Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

CHAPTER IV: PROBLEMS OF METAPHYSICS

Metaphysics which has hardly yet recovered from the fierce onslaught of logical positivism in modern times, was of the essence of Islamic philosophy and the realm of its chief contribution to the history of ideas.

Two factors helped to place it in a position of eminence among the intellectual disciplines that reached the Islamic world from Greece, viz. the classical and the religious. Aristotle had justified it in the short opening phrase of his own Metaphysica on the basis that “all men by nature desire to know”. Philosophy springing, in his view, from primitive wonder and moving towards its abolition through an understanding of the world, was an effort “to inquire of what kind are the causes and the principles, the knowledge of which is Wisdom”; particularly of the first and most universal causes. And a single supreme science of metaphysics, devoted to the study of the real as such was possible, he maintained, and may be fruitfully pursued.

The impact upon revealed religion proved a more powerful factor. Transcendental elements had already found some place in classical philosophy, though the system remained fundamentally rationalistic. Through contact with the East, some religious influences were brought to bear upon it, as is reflected in the writings of the Stoics, the Neo-Platonists and other Hellenistic schools; but it continued separate and distinct. Now revealed religion set a rival and more formidable claim to knowledge. In the search after the ultimate realities, it asserted that faith in the human mind was vain, for the source of all knowledge was in God. Philo Judaeus attempted to reconcile classical philosophy with the tenets of his religion; and Christian thinkers made a bold and earnest endeavor in that direction. And when the rational speculations of the Greeks reached Islamic society, and came face to face with a triumphant religion at the height of its power, the matter became an urgent and important issue. It finally came to be thought that it was in the realm of metaphysics that the relation between reason and revelation could be best explored, and that the fundamentals of religion could find rational justification and proof. Whether they divided philosophy into four branches as found in the Epistles, to comprise mathematics, logic, the natural sciences and metaphysics; or into three as Avicenna does after Aristotle, to include the higher science (metaphysics), the middle science (mathematics), and the lower science (the phenomena of nature); it was metaphysics that concerned itself with the ultimate realitis. Logic, today of the essence of philosophy, was for them only an instrument, a tool in the search after truth.

The arrangement of Aristotle’s Metaphysic proved just as confusing to them as it is to modern scholars. Book Lambda, now considered an independent treatise and his only systematic essay in theology, became the basis of a distinct branch of study called the Science of the Divine. Some confused it with the whole of metaphysics, others kept it separate; and their reactions to it were not all the same. Some, like the Brethren of Purity, thought that the rival disciplines could and should be reconciled; others, like the theologians, repudiated any such possibility; and still others, like the Falasifa, propounded the belief that the fundamentals were different but complementary rather than totally negative to one another. In his evaluation of philosophy, Avicenna finds it necessary to assert that “there is nothing in it that comprises matters contrary to the religious law. Those who put forth this claim are going astray of their own accord”. This Science of the Divine which, in spite of some confusing statements here and there, he, just like Aristotle, considered only a part, though perhaps the more essential part of metaphysics, is then divided into five separate sections. Metaphysics was to gain added importance because whereas Averroes found his proof for the existence of God in physics, Avicenna founded his arguments upon both physics and metaphysics.

For Kindi metaphysics was the science of that which does not move and the science of the First Truth which is the cause of all truth. Farabi divided metaphysics into three parts: The first dealing with beings in general and the states through which they pass; the second dealing with the principles of demonstration used in the theoretical sciences; and the third dealing with beings that are not corporeal in themselves, nor to be found in bodies; and about these he asks whether they exist, whether they are many or limited in number, and whether they all have the same degree of perfection. And finally this examination culminates in a demonstration that one Being could not possibly have acquired its existence from any other, “the True that granted everything possessing truth its truth who verily is God”.

For Avicenna the first impression received by the soul, and the first acquisition of certain knowledge, is the distinct notion of being; and as such it constitutes the first and the true object of metaphysics. Not just any particular being in space or in time, but absolute being inasmuch, as it is absolute. This thought which had been already suggested by Aristotle became for him a central theme to be developed far beyond anything envisaged by the Stagirite himself. Thus if it be said that the central element of Platonic metaphysics is the theory of Ideas, and that of the Aristotelian is the doctrine of potentiality and actuality, that of Avicennian metaphysics is the study of being as being. With that as a starting-point we may seek the knowledge of things that are separate from matter. This is philosophy in its true sense; and it can prove useful in correcting the principles of the other sciences. It begins with the subject of an existing being; and it is called the first philosophy because it leads to the knowledge of the first in existence.

In his approach to the inquiry Avicenna’s background is a combination of religious orthodoxy as represented by the Mutakallemun, rational explanation of dogma as propounded by the school of Mutazila, and syncretistic tendencies as favored by the followers of the Ismaili heterodoxy. Not that he adhered to any of these groups himself, in fact he had very little sympathy for any of them; but he certainly thought their views worth considering. His philosophical outlook was determined by Platonic and by Aristotelian thought with additions from Neo-Platonic and Stoic as well as late Peripatetic sources. Again he never followed any of these schools consistently, but traces of their doctrines can be found in almost all that he wrote.

Metaphiysics was for Aristotle a matter of problems or difficulties (aporiai). In like manner Avicenna turns from a description of the subject and its chief purpose to certain preliminary questions that he feels should be first elucidated and solved. It is only then that its relation to religion can be properly assessed and determined. Avicenna chose to explore what Russell calls the No Man’s Land, dividing science from theology, the strip - narrow and unmarked - whereon they meet. This may have shown unjustified optimism on his part, yet he continued confident and persistent.

