Bidayah Al-hikmah (arabic-english) [the Elements of Islamic Metaphysics]{edited}

المرحلة الثامنة في انقسام الموجود إلى الواحد و الكثير

CHAPTER EIGHT: The Division of Existence into One and Many

10 Units

8.1. THE MEANING OF ‘ONE’ AND ‘MANY’

The truth is that the concepts of unity (wahdah) and multiplicity (katsrah)  - as with the concepts of existence, contingency and the like - are general concepts, which are impressed on the mind with a primary impression (i.e. without the mediation of any intermediary concepts). Hence such definitions of them as have been suggested - such as, “The one is that which is indivisible, from the aspect of its indivisibility,” and “The many is that which is divisible, from the aspect of its divisibility” - are verbal definitions. For it they were taken to be true definitions, they would not be free from defect due to the dependence of the concept of ‘one’ on that of ‘what is divisible,’ which is the same as ‘many,’ and the dependence of the concept of ‘many1 on that of ‘divisible,’ which is identical with it. Unity is the mode of indivisibility, and multiplicity that of divisibility.

Note

Unity coincides with existence from the viewpoint of extension (mishdâq), but differs from it in respect of intension (mafhûm). Hence every existent qua existent is one, in the same way as every ‘one’ qua ‘one’ is existent.

An objection may be raised here which may be stated as follows: The division of unconditioned (muthlaq) existence into ‘one’ and ‘many’ implies that what is ‘many’ should as well be existent like the ‘one,’ for it is a division of existence. It also implies that ‘many’ is other than ‘one,’ being different from it; for the two are divisions, and divisions necessarily exclude one another. It follows that some existents that are ‘many’ in respect of their multiplicity are not ‘one.’ This contradicts the statement that “every existent is one.”

The answer to this objection is that ‘one’ here possesses two different considerations (i’tibâr). In one consideration it is considered in itself, without comparing it with ‘many,’ and this includes that which is ‘many.’ Therefore, ‘many’ qua existent is ‘one,’ and it has one existence. That is why it yields to enumeration, as when we say, for instance, one dozen, two dozen and so on, or one set, two sets, three sets and so on. There is another consideration for ‘one’ wherein it is opposed to ‘many’ and contrary to it.

To explain, at one time we consider existence in itself and as being opposed to absolute non-existence. In this consideration it becomes identical with ‘externality’ and the mode of possession of external properties (atsâr). At another time we consider it in a manner wherein we either find it as possessing its external properties or lacking these properties (though in the latter case, too, it. possesses certain other properties). Accordingly, we consider this latter kind of existence when compared to external as ‘mental,’ which does not possess the external properties, and the existence to which it is compared as ‘external existence,’ which possesses the external properties. Yet this does not contradict the statement that ‘existence coincides with reality and externality,’ which is identical with the possession of properties.

In the same way, at times we take the concept of ‘one’ in a non-conditional and non-comparative sense, wherein we find it as coinciding with ‘existence’ extensionally. Hence everything that is existent is ‘one’ in respect of its existence. At other times, we view being as marked with unity

in a certain state and without being marked with it in another state (for instance, a numerically single man, and a number of men who make up a multitude when compared to one man, and make up a multitude in opposition to one, which is a unit of the multitude). This does not contradict the previous statement that ‘one’ coincides with non-conditioned existence, and ‘one’ here has a general and absolute meaning that is non-comparative.

8.2. THE KINDS OF ‘ONE’

‘One’ is either: (i) ‘literal’ (haqîqî ), or: (ii) ‘figurative’ (ghayr haqîqî ). The ‘literal one’ is something which is itself qualified with unity, without needing the mediation of an intermediary in such qualification, e.g. an individual human being. The ‘figurative^ one’ is the contrary of it, e.g. man and horse when reckoned as ‘one’ by virtue of their being animals.

The ‘literal one’ is either: (ia ) such that its essence (dzâ t) is qualified with unity, or: (ib ) its essence is unity itself. The first kind of ‘literal one’ (ia ) is called ‘non-true one’ (al-wahîd gbayr al-haqq), e.g. one man. The second (ib ) is called ‘true unity’ (al-wahdat al-haqqah), such as the unity of anything taken in its absoluteness, whereat unity becomes identical with its essence. Therefore, one and unity are one thing in it.

The one with a non-true unity is either: (ia l ) a ‘particularized one,’ or: (ia 2) a ‘generalized one.’ The first is what is numerically one, and it is that which forms a number through repetition. Instances of the second are one species and one genus.

