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

المرحلة العاشرة في القوة و الفعل

CHAPTER TEN: Actuality and Potentiality

The existence of a thing in external reality, wherein it possesses the external properties (atsâr) expected of it, is called ‘act,’ and it is to exist in actuality (bi al-fi’l). The potential that precedes its actualization is called ‘potentiality’ (quwwah), and before it has actualized it is said to be in potentiality. For instance, water has the potential to change into vapour. As long as it is water, it is water in actuality and vapour potentially. However, when it has changed into vapour, it becomes vapour in actuality and the potentiality is annulled. Hence there is existence in actuality and existence in potentiality, and these two divisions are discussed in this chapter.

16 Units

10.1 A TEMPORAL HADITH IS PRECEDED BY POTENTIALITY

Everything that comes into existence in time [hadits zamânî) is preceded by a potentiality for existence. For before it actualizes, it necessary that its existence be contingent, that is, it should be capable of being qualified with existence or non-existence. For if it were impossible, its actualization would not be possible. Similarly it were necessary, it would not fail to exist. This potential is something other than the agent’s power over it, for its potential for existence is an attribute of it with reference to its own existence, not to something else such as the agent. This potential is something external and not a derivative concept (i’tibâr ‘aqlî) associated with the thing’s quiddity, for it is characterized with strength and weakness, proximity and remoteness. For instance, an embryo possessing the potential to become a human being is closer to humanity than a lump of food, which assesses the potential for changing into an embryo, and the potential possessed by the former is greater than what is possessed by food.

It is obvious that this potential, which is something existing in external reality, is not something substantial (jawhar) subsisting bv itself. Rather, it is an accident that subsists through something else. We will call it ‘potentiality’ (quwwah) and its substratum, ‘matter’ (mâddah). Thus everything that comes into existence in time consists of ‘matter’ that precedes it and carries the potentiality of its existence.

It is necessary that ‘matter’ should not be unreceptive to the actuality whose potential it bears. Hence it is in itself the potentiality for receiving the actuality whose potential it bears. For if matter were to have an actuality of its own, it would refuse to accept any other actuality. Thus it is a substance (jawhar) whose intrinsic actuality is the potentiality for things. However, in order to be a substance endowed with potentiality, it subsists through another actuality. When the actuality for which it has the potentiality comes into being, the earlier actuality disappears, giving its place to the new actuality. An example of it is water. When it changes into vapour, its aqueous form - which earlier sustained the matter that now bears the form of vapour - disappears and is replaced by the gaseous form through which the matter that earlier bore the potential to become vapour is now sustained.

The matter of the new emergent actuality and that of the earlier defunct actuality is one, for otherwise we would have to regard it as coming into being with the emergent actuality. This would necessitate another potential and another matter, and this entails an indefinite regress. Thus a single emergent thing would require an infinite number of potentials and matters, and this is inadmissible. A similar difficulty arises if we consider matter as having come into existence in time (hadits zamânî).

From the above discussion it becomes clear that, first, everything that comes into existence in time has a ‘matter’ that bears the potentiality for its existence.

Second, the matter of things that come into existence in time is one and common to them.

Third, the relation between ‘matter’ and the potentiality it bears for becoming something is one that exists between a physical body and its

three-dimensional geometrical form (al-jism al-ta’lîmî ). Hence, the potentiality for a particular thing delimits the indefinite potentiality of matter, in the same way as a three-dimensional geometrical form defines the indefinite threefold dimensions of a physical mass.

Fourth, the existence of entities that come into existence in time inseparable from the change in their forms if they are substances, and in their states if accidents.

Fifth, potentiality always subsists through actuality, and matter subsists continually through a form that sustains it. Thus when a – form takes the place of an earlier one, the subsequent form takes the place of the preceding one in sustaining matter.

Sixth, it becomes clear from what has been mentioned that potentiality temporally precedes only a particular actuality; otherwise actuality when taken in an absolute manner precedes potentiality respect of all forms of priority: causal, temporal, by nature, etc.