All existing beings can be seen “in a manner of division into substance and accident”. In Book E of the Metaphysica, Aristotle had pointed out that accidental or incidental being, and being as truth, were irrelevant to metaphysics. Avicenna could not disagree with the first statement, but the second was different. When using the resources of the whole subject to prove the existence of God, one of whose attributes was the truth, he could not very well agree on that point. He therefore devoted some attention to the differentiation between the truth and true, a logical distinction to which he gave an ontological significance. The categories other than substance were mere concomitants. Classification into them was the classification into potentiality and actuality, the one and the multiple, the eternal and the created, the complete and the incomplete, the cause and the effect, is like division according to accident.

The existence of substance and its distinction from the other categories was self-evident to Aristotle, and Avicenna accepts the substance-accident division which so much was to occupy his successors and the Scholastics after them. Like Aristotle he maintains that “all essence that is not present in a subject is substance; and all essence that is constituted in a subject is accident”; substance can be material or immaterial; and in the hierarchy of existence it is immaterial substance that has supremacy over all; then comes form, then body composed as it is of form and matter put together; and finally matter itself. Substance could be in different states. Where it is part of a body, it could be its form, or it could be its matter; and if it is entirely apart and separate, it could have a relation of authority over the body through movement and it is then called the soul; and it could be entirely free of matter in every way and it is then called an intellect. This leads to the opposition between matter and form so familiar in Aristotle.

Matter is that which is presupposed by change - in position, in quality, in size, and in coming into being and passing away. But is there such a thing as matter? Avicenna tries to assure himself of its existence. A body is not a body because it has actually three dimensions. It is not necessary to have points and lines to make a body. In the case of the sphere there are no such intersections. As to the plane surface, it does not enter into the definition of a body as body, but of body as unite. And the fact of its being finite does not enter into the essence of it but is just a concomitant. It is possible to conceive the essence of a body and its reality, and have it confirmed in the mind, without its being thought of as finite. It can also be known through demonstration and observation. A body is supposed to have three dimensions and no more. It is first supposed to have length, and if so then breadth, and if so then depth. This notion of it is its material form, and it is for the physicists to occupy themselves with it. The delimited dimensions are not its form, they fall under the category of quantity, and that is a subject for mathematicians. They are concomitants and not constituents and they may change with the change in form. Then there is the substance which constitutes its essence. This is constituted in something and is present in a subject which in relation to form is an accident. We therefore say that the dimensions and the material form must necessarily have a subject or prime matter in which to be constituted. This is the substance that accepts union with material form to become one complete body with constituents and concomitants.

Yet in the scale of existence form is superior to matter. It is more real. Bodily matter cannot divest itself of material form and so remain separate. Its very existence is that of one disposed to receive, just as that of an accident is an existence disposed to be received. Form is what gives unity to a portion of matter, and form is dependent upon disposition. Under Platonic rather than Aristotelian influence Avicenna may be thought to give to form a superior reality which is somewhat degraded when united with matter. Thus in his view intelligible reality is superior to sensible reality. The connection of form with matter does not fall under the category of relation, because we can imagine form without matter and matter without form. Could one be the cause of the other? Matter cannot be the cause of form, since it has only the power to receive form. What is in potentia cannot become the cause of what isin actu. Furthermore, if matter were the cause of form, it ought to be anterior to it in essence, and we know that in the scale of existence it is not. Hence there is no possibility of its being the cause. Could it then be the effect of form? Here there is a distinction to be made between separate form and a particular material form. Matter may lose a particular form only to receive another. The cause of matter is form in conjunction with a separate agent whom he, together with Farabi, calls the Giver of Forms known to the Scholastics as Dator formarum. This agent is the active intelligence and in the last resort God Himself. Here then they both depart from Aristotle and under Neo-Platonic influence draw nearer to religious belief. For the Stagirite reality did not belong either to form or to matter; it resided in the union of the two.

The doctrine of matter and form is connected with the distinction between potentiality and actuality. We cannot explain change without it. Actuality is prior to potentiality. God is actual and so is form. Matter is potential, but not of the potentiality of non-being. This leads to the theory of causes. All the Islamic Falasifa accepted the four causes: the material, the formal, the efficient and the final cause. “Cause is said of the agent and cause is said of the matter and cause is said of the form and cause is said of the end and each of these is either proximate or distant... it is either in potentia or it is in actu. It is either individual or it is general it is either in essence or it is by accident”. The material and the formal cause Avicenna is inclined to subdivide each into two. The material he divides into matter of the compound, and matter of the subject. And the formal he divides into form of the compound, and form of the primary matter. This has led some to believe that for him there are six causes. In fact he states in the Shifa that the causes are four. As for Aristotle, all the four causes are required to produce an effect; and the effect follows necessarily from the causes, contrary to the views of the theologians. This deterministic attitude is one of the essential features of the Avicennian system. The final cause is the most important, for “the chief agent and the chief mover in everything is the end; the physician acts for the restoration of health”. The agent and what is disposed to receive are prior to the effect, but the form never precedes in time at all.

There was some conflict between the religious and the Aristotelian views regarding the priority of potentiality and actuality.

The theologians insisted that potentiality was prior in every respect and not only in time; and Aristotle claimed that actuality came first. Many of the ancients, Avicenna says, were inclined to the belief that matter existed before form, and that the supreme agent gave it that form. This is the conception of religious law-givers, that God took over matter and gave it the best constituent form. And there were those who said that in pre-eternity these material things used to move by nature in a disorderly manner, and that the Almighty changed their nature and put them into a fixed order. And others contended that the eternal was the great darkness or the chaos of which Anaxagoras had spoken. All that was because they insisted that as in a seed, potentiality was prior to actuality. It is true that in certain corruptible things potentiality comes before actuality with a priority in time. But in universal and eternal matters that are not corruptible, even if they are particular, in them what is potential is not prior at all, because potentiality does not stand by itself. It must be constituted together with a substance that must be actual. The eternal beings, for instance, are always actual. The reality of what is actual comes before the reality of what is potential. And Avicenna concludes, just as Aristotle had done in this connection, that “what is in actu is the Good in itself, and what is in potentia is the evil, or from it comes evil”.

