Real concepts or developmental matters are not subject to its validity and are unchangeable. But credit concepts are subject to the changing needs of societies and are situational and contractual matters, whose change is in the hands of the creditor. Correlation between formative and credit matters has caused us to observe the effects of credit matters on many legal and jurisprudential arguments. Many jurisprudential and legal inferences are based on the flow of philosophical rules on credit affairs. Some complete their jurisprudential and legal inferences with the help of philosophical rules and even base their arguments on it and believe that philosophical rules apply to credit matters. On the other hand, by denying the flow of philosophical rules in credits, some have not based their jurisprudential and legal inferences on the basis of evolutionary rules. Considering jurisprudence and jurisprudence inferences are aligned, the answer to the feasibility of basing jurisprudence and jurisprudence arguments on philosophical rules is a subject that has been tried to be pointed out in this article with a descriptive and analytical method. Contemporary jurists believe that philosophical rules do not apply to legal inferences. The origin of this opinion, which is the separation between the world of facts and validity, has caused jurists to agree with this statement. Nevertheless, it seems that the flow of philosophical rules that return to absolute existence in credit concepts is correct.