10.2. THE KINDS OF CHANGE

We have seen that a thing’s motion from potentiality to actuality ails change, either in its essence or its states. Change is either instantaneous or gradual. Gradual change is called motion (harakah), which is a thing’s gradual mode of existence (i.e. extended over time). As it relates to a mode of being, it deserves to be a subject of metaphysical study in this respect.

10.3. THE DEFINITION OF MOTION

It was said above that motion is a thing’s transition from potentiality to actuality in a gradual manner. One may also call it ‘gradual change.’ (Gradual transition is a self-evident concept, whose formation in the mind is assisted by sense-experience.) Aristotle defined it as “the first perfection (kamâl awwal) for that which is in a state of potentiality qua something in potentiality.” To explain, the acquisition of what a thing may possibly acquire is a perfection for it. For a thing in its movement towards a certain state - for instance, a body moving towards a certain location to become situated in it - its movement as well as its establishment in the location towards which it moves are perfections for that body, with difference, however, that its movement is the first perfection and its establishment in that location the second perfection.

Hence, when it starts its movement, a perfection is realized for it, though not absolutely but in the sense that it is still in a state of potentiality in relation to its second perfection, which is establishment in the sought destination. Thus, motion is a first perfection for that which is in a state of potentiality in relation to the two perfections, in the respect that it is in a state of potentiality in relation to the second perfection.

From this it becomes clear that motion depends for its actualization on six things: (i) the origin (mabda’), from which motion starts, (ii) the end (muntahâ) towards which motion is directed, (iii) the moving subject (mawdhû’) or ‘the moved’ (mutaharrik), (iv) the ‘agent’ that causes the motion, or the ‘mover’ (muharrik), (v) the course (masâfah) of motion, and (vi) the time to which motion corresponds in some manner. These will be explained below.

10.4. MEDIATING AND TRAVERSING MOTION

There are two conceptions of motion. In one of them, the moving thing is conceived as being between the origin and the end, in the sense that if it is supposed to be at a certain limit in the middle, it is neither before it nor after it: it is a simple static state which is indivisible and is called ‘mediating motion’ (al-harakah al-tawassutiyyah).

In the second conception, it is the above-mentioned state of being between the origin and the end, along with its relation to the limits of the course of motion, the limit that it has left and the one that it has not reached, or the potentiality transformed into actuality and the potentiality that still remains in its state and which the moving subject seeks to transform into actuality. Implied in this conception of motion is division into parts and gradual transition and passage, as it is a gradual transition from potentiality to actuality. It is called ‘traversing motion’ (al-harakah al-qath’iyyah), and both of these meanings exist in external reality, for they correspond to it with all their characteristics.

However, as to the picture of motion derived from imagination, by taking one limit after another from motion and combining them in the form of a continuous aggregate divisible into parts, it is something purely mental having no existence in external reality; co-presence of parts is impossible in motion, for otherwise it would be something static, not dynamic.

From this, it becomes clear that motion - i.e., traversing motion - is a fluid mode of existence, divisible into parts, wherein potentiality and actuality intermingle in the sense that every one of a assumed parts is actuality for its preceding part and potentiality for the succeeding part, terminating on one side in potentiality unaccompanied by actuality and on the other in actuality unaccompanied by potentiality.

10.5. THE ORIGIN AND END OF MOTION

We saw that motion is essentially subject to division. However, it should be noted that this division does not stop at any limit like the division in static continuous quantities, as in the case of geometric line, plane and body. For were it to stop at a limit, that would result in an indivisible part, whose inadmissibility was mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, it is a division that is potential, not actual, for were it actual there would be no motion due to the division leading up to instantaneous parts.

From this it becomes clear that there is no beginning or end of motion, in the sense that it should have a first, or last, indivisible part from the aspect of motion, as mentioned above. That is because a part in this sense is something instantaneous, not gradual, so the definition of motion as something essentially gradual would not apply to it.

As to that which was mentioned above, that motion ends in two sides - on the one side in a potentiality unaccompanied by actuality and on the other in an actuality unaccompanied by potentiality - that is a delimitation of it by something external to it.

