The Ontological Purposes as a Criterion for Classifying Types of Wisdom

One of the brightest points of view of Muslim scholars is their reflection on the criterion for distinguishing sciences. The popular opinion is that the purpose and subject as a criteria have been the tools for distinguishing between two or more sciences. This article answers two central questions in this regard. One is whether the criteria used by scholars to differentiate between sciences have an ontological origin or it had abstract origin. Another question is whether the answer to this question will have a significant effect on the philosophical issues. Studies of this article will shed light on three issues: First, scholars have used the end, not only as a criterion for distinguishing between two or more sciences, but also as a criterion for the large classification of sciences (theoretical and practical). Second, the end of all knowledge is not merely a  non- factual value, but an existential end. Third, if the said end is existential and objective, the distinction between the various forms of wisdom is also objective and real, and this means that none of these sciences can play another role. One of the important results of the ontological approach in the division of sciences, especially in practical wisdom, is that the separation of home management from civil politics is a real separation and the rules and requirements of these two fields cannot be considered in another field. The virtues and perfections of the soul, the categories in society (civic wisdom), the categories in individual life (morality), and the categories in the family (home wisdom) can be studied. Thus, as much as individuality and individual life are genuine, family and community are also original, and this is contrary to the opinion of many late individualist thinkers.