which is sensory and the second of which is necessary and rational. its result is that the events of the world if they have a cause
إطلاق القول بابطال النظر جملة فانهم يسوقون الادلة والبراهين على اثبات التعليم ويرتبون المقدمات كما حكيناه فكيف ينكرون ذلك فمن هنا قالوا نظر العقل باطل فيقال وبم عرفتم بطلانه وثبوت التعليم أبنظر أم ضرورة ولا بد أن يقال بنظر ومهما استدل بالخلاف في النظريات على فساد النظريات فقابله بالخلاف من السوفسطائية في الضروريات ولا فرق بين المقامين فإذا قالوا وبم أمنت الخطأ وكم من مرة اعتدت الشئ نظرا ثم بان خلافه فيقال له وبم عرفت حضورك بهذا البلد الذي أنت فيه وكم من كرة اعتقدت نفسك ورأيتها ببلد آخر لم تكن فيه فيم تميز بين النوم واليقظة وبم تأمن على نفسك فلعلك الآن في هذا الكلام نائم فان زعم اني ادرك التفرقة ضرورة فيقال وأنا أدركت التفرقة بين ما يجوز الغلط فيه من المقدمات ومالا يجوز أيضا ضرورة ولا فرق وكذلك كم يغلط الانسان في الحساب ثم ينتبه وإذا تنبه ادرك التفرقة ضرورة بين حالة الاصابة والخطأ فان قال قائل من الباطنية نحن ننكر النظر جملة وما ذكرتم ليس من النظريات في شئ بل هي مقدمات ضرورية قطعية رتبناها قلنا فأنتم الان لم تفهموا معنى النظر اذي نقول به فلسنا نقول الا بمثل ما نظمتموه من المقدمات الضرورية الحقيقية كما سنبينها فكل قياس لم يكن بنظم مقدمات ضرورية او بنظم مقدمات مستنتجة من ضرورية فلا حجة فيه فهذا هو القياس المعقول وانما ينتظم أبدا من مقدمتين إما مطلقة وإما تقسيمية وقد تسمى حملية وشرطية أما المطلقة فكقولنا العالم حادث وكل حادث فله سبب فهاتان مقدمتان الأولى حسية والثانية ضرورية عقلية ونتجيته ان لحوادث العالم إذا سببا