The problem of the one and the multiple had to be considered because the One is closely connected with the being who is the subject of this science. Oneness is asserted of what is indivisible, whether it be in genus or in species or in accident or in relation or in subject or in definition. There is a manner in which the One in number could actually have multiplicity in it; in that case it would be one in composition and in combination; or it could potentially have multiplicity, in that case it is continuous and it is one in continuity; or it could be one as an absolute number. The multiple is the number opposed to one, and it is what contains one, though by definition is not one. It may be a multiple in an absolute sense, or in relation to something else. Then comes the curious statement that “the smallest number is two”. It is reflected in the assertion of many Islamic philosophers that one is not a number; and we find an ancient lexicographer saying and so one would not be a number. There could be two sources for this notion. There is first Plotinus who in the Fifth Ennead puts it down that “the One is not one of the units which make up the number Two”. There is also a gross mistranslation of a passage in Aristotle's Metaphysica where the translator who knew no Greek and was translating from Syriac, makes the statement that “one is not a number”. Although this was later corrected by another translator, the error for some reason persisted. However that may be, it became current in Islamic philosophy, and we find it continuously repeated. Unity, Avicenna says, is not the essence of anything. It is only an attribute that is necessary for its essence. Unity is not a constituent. Essence is one thing; and then it is qualified as being one and existing. Unity is the concomitant of a substance; it is subsequent to matter, or it is predicated of accidents.

As in his logic, Avicenna devotes a section of his metaphysics to the principles of definition and its relation to that which is being defined. He finds a special significance in definition and gives it an application much wider than the purely formal one. It is well to remember that though he is essentially a metaphysician, and logic does not occupy him excessively, he constantly uses logical distinctions and the whole resources of what was for him only an instrument and a tool in establishing the basis of his arguments and in constructing the vital points of his metaphysics. And he complains that “most of those who philosophize learn logic but do not use it, they ultimately revert to their intuitions”. He is also inclined to think in terms of thesis, anti-thesis. Carra de Vaux, writing some fifty years ago, drerw attention, to this and tried to show its similarity to the Kantian method of thought. The tendency is of course Aristotelian. It might also be thought that the form which philosophy had taken in Islamic lands had something to do with it. Thinking in terms of contraries as reflected in substance and accident, matter and form, potentiality and actuality, became a distinctive feature, almost a tradition that has persisted in the East down to modern times. It may be supposed that the inclination was strengthened by the polarity between philosophy and religion, which was a constant thought in the minds of Islamic thinkers. The accusation - so often repeated - that Avicenna was apt to compromise in his attempt to bring about a rapprochement with the principles of religious thought, loses its point when we find Gomperz describing Aristotle as the great compromiser.

The concept of being

With some preliminary problems surveyed, attention may now be directed to the fundamentals of Avicenna’s thesis. It was stated above that for him the concept of being is the first acquisition of the human mind. The knowledge of the concept of being is arrived at both subjectively and objectively. Even if we suppose ourselves to be in a state where we are completely unconscious of our body, we are still aware of the fact that we are and we exist. This is shown by the illustration of the man suspended in the air, to be described in the next chapter on Psychology. Objectively we gain the impression of being through sense-perception and physical contact with the things around us. Being is not a genus, Avicenna insists, and cannot therefore be divided into different species. But there are two elements to it; and these may be separate from one another or unified. One is essence and the other existence. This is so when we are trying to analyze being. But when we observe beings, we ask are they possible; and if necessary, are they so of their own account or is a result of some outside agency? And we come to the logical conclusion that beings may take three forms. They could be necessary, possible or impossible. But between what is necessary of itself and what is possible of itself and necessary through the action of some separate agent, there is an intervening process. And that what is commonly called creation. Is this process conscious and direct? It takes place necessarily, through successive stages of emanation proceeding from the supremely Necessary Being who is God. Let us now turn to the texts for further explanation.

The concept of being comprises both essence and existence. There is the reality of a thing which is the truth that is in it. And there is its essence which is that by which it is what it is. And there is its actual existence. Thus for a triangle there is a reality that is triangle, and for whiteness a reality that is whiteness. This may be called their particular existence, since what is meant by a thing is usually associated with the notion of existence, though in fact they are entirely separate. The idea of an existent, being accompanies a thing, because it either exists in the concrete, or in the imagination and the mind, otherwise it would not be athing. Could a thing be absolutely non-existent? If by that is meant existing in the concrete, then it may be allowed. A thing could be conceived by the mind and yet not exist among external things. But there cannot be a thing that the mind or the imagination cannot conceive. Information is always of what can be realized mentally; and of what is absolutely non-existent, no information can be given, neither in the form of an assertion nor of a negation. Should we suppose that there is some information, then the non-existent would have an attribute; and if there is an attribute, there must be that to which it is attributed. And that would mean that the non-existent exists, which is absurd. “Everything has a particular reality which is its essence; and it is known that the reality of everything which is particular to it, is other than the existence that goes with its assertion” .

