The problem of this article is semantics and discussion of the ontology of meaning. In fact, this article deals with the ontological approach in meaning. Existential approach and nonexistent approach. Semantics plays a decisive role in the process of text interpretation and meaning discovery. In this article, an argumentative and philosophical method has been tried to examine the viewpoints of two groups of language experts. The arguments and opinions expressed by several groups of experts (philosophers of language on the one hand and fundamental scholars on the other) are criticized and examined. Their differences and commonalities are expressed. The purpose of this article is to examine and explain the ontology of the nature of meaning as the most basic and fundamental philosophical premise that is the basis of other linguistic topics. In the end, the authors present their final point of view by referring to Allameh Gharavi Esfahani's point of view and completing the shortcomings of that theory, as well as linking it with the views of Muslim philosophers about the soul.

Introduction

One of the significant topics in linguistic sciences is the discussion about the ontology of meaning. The term "meaning" here refers to word meaning, or semantic meaning. The importance of this discussion lies in the fact that all issues examined in linguistics, hermeneutics, interpretation, principles (Usul), and many other branches related to linguistic sciences revolve around meaning. Questions such as: Where is the locus of meaning of a text, a sentence, a poem, etc.? Which meaning is correct and which is incorrect? What are the ways to reach the correct meaning? And hundreds of other propositions in these sciences are all related to the ontology of meaning.
The significance of this topic arises from the fact that many issues raised in discussions of words and linguistic sciences are dependent upon it. Topics such as epistemology of meaning and ethical implications of meaning, which encompass a broad scope of linguistic sciences, are all contingent upon the discussion of the ontology of meaning.
Once the existential status of meaning is clarified, certain topics become prioritized and regarded as important, while others are considered secondary and may even be set aside.
These discussions are presented under the title of "theory of meaning" in the philosophy of language. Two types of investigations are conducted within theories of meaning: ontological (entological) and epistemological. In ontological investigation, the identity and essence of meaning are examined, whereas in epistemological investigation, the process of determining meaning is addressed. In the ontology of meaning, meaning itself becomes the object of study, and philosophical questions (both existential and essential) about meaning are analyzed and scrutinized through rational and analytical methods. Therefore, any epistemological discussion raised in hermeneutics and interpretation is subordinate to the ontological discussion of meaning. In this article, theories regarding the identity of meaning are discussed to determine what semantic relationship exists between a word and its meaning. Specifically, is the meaning something that exists externally, or is it a mental entity without an external referent?
For example, when we say "table," what exactly is the referent (madelul) and counterpart of this term? Is the word "table" assigned to an external object? Is the real referent of the word "table" its external instance? Or is the word "table" assigned to a mental image of a table existing in the mind? Or could it be that the word "table" refers to an essence or nature that exists neither in the mind nor in the external world, but has an independent status? Answers to these questions are investigated in this article under the heading of the ontology of meaning.
If we are to identify a common ground among all viewpoints on meaning within the Usuli (principles) scholars, it would be the reification (thingification) of meaning, which attributes an independent identity to meaning (Mervārid, 1384, p. 86).
Since comparative discussion greatly contributes to clarifying and illuminating the subject matter, we will only present the arguments of those who agree with the Usuli scholars.

Literature Review

The ontology of meaning, in general, is a topic of relatively recent origin, with a history of less than a century. Although this subject took shape and matured among Western thinkers such as Frege and John Locke, it was previously discussed under different titles such as "placement" (vaz') within the tradition of Usuli scholars and received their attention and scrutiny.
Perhaps for the first time, Professor Larijani, author of the book "Analytic Philosophy: Reference and Necessity," addressed the discussion on the meaning of proper names and briefly referred to some views of Islamic scholars on proper names. Indeed, his discussion was confined to the domain of proper names and involved theoretical analysis in this regard.
The author of the article "Reification Theories of Meaning in Analytic Philosophy and the Science of Usul" compared the opinions of two groups of scholars along with their arguments, and ultimately adopted a theory based on Platonic universals, using it to explain the challenge of meaning in universals. This viewpoint contradicts the philosophical foundations underlying the thought of Usuli scholars, who believe in the mental nature (sinoi) of universals.
Another article on the ontology of meaning was written by Sajjadi, which: 1) Although it addresses some views of Western scholars and ultimately accepts the theory of mental concepts of meaning, it does not mention the commonalities between these views and those of Islamic scholars; 2) The views attributed to Usuli scholars are presented in an unrefined manner, and common opinions are not mentioned; 3) The logical arguments presented by Usuli scholars are not cited in this article.
However, the innovations of the present article are: 1) In this article, we have undertaken a comparative analysis of the views of Muslim Usuli scholars (Shia and Sunni) and Western philosophers where they share common ground. Despite an extensive search in Persian sources, we did not find any text that compares the views of these three groups of scholars.
2) In addition to presenting the arguments of various viewpoints, the author has added critiques and arguments in some instances.
3) In this article, an effort has been made to present certain viewpoints with different interpretations so that the theories and arguments are introduced clearly and without ambiguity.

Methodology

Ontology, or the study of being, is a branch of philosophy that investigates the nature of existence and entities. It is a subject with a documented history of over a thousand years in philosophical writings. Therefore, ontological discourse is inherently tied to philosophical reflection. In this article, as we discuss the ontology of meaning, we are essentially engaging in philosophical contemplation and deep reflection on the truth of meaning.
The philosophical method is a rational approach that employs logic and argumentation to prove or refute a viewpoint. Since the discussion of the ontology of meaning is fundamentally philosophical, the method of discussion in this article will be based on rational argumentation and deductive reasoning.

Conclusion

An examination of various viewpoints regarding the ontology of meaning reveals that, for Usuli scholars, meaning is an existential and substantial reality that exists independently of the mind and language. For most of them, meaning is considered *maddah lahu* (a subject in itself) and *māhiyyatun lahu al-haythu hiya* (an essence in its own right). This view stands in contrast to other perspectives that either entirely deny the existence of meaning or regard meaning as a secondary, derived phenomenon.
Contrary to Shia Usuli scholars, who commonly accept the third viewpoint (i.e., meaning as an independent essence), among Sunni Usuli scholars, this view is considered unpopular (*mahjūr*), while the conceptualist (mental) theory enjoys greater acceptance. Among Western philosophers of language as well, the third theory ranks among the most prevalent views.
Although some Usuli scholars believe meaning exists outside the mind and the external world, they have not assigned a specific locus or container for it. In this article, we have proposed *nafs al-amr* (the thing-in-itself) or the *Active Intellect* as the container (*zharf*) for meanings.
The ontology of meaning is one of the most beneficial topics in the philosophy of language, and many hermeneutical discussions—and even interpretive methods—are directly related to it. A person who considers meaning as constructed (*mujʿal*) and created by the reader or interpreter will not seek to *discover* meaning, but rather to *create* it. Consequently, the method employed for creation differs fundamentally from the method used for understanding.