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

المرحلة السابعة في العلة و المعلول

CHAPTER SEVEN: The Cause and the Effect

11 Units

7.1. CAUSALITY INHERES IN EXISTENCE

It was mentioned earlier that quiddity is contingent in its essence, i.e. indifferent to existence and non-existence, and that it needs something else in order to incline it towards one of these two sides. It was noted earlier that there is a kind of figurative usage involved in speaking of quiddity as needing something other than itself in its non-existence, for need resides in existence. Hence it is the existence of quiddity that depends on something other than itself.

That dependence also inevitably relates to the existence of the other thing, for a non-existent as such has no entity (syay’iyyah, thingness). The existent on which the existence of quiddity depends is called the ‘cause’ (‘illah), and the quiddity whose existence depends on it is called the ‘effect’ (ma’lûl, lit. caused).

Furthermore, that which the cause brings about and the result it leaves on the effect is either (i) the existence of the effect, or (ii) its quiddity, or (iii) its quiddity’s becoming existent. But it is impossible that what is caused be the quiddity, for, as mentioned earlier, it is derivative (i’tibârî), whereas what is caused by the cause is something fundamental, because that in which the need of the effect-quiddity resides and which is related to the cause is the existence of the quiddity, not it essence (dzât, that is because quiddity in itself is what it is without being related to anything beyond itself)

Also it is impossible that what is caused by the cause be the quiddity’s becoming (shayrûrah) existent, for becoming is a relative concept that depends on its two sides and it is impossible that something fundamental with an external reality should depend on two sides that are derivative (i’tibârî) and non-fundamental (ghayr ashîl). Hence what the cause brings about in respect to the effect and the outcome produced by the cause in it is the existence of the effect, neither its quiddity nor its quiddity’s becoming existent.

7.2. KINDS OF CAUSES

Causes are classified into complete and incomplete. If a cause includes all the prerequisites upon which the existence of the effect depends, so that the effect cannot fail to exist when it is there, it is a complete cause. If a cause includes only some of those prerequisites it is an incomplete cause. The two differ in the respect that the existence of a complete cause necessitates the existence of the effect, and its non-existence the non-existence of the effect. But the existence of an incomplete cause does not necessitate the effect’s existence, though its non-existence does necessitate the effect’s non-existence.

Similarly, causes are classified into ‘single’ (wâhid) and ‘multiple’ (katsîr) and into ‘simple’ (basîth) and ‘composite’ (murakkab). A simple cause is one that has no parts, and a composite cause is its contrary. A simple cause is either simple in respect of external reality such as the immaterial Intellect and the accidents, or it is simple from the viewpoint of the Intellect, i.e. neither composed of matter and form in external reality nor of genus and differentia in the intellect. The simplest of entities is that which is not composed of existence and quiddity, and that is the Necessary Being, exalted is His Name.

Causes are also classified into ‘proximate’ and ‘remote.’ A proximate cause is one in which there is no intermediary term between it and its effect. A remote cause, such as the cause of a cause, is its contrary.

Causes are also classified into ‘internal’ and ‘external.’ The internal causes (al-‘ilal al-dâkhiliyyah, also called ‘ilal al-qiwâm, i.e., the constituting causes) are matter and form, whereby the effect is constituted and sustained. The external causes (al- ‘ilal al-khârijiyyah, also called ‘ilal al-wujûd, the causes of existence) are the ‘agent’ (al-fail, i.e. efficient cause) and the ‘end’ (al-ghâyah, i.e. the final caust) The agent is sometimes called ‘mâ bihi al-wujûd (that on which the effect’s existence depends) and the end is called ‘mâ li ajalihi wujûd (the raison d’etre).

Cause are also classified into ‘real’ (al-‘ilal al-haqîqiyyah) and ‘preparatory’ causes (al-mu’iddât). There is a kind of figurative usage involved in naming the preparatory factors as ’causes,’ for they not real causes. They are only facilitating factors (muqarribât) that bring matter closer to efficient action by the agent, such as the entry of a moving thing into a certain stage of its track which brings it closer to its entry in the succeeding stage, or the passage of intervals of time which brings an expected event closer to the actuality of its existence.

7.3. MUTUAL NECESSITY BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT

When the complete cause exists, the existence of its effect becomes necessary; otherwise its non-existence would be admissible despite the existence of the cause, which implies that the non-existence of the effect, which is caused by the non-existence of the cause, actualizes without a cause.