Thus Avicenna transforms a logical distinction which Aristotle had drawn between essence and existence into an ontological distinction of great import. Was this an original contribution on his part? Some have declared it the first of the two outstanding contributions that he made in the field of metaphysics. Others have found traces of his distinction in Aristotle, in Plotinus and in Farabi. Avicenna himself nowhere claims to have been the first to make this distinction. But all throughout the East, and in Scholastic Europe as well, it has been associated with his name. The fact is that even if it did occur to others before him - and the significance of their statements has been stretched sometimes to prove that it did - none of them followed up the idea and applied it in the manner that he did. He drew conclusions from it that can hardly be attributed to any of his predecessors. And yet in none of his works do we find the subject treated as fully as might be desired. Perhaps in the Isharat - a late and reflective composition it is expressed best. Significantly, however, it is in discussing logic that he raises the matter, and he is quite conscious that it is essentially a logical distinction.

Take the subject-predicate statement. To attribute a certain quality to a subject does not necessarily imply that the significance of the quality is the same as that of the subject. If we say that figure is predicated of a triangle, that does not mean that the reality of the triangle is the same as that of the figure itself. An attribute maybe (i) essentially constitutive, i.e. necessary for the subject to be what it is. It enters the quiddity of a thing and is part of it, such as in the case of figure in relation to triangle, and body in relation to man. It is part of its definition, without which the thing cannot be conceived. It has nothing to do with the notion of existence. We can define and imagine man irrespective of the fact whether he exists in the concrete or not. Everything that has a quiddity can be believed to be existing in itself or imagined in the mind by having its part present with it. And if it has a reality other than the fact that it exists in one or other of these two forms, and that is not constituted by it, then existence becomes a notion that is added to its reality as a concomitant or otherwise. And the causes of its existence also are other than the causes of its quiddity. Thus humanity is in itself a certain reality and quiddity. Not that its existence, in the concrete or in the mind, is a constitutive of it. It is just a correlative. If it were a constitutive, it would be impossible to form a proper idea of its meaning without its constituent parts. We could not obtain for the notion of humanity an existence in the mind; and one would doubt if it actually exists in itself. No such difficulty occurs in the case of man, not because of our comprehension of the concept man but as a result of the sensible perception that we have of his parts.

These considerations have been compared with a passage in Aristotle where he raises similar questions. If, he asks, definition can prove what a thing is, can it also prove that it exists? And how could it prove essence and existence at the same time and by the same reasoning, since definition like demonstration makes known just one single thing at a time? What man is, is one thing; and the fact that he exists is another. This confirms our previous distinction was not new, and existed in Aristotle, but that Avicenna had the insight to apply it in the construction of a system that he was to make entirely his own. In philosophy as in many other things, the quest after originality is an idle pursuit. Ideas grow out of other ideas, they are suggested by random thoughts, and can be developed out of all recognition.

An attribute may also be (2,) accidental concomitant non-constitutive. In that case “it is what accompanies quiddity without being a part of it” such as in a triangle where the angles are equal to two right angles. Here again he gives an example which Aristotle had given in the Metaphysica. Or it may be (3) a non-concomitant accidental. The predicates that are neither constitutive nor con comitant are all those that can separate themselves from the subject, rapidly or slowly, easily or with difficulty, such as man being described as young or old, in a sitting or standing posture.

But what exactly is meant by essence for which Avicenna also sometimes uses the word reality) and at other times self? Essence is what is asserted by an answer to the question what is it. It should not be confused with the essential attributes of a thing which are more general. Logicians have failed to make the proper distinction. A thing may have many attributes, all of which are essential, yet it is what it is not by one but by the sum-total of all the essential attributes. He who asks the question seeks the quiddity of the thing which is found by adding up all the constituents. And there is a difference between what is expressed in answer to the question 'what is it?' and what is included in the answer by implication, and the particular manner in which it is said. What the questioner wants to know is the essence of the thing, and the meaning that is conveyed by its name, not its existence nor whether the name accords with it. The answer may take three forms. It may be (1) in an absolutely particular manner, as in the way a definition points out the quiddity of the name; thus a reasonable animal denotes man. Or the answer may be (2) according to the common factor found in different things. Or again it may be (3) according to the particular and the common factors together.

Thus Avicenna’s comprehension of essence does not differ much from that of Aristotle as found in Book Z of the Metaphysica. What was necessary and important for his chief argument was to stress its distinction from the notion of existence. Modern philosophers may think that the idea of essence is “purely linguistic”, and that a word may have an essence, but a thing cannot yet at that early stage the conception was real and helpful.

And what of the notion of existence? It is commonly supposed, Avicenna says, that the existent is what the senses perceive, and that it is impossible to accept the existence of what cannot be sensed in its substance: that that which is not identified by its place or position like a body, or with respect to that in which it is found, like the states of a body, has no share of existence. Only a little thought, however, is necessary to prove that this is not the case. Man inasmuch as he possesses a unique reality or rather inasmuch as his fundamental reality does not alter with numbers, is not something that the senses can perceive, but pure intelligible. And the same is the case for all universals. “All true being is true according to its essential reality. And it is agreed that He is One and cannot be pointed out. How then could what through Him attains all the truth of its existence”.

A thing may be caused in relation to its quiddity and reality, or it may be caused in its existence. For example the reality of a triangle is bound up with the plane surface and the line which is the side, and they constitute it in so far as it is a triangle. And it also has the reality of triangularity, and it might be thought that these two were its material and formal cause. But its existence depends on some other cause also besides these, that does not constitute its triangularity and is not part of its definition, and this is tile efficient or final cause; and the final cause is an efficient cause for the efficient cause.