10.6. THE SUBJECT OF MOTION

We saw above that motion is the gradual transition of a thing from potentiality to actuality. We also noted that it is necessary that this potentiality be borne by and subsist through something substantial. We further noted that that which is in potency is a potential perfection for matter and united with it. So when potentiality changes into actuality, actuality becomes united with matter in the place of potentiality. An example of this is the matter of water, which is potentially vapour. Another is that of a sour body, e.g., an apple, which is potentially sweet. When water changes into vapour and sourness into sweetness, the matter of water assumes the form of vapour and that of the sour body the form of sweetness. Hence there is a subject in every motion that is qualified with motion and in which motion occurs.

It is necessary that the subject of motion be something enduring that undergoes motion. Otherwise that which possessed potentiality would be something other than that which assumes actuality, in which case motion, which is a thing’s transition from potentiality to act, would not be realized.

It is also necessary that the subject of motion should not something that has actuality in all respects, such as an immaterial Intellect, for there can be no motion without some kind of potentiality. Hence that which has no potentiality has no motion. Also, it should not be in potentiality in all respects, for that which is such has no existence. Hence, it should be something that is potential in some aspect and actual in some aspect, such as prime matter, which possesses the potentiality for all things and whose actuality is its potentiality, or a body that is secondary matter, which possesses the potentiality for various specific forms and accidents along with the actuality of bodiness and some specific form.

10.7. THE AGENT OF MOTION, THE MOVER

It is necessary that the mover should be other than the moved, for if the moved itself were the creator of motion, that would imply a single thing being active (fâil) and passive (qâbil) in a single aspect. This is impossible, because the mode of action (fi’l) is the mode of possession, whereas the mode of receptivity is the mode of privation, and it is meaningless to say that a single thing is in possession and privation in the same aspect.

Moreover, the subject is in potentiality in relation to the actuality attained by it through motion, an actuality which it lacks, and that which is in potentiality cannot provide actuality. It is necessary that the proximate agent of motion should be something undergoing change and renewal, for if it were something stable in itself and without change and flux, that which it produces would also be stable in itself. As a result, no part of motion will give way to another part due to the stability of the cause and absence of change in its state, whereupon motion would not be motion, which is a self-contradiction.

10.8. THE RELATION OF THE CHANGEABLE TO THE UNCHANGING

It has been said that the necessity of dependence of something undergoing renewal and change on a cause subject to renewal and change like itself requires the dependence of the renewing and changing cause in its turn upon something else subject to renewal and change like itself, and so on and so forth. That implies either an indefinite regress or a vicious circle, or changeability in the First Source, whose exalted station lies beyond such an attribution.

The answer that has been given to this objection is that renewal and change originate in a substance that is essentially mobile. Renewal being essential to it, it is correct to ascribe it to an unchanging cause that brings it into existence, for its creation is the same as the creation of its changeability.

10.9. THE COURSE OF MOTION

The ‘course’ of motion is the continuous flux of existence through which the moving subject passes. Unavoidably, it yields to the abstraction of some of the categories, though not from the aspect that it is a continuous changing unity, for that would entail the occurrence of gradation in quiddity, which is impossible. Rather, that is from the aspect that the course is divisible into instantaneously existing divisions, each of which is a species from among the species of the category and different from other species. An example of it is a growing body whose motion is in quantity. At every instant of its motion, it is affected by a species from among the species of continuous quantity, different from the species that affected it in a preceding instant as well as those that will affect it in a succeeding instant.

Hence the meaning of a thing’s motion in a certain category b that the subject is affected at every instant by a species from among the species of the category, which is different from the species that affect it at any other instant.

10.10. THE CATEGORIES WHEREIN MOTION OCCURS

In accordance with the opinion prevailing amongst the earlier philosophers, belonging to the period before Mullâ Shadrâ, the categories in which motion occurs are four: place, quality, quantity, and position.

As to place, it is obvious that motion takes place in it, like the motion of bodies in respect to location. However, there are certain reservations in considering place as a category in its own right, though such a view has been commonly held. Rather, place is a kind of position; accordingly, a motion in place is a kind of motion in position.

As to quality, it is obvious that motion occurs in it, especially in non-active qualities like the qualities associated with quantities, such as straightness and crookedness and the like; for a body moving in terms of quantity also moves in the qualities that depend on its quantity.

