The intellect is a capacity of man which he uses to discover not only the universe, society and history but also his essence. In this respect the intellect is active, and its object is two-sided, first nature and then nature and the intellect's own function which is formed after acting on the object, which is a combination of intellect and object. On the contrary, the revelation sent by a third party is a "secret object" which depends entirely on "belief". If there is no belief, then revelation has no value except for a few pieces of paper. Pieces of paper that as text can only be the object of intellect, but intellect is never the object of revelation. The intellect itself has absolute function, which discovers its logical motion in history and society. To prove this logically, we must apply dialectical logic to revelation and reason.
This does not mean that no object, object, etc. exists, but it is a method of understanding the pre-existing object, object, universe. So if the question is asked what is the intellect, and the answer is that the intellect is the intellect, then nothing is gained from it, that is, if the intellect is equal to the intellect, then there is nothing, because we know this. Couldn't figure out what it is! Thus the answer to the question of what is intellect is that intellect is nothing. Nothing means that the intellect is not the intellect. Thus the intellect negates its own abstract character from which the meanings were to be derived. If we look at it from a philosophical level, two terms have been discovered: one is the intellect which was conceived, and the other is the negation of this conceived abstract intellect, which is bread or non-intellect. It is important to remember that we imagined the intellect to be analyzed, but this does not necessarily mean that the intellect already existed, because the intellect is proving to be not the intellect.
The intellect that was already conceived was actually not intellect. Now the question is, what is this nonsense? If we look in the light of the last sections of the first book of Hegel's Encyclopedia, then this knot intellect is actually the universe, the object, the nature, the object, the external world. Thus, if it is said that the universe, nature, etc., are derived from within the intellect, then it would be equally true that the intellect, etc., are derived from within the universe, nature. In this way the intellect forms its object universe and the universe which is the opposite of the intellect finds its subject in the intellect. And the dialectical relationship between the two leads to an understanding of the interaction of the universe and the intellect itself. We now apply dialectical logic to revelation.
If the same question is asked of the revelation which asked the intellect what revelation is and the intellect is not brought into the middle, then the answer will be the same that revelation is "nothing" ie revelation is not really revelation. In discovering the interaction of the intellect, we have come to the conclusion that it is logically possible that what is "nothing", which was the second term, is actually the universe from which the intellect derives its meanings. But when it is said that revelation is "nothing", then the problem of understanding this "nothing" or not revelation arises. Revelation has no value if it remains within dialectical logic, because it is not possible to discover what revelation is! Whereas the whole 'reality' of revelation is not in its being revelation but in its being 'revelation'. During the analysis of the intellect, it was discovered that the object of the intellect, which is not the intellect or the universe, nature, etc., is not proved in the analysis of revelation.
The reason for this is that without intellect, revelation has no meaning. If it is assumed that the object of revelation is the intellect, then the problem arises that the intellect has already discovered its object, and if the intellect is considered the object of revelation, then the function of revelation is called into question because the intellect itself Is active which is constantly forming concepts in its relationship with the universe, while revelation has become a need of intellect to form its own concepts. Therefore, if revelation is to be meaningful in any context, then it has to be the object of intellect as a text, otherwise it has no status.
Let us also assume that the intellect is the object of revelation, that is, the dialectical relationship between reason and the universe is the same dialectical relationship between reason and revelation. In the dialectical relationship between the intellect and the universe, all the activity of the intellect is due to the universe, although the intellect is active, which by its activity is Indian. As we have seen, the totality of revelation depends on the intellect, because revelation is not active in any way, so the revelation of the intellect is exposed just as the universe! Therefore, to claim that revelation is "superior" to reason in any respect is not logically correct.
