Mulla Sadra's Seddiqin Argument For the Existence of God

Chapter 1: Philosophical Foundations of the "Seddiqin Argument"

Introduction:

The "Seddiqin Argument" offered by Mulla Sadra is the result of the development of previous philosophical views in the history of Islamic philosophy. Since the "Seddiqin Argument" can have no useful result without its philosophical foundations, the study and scrutiny of these foundations is important to the explanation of the argument and have rendered argument strong in opposition to many criticisms that had troubled others before and after Mulla Sadra. If there are problems in his arguments it must be in its foundations, and if there are strengths in his arguments against the systematic criticisms to the arguments for the existence of God, these should be found also, in his philosophical foundations. Thus, in this research we will propound, at the beginning, the basic views of Mulla Sadra's philosophy.

We will explain in this study, only these parts of his philosophy that are useful for the "Seddiqin Argument", and then we will set forth his demonstration.

The main character of Sadra's philosophy is the "fundamental reality of existence" and its results, which affect deeply other parts of philosophy. His viewpoint provided different solutions for many philosophical problems1. Hence, his philosophy is called "a philosophy of fundamental reality of existence" because it is the result of precise study in the circumstances of existence. Distinguishing between the "notion" of existence and its deepest reality is the main subject of his metaphysics because, in his view, confusion between the "concept" and "reality" of existence and their specifications will cause basic mistakes. It will be shown that many problems that caused difficulties for others - both Western and Islamic philosophy - arose from this confusion. Therefore, accuracy is needed as to which specifications belong to the "notion of existence" and which other belong to the "reality of existence".

Since Tabatabai (1902-1981) has developed Sadra's viewpoint and made it stronger, We will use has commentary of Sadra's philosophy in many parts of this research.

Existence

Existence is self-evident

To Sadra the "notion of existence" is one of the best known concepts. It is selfevident and is reasonable by itself, because it is self apparent and makes others apparent.

There is no need for any other thing to make its notion clearer; because a defining term must always be immediately known and clearer than the defined term. But nothing is more evident than existence. All defining terms of existence are but explanations of the word; they can neither be a "definition" nor a "description." Since existence is absolutely simple as will be explained -, it has no specific difference or genus, and hence has no definition. It can not have any description, because a "description" is obtainable only by an accidental property which is part of the five universals whose division itself is based on the thing-ness of quiddity, while existence and its properties are derived from an entirely different source2.

The deepest reality of existence has in the extremity of hiddenness3. Because its deepest reality is external, if its reality were to come to our mind as one thing among others this would loose its reality, because the reality in so far as it is reality -in contrast to its notion- must be external and remain outside the mind. Furthermore, if its reality such as fire were the actualized in the mind in contrast to its effects would also be actualized - and in our example our mind would be burnt by the fire!Mulla Sadra says4:

"The truth of existence is the clearest thing in appearance and presence; and its essence is the most hidden thing in grasping and understanding the depth of its reality"

In another book, entitled "On the explanation of grasping the truth of existence" he says5:

"It is not possible to conceive the reality of existence and its depth of truth, neither by a definition that consists of genus and differentia nor by a definition that consists of genus and special accident nor by a meaning equal to existence. Because, the conception of the truth of external truth of every thing is acquisition of that thing in the mind and the transition of that meaning from the external to the mind. This action is obtainable about every thing other than existence (i.e. quiddities), but it is not possible about existence (because the transition of existence from the external to the mind, would annul its truth, and what is grasped from of by the mind is a phantom of the truth of existence not its reality). Therefore, it is not possible to have a way to the truth of existence, unless via intuition by inner insight not by way of definition and limiting, by demonstration and reasoning, as by understanding by words and terms..."

Existence and Quiddity

When we study some evidence of reality like the existence of "I”, of "the earth", of a "tree", or of "whiteness" and so on, we realize that we have many conceptions of things like "tree", "earth" , "I", "whiteness" and so on, and each of them differs from the others.

But, in spite of their differences they have one similarity, namely that "all of them exist and have reality outside mind." So, we know that we have two notions of things, one of them is notions like tree, whiteness, earth, etc., and the other is the notion of existence or reality that is connected to all of those notions. We name the first one thing-ness, or "quiddity", and the second one "existence".

If we observe carefully we will realize that our mental concept of existence is contrary to the concept of things like tree, the earth, whiteness, etc. to which we ascribe existence. Our reason abstracts quiddity - which is said in answer to the "what of definition” - from existence, conceives it, and then ascribes existence to it in the mind. This means that existence is additional and like an accident to quiddity in the mind, and the concept of that existence is not the same as that of a quiddity or any part of it. This difference can be realized just by surveying our mind and its conception of existence and quiddity. There is no need to demonstrate it, but we can argue for it as follows6:

1- It is possible to negate existence from quiddity. If existence is identified with quiddity or is a part of it, then negating this from that can not be true because it is absurd to negate something or any part of a reality from itself.