Also, when the effect exists, the existence of its cause becomes necessary; otherwise its non-existence would be admissible despite the effect’s existence. As mentioned above, the non-existence of the cause, whether complete or incomplete, necessitates the non-existence of the effect.

From this it becomes clear that the existence of the effect is inseparable from that of its cause, in the same way as the complete cause is inseparable from its effect.

Hence if the effect is temporal and exists in time, its cause should also necessarily exist in the same time, for the existence of the effect depends on the cause’s being in that time; for it is in that (particular) time that the cause bestows existence upon it. If the cause were to exist in some other period of time, being non-existent during the period of existence of the effect, which receives its existence from the existence of the cause, it would be giving existence to the effect while it is itself non-existence, and this is impossible.’

Another Proof

The need of the effect-quiddity for the cause is nothing except the need of its existence for the cause, and that need is not separate from its existence. Rather, the need resides within the very essence of its existence; hence its existence is need and relation per se. Hence the effect is a ‘relative existence’ (wujûd râbith) in relation to its cause. It does not possess any independence of its own and in isolation from the cause, which sustains it. Something that is such cannot exist without being sustained by its cause and without depending on it. Hence when the effect exists, it is necessary for its cause also to exist.

7.4. THE RULE OF THE ONE

Nothing except ‘one’ can emanate from ‘one.’ That is because it is necessary that there be an essential affinity (sinkhiyyah) between die cause and the effect, which none of them shares with something else. Otherwise anything could be the cause of anything, and anything could be the effect of any thing. Hence there is an aspect of affinity between the cause and its effect that particularly marks the latter’s emanation (shudûr) from the former. Therefore, if multiple effects - as multiple and disparate entities whose multiplicity is irreducible to any single aspect whatsoever - were to emanate from a cause which is ‘one,’ which in itself has only a single ontological aspect, it would imply that something which has a single aspect should incorporate multiple aspects within itself, and this is impossible.

From this it follows that a cause from which multiple effects qua multiple entities emanate, possesses an aspect of multiplicity in its essence. It also follows from the above that multiple causes do not give rise to an effect that is ‘one.’

7.5. IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN INFINITE REGRESS AND VICIOUS CIRCLE IN CAUSALITY

A vicious circle (dawr)  - which means a thing’s dependence for its existence on something whose existence depends on it - may be either with or without an intermediary. If there is no intermediary; it is called an ‘overt circle’ (al-dawr al-musharrath), and if there are one or more intermediaries it is called a ‘covert circle’ (al-dawr al-mudhmir). It is considered logically impossible because it necessarily implies the dependence of a thing’s existence on itself, which implies a thing’s preceding itself existentially, for the existence of the cause necessarily precedes the existence of the effect.

As to the impossibility of an infinite regress - which means an endless series of causes dependent on one another - the most conclusive of arguments concerning it is the one offered by Ibn Sina in his work al-Syifâ’, in the part on metaphysics. The gist of’ this argument is that when we consider an effect, its cause and the cause of its cause, we find that there is a necessary rule that applies specifically to each term of this set. The supposed effect is solely an effect; its cause is the cause of its subsequent term and the effect of its preceding term. The cause of the cause is solely a cause and not an effect of anything. Hence that which is solely an effect stands on one side and that which is solely a cause stands on the other side. That which is both a cause and an effect lies between the two sides. Now when we assume a set of four consecutive terms, the rule applicable to the two sides in the above case will apply to the two sides in this case also. The rule applicable to the middle terms will apply to both the middle terms in this case. That is, as intermediary terms, they will be both causes and effects. When the number of terms in the supposed set is increased indefinitely, the same rule will continue to apply; the group between the two extreme sides, which consists of terms each of which is both a cause and an effect, will make up the middle and share in the rule applicable to middle terms.

But when we assume a series of infinite number of causes, the entire group of an infinite number of causes will make up a middle that has no side except the last effect and this is impossible.

This argument applies to every series of consecutive causes whose existence is not separable from the existence of the effect, respective of whether they are complete or incomplete causes (though it does not apply to preparatory causes).

The necessity of the finiteness of the series of complete causes is particularly borne out by the remark made earlier’ that the existence of an effect is relative in relation to its cause. If an infinite causal series were not to end in a cause that is not an effect, it would mean that relative existents can actualize without needing a self-subsisting and independent existent that might sustain them, and this is impossible.

