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

المرحلة الثالثة في انقسام الوجود إلى ما في نفسه و ما في غيره و انقسام ما في نفسه إلى ما لنفسه و ما لغيره

CHAPTER THREE: The Division of Existence into Existence-in-itself and Existence-in-something-else, and of Existence-in-itself into Existence-for-itself and Existence-for-something-else

3 Units

3.1. EXISTENCE-IN-ITSELF AND EXISTENCE-IN-SOMETHING-ELSE

Existence is either existence-in-something-else or its opposite [i.e. existence-in-itself]. To explain, when we consider a true proposition, for instance, ‘Man is a biped,’ we find that there is something in it [i.e. the verb “to be” used as a copula] besides the subject and the predicate that relates them to each other. This relation is absent when we consider solely the subject or the predicate, or when each of them is conceived along with some other thing. Hence that something has existence. Moreover, its existence is not something additional to the existence of the two sides, or something situated between them and existing independently of them, for otherwise it would require two other copulas to relate it to each of the two sides. Then the three would become five and the five would similarly become nine and so on ad infinitum.

Hence its existence inheres in the two sides and depends on them, not being extraneous to or independent of them. It has no independent meaning of its own as a concept. We call it “copulative existence” (al-wujûd al-râbith). That which is not such - such as the existence of the subject and that of the predicate - and has an independent meaning as a concept, is called “substantive existence” (al-wujûd al-mahmûlî, lit. predicative existence) or “independent existence” (al-wujud al-mustaqil). Hence existence is divisible into independent and copulative as stated.

From what has been said, it becomes clear that:

(i) copulative existents have no quiddity; for the quiddity of a thing is what is mentioned in answer to the question, ‘What is it?’ Quiddity has a substantive existence and independent meaning as a concept. Copulative existence is not such.

(ii) Second, the occurrence of a copulative existent between two things necessitates a unity between them, for it is united with them and is not external to their existence.

(iii) Third, the copulative existent occurs in facts corresponding to “composite propositions” (al-halliyyât al-murakkabah, i.e. propositions of the type ‘A is B’) wherein a thing is affirmed of another thing. Às to “simple propositions” (al-halliyyât al-basîthah, i.e. propositions of the type ‘A is’ or ‘A exists’), in which merely the subsistence of the subject is affirmed, there occurs no copulative existence in the corresponding fact, for there is no sense in a thing’s relation with itself.

3.2. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COPULATIVE AND INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE

The metaphysicians differ concerning the character of the difference between copulative and independent existence, as to whether it is a specific difference. That is, is copulative existence a relational concept inconceivable as a substantive and independent notion, in the sense that it is impossible to divest it of this character by conceiving it as a substantive after its being a non-substantive notion (ma’nî harfî)? Or is it the case that there is no specific difference between it and independent existence?

The truth lies with the latter position, for, as will be seen later on in the chapter on cause and effect, the existence of the effect is copulative (râbith) in relation to its cause, although, as we know, effects consist of substances and accidents, both of which have predicative and independent existence. They are copulative existents when viewed in relation to their causes, but are independent existents when considered by themselves.

It becomes clear from what has been said that every concept is subject in the independence of its meaning, or the lack of it, to the existence from which it is abstracted, and is in itself indefinite.

3.3. EXISTENCE-IN-ITSELF-FOR-ITSELF AND EXISTENCE-IN-ITSELF-FOR-SOMETHING-ELSE

By ‘existence for something else’ is meant an existent by itself that in addition to dispelling non-being from its own quiddity, removes a non-being from another thing, though not from its essence and quiddity; for otherwise one existent will possess two quiddities, which implies the multiplicity of that which is one. Hence the non-being removed is one that is extraneous to the thing’s essence and quiddity, having a kind of association with it. An example of it is knowledge, whose existence, in addition to removing non-being from its quiddity, removes ignorance from its subject, ignorance being a kind of non-being associated with the subject. Similar is ability, which in addition to removing non-being from its own quiddity removes disability from its subject.

The evidence for this kind of existent is provided by accidents (a’râdh), each one of which dispels a kind of non-being from its subject, in addition to dispelling non-being from its own quiddity. The same is true of each of the substantial specific forms (al-shuwar al-naw’iyyah al-jawhariyyah), which in a way actualize their matters (mawâdd), complete them and dispel their substantial deficiency. This is the kind of removal of non-being that is meant by ‘existence for something else’ (al-wujûd li ghayrih) and its being ‘attributive.’

It stands opposed to what is called ‘existence for itself (wujûd li nafsih), which dispels non-being solely from itself, like the various kinds of complete specific substances, such as man, horse, etc.

Often metaphysicians divide existence for itself further into that which is existence by itself and existence by something else, but this division relates to causality, which will be discussed later.