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

المرحلة الحادية عشر في العلم و العالم و المعلوم

CHAPTER ELEVEN: Knowledge, Knower, and the Known

In the last chapter we saw that existence is divided into that which has potentiality and that which has (absolute) actuality, and that the former consists of matter and material things and the latter of immaterial (mujarrad) existents. Of the primary (i.e. essential) accidents of immaterial being is to be knowledge, knower, and known. For knowledge, as will be explained later on, consists of the presence (hudhûr) of an immaterial existent for another immaterial existent. Accordingly, it is proper to discuss it in metaphysics.

12 Units

11.l. DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND ITS FIRST DIVISIONS

That we acquire a ‘knowledge’ of things is self-evident, and so is the concept of it. In this section our purpose is to identify its salient properties in order to differentiate between its various forms and their characteristics.

It was stated in the discussion on mental existence that we possess a certain knowledge of external things, in the sense that we cognize them and they are present for us with their quiddities , though not with their external existence and its accompanying external properties. This is one of the kinds of knowledge, called ‘mediated knowledge’ (‘ilm hushûlî, lit. acquired knowledge).

Another kind of knowledge is the knowledge that each of us has of his own self, to which he refers as his ‘I’ One cannot fail to be conscious of his own self in any circumstance, in solitude or in company, in sleep or in wakefulness, or in any other state.

This consciousness is not by virtue of the presence of the quiddity of the self for us; it is not present as a concept, or known through mediated knowledge. That is because a mental concept, of whatever kind, is always capable of corresponding to a multiplicity of objects, and [when considered as referring to a particular object] its individuality is only due to the external existent [to which it corresponds]. Now what we cognize in relation to ourselves - i.e., what we refer to as ‘I’ - is something essentially individuated, incapable of corresponding to multiple things. Individuality is a property of existence; hence our knowledge of our selves is by virtue of their presence for us with their very external existence, which is the ground of individuation and external properties. This is another kind of knowledge, called ‘immediate’ knowledge (‘Ilm hudhûrî, lit., ‘knowledge by presence’).

These two divisions of knowledge are exhaustive, for the cognition of the known by the knower is either through the former’s quiddity or by its existence. The first is ‘mediated’ and the second is ‘immediate’ knowledge.

Furthermore, attainment of knowledge means apprehension (hushûl) of the known by the knower; for knowledge is identical with that which is known by itself, because we do not mean anything by knowledge except the apprehension of the known by us. The apprehension of a thing and its presence is nothing except its existence, and its existence is itself.

The apprehension of the known by the knower does not mean anything except its union (ittihâd) with the knower, whether the known is immediate or mediated. Thus if the immediately known is a substance subsisting by itself, its existence is for-itself (wujûd li nafsihi) while at the same time it is for-the-knower, and hence the knower is united with it. If the immediately known is something existent-for-its-subject, as the known’s existence is existence-for-the-knower, the knower is united with its subject. Moreover, an accident is one of the planes of the existence of its subject, no-something extraneous to it. Hence it is likewise in relation to something united with its subject. Similarly, the mediated known is existent-for-the-knower, irrespective of whether it is a substance existing-for-itself or something existent-for-other-than-itself. An implication of its existence for the knower is the knower’s union with it.

This is because, as will be explained later on,’ mediated knowledge in fact involves immediate knowledge.

Accordingly, apprehension (hushûl) by the knower is a property of knowledge, though not every kind of apprehension, but an apprehension of something that is in pure actuality and absolutely devoid of all potentiality. That is because we know intuitively that the known qua known has no potentiality to become another thing; it is not susceptible to change, nor can it become something diet than what it is. Accordingly, it involves the apprehension of something that is immaterial and free from all traces of potentiality. This we call ‘immediacy’ (hudhûr, lit. ‘presence’).

The immediacy of the known requires it to be something possessing complete actuality, free from any association with matter and potentiality that may make it deficient and incomplete in relation to its potential perfections.

Further, the immediacy of the known requires that the knower rearing its knowledge should also possess complete actuality, not being deficient in any respect arising from association with matter. Hence, the knower is also immaterial and free from potentiality.