The metaphysicians have offered other proofs in favour of the impossibility of an infinite regress that are mentioned in elaborate works.

7.6. THE EFFICIENT CAUSE AND ITS KINDS

The efficient cause, i.e. one that gives existence to the effect, has various kinds. According to the metaphysicians, the ‘agent’ has either knowledge of its action or it does not. In the latter case, the agent is either such that its action accords with its ‘nature’ or it does not. In the first case, it is called an ‘agent by nature,’ and in the second an ‘agent by constraint.’ An agent that has knowledge of its action is either such that its action is willed by it, or it is not.

If it is not, it is an ‘agent by coercion.’ If its action is willed by it, either (i) its knowledge of its action coincides with its action or, rather, is the same as its action, in which case it is an ‘agent by agreement;’ (ii) its knowledge of its action precedes its action. In the latter case, its knowledge is either linked to an additional ‘motive,’ in which case it is an ‘agent by intention,’ or it is not linked to such an additional ‘motive,’ i.e. the very active knowledge of the action’ is the source of emanation of the effect. In this case, either that knowledge is something additional to the essence (dzât) jf the agent, or it is not. If it is, then the agent is an ‘agent by foreknowledge;’ if not, it is an ‘agent by manifestation.’ In the foregoing, if the agent is associated with its action in such a manner that itself and its action are actions of another agent, it is an ‘agent by subjection.’

Thus there are eight kinds of agents.

(i) The ‘agent by nature’ (al-fâ’il bi al-thab) is one which has no knowledge of its action though it accords with its nature. An example of it is the soul on the plane of its natural bodily faculties: it performs its actions in accordance with its nature.

(ii) The ‘agent by constraint’ (al-fâ’il bi al-qasr) is one which has no knowledge of its action and its action does not accord with its nature. An example of it is the soul on the plane of its faculties at the time of illness, during which its actions are disoriented from their healthy course due to constraining factors.

(iii) The ‘agent by coercion’ (al-fâ’il bi al-jabr) is one which has knowledge of its action but carries it out unwillingly. An example of it is a person who is forced to do something he does not want to do.

(iv) The ‘agent by agreement’ (al-fâ’il bi al-ridhâ) is one which has will, and its detailed knowledge of its action is the same as its action. Before the action it does not possess any except a non-detailed knowledge of it, a knowledge that the agent possesses by virtue of its own essence. Divine creativity is of this kind in the view of the Emanationists.

(v) The ‘agent by intention’ (al-fâ’il bi al-qashd) is one which has will and foreknowledge of its action along with an additional motive for acting. An example of it is man in his voluntary actions.

(vi) The ‘agent by foreknowledge’ (al-fâ’il bi al-‘inâyah) has will and a foreknowledge of its action additional to the agent’s essence. The very intelligible form (al-shûrat al-‘ilmiyyah) is the source of emergence of the action without there being any additional motive. An example of it is a man standing on a high tower, the very idea of falling being sufficient to make him fall to the ground. Divine creation is of this kind in the opinion of the Peripatetics.

(vii) The ‘agent by manifestation’ (al-fâ’il bi al-tajallî) has detailed foreknowledge of its action, a foreknowledge that is the same as the ‘simple’ knowledge that it possesses of its essence. An example of it is the immaterial human soul, which, being the ultimate form for its species, despite its simplicity, is the source of all its perfections and properties that it possesses in its essence. Its immediate knowledge (‘ilm hudhûrî) of itself is a detailed knowledge of its perfections, though they are not distinguished from one an-other. Another example is the exalted Necessary Being in accordance with that which will be mentioned later on,’ that the Necessary Being possesses an undifferentiated knowledge that at the ; same time discloses details (‘ilman ijmâliyyan fî ‘ayn al-kasyf al-tafshîlî).

(viii) The ‘agent by subjection’ (al-fâ’il bi al-taskhîr) is one whose action is ascribed to it from the point of view that the agent itself is an act of another agent, on which the agent itself and its action depend. Therefore such an agent is subject in its action to the higher agent. Examples of it are the physical, vegetative and animal faculties subject to the human soul in their actions, and the cosmic agents subject in their actions to the Necessary Being.

However, we have reservations in regarding ‘agent by coercion’ and ‘agent by foreknowledge’ as being different in kind from ‘agent by intention,’ as implied by the above division.