2- Predication of existence to quiddity needs reason. Therefore, it cannot be identified with quiddity; and since there is no need to prove the essential characteristic of something. But as quiddity does need a proof for its existence, existence is not a part of quiddity.

It must be added that existence has two aspects, one external and mental. But even in the mind the separation of quiddity from existence is not conceivable. It is obtainable only by rational analysis and laboring, because what is in the mind is a "mental existence" just as something in the external world is an "external existence". But it is of the very nature of the intellect to notice quiddity in abstraction, totally discarding both modes of existence by not taking them into consideration rather than by simply negating them. In other words, if as a result of hard work by the mind we separate quiddity from both kinds of existence then quiddity would not be existence.

3- Quiddity in so far as it is quiddity has the same ascription to existence and non-existence. If existence is identified with quiddity it can not be ascribed to non-existence which is its contradictory.

The "notion" of existence has a univocal meaning.

When we say "man exists ", "Brussels exists", "a tree exists" and so on, the concept of "existence" in these sentences is the same. Although concepts of "human" and "Brussels" and "tree" are different, existence is predicated to each of them in the same meaning7.

Fundamental Reality of Existence8

In some cases, when we ascribe something to another, there are external referents for each predicate and subject in the external world just as they have reality in the mind. For example, when we affirm that "this paper is white" or "this surface is square" or "that water is warm", just as each word -paper, white, surface, square, water and warm- has its special concept in the mind, so, in reality each one has special and different reality.

Although each reality is connected to others, like the reality of whiteness which is connected to the reality of paper, but at the same time, each one has its own reality and special applicability.

In some other cases, when we predicate one predicate of a subject the matter is not like this. In these cases each predicate has not special and different reality; there is no duality in reality between predicate and subject, and their unity can be found only externally, so that multiplicity arises only from mind. In other words, the mind divides one concrete unity into numerous matters by its analytical power; and produces different concepts and numerous meanings from the one external reality that has no multiplicity outside the mind.

One of those concrete units is quiddity and existence. When we say "tree exists", the subject and the predicate (the concept of tree and the concept of existence) certainly have multiplicity in mind, and there is contrariety between them. As it was explained above, existence is additional to quiddity in mind. But, undoubtedly in the external real world one's appearance is not made by another, or belongs to another. It is the mind which makes two different concepts from those external units. In the real world, quiddity and existence like tree and the existence of tree, or man and existence of man are not two species of realities.

How can one reality have two separate realities consisting of itself and its existence or reality? Everything is identified with its existence externally and totally, which totality is in the mind which constructs a unity. The duality is the result of the analytic power of the mind where quiddity and existence are not fundamentally real.

On the other hand, both quiddity and existence can not be unreal and be only mentally posited, just as both of them can not be real. For this would lead to a mere sophism that supposes nothing is outside of us, and there is no concrete things. We shall discuss this supposition later in reply to criticisms. Therefore either quiddity or existence can be fundamentally real, because both can be neither fundamentally real nor unreal and be mentally posited.

Some philosophers are of the opinion that what is fundamentally real is quiddity, that there are quiddities of things in the concrete world; and that the mind by observing real things abstracts the concept of existence from them. So, existence is only a mental concept and has no reality. This opinion at first appears to be true, and through great efforts of the mind we think that in reality there are things and we have the notion of existence by abstraction.

But Mulla Sadra changed the philosophical approach by holding that in the external world there is only existence (its reality not its notion); and our mind by observing the limitations of existence or reality makes some concepts of things that are different from each other. So, what is fundamentally real is existence, and quiddity is a mental posit. This is because:

1- If we consider reality with either quiddity and existence, we shall realize that quiddity has similar ascription to existence and none-existence; in so far as it is quiddity it may exist or not. We have quiddities which do not exist in reality. Although they have mental existence this is the existence by which the mind ascribe to quiddity that it is real and has reality. In other words, existence means just being in external reality, for the supposition of unreal reality or of existence without existing is totally absurd. So, it is existence that is fundamentally real and constructs concrete world, not quiddity which is a mental form for the limitation of existence. Every external real unity by reality is real and if we suppose elimination of the reality of existence from it, it will be annihilated and will be only an imagination.