From the above discussion it becomes clear that knowledge is the ‘presence’ of an immaterial existent for an immaterial existent, nether what is apprehended is the same as that which apprehends - as in the case of a thing’s knowledge of itself- - or is something else, as in the case of thing’s knowledge of quiddities external to it.

It also becomes clear, in the first place, that the known, to which knowledge pertains, must necessarily be something immaterial. The meaning of knowledge of material things shall be explained below.

Second, the knower, through whom knowledge subsists, must also necessarily be immaterial.

11.2. THE DIVISION OF MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE INTO UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR

A universal (kullî) is that which is capable of corresponding to a multiplicity of instances, such as the knowledge of the quiddity of man. This kind of knowledge is called ‘aql or ta’aqqul (intellection). A particular (juz’î) is that which is incapable of corresponding to a multiplicity of things, such as the knowledge of a particular person with some kind of association with a present matter, which called ‘sensory’ knowledge (al-’ilm al-ihsâsî), or the knowledge a human individual without there being any present matter. The latter kind is called ‘imaginary’ knowledge (al-’ilm al-khâyalî). These two kinds are considered incapable of corresponding to a multiplicity of referents only from the aspect of connection between the sense organs and the external object of knowledge, in the ca, of sensory knowledge, and for the reason of dependence ‘imaginary’ knowledge on sensory knowledge. Otherwise. the mental impression itself (al-shûrat al-dzihniyyah), of whatever kind not incapable of corresponding to a multiplicity of objects.

On the basis of that which has been said above, both kinds are immaterial due to the essential actuality of the cognitive form (al-shûrat al-’ilmiyyah) and its being unsusceptible to change.

Also, the cognitive form, of whatever kind, is not incapable of corresponding to a multiplicity of objects; anything that is mater and individuated is incapable of corresponding to more than one individual.

Furthermore, had the sensory or the imaginal form been something material, impressed in some manner in a part of the body, would have been divisible due to the divisibility of its location and would have been in space and time. However, such is not the case. Hence knowledge is neither susceptible to division nor capable of attribution to a physical location. Also, it is not subject to time, for a sensory form cognized at a certain time remains valid and unchanged even after the passage of a long period of time and had it been time-bound it would change with the passage time.

There has been a misconception arising from the contiguity the acquisition of knowledge to time. This contiguity (muqâranah) merely relates to the conditions for the attainment of the potential (isti’dâd) for receiving knowledge, not to knowledge itself.

As for the mediating role of the sense organs in the apprehension of the sensible form and the dependence of the imaginary form on it, that merely pertains to the attainment of a specific capacity in the soul enabling it to evoke the cognitive form. T related details are to be found in works on traditional psychology (‘ilm al-nafs).

There is a theory according to which the formation of concepts occurs through a process in which the known object is divested of matter and its characteristic material accidents, until there remains nothing except a quiddity stripped of its material shell (e.g. the concept of man stripped of all physical matter and its accompanying characteristics relating to time, space, position, and so on). This process is different from sense perception, wherein matter and its accompanying accidents and individuating features are present. It is also different from imagination, wherein the accidents associated with matter and its individuating features survive without the

presence of matter itself. However, from the above discussion it becomes clear that such a theory can be justified only as a metaphorical aid to understanding. Otherwise, the perceived form is also immaterial; the requirement of the presence of matter and its accompanying individuating accidents is in order to prepare the soul for perception. The same applies to the requirement of accompanying particular features in imagination, as well as the requirement of ‘divesting’ in conception, wherein the imagination of more than an individual prepares the soul for conceiving the universal quiddity - a process referred to as ‘the abstraction of the universal from individuals.’

From what has been said it also becomes clear that existence is divisible into three realms in respect of freedom from matter and its absence. One of them is the world of matter and potentiality. The second realm is the one in which matter is absent, though not some of its properties such as shape, quantity, position, etc. It contains physical forms and their accidents and features of perfection without the presence of any matter possessing potentiality and passivity. It is called the ‘imaginal’ or the ‘intermediate’ world (‘âlam al-mitsâl, or al-barzakh), which lies between the world of the Intellect (‘âlam al-’aql) and the world of matter (‘âlam al-mâddah). The third is the immaterial world (‘âlam al-tajarrud), which is absolutely free from matter and its properties. It is called the world of the Intellect (‘âlam al-’aql).

