Proving eternality and the hereafter life are based on some philosophical questions such as personal identity and the permanence of this identity in all existential levels. The personal identity is so important that we cannot have a clear perspective of the hereafter life without it.In this paper we will discuss the essential foundation of personal identity and answer the objections made by some scholars. Moreover we consider and criticize different criteria related to explanation of personal identity. Finally we proceed to some viewpoints about bodily, mental, existential criteria and so on

Personal identity and the criteria for the continuity of human existence are of special interest to theologians due to their crucial role in the afterlife. The objections and criticisms raised in the fields of philosophy of religion and philosophy of mind regarding the possibility of personal identity have led some to believe that explaining existential identity between a person in this world and the person resurrected after death is not feasible. As a result, theories like "the closest continuer" have been proposed. These theories have motivated certain Christian theologians, including Stephen Davis, to defend the possibility of the continuation of personal identity against these objections and doubts. In response to criticisms that overlook the theological foundations of the issue, Davis has attempted to explain the possibility of personal identity by adopting an intra-religious approach and considering the absolute "will of God." Davis insists that addressing the present problem and responding to its criticisms requires taking its theological foundations into account. This article conducts a descriptive-analytical study of Davis's works to critically analyze his approach and methodology in using theological foundations to counter the criticisms raised in the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of mind

One of the most important problems in Humans thought is the Principle of identity.What is the meaning of this principle? How it comes to be? Can we speak, basically, of coming to be of something-here the principle of identity? Are the principles something discoverable? Or they are unknowable?The early Greeks thinkers, with the help of the Arche, showed their view on problems like unity, plurality, identity and difference. A perception that at first was seen as stability of the Arche thought of the time. In fact, this stability of the Arche thought of the time was the meaning of the principle of the identity. Their attempt to interpret of the world without logical notion of the principle discern lead finally to formulate the principle of identity. With this principle which is bestowed with undeniable importance, we understand the Being as beings.We try to understand that what is the Greeks Philosophy? This must be done with the investigation that includes the most famous thinkers. We begin with an introduction.

The Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles (PIIs) was first proposed by Leibniz. In this principle, he argued when two objects can be considered Indiscernible, and when two objects can be considered discernible. This principle, that is known as one of the most widely used and discussed principles in mathematics, physics, philosophy, and metaphysics, is increasingly applied when the modern physics and metaphysics deal with quantum particles, giving rise to an under-determination that has been studied from different approaches by different philosophers. Relying on some examples such as Kant’ s water Drop, and black’ s Spheres, some tried to reject this principle. The present study was an attempt to investigate the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles based on Muller's defense (an article published in 2015). In his paper, Muller draws on some examples to define and formulate his arguments. In the present study, the Black’ s Spheres is studied, and attempts are made to determine whether Muller's argument is defendable, and introduce the points that need to be taken into account about this example

In Mulla Sadra's and Mir Damad's works, modes- with the criterion of being part of subject or out of subject- are restricted in two meanings: mode of delimitation and mode of causation, mode of delimitation for the mode which is part of subject (both real part in real composite and imaginary part in imaginary composite) and mode of causation for the mode which is out of subject. Regardless of criterion of division that clears mode of delimitation meaning obviously, mode of delimitation usage in part of subject meaning in Mulla Sadra's and Mir Damad's works, shows this term has been distorted in later periods and supposed equivalent of "mediator of occurrence". Never and nowhere has been mentioned the usage of new meaning for mode of delimitation but it is pretended that the previous philosophers applied mode of delimitation in this new meaning. Even though it is said that a philosopher does not deal with terms, generally mediator of occurrence cannot be considered as a mode of the subject.

Muslim philosophers have offered different interpretations and possibilities on kinesis in category (substance and accident). Two interpretations are most important among others. According to one interpretation, which in this article is referred to as Avicenan approach, kinesis is a mode of corporeality and should not be understood as a fluidity of substance or accident. On this view, kinesis in substance, which implies nothing less than the fluidity of substance, would be impossible. Upon another interpretation, which is referred to as Sadrayian approach in this article, kinesis denotes a kind of being, both in substance and accident, and divides the being into fixed and fluid. According to the first approach, Avicenan approach, this kind of kinesis, from one point of view, falls short of the criterion of identity, so it is self-contradictory, and from another perspective, it compromises between "identity" and "otherness" in a contradictory manner. The second interpretation, investigating the existential reality of kinesis, makes it clear that kinesis in substance and accident can be considered as fluid and unresting, implying a mode of being. This way the criterion of "identity" and "otherness" is derived from this mode of existence, not resulting in any contradiction.

The possibility of the system and its will as a way of rediscovering human the being is characteristic of the modern age. In Schelling’s Treaties on the Essence of Human Freedom (1936), Heidegger, by asking what the system is and comparing it to German idealism, considers the conditions necessary for the formation of the system in order to understand the intellectual foundation of the modern age. Through the concept of the system, the jointure of which is determined on the basis of mathematical order and subjective foundations, Heidegger uses the concept of the system as the jointure of the order of being. Research on the formation of the system and the question of the possibility of a system of freedom is also the main issue of Schelling in his treatise on The Philosophical Studies of the Essence of Human Freedom (1809). The purpose of this research is to analyze Heidegger’s interpretation of the concept of system by emphasizing the principle of identity in Schelling’s system of freedom. The present article considers two questions: How does Schelling’s attempt to eliminate the existing misinterpretations of this principle in the various interpretations of the pantheism provide the possibility of the compatibility of the freedom system? In Heidegger’s interpretation, how does Schelling’s reading of the necessity of paying attention to “is” lead to an ontological question of the meaning and truth of being in German idealism, how does the question of the system changes in the way the structure of beings is connected in general?