In seeking to know whether a thing, such as a triangle represented by lines and a plane surface, exists in the concrete, it should be noted that the originating factor which brings about the existence of a thing that already has constitutive causes to its quiddity, may be the cause of some of these, such as in the case of form, or it may be what brings all of them into existence and unifies them into a whole. And the final cause on account of which the thing is, is a cause by means of its quiddity. For the idea which it represents belongs to the causality of the Efficient cause, and it is the effect of it in its existence. The efficient cause is a reason for the existence of the final cause, if the latter is one of the ends that actually take place. It is not the cause of its causality nor of the idea that it represents. It is thus seen that for Avicenna the efficient cause is the most decisive. Neither form nor matter nor the end could find precedence over the agent. And he immediately goes on to say: “If it is the First Cause, it is the cause of all existence, and of the cause of the reality of every existent thing in existence”.

And again, it is quite possible that the quiddity of a thing should be the cause of one of the attributes, or that one of the attributes be the cause of another; but it is not possible that the attribute denoting existence should be due to a quiddity that is not conditional on existence; or should be due to some other attribute. The reason for that is that the cause comes first, and there is nothing prior to existence itself. In other words existence is different from the other attributes in that quiddity exists as a result of existence, whereas the other attributes exist because of quiddity.

From an analysis of being into essence and existence, we turn to the different forms that being could take. It could be necessary, possible or impossible. Being is not a genus and these are not its species. Subjectively they are the different forms in which being is mentally conceived, objectively they represent the different ways in which they are related to one another. All things that we sensibly apprehend may be thought to be necessary. But are they necessary by themselves? They possess no power to make themselves so. They are possible beings in themselves that have been made necessary. And this could be effected only through the power of some intervening force that would have to be a necessary being independently and by itself. Hence the possible beings that were made necessary were caused; and the agent that made them so was the cause; and being the prime agent he is the First Cause. Again the question arises whether this classification of being according to the forms that it takes was or was not an original contribution in the field of metaphysics. Opposed to those who have declared it the second original contribution of Avicenna, are those scholars who insist that mere are traces of this idea in Farabi, moreover the whole idea, may have been suggested by the claim of the theologians who basing themselves on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, placed the world and indeed all creation in the category of the possible. Again, it is a distinction already anticipated in Aristotelian logic to which Avicenna gave an ontological sense and which in his own special way he applied to new and fruitful fields.

In a proposition there are three essential parts, the subject, the predicate, and that which denotes the relation between the two. According to another division, and this is not Aristotelian, there is a matter and a mode to every proposition; and each of these may be necessary, possible or impossible. The necessary matter represents a state of the predicate in its relation to the subject, where it becomes necessary without any doubt, and at all times. The truth will be always in the affirmative and the negative will be out of consideration, such as the state of “the animal” in man. The impossible matter represents a state of the predicate where the truth is always in the negative, contrary to the first, and the affirmative is not to be considered, such as the state of “the stone” in man. And the possible matter is a state of the predicate where the truth whether in the affirmative or negative is not permanent and for all time, such as the state of the writer in man. It may also be said that the possible is that on which there has been no judgmen passed in the past and in the present, but there may be one in future. With regard to the modes, the necessary denotes continuation of existence; the impossible “continuation of non-existence”; and the possible indicates neither the one nor the other. “The difference between mode and matter”, he adds, “is that mode is a term fully expressed indicating one of these notions. And matter is a state of the proposition in itself, not expressed, and the two may not agree”. In other words in one and the same judgment, the mode and the matter might differ. For instance in the statement “Zaid could possibly be an animal” the matter is necessary and the mode possible.

The impossible need not detain us, since existence is better known than non-existence. The way in which Avicenna’s predecessors and he may be referring to the theologians here attempted to define the necessary and the possible was most unsatisfactory. “If they want to define the possible, they take in its definition either the necessary or the impossible and if they want to define the necessary, they take in its definition either the possible or the impossible”. They are apt to argue in a circle. The common people understand by possible what is not impossible, without determining whether it is necessary or not; and by the not possible what is impossible. And everything for them is either possible or impossible with no third situation. But specialists found a notion of what is neither necessary nor impossible. Here he introduces what we take to be the idea of contingency, though some scholars insist that there is no notion of contingency in Avicennian thought. He calls it possibility in the special sense, distinct from the common idea of it.

Necessity is divided into the absolute and the conditional. Absolute necessity is such as in the statement “God exists”. The conditional might be dependent upon whether the existence of the thing continues, as when we say: “Man is necessarily a talking animal”, we mean so long as he lives. Or the condition might be the continuance of the subject being qualified by what was stated with it, such as “everything that moves changes” which does not mean absolutely, nor as long as it exists, but so long as the movable continues to move. These divisions and subdivisions which he is so fond of making, might be thought evident in some cases and superfluous in others, but he attached importance to them in building up his argument.

With the logical basis established, there remains its transposition to the plane of metaphysics, and its application for the purpose in view. Definition is essential. “Thenecessary being is that being which when supposed to be not existing, an impossibility occurs from it. And a possible being that which when supposed to be not existing or existing an impossibility does not occur from it”. Here again there are distinctions to be made. A necessary being may or may not be necessary in itself. When it is necessary “in essence” the supposition of its non-existence becomes an impossibility; but when not necessary in essence, it is something that only when put with another besides itself, becomes necessary. For instance the number four is not necessary in essence, it becomes necessary only when two and two are put together. Combustion is not necessary in essence, it becomes necessary only when fire and some inflammable material are brought into contact with one another. In like manner a possible being may be possible in the sense that in its existence or non-existence there is no element of impossibility; or in the sense that it is something potential and may develop into some sort of being; or still, it may stand for all things that are in their proper existence. This last sense was the one field by the theologians. Furthermore, a thing cannot be a necessary being in essence, and together with something else simultaneously. For in the latter case, if that other thing is removed, it would cease to be a necessary being. So it may be said that “everything that is a necessary being through association with something else, is itself a possible being in essence”. Obviously this is because the necessity of its existence is bound up with and follows from some association or relation with another thing. And association and relation cannot have the same consideration as the essence of the thing itself. Consideration of the essence alone may be applicable to the necessity of a being’s existence, to the possibility of it, or to the impossibility of it. The last case must be ruled out, since that thing the existence of which is impossible in its essence, cannot exist in association with another thing either. There remain only the first two cases.