The ‘particularized one’ is either: (ia 1a ) such that it is indivisible from the aspect of the nature qualified with unity, apart from being indivisible from the aspect of its unity, or: (ia 1b) it is divisible. Of the first is: (ia 1a1 ) the concept of unity and indivisibility itself or (ia la 2 ) something else. That something else either (ia la 2a ) has a spatial location, e.g. a (geometric) point, or (ia la 2b ) it does not e.g. something which is immaterial. That which is immaterial is either: (ia la 2b l ) attached in some manner to matter, e.g. the soul, or (ia la 2b 2 ) it is not, e.g. the Intellect.

The second (i.e., ia lb ), which accepts division from the aspect of its nature (qualified with unity), either (ia lb l ) yields to division by itself, e.g. a unit quantity, or (ia lb 2) yields to it accidentally, e.g. a natural body from the aspect of its quantity.

The ‘generalized one’ (ia 2 ) is either: (ia 2a ) a generalized one in terms of concept, or is: (ia 2b) generalized in terms of existential expanse. The first is either: (ia 2a l ) specific (such as the unity of ‘man’), or (ia 2a 2 ) generic (such as the unity of ‘animal’), or (ia 2a 3) accidental (such as the unity of ‘walker’ and ‘laugher’).

The ‘generalized one in the sense of existential expanse’ is the all-pervading existence.

As to that which is one figuratively - i.e. that which is qualified by unity accidentally through something else - it has a kind of union with that which is literally one, e.g. Zayd and Amr, who are one in respect of belonging to the species ‘man,’ or man and horse, which are one in respect of belonging to the genus ‘animal.’ The terms for the figurative one differ in accordance with the aspect of the accidental unity. Thus unity in the sense of belonging to a certain species is called ‘homospecific’ (tamâtsul), in the sense of belonging to a genus ‘homogeny’ (tajânus ), with respect to quality ‘similarity’ (tasyâbuh ), with respect to quantity ‘equality’ (tasâwî ), with respect to position ‘homology’ (tawâzî ), and with respect to relation ‘symmetry of relation’ (tanâsub ). It is evident that every one of these divisions exists. This is how the philosophers have described this classification.

8.3. PREDICATION

Identity (al-huwa huwiyyah, lit. it-is-itness) is one of the characteristics of unity, in the same way as otherness (ghayriyyah) is among the characteristics of multiplicity.

Further, identity signifies unity in a certain aspect by the side of difference in some other aspect. This is what predication is, and it implies that predication is correct between any two different things that have some kind of unity between them. Common usage has however restricted predication to two cases wherein unity is subsequent to difference.

One of them is when the subject and the predicate are one in respect of intension and quiddity, but differ in respect of some consideration, such as the difference of brevity and elaborateness in such statements as ‘man is a rational animal.’ Here the defining term and the term defined are identical in meaning, but differ only in respect .of brevity and elaborateness. Another example is the difference involved in such statements as ‘man is man,’ wherein any doubt concerning the violability of the law of identity is dispelled. This kind of predication is called ‘primary essential predication’ (al-haml al-dzâtî al-awwalî)

The second kind of predication occurs in statements where two terms differ in meaning but are united in respect to existence, e.g., the statement ‘Man is risible’ or ‘Zayd is standing’ This kind of predication is called ‘common technical predication.’

8.4. KINDS OF COMMON PREDICATION

Common predication is classified into ‘non-derivative’ (haml hû hû, also called haml al-muwâthât) and ‘derivative’ (haml dzî hû). In non-derivative predication, the predicate is predicated to the subject without the use of any additional expression (such as a proposition), e.g. ‘Man is risible.’ In derivative predication the agreement of the predicate with the subject depends on the use of an additional element or a derivative.

Predication is also classified into ‘actualized’ (battî, lit. definite) and ‘non-actualized’ (ghayr battî, lit. non-definite). In an actualized predication, the subject refers to actual individual instances to which the term representing the subject applies, e.g. ‘Men are risible’ and ‘Horses are quadrupeds.’ In non-actualized predication individuals subsumed in the subject are non-actualized, as in such statements as ‘All absolute non-existents are predícateless’ and ‘The co-presence of two contradictories is impossible.’

Predication is also classified into ‘simple’ (basîth) and composite (murakkab). In simple predication, the predicate signifies the existence of the subject, e.g. ‘Man is existent.’ In composite predication, the predicate denotes one of the properties of the subject, e.g. ‘Man is risible.’

