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

المرحلة الثانية في انقسام الوجود إلى خارجي و ذهني

CHAPTER TWO: The Division of Existence into External and Mental

1Unit

2.1: The External Existence and Mental Existence

The prevalent view among the metaphysicians is that quiddities, besides their external existence (al-wujûd al-khârijî), wherein they possess the properties (âthâr) expected of them, have another existence called ‘mental existence.” However, they do not possess those properties in their mental mode of existence. For instance, the human being exists in external reality and, being a substance, it exists there without the need of a subject (mawdû). As a body (jism), it is valid to ascribe to it three dimensions. Moreover, as a ‘living thing,’ ‘animal’ and ‘human being,’ it manifests the properties and characteristics of these genera and differentiae. However, the human being existing in the mind, though it fulfils the definition of ‘human being,’ does not possess any of these external properties.

However, some of them hold that what we know (the so-called ‘mental existence’) is a resemblance (shabah) of the quiddity, not the quiddity itself. It is an accident (‘arad) and a quality (kayf) subsisting through the soul (nafs). In its essence (dhât) it differs from the external thing known, only resembling it and representing some of its characteristics. It is like the picture of a horse painted on a wall that represents the horse existing in external reality. Such a view in fact boils down to a denial of the possibility of knowledge, for it totally closes the door to the knowledge of external reality.”

Some others have been led to deny mental existence altogether, holding that the soul’s knowledge of an external object is a special relation between it and the soul. Such a position is refuted by the knowledge of anything non-existent; for the soul’s relation to something non-existent is meaningless.

Those who believe in mental existence have advanced the following arguments in its favour.

(i) We make affirmative judgements concerning non-existents, as about a “sea of mercury,” or posit such propositions as “The co-existence of two contradictories (naqîdayn) is different from the co-existence of two contraries (diddayn)” and the like. Affirmation means to posit the subsistence of something. The affirmation of one thing (B) in regard to another thing (A) is subordinate to the subsistence of A. Hence subjects that are non-existent [in external reality] have an existence. Since they have no existence in external reality, they must have an existence somewhere else, that is, the mind.

(ii) We conceptualize certain notions possessing universality (kulliyyah), such as the universals ‘man’ and ‘animal.’ A concept is a rational pointer that has no significance unless it points to an existent. Since the universals qua universals do not exist in external reality, they must have existence somewhere. That somewhere is the mind.

(iii) We can conceive every reality in the state of absolute simplicity wherein it is divested of everything that may be mixed with it or appended to it [in external reality]. For instance, there is the concept of ‘whiteness,’ which is divested of everything other than whiteness. Every thing in its absoluteness (sirf al-shay’) does not allow of duality and multiplicity. It is one and encompasses in its unity every thing of its kind. A reality with such

a characteristic does not exist in the external world. Hence it must exist in an other locus, which we call ‘the mind.’

قد استشكل على وجود الماهيات في الذهن بمعنى حصولها بأنفسها فيه إشكالات:

منها ما عن بعضهم أن العلم غير المعلوم فعند حصول ماهية من الماهيات الخارجية في الذهن أمران أحدهما الماهية الحاصلة نفسها على ما كانت عليه في الخارج و هو المعلوم و هو غير قائم بالنفس بل قائم بنفسه حاصل فيه حصول الشي‏ء في الزمان و المكان و الآخر صفة حاصلة للنفس قائمة بها يطرد بها عنها الجهل و هو العلم و على هذا فالمعلوم مندرج تحت مقولته الخارجية من جوهر أو كم أو غير ذلك و العلم كيف نفساني فلا اجتماع أصلا لا لمقولتين و لا لنوعين من مقولة.

A SUPPLEMENTARY DISCUSSION

Certain objections have been raised against the notion of existence of quiddities in the mind, in the sense that they exist there by themselves.

First Objection

The view that quiddities exist in the mind by themselves implies that a single thing should be both a substance and an accident at the same time, which is impossible. To explain, the substance (jawhar) intellected by the mind is a substance in accordance with the principle of retention of the essentials (dhatiyyât). However, the same substance is also an accident (‘arad), because it subsists through the soul in much the same way as an accident subsists, through its substratum (ma‘rûd). This is self-contradictory, because it implies that a thing be both independent of a subject (mawdû’) and depend on a subject at the same time.