It was said that all necessary being through association with what is other than itself, becomes in essence a possible being. The inverse also is true, and “all possible being in essence, once it attains existence, becomes a necessary being in association with another”. The reason for that is that it either actually attains existence or does not. If it fails to do so it would be an impossible being. On the other hand, if it does actually attain existence, then that existence must be either necessary or not. If it is true, then it is considered a possible being with an equal chance of existence and non-existence. But it was originally in that state and it came into existence. It may therefore be concluded that the fact that it has come into existence proves that its emergence into existence was a necessity. And again, the existence of a possible being is either through its essence or as a result of some particular cause. If it is through its essence, then that would be a necessary not a possible being. If it is through some cause, then it cannot exist without that cause, but together with it. And so what is a possible being in essence, would be a necessary being in association with what is other than itself.

We have followed Avicenna’s reasoning in order to show the manner in which he draws the distinction between the necessary and the possible being and the relation between the two. It might be thought fthat the differentiation with its logical origin and form is more linguistic than real, but he has his arguments what makes a necessary being really necessary. Nor is the religious application far to seek. God is the Necessary Being. All creations are possible beings brought into existence through a process and for a reason that was absolutely necessary; and through association with what is a necessary being, they became themselves necessary. Furthermore, when the distinction between essence and existence is applied to necessary and possible beings, it is found that it is only in possible beings that they are different. In God as the Necessary Being they are one and the same. Actuality and potentiality are closely related to the distinction between necessary and possible. Actuality may be equated with the necessary being and potentiality with the possible. “We call the possibility of being the potentiality of being, and we call the bearer of the potentiality of being which possesses the power of the existence of the thing, a subject and prime matter”. And as such, “the necessary being is the Truth in essence always; and the possible being is true in virtue of something besides itself”. That which is a necessary being in essence “is pure truth because the reality of everything is the particularity of its existence”. Furthermore, as actuality, the Necessary Being is pure Good; and has no cause like possible beings. Its existence is not conditional upon anything other than itself. It does not stand in relation to any other thing, nor it is changeable, or multiple, or in association with anything other than its own essence”.

The concept of creation

Between the Necessary Being and all possible beings there was a stage and a process involved. That is what is called creation. Here Avicenna is on delicate ground, and comes face to face with one of the most challenging and uncompromising problems in the conflict between-religion and philosophy.

The concept of creation ex nihilo is not Greek, and Aristotle did not produce any theory about this. Yet as a fundamental principle of religion it could not be lightly dismissed. Was there a possibility of reconciling the claim that the world was eternal, and the doctrine that it was created by God through His own wish and will out of total non-existence? Farabi had thought that he could take an intermediate position by doubting that Aristotle really meant that the world was eternal; and by adopting the theory propounded in the so-calledTheology of Aristotle, actually parts of the Enneads of Plotinus. There creation was explained in Neo-Platonic fashion as successive stages of emanation proceeding from God. Avicenna, who was to take the same view with some minor modifications, had to reason it out for himself. With his rational temperament he was deeply attached to Aristotle; but he was reluctant to depart from such an essential principle in his Faith. He had already assured himself that there is such a thing as mattter. Was this matter to be considered eternal as Aristotle had taught, or created as the theologians, justifiably from their point of view, insisted? Here, he thought, there are some distinctions to be made. A thing may be eternal according to essence, or it may be eternal with respect to time. According to the former it is that whose essence has no origin from which it exists; and with respect to the latter it is that for whose age there was no beginning. And the word created also has two distinct meanings that should not be confounded. In one sense it is that for whose essence there was an origin by which it exists; and in the other it is that for the age of which there was a beginning, and there was a time when it did not exist. A prior-period during which it was non-existent, and that prior period was terminated, Hence there is a notion of time involved in the whole matter. Let us follow this argument.

Everything that had for its existence a temporal beginning aside from a creative beginning, must have been preceded by time and matter; and previous to that was altogether non-existent. Its non-existence could not have been together with its existence. It must have been earlier, which means that there was a period prior to its existence which has expired and is no more. And what constitutes that period is either a quiddity to itself' which in this case is time, or a quiddity to something other than itself, which is its time. In both cases it is a proof of the existence of time.

Subscribing to the Aristotelian conception of the eternity of matter, it may be shown that all temporal creation is invariably preceded by it. To be created everything must needs have been a possible being in itself; and it has been stated that the possibility of being is the potentiality of being. It does not depend on the ability or inability of the agent to create. The two things are entirely distinct, and the agent cannot create unless the thing is in itself possible. Now the notion of the possibility of being can exist only in relation to what is possible to it. It is not a substance in itself, it is a notion present in a subject and an accident to it. And that subject which is in a potential state is what we call primary matter. (And so every created thing is preceded by matter)

If matter is eternal then creation can no more be ex nihilo. But what exactly is meant by creation? “Creation means nothing except existence after non-existence”. The non-existence of the thing is not a condition, it is just an attribute and an accident. And after coming into existence, it becomes either a necessary or a not-necessary being. So a thing in so far as its existence is said to have been from non-existence, need not have a cause in itself. Contrary to what people suppose, “the cause is for the existence only”. If it so happens that it was previously a non-existent thing, it becomes a creation in itself, otherwise it should not be called a creation. So the agent whom the people call the Agent is not given that name for the reasons that they proffer. He is not an agent only because he is the cause, but due to the fact that he is the cause and a necessary being at the same time. The two are interrelated. But does cause always precede the effect? It should be realized that “the essential causes of a thing that bring about the actual existence of the essence of that thing, must be together with it and not precede it in existence”. In other words cause and effect in this case are simultaneous. This is the meaning of what philosophers call bringing into original existence. And he uses the term preferred by the Falasifa to what the theologians called creation. In the case of this originating act which implies bringing something to be after an absolute non-beingness, there is no priority in time whatever between cause and effect. There is only priority in essence; so that “every effect comes to be after not-being with a posteriority in essence”. While the notion of creation to which the religious-minded were committed implied that the process is conditioned by a priority in time.