The metaphysicians have further divided the imaginal world into the ‘macrocosmic’ (or objective) imaginal world (al-mitsâl al-a’zham), which is a self-subsisting realm by itself, and the ‘microcosmic’ (or subjective) imaginal world (al-mitsâl al-asghar), which subsists through the soul and governs it in any manner it wishes according to its motives, rightful or extravagant, producing s times real and healthy forms and at other times fantastic form, which the soul creates for the sake of diversion.

These three worlds constitute a hierarchy. Amongst them the highest of them in rank and, existentially, the strongest and the prior-most, as well as nearest to the First Source, is the world of the immaterial Intellects (‘âlam al-’uqûl al-mujarradah), due to the completeness of their actuality and freedom of their essences from all traces of matter and potentiality. Below it lies the (macrocosmic or objective) imaginal world, which is free from matter though not some of its properties. Further below is the world o matter, the abode of all deficiency and evil. Knowledge does not pertain to that which is in it except through what corresponds it in the imaginal world and the world of the Intellect.

11.3. ANOTHER DIVISION OF KNOWLEDGE INTO UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR

That which is meant by ‘universal’ knowledge here is the knowledge that does not change with the accidental object of knowledge (al-ma’lûm bi al-’arad). An instance of it is the form of a structure conceived by an architect in order to build an actual one similar to it. The conceived form remains as it was before, during, and after the structure’s construction, even though the actual structure should collapse or be razed to the ground. This kind of knowledge is called ‘knowledge prior to multiplicity’ (‘ilrn mâ qabl al katsrah) The knowledge acquired through the means of universal causes is of this kind, such as an astronomer’s knowledge that lunar eclipse would occur on a certain day at a certain time for certain period during which there would occur an astronomical configuration in which the earth will intervene between the sui and the moon. In this case, his knowledge remains unchanged before, during, and after the eclipse.

By ‘particular’ knowledge here is meant the knowledge that changes with the change in the accidental object of knowledge. An example of it is our knowledge obtained through eyesight of Zayd’s movements: when Zayd stops moving, the perceived impression changes from motion to rest. This kind of knowledge is called ‘knowledge posterior to multiplicity’ (‘ilm mâ ba’da al-katsrah).

Here someone may say that change does not occur without prior potentiality, which is borne by matter, and that requires that the object of particular knowledge be material, not immaterial. The answer is that knowledge of change is not change of knowledge. The changing object undergoes a fixed course of change, which does not change itself. The knowledge of it - that is, its presence before the knower - is from the aspect of its fixity not its change, for otherwise it would not be present and knowledge would not be the presence of an entity for another entity. This involves a contradiction.

11.4. KINDS OF INTELLECTION

The metaphysicians mention three kinds of intellection (ta’aqqul ).

One of them is potential intellection (al-’aql bi al-quwwah ), wherein the ‘intellect’ neither actually cognizes the intelligibles, nor does it apprehend any ‘intelligibles in act’ due to the soul’s being devoid of all intelligibles.

The second is wherein the intellect intellects one or many intelligibles in act differentiating them from one another and conceiving them in an orderly manner. This is called ‘detailed intellection’ (al-’aql al-tafshîlî ).

In the third kind of intellection, the mind intellects many intelligibles in act without differentiating them from one another. It is a simple, undifferentiated form of intellection wherein all the details are contained. An example that has been given of it is when one is asked concerning several issues of which one has knowledge. The answer immediately comes to one’s mind. At the very first moment one has the answer wherein one actually knows all of them for certain without sorting them out or their details from one another. The sorting out and the details come only in the process of answering, as if one had a store from which the details flow out. This kind of intellection is called ‘non-differentiated intellection’ (al-’aql al-ijmâlî ).

11.5. PLANES OF THE INTELLECT

The metaphysicians mention four planes of the intellect.

One of them is that which is in a state of potentiality in relation to all intelligibles. It is called the material intellect (al-’aql al-hayûlânî ) on account of its similarity to prime matter (hayûlâ ) in being devoid of intelligibles and with respect to its potentiality in relation to all forms.

The second is the ‘intellect by proficiency’ (al-’aql bi al-malakah which is the plane wherein it intellects self-evident concepts (tasawwurât) and judgements (tashdîqât ); for the knowledge of self-evident matters (badîhiyyât ) precedes the knowledge of ‘speculative’ matters (nazhariyyât ).