Second Objection

The mental quiddity belongs to the category (maqûlah) of quality (kayf),’ in accordance with the view that the intelligible forms (al-suwar al-‘ilmiyyah) are qualities of the soul (kayfiyyât nafsâniyyah). When we conceive a substance, that conception would fall under the category of substance, on the basis of the principle of retention of the essentials (dhatiyyât). At the same time, as said, it falls under the category of quality, while the categories are mutually exclusive. This implies a contradiction in the essence of the mental existent. Similarly, when we conceive something belonging to a category other than that of substance, the conceived quiddity would fall under two categories. This is true also when the conception is that of a sensible quality (kayf mahsûs), for it will fall under the category of sensible quality as well as that of psychic quality (kayf nafsânî). In all these cases, a single thing falls under two mutually exclusive categories, which is logically impossible.

The philosophers who believe in mental existence admit that the second objection poses a greater difficulty than the first one. The idea that a single thing may be a substance as well as an accident does not pose much of a difficulty, because the essential difference between the categories is the one between substance, quality, quantity and so on. For the notion of accident - as something that subsists through its subject - is a general one that applies to the nine categories. It may validly include mental substance as well and apply to it. Moreover, in accordance with the definition of substance as ‘a quiddity which does not require a subject to exist externally,’ it may validly subsist in the mind through a subject, for it is while existing externally that it does, not require a subject. However, the falling of a single quiddity under two categories  - such as substance and quality or quantity and quality - is necessarily impossible, for the categories are mutually exclusive with respect to essence.

The Attempts to Address the Two Objections

In view of the above and similar objections, some (viz. al-Râzî) have been led to an outright denial of mental existence, holding that knowledge is

a relation between the soul and external reality. Accordingly, that which is known falls solely under the category of external entities. However, we have shown the inadmissibility of such a position. Some others have been led to hold that external quiddities existing in the mind are resemblances (asybâh), not the quiddities themselves. A thing’s resemblance is something other than and different from the thing itself. Hence the intellected forms are qualities of the soul, which do not retain the character of the external categories, and no difficulty arises on the basis of this view.

However, we have shown that this position implies a denial of the possibility of knowledge.

Several other attempts have been made to resolve the above-mentioned difficulties, which are as follow:

` (i) Some of them (viz. al-Qawshajî) have said that knowledge (‘ilm) is different from the known (ma’lûm). The cognition (hushûl) of an external quiddity by the mind involves two things. One is the intellected quiddity itself as it was in external reality. That is the known, and it does not subsist through the soul but is self-subsisting, being present in the mind like a thing present in space and time. The other is a quality present in the soul and subsisting through it. That is knowledge, and it is by virtue of it that ignorance is removed from the soul. Accordingly, the known - whether substance, quantity or something else - falls under an external category, whereas knowledge is a quality of the soul. Thus understood, the difficulty posed by coincidence of two categories or two kinds of one category does not arise.

However, such a description is contrary to what introspection reveals to us during cognition. The form of something present in the soul during cognition is exactly what relieves the soul of ignorance and afford us the knowledge of that thing.

(ii) Some others who believe in the fundamental reality of quiddity (viz. al-Sayyid al-Sanad Shadr al-Dîn al-Syirâzî) have been led to hold that the forms intellected by the mind are divested from their corresponding external quiddities and transformed into qualities. To explain, since the external existence of quiddity is prior to the [mental existence of] quiddity itself, aside from existence there will be no quiddity at all. Mental existence and external existence are different from one another with a real difference, so that when existence is transformed through an external existent becoming a mental existent, there is no reason why quiddity too should not be transformed by the transformation of substance, quantity or any other category into the category of quality. Hence a thing itself has no definite reality with regard to itself. Rather, when a mental quality occurs in the external world it is either substance or some other category, and when an external substance occurs in the mind it becomes transformed into a mental quality. Given the difference between mental and external quiddities (as a result of the above-mentioned transformation), the claim that things themselves come into the mind requires that there should be a common principle between the two. To conceive such a principle, it is sufficient for the intellect to conceptualize something indefinite and common between the two - like the conception of a matter common to a material body and its

disintegrated form - so that what is in the mind should correspond to what is in external reality.

The above theory is fruitless, first because the belief in the transformation of quiddity and of a real difference between the two modes of existence (external and mental) is inconsistent with the doctrine subscribed to by its proponent, that quiddity is fundamentally real and existence is a derivative construct.

Second, since it implies an essential difference between the mental form and the external object known, it boils down to a theory of resemblances and skepticism.