2- Quiddity exists sometimes by real existence and sometimes by mental existence. In the first case, it has its effects like burning for fire, but in second one it does not have any kind of such effects. If quiddity was fundamentally real, then that would not be any distinction between the external and the mental because quiddity has both modes of being without difference.

3- If existence was not fundamentally real, unity would never be obtained, because quiddity is the source of multiplicity, and by nature it causes difference. Quiddities by themselves are different from each other and multiple; they spread the dust of multiplicity.

In predication, which we predicate something of another, like "paper is white” we know paper in so far as it is paper is quite different from whiteness in so far as it is whiteness. But we affirm a unification of these two different essences in the sentence "paper is white". Therefore, this real unity can only be the result of existence; the paper-ness and whiteness both are in one real existent being.

There are some other arguments for the fundamental reality of the existence. But these three -specially the first one – can be enough.

The fundamental reality of existence has influenced some other important parts of philosophy, such as necessity and possibility, movement, cause and caused, knowledge and soul, which are not matters of concern for this study.

Some other philosophers9, such as illuminative philosophers who are of the opinion that it is quiddity that is fundamentally real, have criticized Mulla Sadra's opinion.

They argue10 that if quiddity is posited mentally and the existence is the fundamental reality then in every proposition ascribing existence to a quiddity (like "the elephant exists"), before ascribing something to a subject that subject must first be or exist in order to be possible to ascribe something to it. In other words, the ascription follows the subsistent of the subject.

Therefore, before ascribing existence to a quiddity, the quiddity must exist or have (another) existence and so on ad infinitum. That is, according to the philosophical rule that "the subsistence of a thing for another thing is after subsistence of that other thing for which the subsistence is going to be proved", i.e., the subsistence of the existence for quiddity is after the subsistence or existence of quiddity. Hence the quiddity must be subsistent or have existence for the possibility of predicating existence thereto.

Mulla Sadra answers11 that the philosophical rule applies to the subsistence of a thing for another thing, not for the subsistence of a thing itself. Therefore, all propositions in which existence is predicated of a quiddity differ from where that something is predicated of some other thing; that philosophical rule applies in the latter but not the former case. This matter will be explained further in the third part.

We may add one further matter at the end of this section, namely as the fundamental reality of existence demonstrates, it is the existence that is externally real; by nature it must be external rather than mental. Because of this externality, it cannot be obtained by mind; we cannot grasp its reality. However, we have knowledge about it. Thus, we said at the beginning that its notion is one of the best known things and it is reasonable in itself; but, its deepest reality is in the extremity of hiddenness.

Existence has Analogical Gradation

This is due to the fact that the reality of the existence is "one" and at the same time "many"; it is known also as "unity in multiplicity and multiplicity in unity". Therefore, it is related to the unity and the multiplicity of the existence. As mentioned, some of properties ascribed to existence are only about notion of existence; some of them are about the concrete reality of existence, while others are about both. Here, the unity and multiplicity of existence is only concrete, about the external reality of existence. It concerns the whole existence of the world.

By observing reality, we find that there are some species of reality like trees, earth, humans, sun, stones, number and so on, which exist. The first belief of mind that there is being, changes to this fact that "there are beings". Here, we want to study whether this multiplicity, which is grasped by mind, is real or fictitious. The question is: "Does this mental multiplicity shows a real multiplicity of beings, or is there no real multiplicity and the mind makes up multiplicity?"

In terms of the fundamental reality of existence, the quiddities that the mind supposes to be real beings are mentally posited; the only real thing is existence or reality.

Therefore we must see the problem in the light of existence, and quiddity has no role in solving the problem; real multiplicity and unity must be discussed at the light of existence.

If we admit that quiddities are real and concrete, and by this opinion try to answer this question, then it will be obvious that these quiddities which are multiple in our mind by their essence, must be just multiple and distinct also in concrete reality, because according to this view only these multiple things are. But if we accept that the existence is real and the quiddities are mentally posited then we can discuss the unity and the multiplicity of reality because, in our mind, existence has one concept and things appear multiple. So, it can be discussed:

-Whether the truth of existence which rejects non-existence and constitute the real world, as "one" or "many"?

-If it is "one", then how can this "one" (in all aspects) be the basis for the abstraction of multiple and distinct quiddities, it means that, why does our mind receive many species and different individuals?

-And, if it is "many" then what kind of multiplicity of existence is this? And why has it only one concept in our mind?

All of these questions are posed in this three-fold question: " Does reality of existence have mere unity, or mere multiplicity, or both unity and multiplicity?”

This question has been answered by three different groups of philosophers:

The first, i.e. the view of "the unity of existence", is ascribed to mystics12. As this view seems far from reality, we will not discuss it directly.