As to quantity, the motion in it is defined as gradual change in a body’s quantity that is continuous, proportionate and orderly. One example is the case of biological growth, which is a gradual, continuous and orderly increase in a body’s volume.

An objection has been raised against this definition. It is pointed out that growth takes place through the annexation of parts from outside to the parts of the growing body. Thus the resulting larger quantity is an accident of the collection of the original and the annexed parts, whereas the previous smaller quantity was an accident of the original parts. These two quantities are separate and discontinuous due to the difference of their subjects. Hence, there is no motion but the disappearance of one quantity and the emergence of another.

The answer that has been given to this objection is that there is no doubt that there is an annexation of the annexed parts; however, the ‘nature’ (i.e. the specific form) transforms the annexed part after assimilation into the form of the original parts. It continues to transform and increase the bulk of the original parts gradually by assimilating parts from outside and changing them into the original parts. Thus the quantity accidental to the original parts increases in a gradual and continuous manner, and this is what motion is.

As to position, the occurrence of motion in it is obvious, such is the rotary motion of a sphere on its axis, as a result of which me relationship of any point on its surface changes with its surroundings. This is a gradual change in its position.

The philosophers were of the opinion that there is no motion in the remaining categories, which consist of action, affection, time, relation, possession and substance.

As to action and affection, gradualness is included in their conception. They do not have instantaneously existing individuals and occurrence of motion in them requires division into instantaneously existing divisions, which they do not have.

A similar observation applies to the category of ‘time,’ which is defined as a mode resulting from a thing’s relation to time. It is gradual and so precludes the occurrence of motion in it, which requires divisibility into instantaneously existing divisions.

As to relation, it is an abstraction dependent upon its two sides and, like motion, is not independently associated with a single thing. The same applies to ‘possession,’ any change wherein is dependent upon the change of its two subjects, like the change occurring in the shoe or the foot from their prior state.

As to substance, the earlier philosophers believed that the occurrence of change in it entails the actualization of motion in that which is not a fixed subject, and, as mentioned earlier, the actualization of motion depends on a fixed subject that persists as long as motion continues.

10.11. CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION

Shadr al-Muta’allihîn, may God’s mercy be upon him, came to ho A that motion occurs in the category of substance. Among the various arguments that he advanced in favour of this view, the most persuasive is that the occurrence of motion in the four accidental categories requires that motion occur in the category of substance, because the accidents are dependent upon the substance in the way an action depends upon its agent. Thus physical actions depend on the natures or specific forms, which are the proximate causes of them. As mentioned earlier, the proximate cause of motion is something gradual like it. Thus the natures and specific forms in bodies moving in respect of quantity, quality, place and position are changeable with a fluid existence like the accidents: otherwise there would not actualize any cause of these motions.

An objection against this argument states: If we transfer our argument to the renewing nature, the question still remains as to how something changeable can emanate from an unchanging source.

The answer to this is that since motion occurs within the substance of the changeable ‘nature,’ change and renewal are essential to it, and that which is essential to something does not stand in need of a cause. The ‘maker’ has made it changeable, not that he first made it and then made it changeable.

This answer may be contested with the following remark. The same thing may be asserted concerning the dependence of changeable accidents on the ‘nature’ without making the ‘nature’ changeable; hence changeability is essential to changeable accidents and the nature made the changeable accident; not that it made the accident and then caused it to change.

The answer to this is that accidents depend for their existence on the substance and are subject to it. Hence it is necessary that their essentiality should culminate in the substance.

Another objection that has been raised is that the relation between the changing accidents and the unchanging source - a nature or something else - can be explained in another manner. According to this explanation, change is produced in the accidents from outside, for instance, by the varying degrees of proximity and distance from destination in physical motions, by the changing states in coercive motions which are opposite to nature, and by the succession of particular acts of will produced in the soul at very stage of psychic motions whose source is the soul.

The answer to this is that, transferring our argument to these successive states or acts of will, we may ask: What is it that makes them successive? For they unavoidably culminate, in the case of physical motions, in a nature. The same is true of coercive motions, for coercion culminates in a nature. The same applies to psychic motions, wherein the immediate agent of motion is the nature, as will be explained later on.