But if there is no priority in time, why and how could there be a priority in essence? Like all beings, a cause also may be either necessary in its essence or necessary through some other thing than that. In the latter case once it attains necessity, another may proceed from it. Should that come to pass, the effect would be in essence possible, and the cause in essence either necessary or possible. If it should be necessary, then its existence would be more true than the existence of the possible. And if it is possible, then the effect is not necessary in itself, but becomes so through it. In all cases the cause would be prior in essence, and it would be also more true than the effect.

In full agreement with the Stagirite, Avicenna holds that the chain of causation cannot be traced indefinitely. All the Islamic philosophers had insisted on and emphasized that point. There must needs be a first cause, who is the cause of all causes, and can only be God. He is the efficient cause - a point winch the theologians liked to stress. But contrary to their declarations, God is also the final cause. Aristotle had said practically the same thing, if not in the same words. In fact He is the efficient cause by being the final cause as well. Moreover, just as it is impossible to retrace the original cause indefinitely, in like manner it is not possible to follow the end indefinitely. God is thus the cause of all causes and the end of all ends. He is the final cause in the sense that He is something that always is to be.

There is no point in what “the infirm among the Mutakallumun” say. According to their view there are two different states to the thing on which the agent, who grants existence after non-existence, has acted. There is first a previous non-existence, and second an existence in the present. Surely the agent could have had no influence upon it during its state of non-existence; and his influence began only after it was brought into existence. The fact that it was non-existent in its essence could not have been due to the influence of the agent. Now if it be imagined that the influence coming from the agent, and which constitutes the bringing into existence of what did not exist, did not take place because the thing existed eternally, then in that case the agent would be even more omnipotent because his action would have been eternally in progress.

And again, they claim that the act is not legitimate and proper except after the non-existence of that which has been acted upon. Although it was shown that non-existence could not be from the agent, only existence is. The thing which it is claimed that a creator brings into existence, may be described as his creation and useful for his own being, either in its state of non-existence or existence, or in both states. Evidently there could be no creator to what was still in the state of non-existence. There is a creator only for what exists. In which case the creator would be the creator of the existent. Hence for Avicenna as for Plato and Aristotle, God’s act of creation meant the giving of form to pre-existent matter. He was an artificer rather than a creator ex nihilo, a conception for which the religious-minded never forgave him.

God gives form to pre-existent matter through the agency of the active intelligence which is the Giver of Forms. Theologians may teach that God as the efficient cause is in the act of continually creating accidents that subsist only through His action. Yet it is only when a new disposition makes matter ready to receive a new form that the old one disappears and God through the active intelligence grants a new form. Thus the Almighty is omnipotent but He does not create ex nihilo.

These considerations are meant to prepare the way for the proof of the existence of God which for Avicenna is the consummation of all metaphysical speculation. To be better appreciated, they should be viewed with relation to Greek thought on the one hand, and orthodox religious doctrine on the other. His most renowned proof grew out of the distinction between essence and existence, and the threefold classification of being. There is no doubt, he repeats, that there is existence; and that every existing being could be either necessary or possible. If it is necessary, it would be what we seek; if it is possible, it would be for us to show that it originated from a being that must be necessary. There cannot be for an essentially possible being, essentially possible causes without end at one time. The chain of causation cannot be retraced indefinitely. So long as it is a possible being unable to produce itself, there must be some original being that was able to give it existence. And that original being could not be within it, because it is itself a possible being, in whole or in part, that owes its existence to something else. It must therefore be separate. And the original being must be the cause of its own existence and able to produce itself. It must therefore be a necessary being, otherwise it could not have these qualifications and capacities. The chain of causation ends in him, and that indicates his existence; and the conditions of his being cannot but make him a necessary being. If he were not necessary, how then could he be the cause of his own existence and able to proceed from himself?

And again, supposing all beings were possible. They would either have to be created or uncreated. If they be uncreated, then the cause of their permanent existence must be either in their essence or in something else. If in their essence, they would be necessary beings, if in something else then possible beings. If they be created, then there must be a cause for their creation and a cause for their permanence; and the cause of both may be the same. Then the same argument holds good with regard to the cause of their permanence. Again the chain of causation cannot be retraced indefinitely; and the cause of their permanence will end in a necessary being that gives permanence to created beings. It may be argued that Avicenna starts with certain assumptions that may or may not be warranted. These are the religious claims that were bound to influence him and which he could not ignore. The theologians maintained that the world and all therein was in the category of the possible. He accepts that, and upon it as a basis constructs his argument that the existence of possible being necessitates the existence of a necessary being, who is the first cause and the originator of all.

He did not reject the Aristotelian proof of God as the Unmoved Mover. In his own Physics he developed the same thought with certain modifications that were to infuriate the more faithful Aristotelian that Averroes was. There are three causes to movement: nature, will and force. Natural movement is from an unsuitable state to a suitable state. Hence it is not itself a cause unless it combined with something in actu. Will in order to be the cause of movement must be permanent and all-embracing, and at the same time be an active will in the nature of authority and command that can originate movement. Force can be ultimately reduced to the nature and will of the mover. And even in the case of attraction and repulsion and such-like, it originates in the mover. Hence the necessity which Avicenna so much emphasized in the case of existence, applies equally in the case of movement and points to the existence of a necessary First Mover. Furthermore it is through the will of the Mover - so essential according to the religious view that all existing things move.