The second, i.e. the view of "the multiplicity of the existence", seems more intelligible and popular. According to this viewpoint, external world consists of "beings", and according to the number of quiddities of individuals, there are "existent beings". Every being essentially differs from another, and there can be no correlation between them. The only participation between them is the fact that mind abstracts from them one concept, namely, the concept of existence. There is no similarity between concrete beings. This view has two aspects of which we affirm the first and reject the other.

1- Existence is not "one" from all aspects such that it rejects every kind of multiplicity in its essence, but it is many. This is against the mystics.

2- All of these multiple "beings" are quite different and distinct, and there is no similarity and homogeneity between them.

The first position supported by the fact that although the multiple quiddities in our minds are mentally posited, the mental multiplicity refers to real multiplicity because mental quiddity refers to and arises from external existence. Just as it is not possible that no reality can be found in real world and that mind arbitrarily makes the concept of reality in itself, also it is not possible that the external reality can be a mere one and, that mind arbitrarily abstracts multiple quiddities from that real one. If the existence which is the only real truth was merely one, then our different sensory and intelligible concepts would be arbitrary. If we accept those multiplicities as arbitrary, it would lead to another aspect of sophism, which we deny.

The reason for the second position is the simplicity of existence, that: If we are to find any identifying factor between two or more things then there must be a distinguishing or multiplicity factor in each. This means that the truth of each of them must consist of a unifying factor and a distinguishing or multiplicity factor, that is, there must be "one" unifying factor in "two" things. The unifying factor can be found only in those things that are composite in their truth, not those that are simples. But, as it has been demonstrated that existence is simple; the existence of every thing can not consist of a unifying and a distinguishing factor; composition is the property of quiddities, not of existence. Therefore there can not be any unifying factor between one existence and another. As the result, we must assume that every existent being is completely distinct and independent from others.

The third view is "the unity in multiplicity and the multiplicity in unity". This view asserts that existence which is the only fundamental and concrete reality, has one truth but its truth has gradations and is analogical. The different and multiple quiddities presented to the mind are not arbitrary, but are abstracted from the gradation and degree of perfection of existence.

On one hand, existence is not merely "one", for there are "beings" in the concrete world. But on the other hand, these existences are not completely distinct from each other; but are degrees of one truth and have a unifying factor. Although this requires having distinguishing and multiple factors, this does not require that the distinguishing factor be distinct from the unifying factor. Therefore unification would not be inconsistent with simplicity of existence - which is definitely true. In existent truths the unifying factor is the same as the distinguishing factor, and differences of "existence" are due to the intensity and weakness, the perfection and imperfection, or priority and posteriority. In fact, intensity and weakness are only about degrees of the one truth in which the unifying factor is the same as distinguishing factor.

In fact, the second view that the unifying factor must be distinct from the distinguishing factor arises from comparing existence to quiddity, or concrete reality to mental concepts, because analyzing the concepts into unifying and distinguishing factors is based on the properties of the mind.

The mind confines concrete reality, so that "perceiving" is nothing but limitation of the concrete reality in the mind. For example, the mind by its power makes the concept of "non-existence" and then ascribes this notion to things in the external world. But it is obvious that non-existence has no reality in the external world; it is nothing, but in mind it is abstracted by comparing one degree of existence to another. Hence, non-existence in the external world is a relative matter which enters our mind by relating the existence of one content to another.

The relativity of non-existence manifests the ability of the mind to elaborate concepts. The concept of multiplicity or the distinction of concepts or quiddities in the mind is the same as the concept of non-existence. Quiddities are the basis for multiplicity, but concrete reality, in spite of the simplicity of existence, has all of those distinct and multiple matters in itself, though in another manner. How can one thing represent multiplicity for the mind? This matter may become clear by example of sea and its waves or shapes that is produced on its surface. Each shape that is produced on the surface of sea is quite distinct from another, but the sea which all of these distinct shapes are its representations is "one".

We name this character of existence "analogy". There is nothing similar to this kind of analogy to serve as an example for it because this is one of characteristics of existence. However, we can use some examples to approximate the matter, in order to help understand how unifying factor may be at the same time a distinguishing factor:

1- "Light" is close to existence, because it is self-apparent and makes others apparent; this is the reality of existence which both is self-apparent and makes others apparent. Sensible light also has the analogical character of various degrees as it becomes strong or weak. The difference between various lights is a difference in terms of intensity and weakness, which feature is actualized in every degree of light and shadow, so that weakness does not prevent a weak degree from being a light. Intensity and moderation are essential conditions or constituent factors only for particular degrees in the sense that they include intensity and moderation neither of which prevents the particular degrees from being lights. Thus, a strong light is a light just as a moderate one or weak one is a light. Light then has a wide variation of degrees in their simplicity, each of which also has a range with

regard to its relation to its various recipients. In the same way the reality of existence has various degrees in terms of intensity and weakness, priority and posteriority, etc., in its very reality, because every degree of existence is simple. It is not the case that a strong degree of existence is a composite formed by its reality and intensity; likewise a weak degree is nothing but existence, just as it is not composed of light itself and darkness or another thing.