The third is the ‘intellect in act’ which intellects speculative matters through the mediation of self-evident concepts and judgements, though some of them are based on the others.

The fourth is the intellect that partakes of all self-evident and speculative intelligibles corresponding to the realities of the higher and lower realms of existence by virtue of having all of them present before it and its actual consciousness of them. Thus it is a ‘knowing world’ similar to the external world, and is called the ‘acquired intellect’ (al-’aql al-mustafâd ).

11.6. THE EMANATING SOURCE OF THE INTELLIGIBLE FORMS

As to the universal intelligible forms, which bring man, for instance, from potentiality to actuality, its source of emanation (mufîdh) is an immaterial Intellect which possesses all the universal intelligible forms. That is because, as we have seen, these forms constitute knowledge and are immaterial. Moreover, by virtue of their universality they are capable of corresponding to a multiplicity of objects, whereas everything impressed in matter is an individual incapable of such correspondence. Therefore, the intelligible forms are immaterial, created by an agent that is an immaterial source, for a material entity is existentially weak and incapable of producing something existentially stronger. In addition, the action of matter is conditioned by a particular [physical] configuration (wadh’) and an immaterial entity does not have a [physical] position or location.

This immaterial source is not the soul itself, which intellects these immaterial cognitive forms, for it is still in potentiality in relation to these forms and its mode is passive, not active; it is impossible that something in potentiality should by itself make the transition from potentiality to actuality.

Therefore, the source of the intelligible form is an immaterial intelligent substance that possesses all the universal intelligible ::ms in the manner of non-differentiated knowledge. The soul assessing potential unites with it in order to intellect in accordance with its particular potential, whereupon the source of emanation creates in it the intelligible form for whose reception it possesses the potential.

A similar explanation in relation to particular intelligible forms would make clear that their source is an imaginal immaterial substance which possesses all the particular imaginal forms in the manner of non-differentiated knowledge, and that the soul unites pith them in accordance with its potential.

11.7. THE DIVISION OF MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE INTO CONCEPTION AND JUDGEMENT

The mere knowledge of the form (shûrah) of the known object, whether one or multiple, regardless of affirmation or negation, is ailed conception (tashawwur), such as the concepts of ‘man,’ ‘body’ and ‘substance.’ If the form of the known is accompanied by an affirmation or negation of something concerning something, such s in the sentence, ‘Man is risible’ or ‘Man is not stone,’ it is an assertion’ (tashdîq; lit. affirmation), and in consideration of the judgement that it contains is called ‘qadhiyyah’ (proposition). Further, a proposition comprises more than one part as it contains the affirmation or negation of something concerning something.

According to the prevalent view among metaphysicians, an affirmative proposition comprises a subject (mawdhû’), a predicate (mahmûl) and the ‘relation of judgement’ (al-nisbah al-hukmiyyah), which is the predicate’s relation to the subject and the judgement (hukm) of the subject’s oneness with the predicate. This is the case in ‘composite statements’ (al-halliyyat al-murakkabah) wherein the predicate is not the existence of the subject. But in ‘simple statements’ (al-halliyyat al-basîthah), in which the predicate is the existence of the subject - such as in the statement ‘Man is existent’ -  there are three parts: the subject, the predicate and the judgemenr there is no sense in a relation - which is a copulative existent -  intervening between a thing and itself.

Furthermore, a negative proposition is made up of a subject, a predicate and an affirmative relation of judgement (al-nisbah ai-hukmiyyah al-îjâbiyyah). There is no judgement in it, and no negative judgement, for a judgement consists of affirming something of something; the withholding of judgement is the absence of it, not the positing of its absence.

The truth is that the need for conceiving the relation of judgement is only from the aspect of the judgement being an act of the soul, not because it is part of the proposition. For a proposition consists only of the subject, the predicate, and the judgement, and the formation of a proposition as such does not require the conception of the relation of judgement. The need for conceiving it arises for the formation of judgement by the soul in identifying the subject with the predicate. This is also confirmed by the formation of the proposition in simple statements without the relation of judgement that relates the predicate to the subject.