(iii) Some others (viz. al-Dawwânî) have stated that since knowledge is essentially identical with the object of knowledge, it belongs to the same category as the known object. Thus if the latter happens to be a substance, the former is also a substance, and if the latter is a quantity it is also a quality, and so on. As to naming knowledge a ‘quality’ by the philosophers, it is based on a somewhat loose expression, similar to the common usage wherein an attribute representing a substance is called a quality when applied to something else. With this, they claim, the second difficulty is overcome concerning the falling of other categories under the category of quality.

As to the first difficulty, that a single thing should be a substance and accident simultaneously, its solution - as mentioned earlier - is that ‘accident’ in its general sense includes the nine accidental categories as well as mental substance. Hence it does not constitute any difficulty.

The difficulty inherent in this view is that the mere applicability of the concept of one of the categories to a thing, as we shall explain later, does not justify its being classed under that category.

Moreover, the philosophers are explicit in their statement that ‘acquired knowledge’ (al- ‘ilm al-hushûlî) is a psychic quality that really falls under the category of quality and there is no looseness of expression involved.

(iv) Then there is the theory of Shadr al-Muta’allihin - may God’s mercy be upon him - which has been set forth by him in his books. The theory is based on a distinction between two forms of predication (haml): ‘primary essential predication’ and ‘common predication.’ It is the second kind of predication that implies that the intelligible form falls under an external category. To explain, the mere inclusion of a generic or specific concept in the definition of a thing and its applicability to it does not require that thing to be classed under that genus or species. Such a classification depends on the thing’s possessing the properties possessed externally by that genus or species. Hence the mere inclusion of the concepts of ‘substance’ or ‘body,’ for instance, in the definition of the human being (according to which the human being is defined as ‘a substance that is a growing, sensate body capable of voluntarily motion and possess¬ing rationality) does not entail its falling under the category of substance, or under the genus ‘body,’ unless it occurs as a concrete substance, without needing a subject, or as a body possessing three dimensions.

Similarly, the inclusion of ‘quantity’ and ‘continuity’ in the definition of ‘surface’ (which is defined as ‘a static, two-dimensional continuous

quantity’) does not necessitate its inclusion under ‘quantity’ and ‘continuous extension,’ unless as a concrete quantity it is susceptible to division and possesses the property of continuity.

Were the mere correspondence of a concept to a thing to require its inclusion under the category of that thing, then every universal would itself be an individual, as it applies to itself through primary predication. Hence inclusion under a category requires the possession of external properties and it is obvious that such properties exist in external existence, not in mental existence.

This shows that mentaj forms do not fall under the categories to which they correspond, for they do not possess the [external] properties expected of them. However, though the mental form does not possess the properties of the corresponding external object known, as a state (hât) or habit (malakah) present for the soul, from which it dispels ignorance, it is an ‘external’ existent existing for the soul, which possesses it as an attribute. The definition of quality is applicable to it through common predication, as quality is therefore defined as “an accident which is not subject to division or relation.” Hence the mental form as such falls under the category of quality, though from the viewpoint of its being a mental existent corresponding to external reality it does not fall-due to the absence of external properties - under any category except perhaps the category of quality-by-accident.

The above explanation reveals the inadmissibility of the objection of some thinkers who have taken exception to the statement that knowledge is an essential quality (kayf bi al-dzâf) and the mental form an accidental quality (kayf bi al-‘arad). Their argument is that the very existence of those forms and their existence for the soul are one and the same. They argue that the existence and manifestation of the mental forms for the soul are nothing additional to their existence, so that they may be a quality in the soul, because their externality has ceased in its entirety; furthermore, their quiddities in themselves each belong to a particular category, while with regard to their mental existence they are neither substances nor accidents. Moreover, their manifestation for the soul is nothing but that quiddity and that existence, since the manifestation of a thing is not something additional to it, otherwise it would have a manifestation of itself, whereas there is nothing else. As to quality, it is of such a nature that it is predicated of its subject by inherence. If manifestation and existence for the soul were a categorical relation, the quiddity of knowledge would be relation not quality. But since it is an emanative relation (i.e. the creative relation between a cause and its effect) originating in the soul, it is existence. Therefore, knowledge is light and manifestation (zhuhûr), and the latter are both existence, and existence is not quiddity.

This objection is not valid because though the cognitive form is existent for the soul and manifest for it, that is not on account of its being a mental existent corresponding to an external reality without possessing its properties, but due to its being a state or ‘habit’ for the soul that dispels privation (i.e. ignorance) from it, and as such it is a perfection (kamâl) for the soul, additional to it, and possessed by it as an attribute. That is an

extraneous effect produced on the soul. Since the soul is the subject for the cognitive form and independent of it in itself, the latter is its accident and the definition of quality is applicable to it. Hence the claim that there is nothing additional to the soul, which is united with it, is inadmissible.