On the basis of the above discussion we can refute an objection which is raised on the basis of the Rule of Subordination (which states that the affirmation of a quality for something is subordinate to the subsistence of the thing of which the quality is posited) may be refuted. The objection states that the statement ‘Man is existent,’ for instance, is a corollary to the prior subsistence of man, which implies that ‘man’ has existence prior to the affirmation of his existence in accordance with the Rule of Subordination, and this involves an indefinite regress.

The refutation of this objection is that the said rule applies to cases where one thing is affirmed of another, whereas the import of a simple predication is the affirmation of a thing’s subsistence, not affirmation of one thing in regard to another. Hence the Rule of Subordination does not apply in such a case.’

8.5. OTHERNESS AND OPPOSITION

We said above that otherness (ghayriyyah) is a characteristic of multiplicity. Otherness is classified into ‘innate’ (dzâtî) and ‘extrinsic’ ghayr dzâtî). ‘Innate otherness’ is one that arises between a thing and something else by virtue of its essence - such as the otherness between existence and non-existence. It is also called ‘opposition’ (taqâbul). ‘Extrinsic otherness’ is one that derives from a cause extrinsic to a thing, like the difference between sweetness and blackness. It is also called disparity (khilâf).

The metaphysicians define opposition, i.e. innate otherness, as the impossibility of co-presence of two entities in one place, in one aspect, and at one time. It is classified into four kinds, as the opposites are either (i) both ‘positive’ (wujûdî), or (ii) one of them is ‘positive’ and the other ‘negative’ (‘adamî), there being no opposition between two negatives.

(ia) In the first case, if each of them is conceivable only in relation to the other, such as highness and lowness, the opposites are called ‘correlatives’ (mutadhâ’ifân) and the opposition is said to be that of ‘correlation’ (tadhâyuf).

(ib) If they are not such - e.g. blackness and whiteness - the opposites are called ‘contraries’ (mutadâddân), and the opposition is said to be one of ‘contrariety’ (tadhâdd).

(iia) In the second case, if there is a locus (mawdhû’) that accepts each of them - e.g. blindness and eyesight in a person - the opposition is called ‘the opposition of privation and possession’ (taqâbul al-‘adam wa al-malakah).

(iib) If there is no such locus involved, as in the case of affirmation and negation, they are called ‘contradictories’ (mutanâqidân) and their opposition is said to be one of contradiction (al-tanâqud). This is how the metaphysicians have described opposition and the opposites.

One of the properties of opposition in general is that it occurs between two sides, for it is a kind of relation between the opposites, and a relation requires two sides.

8.6. CORRELATION

One of the properties pertaining to correlation is that there is a parity between the correlatives in respect of existence and non-existence, potentiality and actuality. Accordingly, if one of them is existent the other is also necessarily existent, and if one of them is non-existent, the other is also necessarily non-existent. Furthermore, when one of them is in the state of actuality, or when it is in the state of potentiality, the other is also necessarily such. It follows from this that they are concomitants and none of them precedes the other, neither in the mind nor in external reality.

8.7. CONTRARIETY

Contrariety, in accordance with the above classification, arises between two existing entities that are not correlatives and which are intrinsically different from one another or mutually exclusive.

One of the properties pertaining to contrariety is that there is no contrariety between any of the highest genera pertaining to the ten categories, for more than one of them are present in one place (e.g. quantity, quality, etc. in bodies) and various kinds of each of these categories is found in association with the kinds of other categories. So also are some genera that fall under each of them, which occur in association with some others, e.g. colour and taste. Hence contrariety, as revealed by induction, occurs between the ultimate species falling under the proximate genus, e.g. blackness and whiteness, which fall under colour. So have the metaphysicians stated.

Another property pertaining to contrariety is that there is a locus (maudhû’) where they occur alternately; for if there is no common particular locus, their simultaneous occurrence will not be impossible, such as the existence of blackness in one body and of whiteness in another.

It follows from the above that there is no contrariety between substances, for they do not need a locus for existing and that contrariety is found only in accidents. Therefore, some philosophers have substituted ‘place’ (mahall) for ‘locus’ (maudhû’) in order to include the ‘matter’ of substance. In accordance with such a no¬tion, contrariety occurs between substantial forms (al-shuwar al-jawhariyyah) assumed by matter.

Another property pertaining to contrariety is that there should be an extreme difference between the contraries. Hence if there were a range of existent entities (amrân wujudiyyân) of which some are closer to some than others, the contraries will be at the extremities, between which there is utmost distance and difference, like blackness and whiteness, between which there are other intermediate colours, some of which are closer than others to one of the .two extreme sides, such as yellow, for instance, which is closer to white than red.

The above discussion clarifies the meaning of the definition of contraries as “two existent entities that alternately occur to a single locus (or subject) and which fall under the same proximate genus, and between which there is an extreme difference.”