It becomes clear from this discussion that, first, an affirmative proposition (al-qadhiyyah al-mûjibah) consists of three parts: subject, predicate, and judgement. A negative proposition consists of two parts: subject and predicate, and the relation of judgement is needed by the soul in making the judgement, not for the formation of the proposition as such.

Second, judgement is an act of the soul in the context of mental cognition, not a passive act of conception. When we say ‘Zayd is standing,’ for instance, the soul cognizes through sensory means a single entity which is ‘the standing Zayd.’ Then it analyzes it into two concepts ‘Zayd’ and ‘standing’ and stores them. Thereafter, when it wants to describe what it finds in external reality, it takes the forms of ‘Zayd’ and ‘standing’ from its memory as two different notions and combines them into a unity with a

single existence. This is judgement, which we have described as the act of the soul, by means of which it represents external reality as it is.

Hence, judgement is an act of the soul and, at the same time, a mental form that represent something beyond itself. Were judgement a conception abstracted from outside, the proposition would not make a complete statement to which nothing needs to be added, as in the case of each part of a hypothetical proposition. Also, were judgement a concept formulated by the soul without recourse to external reality, it would not represent external reality.

11.8. DIVISION OF MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE INTO SELF-EVIDENT AND SPECULATIVE

Something is said to be ‘self-evident’ (badîh) that does not stand in need of reflection and speculative reasoning (nazhar) for the formation of its conception or for the making of a judgement concerning it, e.g. the concepts of ‘thing,’ ‘unity’ and so on, or such assertions as ‘The whole is greater than any of its parts’ or Tour is an even number.’ A ‘speculative’ conception or judgement is one which depends on reflective effort, e.g. the conception of the quiddity of man and horse, or such assertions as, ‘The three angles of a triangle equal two right angles,’ or ‘Man has an immaterial soul.’

The speculative sciences derive from self-evident knowledge effort, and their elaboration rests on the basis of what is self-evident. Otherwise the matter would lead to an indefinite regress, and no knowledge would be possible, as explained in logic.

Self-evident assertions, as explained in logic, are many, and the foremost of them are the so-called the basic self-evident propositions (awwaliyyât), which are propositions for whose confirmation the mere conception of the subject and the predicate is sufficient, e.g. such statements as ‘The whole is greater than any of its parts’ and ‘A thing cannot be divested from itself.’

The foremost of the primarily self-evident propositions is the principle of contradiction, which is a proper disjunctive proposition: ‘Either the affirmation or negation of a proposition is true.’ No self-evident or speculative proposition, even the primarily self-evident propositions, can do without contradiction in order to bring knowledge. Thus the statement, ‘The whole is greater than any of its parts’ brings knowledge only if its contradictory. ‘It is not the case that the whole is greater than any of its parts.’ is false.

Hence this principle is the most primary proposition to be affirmed, and no sane person can doubt it. All sciences are based upon it and were any doubt cast upon it, it would pervade to d sciences and judgements.

A Complementary Note

The sophist, who denies the possibility of knowledge, does not affirm the validity of the principle of contradiction; for his acceptance of it would amount to an admission that one out of every pair of contradictory propositions is true.

However, should the sophist who denies the possibility of knowledge and is skeptical of everything admit to be a skeptic, it means that he admits the possibility of at least some kind of knowledge and thereby affirms the principle of contradiction Then it becomes possible to make him admit the possibility of knowledge of many things similar to his knowledge of being a skeptic, such as his knowledge that he sees, hears, has sensations of touch, taste and smell, that when he feels hungry he looks for something that would satisfy his hunger, or quench his thirst when he feels thirsty. When he accepts these, he can be led to admit that he possesses the knowledge of other things as well, for all knowledge, as said earlier,’ terminates in sense-experience (al-hiss).

However, should he refuse to admit that he knows that he is a skeptic and declare that he is skeptical of everything, even of his own skepticism, and

knows nothing, there can be no debate with him and no argument will work upon him. This kind of person either suffers from a disease affecting his mental faculty, in which case he should see a physician, or he is one hostile to the truth, seeking to refute it. The latter should be chastened, made to feel pain, kept from what he desires and seeks and compelled to experience what he dislikes and detests, for he does not consider any of these to have reality.

