Philosophy
Mansour Imanpour
Abstract
Introduction
Undoubtedly, the relations between existing entities can be viewed from various perspectives. One such perspective is the theory of causation and its implications. By adhering to this principle, Muslim philosophers engage in accounting for the relations between existents and existential ...
Read More
Introduction
Undoubtedly, the relations between existing entities can be viewed from various perspectives. One such perspective is the theory of causation and its implications. By adhering to this principle, Muslim philosophers engage in accounting for the relations between existents and existential realms. This has faced them with puzzling questions, including the one pertaining to the relationship between constant (thābit) and changeable (mutaghayyir) existents.
To illustrate, it should be noted that, in Islamic philosophy, existential realms are generally divided into the realm of purely immaterial entities and that of material entities. On another division, they are partitioned into three realms: intellectual (ʿaqlī), imaginal (mithāl), and natural. The relations between entities existing in these realms is explained in terms of the principle of causation. Now, the question arises: given one of the implications of this principle, namely impossibility of the deviation of an effect from its cause, how could actual changeable entities in the natural world be issued forth from a constant immaterial entity? Let us elaborate the question as follows: in the natural world, there are various types of changes, including “generation” (kawn) and “corruption” (fisād), accidental changes (that is, changes in accidents or properties [aʿrāḍ]), and as per Mullā Ṣadrā’s view, substantial changes (changes in substance or jawhar). It goes without saying that if the changeable entity in question is attributed to a constant unchanging complete cause, then the effect has indeed deviated from its cause in two ways: (a) Why, despite the existence of the cause, does the changing effect, which is a part or stage of the motion, become nonexistent and deviate from its complete cause? (b) Why, despite the existence of the complete cause, does the effect (namely, the motion with all its parts) fail to become existent and deviate from its cause?
Muslim philosophers have offered various theories to solve this predicament. These theories were subject to debates over the history of Islamic philosophy. Many articles and books have been written in this regard, each tackling a dimension or some dimensions of this problem.
This article does not aim to reiterate or provide a literature review of these solutions. Instead, it provides a brief classification and analysis of these theories and then yields a novel theory by drawing upon the philosophical principles of Mullā Ṣadrā.
Research Methodology
This article begins with a classification and analysis of the accounts provided by the main books and studies on this question by deploying the descriptive and analytical method. Finally, it makes a case for a novel theory in terms of a final formulation of the theory of substantial motion (al-ḥarakat al-jawhariyya).
Discussion and Results
The problem of the relation between changeable and constant entities is proposed within the framework of Islamic philosophy, particularly its rendition of the law of causation and its implications. To address this formidable challenge, Muslim philosophers have proposed various accounts in terms of their philosophical principles and structures. However, these solutions have often faced challenges, either based on their assumptions in natural sciences or due to the structure and content of their solutions.
The finding of this article regarding the problem of relation between constant and changeable entities in terms of Mullā Ṣadrā’s Transcendent Philosophy is that, in final analysis, the problem involves two types of an effect’s deviation from its cause: (1) Despite the constancy of the cause, one part or stage of the effect becomes nonexistent, and (2) despite the existence of the constant cause, all parts or stages of the cause fail to become existent.
As for (1), it may be suggested that the renewed effect emanating from the constant cause does not lose any perfection. This way, it does not deviate from its cause. What becomes nonexistent in this process is not an existential perfection but an imperfection or flaw, the negation of which amounts to some sort of affirmation. Accordingly, in this process of continuous flourishing, the moving existence does not come to lack a perfection or an actuality, and hence, the effect does not deviate from its cause by losing part of it despite the cause’s existence. However, it is not straightforward to address (2), since it may be said that the realization of a subsequent part or stage of something depends on the realization of its preceding part or stage. That being the case, the failure of the subsequent parts and stages to come to existence in the first stage is not a deviation of the effect from its cause, but is because its condition or its preparatory cause has failed to exist. This means that, in this case too, the effect has not indeed deviated from its complete cause.
Conclusion
“Substantial motion” ultimately goes back to the evolution of a substantial existence. This perfection-seeking existence does not drive itself from potentiality to actuality; that is, it does not bestow perfection upon itself. It always has an emanating, perfection-giving entity that continuously emanates forms upon it, compensating its deficiencies and promoting its existence. During this continuous emanation, what happens to the changing effect is that its existence is constructed and becomes thriving. In this process, none of its parts or perfections disappear, and hence, no deviation from the cause occurs. Moreover, the emanating cause is not an absolute unconstrained for the subsequent parts or stages. Thus, their absence in the realm of the first part or stage does not count as deviation from the complete cause. On this account, the constant entity emanates an existence that inherently involves change, in light of which the existential perfection does not disappear, and hence, no deviation from the cause occurs.
zeinab zargooshi; reza rezazadeh; majid ziaei
Abstract
Inquiry into Some Metaphors of Causality in Philosophy of Suhrawardi Introduction This research aims at investigating some specific metaphorical applications of the concept of causality in Suhrawardi's philosophy, basically referring to the theory of conceptual metaphor.Hitherto, two traditional ...