One may also argue in favour of substantial motion on the basis of what was mentioned earlier,” that the existence of the accident is a plane from among the planes of the existence of substance, in the respect that its existence-in-itself is identical with its existence-for-the-substance. Hence its change and renewal are change and renewal in the substance.

It follows from the above discussion, first, that the changing natural forms that appear one after another in matter are in reality a single substantial form in flux through which matter passes, and from each of whose limits is abstracted an idea different from what is abstracted from another limit.

This was concerning change in natural forms (e.g. water into vapour and vapour into water), which is change within a single form in flux. But there are other evolutionary substantial motions represented by the motion of prime matter towards physical form, followed by vegetative, animal and human forms.

Second, in its substantial motion the moving substance moves with all its accidents, for, as mentioned, the existence of accidents is a plane of the existence of the substance, which is their substratum.

A consequence of this is that the motion of substance in the four - or the three’ - categories is a kind of motion within motion. On this basis, these fourfold or threefold motions may be called ‘secondary motions,’ and the motions that relate absolutely to the accidents in subordination to the substance - not parallel to it - may be termed ‘primary motions.’

Third, the physical world with its one matter is a single reality in flux. With all its substances and accidents, it is a single caravan moving towards its fixed end of an absolute actuality.

10.12. THE SUBJECT OF SUBSTANTIAL MOTION AND ITS AGENT

It has been held by philosophers of the post-Shadrâ period that the subject in this motion is the matter actualized in one or the other of successive forms united by continuity and flux. Thus the unity of matter and its individuality are preserved through one or the other of the changing forms. The unity of the changing form, though indefinite, is preserved by an immaterial substance, which is the agent of matter. This agent preserves matter and its unity and individuality through some form or another. Thus the form, whatsoever, participates in the cause of matter and the matter actualized through it is the subject of motion.

This is similar to the opinion of those who reject substantial motion and believe in continuous coming into being and annihilation (al-kawn wa al-fasâd). They state that the agent of matter is some form whatsoever, whose unity is preserved by an immaterial substance that creates form and matter through its mediation. Thus some form whatsoever participates in the cause in relation to matter and preserves its actualization and unity.

The correct position is that motion’s need for a fixed subject remains as long as motion continues. Should a fixed subject be needed to preserve the unity of motion, in order that motion may not fall apart through divisibility and for the reason that its parts are not co-present in existence, it is the continuity of motion in itself and its divisibility in imagination, not external fact, which is sufficient for its unity. Should the need for a fixed subject be for the reason that motion is something predicative that stands in need of an entity existent-in-itself, in order to exist for it and to characterize it - as in the case of accidents and substantial forms impressed in matter, which also stand in need of a substratum for which they may exist and which they may characterize - the subject of accidental motions is something other that is substantial, and the subject of substantial motion is motion itself. For we do not mean by ‘subject of motion’ anything except an entity through which motion may subsist and for which “it may exist, and substantial motion, being a flowing and substantial entity, is subsistent through itself and for itself. Thus it is motion and the moving in. itself.

Matter, which undergoes substantial forms in a continuous and flux-like manner, is referred to as ‘subject’ due to its union with forms; otherwise, in itself it is devoid of all actuality.

10.13. TIME

We find that events occurring as a result of motion, are divisible into segments, of which no segment is co-present with another in respect of actual existence. For the actual existence of any posterior segment under consideration depends on the termination of foe actual existence of the prior segment. Moreover, we find that the prior segment is itself divisible into similar segments none of which is co-present with the other. We can go on bisecting segments in this way, and whenever we reach a segment it would be visible into two parts in the aforementioned manner without the division ever stopping at any limit.

This division is not possible without the application of quantitative extension to motion, by which motion becomes measurable and divisible. However, that extension does not represent the reality of motion itself, for it is something determinate whereas motion in itself has only an indeterminate extension, like the indefinite shape of a physical mass, which is defined by a three dimensional geometrical form.

This extension, through which the extension of motion is determined, is a continuous quantity corresponding to motion, like a three-dimensional geometrical form through which the dimensions of a physical mass become determinate, with the difference that this quantity corresponding to motion is non-static and its parts are not co-present with one another, as opposed to a three dimensional geometrical form in which the parts are static and co-present.