Therefore, it is clear that the cognitive form, being a state or habit of the soul, is a quality in essence, and it is a quality by accidence due to its being a mental existent.

Third Objection:

The doctrine of mental existence and presence of the very (quiddities of) things in the mind implies that the soul, while conceiving heat and cold, width and length, motion and rest, triangle and rectangle, etc., should simultaneously become hot and cold, wide and long, triangular and rectangular and so on. That is because we do not call to mind anything hot or cold, wide or long, and so on, without the soul acquiring these opposite attributes, which subsist through it.

The answer is that such external notions like heat and cold and the like become present in the mind with their quiddities, not with their actual existences, and correspond to them in the sense of primary predication, not common predication. That which necessitates things becoming attributed with these qualities does so by acquiring them with their external existences and subsisting through their subjects, not by conceiving their quiddities and their subsistence in the sense of primary predication.

Fourth Objection

We conceive things that are essentially impossible, such as ‘God’s partner’ (sharîk al-Bârî), the simultaneous co-existence or non-existence of two contradictories, and the negation of a thing’s identity with itself. Should things be themselves present in the mind, such essential impossibilities would obtain subsistence.

The answer is that the essential impossibilities are present in the mind in the sense of primary predication, not in that of common predication. Hence ‘God’s partner’ is ‘God’s partner’ in the mind in the sense of primary predication, but from the viewpoint of common predication it is a contingent (mumkin), a quality of the soul, and a creature of God. The same applies to other impossibilities.

Fifth Objection

We do conceive the earth with its great expanse, its plains, mountains, continents and oceans, as well as the great distances of space together with the planets and the stars with their huge dimensions. The impression of these huge dimensions in the mind, or in a part of the nervous system - according to physiologists -  amounts to the impression of something big in something small, which is impossible. That which is said in response to this objection - that the receiving agent is infinitely divisible - is inadmissible, because a small area about that of one’s palm, though it should be infinitely divisible, cannot contain a mountain.

The answer to this objection is that the particular perceived forms are in fact immaterial, as will be discussed later on.’ Their immateriality is imaginal (mitsâlî), wherein such material properties as dimension, geometric form, etc., are retained, but not matter itself. Hence they are present in the soul on the plane of imaginal immateriality (tajarrud mitbâli) without being imprinted on a bodily organ or a faculty related to it. As to the actions and reactions that occur on a material plane during the process of sensation or perception, they are the preparatory means for the soul for apprehending the particular imaginal cognitive forms.

Sixth Objection

The physiologists state that sensation and perception involve the formation in the sense organs of impressions (shuwar) of physical bodies with all their external relations and characteristics. The sense organs modify the impressions in accordance with their particular nature and convey them to the brain. Man cognizes their sizes, dimensions, and shapes through a kind of comparison between the parts of the impressions apprehended. This description does not leave any room for the belief in presence of external quiddities themselves in the mind.

The answer is that the physiologists do indeed speak of certain physical actions and reactions involved in perception. However, these physical impressions, which differ from the external things perceived, are not what constitute the perceived form itself. Rather they constitute a preparatory stage that prepares the soul for the presence before it of the external quiddities with an imaginal (mitsâlî), not a material, existence. Otherwise the disparity between the impressions in the organs of sensation and perception and the external objects represented by these impressions will amount to negation of the possibility of knowledge.

In fact this is one of the strongest proofs of the immaterial presence of the quiddities themselves for the mind. That is because should we assume them to have some kind of material existence - in whatever manner - that cannot get rid of disparity between the apprehended forms and the external realities they represent, thus necessarily implying a denial of the possibility of knowledge.

Seventh Objection

The doctrine of mental existence implies that a single thing should simultaneously be a particular and a universal. This is obviously inadmissible. To explain, the intellected quiddity of ‘man,’ for instance, is a universal in so far as it is applicable to a multiplicity of persons. At the same time it is a particular in so far as it is present in a particular soul through which it subsists, thus becoming particularized through its particularity, being different from the quiddity of ‘man’ intellected by other souls. Hence it is simultaneously a particular and a universal.

The answer is that there are two different aspects (jihât) involved here. The intellected quiddity is a universal in so far as it is a mental existent corresponding to external reality and applicable to a multiplicity of objects.

And in so far as it is a quality of the soul - aside from its correspondence to external reality - it is a particular.