Read More
Inquiry into Some Metaphors of Causality in Philosophy of Suhrawardi Introduction This research aims at investigating some specific metaphorical applications of the concept of causality in Suhrawardi's philosophy, basically referring to the theory of conceptual metaphor.Hitherto, two traditional and contemporary theories have been discussed in this regard. Regarding the traditional theory represented by Aristotle Metaphor, it can be regarded as the use of the name of something for something else.According to this view, the reason why one word is used instead of another is a pre-existing and objective similarity between the two phenomena.Contemporary metaphor theory holds that,in addition to objective similarity,non-objective similarities, the creation of similarities by the mind and the correlation in experience are bases for the formation of metaphors. In Suhrawardi's philosophy, causality has been conceptualized as a key philosophical concept with the help of various metaphors. Research Questions This research tries to answer basic questions: How Suhrawardi used metaphor in conceptualizing causality?What metaphors have been used in Suhrawardi's philosophy to conceptualize causality?And, finally,what is the connection between the symbol in Suhrawardi's philosophy and metaphor? Research Hypothesis -Suhrawardi has used metaphor in conceptualizing causality. -In Suhrawardi's philosophy, the metaphors of "causality is Illumination","causality is the Forced Movement","causality is the Transfer Of Possessions"," causality is to generate" and"causality is to build" were used to conceptualize causality. -The basis of metaphor formation is different.In Suhrawardi's philosophy,a metaphor whose formation is based on the inherent similarity between the two phenomena is regarded as symbol. Accordingly, the metaphors of "causality is Illumination", "causality is to generate” and"causality is to build” are symbolic metaphors. Method The research method in this paper is analytical, comparative and somehow critical.The research tool is the authoritative books and articles.Through these references, we first obtained the principles and foundations of the theory of conceptual metaphors.In the next step, we extracted the conceptual metaphors of causality.Afterwards, we studied the conceptual metaphors of causality in Suhrawardi philosophy.In the final step, the relationship between the theory of conceptual metaphor and the discussion of symbol in Suhrawardi's philosophy is examined. Results Suhrawardi has used various metaphors to describe and conceptualize causality. The introduced metaphors are only a part of the metaphors of causality in Suhrawardi's works. in fact, he is a descriptor in some of the causal metaphors.In some causal metaphors, causality is described by illumination.Immaterial effects such as ray and material effects such as shadoware depicted. Motion schema is one of the most widely used image schemas for conceptualizing abstract concepts. In the philosophy of illumination, the Forced Movement is used to illustrate causality.The metaphor of "causality is the transfer of Possessions " can also be seen in the works of Shaykh al-Ishrag.The experience of creating/generating is also one of the conventional experiences that Shaykh al-Ishrag uses to describe causality.In this metaphor, causes are conceptualized as parents and effects as child.Causality is also depicted by the metaphor of "causality is to build".According to the metaphor of "causality is illumination ", there is a similarity between cause and effect.But, according to the metaphor of "causality is the transfer of Possessions " which has three components, a kind of demarcation between cause and effect is associated.The use of the metaphor of "causality is to build" also associates inconsistency and dissimilarity between cause and effect. The most widely used metaphor in Suhrawardi's philosophy for conceptualizing causality is the metaphor of "causality is illumination".The discussion of metaphor is also related to the discussion of symbol. In Suhrawardi's philosophy, a metaphor whose formation is based on the inherent similarity between two phenomena is called symbol.The metaphors "causality is illumination","causality is to generate"and "causality is to build” are of this type. The sun and human in the material world are similar to Immaterials and are symbols of Immaterial.Thus, the causality of Immaterials is conceptualized in the following terms:sunshine and human characteristics such as generating and construction. But, the basis of metaphor is not always the inherent similarity betweenthe two phenomena. On the contrary; sometimes, the human mind creates similarities.The human mind depicts attributes as objects and causality as the transfer of objects, and on this basis the metaphor "causality is the transfer of Possessions " is formed.The basis of metaphor can also be co-occurrencein experience.The co-occurrence between change and motion in conventional experience causes that causality, which is a kind of change in the state of effect to be illustrated as motion. Besides, based on this, the metaphor of "causality is Forced Movement" is formed.