This quantity is time, which corresponds to motion and constitutes its extent. Every part of it is prior in relation to the part that depends upon it, and it is posterior in relation to the part on whose termination it depends. The extremities that result from the division of time into segments are called ‘instants.’

The following conclusions are drawn from this discussion.

(i) For every motion there is a time particular to it, which is the extent of that motion. People have adopted ordinary time, which is the extent of diurnal motion, as a convention for the measurement of motions in general and for the determination of the relationships between them. This is because ordinary time is commonly known and observable. They have divided it into centuries, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds, etc., in order to measure motions by their means.

For those who uphold substantial motion, the time that is relevant in temporal events is the time of substantial motion (not accidental motions, like the earth’s rotation, for they are derived from substantial motion).

(ii) Priority and posteriority are essential to the parts of time, in the sense that the existence of time is flowing, non-static. This requires that it be divisible, if divided, into a part on whose termination depends the actual existence of another part, the former being prior and the latter posterior.

(iii) The instant, which is the extremity of a period of time and the dividing limit between two parts of it, if divided, is something unreal (i.e. imaginary), because the division is imaginary.

(iv) The succession of instants, which is the co-presence of two or more unreal limits without any intervening segment of time separating them, is

obviously impossible. The same observation applies to succession of instantaneous events, which correspond extremities of segments of time, e.g. reaching and separating.

(v) There is no beginning or end for time, in the sense that there may be an indivisible part at its beginning or end; that is because divisibility is essential to it.

10.14. FASTNESS AND SLOWNESS

If we consider two motions occurring in equal time, that which covers a longer course is the one that is faster.

If two motions cover an equal course, the one that takes lesser time is the faster. Thus fastness lies in covering a relatively longer distance in lesser time, and slowness is its opposite.

The philosophers state that slowness does not consist of intervening rests, so that one may say that a motion is slower because of a greater number of intervening rests, and faster when they are fewer. That is because motion is a continuity in which potentiality and actuality intermingle. Hence there is no room for intervening rest in it.

They further state that fastness and slowness are opposites, in the sense of contrariety. That is because both of them are positive and the opposition between them is neither one of contradiction, nor that of possession and privation, nor are they correlatives; otherwise, whenever one of them exists the other would also exist, which is not the case. This does not leave any alternative except to consider them as contraries.

However, a difficulty that lies in this view is that a condition for the contraries is that there should be an extreme difference between them - something which is not present between fastness and slowness; for it is always possible to assume something faster in that which is fast, and, similarly, something slower than that which is slow.

The truth is that fastness (sur’ah; also means speed) and slowness [buth’) are relative attributes; what is fast in relation to a certain motion may be slow in relation to a third one. The same applies to slowness. Sur’ah (speed) in the sense of transition and flow is peculiar to all motion and is characterized by intensity and weakness. Relative fastness and slowness derive from comparison between different speeds.

10.15. REST

The term ‘rest’ is applied to a body’s state of being devoid of motion, before or after being in motion. It is also applied to a body’s remaining unchanged in its state. That which is opposed to motion is the first meaning. The second one is implied by it. Rest has the negative sense of absence of a quality from the subject, which is a body capable of possessing it. Thus it means absence of motion in something that generally moves. Hence the opposition between it and motion is that of privation and possession. A body, or anything physical, cannot be devoid of motion, except what is instantaneous, such as reaching the limit of a journey, separation of a thing from another, the formation of geometric figures and the like.

ليعلم: أن القوة أو ما بالقوة كما تطلق على حيثية القبول كذلك تطلق على حيثية الفعل إذا كانت شديدة و كما تطلق على مبدإ القبول القائم به ذلك كذلك تطلق على مبدإ الفعل كما تطلق القوى النفسانية و يراد بها مبادي الآثار النفسانية من إبصار و سمع و تخيل و غير ذلك و كذلك القوى الطبيعية لمبادي الآثار الطبيعية.

10.16. DIVISIONS OF MOTION

Motion is divided into various kinds on the basis of the six factors that relate to it:

On the basis of origin and end; e.g., the motion from one place to another, the motion from one colour to another and a plant’s motion from a certain extent to another.