With the existence of the Necessary Being established, and the meaning of creation explained, it remains to be seen how the act takes place, and the world proceeds from God.

Brief reference was made to the way in which Farabi under Neo-Platonic influence approached the problem. Avicenna follows along practically the same lines though more resourcefully and comprehensively. He had concurred with Aristotle’s view that the world was eternal, and agreed with the theologians that it was in the realm of the possible, and hence owed its existence to some cause. Was there a contradiction involved? None whatever. Creation presupposes possibility, but possibility is not a substance and cannot exist separately and independently. The notion of possibility as an accident can only reside in a subject, and that subject is matter. And we saw how the existence of matter may be shown to be eternal. Therefore possibility and creation are co-eternal with matter. Or again, since the priority of the Necessary Being over the world of possible beings was not a priority in time, as the theologians maintained, but like cause over effect, a priority in essence and rank, then God and the world are co-eternal.

Here a problem is posed. If it be accepted as a principle that from one nothing can proceed except one, and God is One, how does the world with all its multiplicity proceed from Him? Here the Neo-Platonic theory of emanation proved helpful. It was in itself a congenial conception that came to be adopted by Islamic mystics, and after that generally accepted. From the Necessary Being who is one, and not a body nor in a body; and not divisible nor to be defined, there proceeds trough emanation the first caused which is also a pure intelligence. But how exactly does this act of emanation take place? Thinking or contemplation, for the separate substances, is equivalent to creation and produces the same results. The idea precedes the actual thing. The Necessary Being by an act of pure reflection creates the first intelligence which like Him is one and simple. He ponders His own essence, and from that there results this act of creation. The capacity to think and as a consequence create is not special to the Necessary Being, it is equally true of and shared by the intelligences. And the first intelligence by reflection upon itself, produces the first cause. But there is a difference to be noted. The first intelligence, because it is itself created, is possible in its essence, and necessary only in association with the Necessary Being. In so far as it is necessary, when it reflects upon its essence, the soul of the particular sphere proceeds from it. And in so far as it is possible, when it reflects upon its essence, the body of the particular sphere proceeds from it. It is only in this manner that multiplicity comes to take place. And it is this twofold feature of the first intelligence that is the cause of it. It in no wise emanates from the Necessary Being himself directly. Hence the first intelligence that possesses necessity as a result of its emanation from the Necessary Being, and possibility as a result of its proper essence, is one and multiple at the same time.

In a similar manner and by a similar process, a second intelligence emanates from it with the same qualities. The soul of the first sphere that emanates from the first intelligence, is the form of the celestial sphere and the cause of its perfection. And the body of it is due to the potentiality that resides in that intelligence. Thus three things emanate from the first intelligence: (1) the second intelligence, (2) the soul of the first sphere which is its form, and (3) the body of it which is its matter. A similar triad proceed from the second intelligence, i.e. a third intelligence, and the form and body of another sphere. The process continues in succession until it ends in the intelligence from which our souls emanate, and it is the intelligence of the terrestrial world, and we call it the active intelligence. But why does not the process continue indefinitely creating new and more intelligences and spheres? This is because the world is finite; and the series of emanations stop where the world requires no more intelligences, and where the last presides over the generation and corruption of the elements. Though according to the belief of the first teacher (i.e. Aristotle), they were about fifty and more, and their last was the active intelligence, there were only ten intelligences in addition to the first cause. And what is the object of these successive emanations from the Necessary Being? The purpose is not governed by blind necessity, but by a conscious necessity meant to establish order and the good of the world. And what is the exact relation between these intelligences? They are not all of the same species, but their succession is governed by necessity and determined by their essence, not by time. In fact we should not think in terms of time, “whose accidentality and attachment to movement was proved to you”. Every intelligence has its sphere independently with its matter and form which is the soul of it. But they differ in rank and order, and one is more to dc preferred than the other. Nor are they according to their significance entirely the same. Even in substantial things, the element of time is to be belittled. “The genesis of a thing is from another thing, not the sense of being after a thing, but that in the second there is an element of the first included in its substance and it is the part corresponding to its potentiality in fact one is not prior in essence to the other, the priority being only by accident, and in consideration of its individuality not its species”

The function of the soul of a sphere, in which Plotinus and Leibnitz among others believed, was to constitute the form and the entelechy or perfection of every sphere. Not a separate substance, for in that case it would be an intelligence and not a soul. It is not able to cause motion at all except by way of provoking desire. It is not affected by the movement of the body and would not be associated with the faculty of the imagination of that body. If it were separate in essence and in action, it would be the soul of everything and not only of that body. In other words the creative power is in the intelligence which is separate, and not in the soul which as the proximate cause brings about movement. Its conceptions and will are in constant renewal, having the capacity for it in each individual case. The distant cause remains the intelligence, though the immediate one is the soul. It is in alteration, changeable, and not separate from matter. And its relation to the sphere is similar to the relation of the animal soul which we have to ourselves. Thus the proximate cause of the motion of the heavenly spheres is neither nature nor intelligence, but the soul.

Finally, it may be asked if different bodies are made of a common matter, and individual species take the same form, on what basis does individuation take place? This is in consequence of the matter which under the influence of outside agencies develops a disposition and potentiality to receive the form that it that it merits. When marked by a determined quantity it becomes appropriate to take a particular form.