8.8. THE OPPOSITION OF PRIVATION AND POSSESSION

This kind of opposition is also called ‘taqâbul al-‘adam wa al-qunyah.’ The opposites in this case consist of a positive quality generally possessed by a certain locus by virtue of its nature, and the absence of that quality in the locus. An example of it is eyesight and blindness, the latter being privation from sight in a subject whose general nature is to possess it.

If the locus possessing the quality is taken to be individual nature, or the nature of the species or genus, whose general character it is to possess the quality regardless of a particular time, the opposites are called ‘real’ privation and possession. Thus the absence of sight in the scorpion is blindness and a privation due to its being an animal by genus and hence a locus capable of sight, though its species be incapable of it, as alleged. Similarly, beardlessness in a man before the age of beardedness is an instance of privation, though his age group be incapable of possessing beard before the age of puberty.

If the locus is taken to be individual nature along with a condition of time of qualification, the opposites are called ‘privation and possession in accordance with common usage,’ according to which the absence of sight in a blind-born person and beardlessness in a child are not reckoned to be instances of privation and possession in any manner.

8.9. CONTRADICTION

Contradiction (tanâqud) is an opposition involving affirmation and negation, in the sense that what is negated is exactly what is affirmed. Though basically it occurs in propositions, it may occur in terms when they implicitly bear the import of a proposition. Thus it is said that there is a contradiction between a thing’s existence and its non-existence, or that the contradictory of anything is its ‘negation’ (raf’ ).

A property of the contradictories - i.e. affirmation and negation - is that both of them cannot be true or false, as in a ‘factual disjunctive’ proposition. This is one of the primary self-evident axioms on which rests the truth of every conceivable proposition, whether self-evident or inferred, for there can be no knowledge of a proposition’s truth without the knowledge of the falsity of its contradictory. For instance, the truth of the statement ‘Every four is even’ can only be ascertained only when we know that the statement ‘Every four is not even’ is false. Hence the law of contradiction has been called ‘the most primary of the primary principles’ (ûla al-awâ’il ).

Another property of contradiction is that absolutely nothing lies outside the purview of the contradictories. Hence everything that can be conceived is either Zayd or non-Zayd, white or non-white, and so on.

As to that which was mentioned earlier in the chapter on quiddity,’ that ‘both the contradictories are removed on the plane of essence’ (dzât ), as when it is said ‘Man qua man is neither existent nor non-existent,’ it is not in fact a case of removal of both the contradictories in any manner. Rather, what it signifies is that both the contradictories (viz. existence and non-existence) are irrelevant on the plane of quiddity; for ‘man’ is neither defined as ‘a rational animal that exists’ nor as ‘a rational animal that does not exist.’

Another of its properties is that it applies to propositions on condition of the presence of the well-known eightfold unities mentioned in the books on logic. To these Sadr al-Muta’allihîn -  may God’s mercy be upon him - has added the unity of predication: that predication in both the cases (i.e. affirmation and negation) should either be of the primary or the common type, difference of predication being inadmissible. Hence there is no contradiction between the statement, ‘The particular is particular,’ that is, from the viewpoint of intension (mafhûman ), and the statement “The particular is not particular,’ that is, from the viewpoint of extension (mishdâqan )

8.10. THE OPPOSITION OF ONE AND MANY

The philosophers have differed concerning the opposition between one and many, as to whether it is innate (bi at-dzât) or not. Of those who consider it innate, some have held them to be correlatives and some as contraries, while some others have held their opposition to be of a fifth kind, different from the four kinds mentioned above.

The truth is that the difference between one and many is not an opposition of any kind in the technical sense of the word, because the difference pertaining to unconditioned existence by virtue of its division into ‘one’ and ‘many’ is a difference of gradation (tasykîk) in which the differentiating factor is the same as the common factor, like the division of existence into external and mental, actual and potential, whereas otherness in all the four kinds of opposition is not one that is reducible to the common factor. Hence between one and many there is no opposition from among the four kinds of opposition.

Note

The opposition between affirmation and negation is not an actual opposition in external reality, but relates to the intellect and is mentally posited. That is because opposition involves a certain relation between the opposites, and relations between existents depend on two actual and existing sides, whereas one of the sides in contradiction is negation, which involves non-being and nonentity. However, the intellect posits the negation as a side opposed to the affirmation and judges their co-presence to be inadmissible.

As to the opposition of privation and possession, the non-being therein has some kind of entity, for it is absence of a quality possessed by the subject in the normal course. This measure of abstract existence is sufficient for the occurrence of a relation.