Objective: an answer will be found to the question as to whether the human intellect, assuming having accepted the verdicts’ being drawn on the causes, expediencies and depravities, is capable of comprehending these causes and criteria or not? Can intellect discover the expediencies and depravities as causes of the verdicts? In responding to the aforesaid question, there are two substantial perspectives: the first perspective claims that the human reason is incapable of understanding the causes and criteria of the jurisprudential criteria and it will surely go astray if it enters such a route; thus, it has to be warned of entering such an area. The second perspective holds that the aforesaid route is open to the intellect and that the intellect can perceive the causes and criteria of the verdicts in the form of affirmative particular proposition. Methods: the present study makes use of a documentary and analytical method through basing its deductions on the jurisprudential and fundamentalist texts. Findings: it is made clear through using scrutiny in the jurisprudents’ words that the criteria are wholly accepted by the entire array of jurisprudents. Result: it is made clear in an investigation and exercising of care in the elders’ words that the two aforementioned perspectives can be summed up in their titles and it can be stated that there is only one perspective regarding the issue and it is that intellect is capable of comprehending the causes and criteria of the whole verdicts as held by Shiite jurisprudents.