Yes, often some persons of this kind who turn to the rational sciences without the necessary training in the principles of logic and the techniques of reasoning, on observing the contradictory opinions of thinkers on various problems and the arguments they advance in support of each of their mutually exclusive positions, cannot make a distinction between the true and the false due to me inadequacy of their intellectual means. Such a person concedes to each of the contradictory opinions on one issue after another, and thereafter becomes suspect of all logic, claiming that the sciences are relative, not absolute, and the truth for every thinker is what his arguments lead him to.

The remedy for this kind of skeptic is to fully clarify for him the principles of logic and to demonstrate for him the self-evident principles which are beyond doubt in all circumstances, such as the principle of identity and so on. Utmost effort should be made to explain to him the elements of a proposition, and he should be directed to study the mathematical sciences.

There are two other groups of skeptics. One of them accepts man’s perceptions but doubts what lies beyond them. “We can know only what we perceive, and that which lies beyond our perceptions is uncertain,” they declare. There is another group, which, having noticed that the statement, “We can know only what we perceive” implies the admission of many other truths -  namely, the existence of other persons and their experiences, which are external facts - re-state their position and say, “I can be certain only of my perceptions. Anything that lies beyond them is uncertain.”

In refuting such a position it may be said that occasionally there do occur errors of cognition - as in cases of errors of vision and Tactual sense and errors of reasoning - but if there were no external realities beyond one’s self and one’s perceptions, realities which either correspond to these perceptions or do not, there would obviously be no room for error.

It may be said that the opinion of this group is not a total negation of knowledge. What they mean is that the forms presented to the senses may not exactly conform to external facts as they are. For instance, it has been pointed out that sound as it appears to hearing does not exist in external reality. Rather, when it reaches a certain frequency it becomes audible to hearing in the form at audible sound. Similarly, when the frequency of electromagnetic waves reaches a certain number it appears to vision in the form of visible light and colours. Hence the senses, which are the source of perception, do not reveal the realities transcending them, and all other contents of cognition terminate in the senses.

However, if perception is assumed to be incapable of revealing the reality transcending it, where does this knowledge come from that there does exist such a reality beyond perception, a reality which perception fails to reveal?

Who has cognized that external sound consists of vibrations of a certain frequency and visible light has such and such a frequency in external reality? Does man discover the real external facts except through the faculties of perception, the same external facts in perceiving which the senses make errors?

In view of what has been said above, the suggestion that perception may not conform absolutely to what lies beyond it only amounts to a denial of the possibility of knowledge. Then, even the statement, “Our perceptions may not conform to anything in external reality” will not be secure from failing to reveal anything in respect of the individual concepts and the judgement involved in it.

11.9. DIVISION OF MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE INTO HAQÎQÎ AND I’TIBÂRÎ

The term ‘real’ (haqîqî) refers to concepts which [that is, whose referents], when existing externally, exist with their external properties, and which exists in the mind without those external properties. Such concepts pertain to quiddity (mâhiyyah ). Opposed to them are concepts that are denoted by the termed ‘derivative’ (i’tibârî ). It refers either to concepts the mode (haytsiyyah ) of whose referent is externality only, such as ‘existence’ and its real characteristics, such as ‘unity,’ ‘actuality’ and so on. That which is denoted by such concepts does not enter the mind, for otherwise it would involve a violation of the law of identity (inqilâb ). Or it refers to concepts the mode of whose referent is mental, such as the oncepts of ‘universal,’ ‘genus’ and ‘species,’ which are not to be found externally, for otherwise that will involve a violation of the of identity.

The so-called i’tibârî concepts are formulated by the mind through a kind of contemplative effort and applied to their referents, though not in the way quiddity is applied to and predicated of its individuals and taken within their confines.

From what has been said it first becomes clear that the concepts which are predicated of the Necessary Being and contingent existents, such as existence and life, are i’tibârî; for otherwise the Necessary Being would have quiddity.

Second, the concepts which are predicated of more than one category, such as motion, are i’tibârî; for otherwise they would belong to two or more genera, and that is inadmissible.

Third, the i’tibârî concepts do not have any definitions (i.e. genus and species), nor are they confined to any particular quiddity.

