Mulla Sadra. Kant. Negative and positive freedom. Autonomy. The metaphenomenal. Causal necessity. The true agent

espite his belief in the unity of the identity of the soul and the body and his view of them as one entity, Mulla Sadra considers the soul to be the true agent of moral behavior among the various influential causes and factors that surround the soul, and considers the mode of agency of the soul towards moral behavior to be a single and radiating agency. From the perspective of Kant’s two-dimensional perspective, freedom exists in two meanings, negative and positive. Kant chooses the second meaning from these two meanings and bases his thought on it. Although Mulla Sadra has a single-dimensional anthropological basis and Kant has a two-dimensional anthropological basis, they have some similarities in the analysis and explanation of freedom of will. The present article aims to describe and analyze freedom in the thought of Kant and Mulla Sadra and point out some basic similarities and differences between these two prominent thinkers and is compiled with an analytical method. From the philosophical analysis of freedom in two perspectives, it was concluded that in Kant's strategy, first, freedom is related to the metaphenomenal plane and not the phenomenal and external plane; in the phenomenal, causal necessity is dominant, but the dominant over the metaphenomenal plane is the rules of pure reason. Second, freedom is the independence of the will from being determined by the laws of nature and also its determination by immutable laws of a specific type whose origin is within pure reason. Mulla Sadra agrees with Kant on the point of the independence of the agency of the soul from the laws of nature for issuing moral behavior; because he considers the soul to be the true agent. But unlike Kant, he does not exclude the sphere of the soul's agency from the orbit of the laws of causality.