On the basis of the subject; e.g., the motions of a plant, the motions of an animal, the motions of a human being.

On the basis of category; e.g., motion in quality, motion in quantity and motion in position.

On the basis of time; e.g. nocturnal motion, diurnal motion, summer and winter motion.

On the basis of agent; i.e. (i) natural motion, (ii) coercive motion and (iii) voluntary motion. Related with these in a certain aspect is motion by accident. The basis for this threefold division is that the agent either possesses knowledge and will in relation to his act or he does not. In the first case, the agent is conscious (nafsânî) and so is the motion, e.g. the voluntary motions of a human being or an animal. In the second case, the motion either arises from the agent by itself, or due to some other agent, which compels it to move. In the first case, the agent is a natural agent and the motion a natural motion. In the second case, the agent is a coercive one and the motion is a coercive motion, e.g. a stone thrown upwards.

The philosophers state that the proximate agent in all these motion is the moving ‘nature,’ which moves either as a result of subjection to a soul, or by natural disposition, or under the compulsion of a coercing ‘nature’ that compels the coerced ‘nature’ to move. The immediate ‘source’ between the agent and the motion the inclination that the agent produces in the moving ‘nature.’ The related details are given in works on traditional physics.

Conclusion

Some points may be noted here concerning the terms quwwah (potentiality) and mâ bil-quwwah (the object possessing potentiality). In the same way as these terms are applied to the mode of receptivity, they are also applied to the mode of action, when strong. In the same way as these terms are applied to the source of receptivity (mabda’ al-qabûl, i.e. prime matter) through which receptivity subsists, they are also applied to the source of action (mabda’ al-fi’l), as in the case of the faculties of the soul (al-quwâ al-nafsâniyyah), by which are meant the ‘sources’ of the soul’s properties, such as sight, hearing, imagination, etc., and the natural forces (such as gravity), which are ‘sources’ of natural phenomena.

This active quwwah (al-quwwah al-fâ’iliyyah) when accompanied with knowledge and will is called qudrat al-hayawân (vital power), which is an efficient cause that stands in need of external factors, such as the presence of receptive matter and proper implements of action, etc., for the completion of its causal efficiency and necessitation of action by it. When these are all present, it becomes a complete cause on whose presence the action becomes necessary. The following points become clear in the light of the above discussion.

(i) The first point is the incorrectness of the definition advanced by some theologians for ‘power’ (qudrah) as something in whose presence the execution of an action or its omission is possible. For the execution of an action or its omission is contingent on the agent when the agent is only part of the complete cause, so that the action is not necessitated by the agent alone but through its agency as well as that of the remaining factors which make up the complete cause together. However, an agent whose efficiency is complete is a complete cause, as in the case of the exalted Necessary Being. Hence it is meaningless to characterize with contingency such an agent and its action or omission of action (i.e. to say that an agent that is a complete cause of its action may or may not carry out the action).

The necessary character of its action does not imply that the agent is compelled to carry it out and that it has no power over its own action; for this necessity, which inheres in the action, derives from the agent itself. The action is the agent’s effect and cannot compel it to action, nor is there any other agent that may influence it and compel it to carry out the action.

(ii) It makes evident the invalidity of the view advanced by some theologians that the contingency of an action depends on its being preceded by temporal non-existence (al-’adam al-zamânî); hence an action that is not preceded by temporal non-existence is impossible. This view is based on the belief that the reason for a thing’s need for a cause is its coming into existence (hudûts), not its contingency (imkân). We have refuted this belief earlier’ and proved that the reason for the need for a cause is contingency, not hudûts. Moreover, their theory is invalidated by the instance of time itself (which is not hâdits).

(iii) It discloses the invalidity of the view advanced by those theologians who have held that ‘power’ emerges along with action and that there is no power for an action prior to it. The inconsistency of this view is made evident by the fact that they themselves define ‘power’ as ‘the capacity to act or not to act.’ Now, if the agent ceases the action for some time to resume it, it would be right to ascribe to it the capacity to act or not to act before the resumption of action. This is what ‘power’ is according to their definition.