It is important to note that there are other meanings of the term i’tibârî which are not relevant to our discussion, (i) One of these is the sense of i’tibârî as opposed to ‘fundamentally real’ (ashîl ), such s quiddity in opposition to existence, (ii) Another sense of it is meant when i’tibârî is used for something which does not have an independent existence of its own, as opposed to something which exists independently, as in the case of a relation, which exists trough the existence of its two sides as opposed to substance, which exists by itself, (iii) Another meaning of i’tibârî is that which is applied to and predicated of subjects in a figurative and metaphorical sense with a practical end in view, such as the application f the word ‘head’ to Zayd as someone whose relation to his people is like the relation of the head to the body because he manages r.eir affairs, solves their problems and assigns to everyone his particular duties and tasks.

11.10. SOME MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES

That which is known through mediated knowledge is divisible ito that which is known by itself (ma’lûm bi al-dzât ) and that which is known by accident (ma’lûm bi al-’arad ). The known-by-itself is the form apprehended by the knower. The known-by-accident is the external object represented by the cognitive form, it is called the ‘accidentally known’ (ma’lûm bi al-arad) or the ‘figuratively known’ (ma’lûm bi al-majâz ) due to its association with the known-by-itself.

Another issue is that, as said earlier, every intelligible is immaterial in the same way as every intelligence is immaterial. Hence the concepts presented to the intellectual faculty, by apprehending which it acquires actuality, being immaterial, are existentialliy stronger than the intelligent soul, which develops through then means and is affected by them. Hence they are, in fact, immaterial existents that manifest themselves to the knowing soul through their external existence, and the soul unites with them when they are the forms of substances and with their substrata if they are accidents. However, due to our contact with matter through the means of the sensory organs, we imagine that the substratum of these forms is matter and that we abstract them from matter and the material properties possessed by them in their material state, whereupon they become mental existents representing external things without bearing their external properties.

From this discussion it becomes clear that mediated knowledge, in fact, involves immediate knowledge.

It also becomes clear that immaterial Intellects do not possess any mediated knowledge due to their total separation from matter  - a separation which is essential as well as actual.

11.11. EVERY IMMATERIAL BEING IS INTELLIGENT

That is because anything that is essentially and completely immaterial (mujarrad tâm dzâtan) has no association with potentiality. Therefore, its immaterial essence (dzât) is present and existent for itself. That is so because by knowledge we do not mean anything except a thing’s presence for a thing in the aforementioned sense. This pertains to its knowledge of itself. As to its knowledge of entities other than itself, it is possible for it, by virtue of its essential immateriality, to intellect every immaterial being that can be intellected; and for an immaterial existent that which is possible is actual. Hence it intellects in actuality every immaterial existent, in the same way as every immaterial being is intelligible in actuality as well as intelligent in actuality.

If it is said that this implies that the human soul, being immaterial, intellects every intelligible, which is obviously not admissible. The answer is that the soul is immaterial essentially, not in actuality; by virtue of its essential immateriality it intellects its own essence in act, but its actual association [with matter] necessitates its gradual transition from potentiality to act in accordance with different degrees of preparedness. And when it attains to complete immateriality and is no more preoccupied with the regulation of the body’s functions, it apprehends all knowables in the manner of non-differentiated knowledge, becoming an acquired intellect in act (‘aql mustafâd bi al-fi’l).

It is evident that this argument applies to immaterial essences which are substances and are existent-for-themselves, not to accidents, whose existence is for-other-than-themselves; that which intellects them is their substratum.

11.12. IMMEDIATE KNOWLEDGE IS NOT LIMITED TO SELF-KNOWLEDGE

It was said earlier that immaterial substances are in themselves present-for-themselves by virtue of their immateriality and actuality. However, is immediate knowledge confined to an entity’s knowledge of itself? Or does it include a cause’s knowledge of its effect and vice versa, when both of them are immaterial? The Peripatetics subscribe to the former position and the Emanationists subscribe to the latter view, which is the correct one.

That is so because the existence of the effect is dependent, as mentioned earlier, on the existence of the cause, which sustains it. It is not independent of the cause. Hence when the cause and effect are immaterial, the effect is present with all its being for the cause, without there being any barrier between them. It is known with immediacy to the cause through its existence itself.

Similarly, when the cause and effect are immaterial, the cause present with its existence for its effect, which is sustained by being independent through the independence of the cause, and there is no barrier separating them. Hence it is known to its effect with an immediate knowledge.