7.7. THE FINAL CAUSE

It is its ultimate perfection (kamâl) towards which the agent is oriented in its action. If the agent’s knowledge has a role in its efficiency, the end is the agent’s purpose in his action. Alternately, one may say that his purpose is the action for the sake of reaching die end. Hence it is said that end precedes action conceptually but follows it externally. But if knowledge has no role in the agent’s efficiency, the end is that in which the action ultimately terminates. To explain, a thing’s perfection has a permanent relationship with it, and it requires that perfection. Restraining it from attaining that requirement of its nature either always (i.e., through a permanent restraint) or through most of its lifespan (i.e. through a major restraint) contradicts Divine Providence, which makes every contingent attain the perfection that it seeks. Hence everything has an end that is the ultimate perfection it requires. As to a minor restraint (which restrains a thing from attaining perfection during a minor part of its life), it is a minor evil that is compensated by an abundance of good. Moreover, this restraint, in cases where it is present, occurs only in the realm of matter due to disparate conflicting factors.

7.8. THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE FINAL CAUSE

At times it is imagined that physical agents have no end in their actions. It is presumed that an end necessarily involves conscious purpose on the agent’s part. However, as we have seen, the idea of end is more general than that, and the end of physical agents in their actions is that in which their motions terminate.

Sometimes it is imagined that many voluntary actions have no end, such as children in play, wherein their movements have no final goal. Other instances of it are such acts as stroking one’s beard, breathing, the listless movements of a sick person in sleep turning from one side to another, the interruption of an object’s movement in the middle of its journey towards its destination.

Actually none of these agents are devoid of an end. To explain, there are three causal sources involved in voluntary actions. The proximate source of action is the motor faculty present in the muscles. Then there is the intermediate source, which precedes the first one. It is desire, followed by will and execution. The remote causal source is ideation, which entails the formation of the particular idea of the action in the mind, which is also often accompanied by a judgement that the action entails some benefit for the agent.

Every one of these sources possesses an end. Often there is a coincidence of ends in one or more of these sources, and at times there is no such coincidence.

Hence if the first stage involves ideation, which is knowledge, the voluntary action will have a ideated end. But if it involves only imagination, without there being any forethought, and is followed by desire and motor action of the muscles, the action is called a ‘capricious act.’ This happens in the case of play, where a child first fancies some activity, then its desire is aroused to perform it, whereupon it proceeds to carry it out. That in which the movements terminate is then the end of all the three causal sources.

At times, imagination is accompanied with disposition and habit, as in the case of stroking one’s beard. Then the act resulting is called ‘habitual’ (al-‘âdah). At times, imagination is accompanied with nature (tabî’ah), as in the case of voluntary breathing. At other times, imagination is accompanied by a disturbed condition of the health, as in the case of the actions of a sick person, in which case it is called ‘action by natural intention.’ In each of these actions there are causal sources with ends, and they all correspond to that in which the action terminates. As to a ideated end, these actions do not have an ideational causal source that may have such an end.

When the end is not realized for any of these causal sources due to the interruption of the action by some hindrance that stops it short of its end, the action is named ‘vain’ (bathîl) in relation to the end. The interruption of action due to a hindrance that keeps it from reaching its end is something other than the agent not possessing an end in its action.

7.9. REFUTATION OF CHANCE

At times it is conjectured that there are some ends that are unwittingly achieved by an agent’s action without being aimed at by it. This is illustrated by the example of a man who digs a well for water but comes upon a treasure trove. Finding a treasure is not consequential to one’s digging a well. These kinds of occurrences are called cases of ‘good luck.’ Another example is the case of a man who takes shelter under a roof for the sake of its shade and is killed due to the roof collapsing upon him. Such occurrences are called incidents of ‘bad luck.’

Some natural philosophers have based their view of the universe on this conjecture, holding that the world of physical bodies was composed of small atomic particles scattered in an infinite space in which they were in constant motion. By chance a group of them collided and collocated to form the bodies, of which those that are capable of enduring endure while others are subject to rapid or gradual annihilation.

The truth is that there is no chance in the world of existence. Here it will be beneficial to give a brief introduction for the sake of explanation. We can conceive phenomena as falling into four classes. A group of them occurs invariably. Another group of them consists of those that occur most of the time. Some ail those that occur half of the time (like someone’s standing or sitting), while there are others that occur only rarely (like the possession of a sixth finger on one’s hand).

Those which occur most of the time differ from those which occur always due to the occasional existence of a conflicting factor, as in the case of the number of fingers on the hand, which is five most of the time. However, occasionally, the fashioning principle of the fingers (in the foetus) comes upon a surplus matter possessing the capacity to assume the form of a finger and it shapes that into a finger. From this it is known that the fingers’ being five is conditional upon the non-existence of surplus matter, and this phenomenon with this condition occurs invariably, not most of the time. That which occurs rarely will also occur invariably and always on condition of presence of the conflicting factor. Hence if the phenomena that occur mostly or rarely in fact occur invariably on the presence of the requisite conditions, the case of the phenomena that occur half of the time is quite obvious. Hence all phenomena involve causal invariability and follow a fixed system that neither changes nor is violated.

Such being the case, if we suppose a certain perfection to be unalterably and inexorably consequential to the action of an agent, the natural and self-evident judgement of the intellect is that there exists an existential relationship implying a kind of existential union between the agent and that perfection. That perfection is what the agent aims at by its action, and this is what ‘the end’ means.

If we may entertain a doubt concerning the existence of relationship between ends of actions and their agents despite what has been said concerning the invariability of this relationship, we may as well doubt concerning the relationship of actions to their agents and the dependence of events and phenomena upon efficient causes, for here too there is nothing except an invariable association and a mutual existential necessity between

the agent and its action. It is for this reason that many of those who believe in chance have denied the existence of the efficient cause in the same way as they have rejected the final cause, confining causality exclusively to material causes, as will be pointed out in the next section.

From the above discussion it becomes clear that the rare outcomes that are reckoned as instances of chance are invariable and essential ends of their causes, which are only accidentally ascribed to something else. Hence one who digs the ground under which a treasure lies invariably finds the treasure, and that is an essential end of his action, though it is accidentally ascribed to one digging for water. Similarly, a roof that possesses all the prerequisites for collapsing collapses invariably over someone under it, and that is the essential end of his action, though it is accidentally reckoned is the end of one seeking shelter from the sun. On the basis of this, the belief in chance arises from ignorance of causes.

7.10. FORMAL AND MATERIAL CAUSE

The formal cause (al-‘illat al-shûriyyah) is the ‘form,’ which makes a thing what it is in actuality. It is a ’cause’ in relation to the species, which is a composite of form and matter, for the existence of species necessarily depends upon it. However, in relation to ‘matter’ it is ‘form’ and a participant in the efficient cause, as mentioned earlier.’ There are other meanings of the term ‘form’ with which we are not concerned here.

The material cause (al-‘illat al-mâddiyyah) is ‘matter’ in relation to the species, which is a composite of it and ‘form,’ for the existence of species necessarily depends upon it. However, in relation to the ‘form’ it is ‘matter,’ which receives it and is its effect, as mentioned earlier.

A group of natural philosophers have confined causation to matter, but the above-mentioned principles refute such a view. That is because matter, whether ‘prime’ or ‘secondary’ (e.g. sperm or seed), is the bearer of potentiality, which necessarily entails ‘privation’ (fuqdân), and it is self-evident that it is not sufficient to give actuality to the species and bring it into existence. (Thus if the role of the efficient, final and formal causes is denied), the only alternative that remains is to admit that actuality comes into being without a cause, which is impossible.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, a thing does not come into existence until it is necessitated, and there remains no ground for deriving such a necessity except matter, whose mode of being is receptivity and potentiality. Therefore, there must be something beyond matter that necessitates the thing and brings it into existence. If the nexus of necessity between the cause and the effect or between two effects of a third cause be eliminated from things, everything would be the cause of everything else, the law of causality would be invalid and one could not take recourse in any fixed law. Such a position is contrary to what is regarded as self-evident by the intellect. There are other meanings of the tern: ‘matter’ with which we are not concerned here.

7.11. THE BODILY CAUSE

The bodily causes have a limited efficiency from the viewpoint of number, duration and existential intensity (of the effects they can produce). The metaphysicians hold that bodily species are in substantial motion (al-harakât al-jawhariyyah); hence their specific forms and faculties are divisible and analyzable into limits and stages, each of which is bracketed by two non-beings. They are finite in themselves as well as in their external effects.

Also, bodily causes do not act without there being a special configuratation between them and the matter of the thing affected. The metaphysicians state that since the bodily cause needs matter for its existence, it also needs matter for bringing something else into existence. Its need for matter in bringing into existence lies in its attaining through matter a special position in relation to the thing affected. Hence proximity and remoteness and special configurations interfere in the effectiveness of bodily causes.