Therefore, the unifying factor of strong and weak light is just light, and the distinguishing factor of those two is also intensity of light which is nothing other than the entity of light.

2- The degrees of "numbers" which are infinite is another example. In these degrees the identifying factor in being numbers is the same as the distinguishing factor, which is the priority and posteriority that constitutes the nature of numbers. Those two factors are not distinct from each other.

3- Another better example is fast and slow movements, both of which are movements. Their unifying factor is movement, and fast movement is necessarily differs from slow movement. Their distinguishing factor is velocity, which is nothing but movement. In other words, fast speed is only increase of movement. Therefore, the unifying factor in fast and slow movement is this same distinguishing factor.

Now, after this explanation of the analogical gradation of existence, we must present our reasons against the second view that assumes "beings are quite distinct from each other13:

1- If existent beings are distinct truths, then there must not be any real relationship between them. But, there are real relationships between "beings" like causality which constitutes a strong relation between the cause and the caused. This relation is not only mental but real in the external world between the existences that constitute reality. This relation will be discussed more later.

2- Quiddities are classified in more or less ten categories. This means that we could find some unifying factor between them, so that every category is a unifying factor for some species and genuses. This classification is the work of the mind that makes concepts; and it can not be assumed that concrete reality is so, or is in the form of the categories.

However, this classification that makes some quiddities under a genus and some genuses under a category can not be arbitrary; it must have some basis in reality. If existences were merely distinct things, then all quiddities must be completely distinct from each other, and each concept should be independent category. In other words, just as we reject the mere unity of existence that mystics believe because multiplicity and distinction of quiddities refer to a kind of multiplicity in reality, likewise the unity and participation of quiddities in one genus and in one category refer to a kind of unity and participation in reality and existence. Of course, the unity of existences is different from the unity of quiddities which result from the character of the mind.

3- We have one notion of existence in our minds which is conformable to all concrete beings. It is clear that conformity of one concept to an application can not be arbitrary. This means that there must be some aspects in the application that causes the conformity of that concept to this application. Was it not so, then any concept could conform to any application. The notion of existence is conformable to all existent beings necessarily, but if these beings were quite distinct from each other, there could not be a common aspect which causes conformity of the concept of existence to its applications. Therefore, we must admit that the reality of existence has real unity, and that this unity is just existence; we should accept also that it has real multiplicity, and that multiplicity is in the existence so well, because there is nothing other than existence in reality. This view can be formed due to analogicity of existence in which the unifying factor is the same as distinguishing factor.

Therefore, existences differ from each other by intensity and weakness or priority and posteriority or perfection and imperfection.

Types of Existence14

All types of existence are not the same as others. For example, we see a white paper and we know both paper-ness and white-ness exist, but one of these existences - i.e.

white-ness - is "existence-for-something-else" while another -i.e. paper-ness - is "existenceforitself" because, the first one is accident to the latter which is substance. The difference between substance and accident is due to their existences. The first is the one whose existence in reality and requires no substratum, but the second one is existence in reality requires a substratum. So, they named these two, "existence-for-itself" and "existence-forsomethingelse".

In another division, "being" is divided into what its existence is in-itself which is named "independent existence", and what its existence is in-something-else which is named "copulative existence". When we survey the sentence "John is a scientist" we can confirm the reality of each subject and predicate, and we can find their existence independently. But, there is another existence which differs from subject and predicate, and that is the relation between John and scientist-ness. This can be found, also, in compound words like "hand of John." We use such sentences to indicate another real truth which can be found neither in the subject nor in the predicate, but is connected to the subject, on the one hand, and to the predicate, on the other. This type of existence is only the relation between those two.

Therefore, it exists on both sides and stands by those two; it is not out of them, without being just those two or part of them or separated from them. But, those two sides have another existence we name the "existence-in-itself" or "independent existence", the first being "existence-in-something-else" or "copulative existence."

From this explanation of the "copulative existence", the following can be concluded:

1- If the content of existence of the two sides of "copulative existence" is external then the content of that existence will be external, and if the first one is mental then copulative existence will be mental. This is because the nature of copulative existence is only relation, which differs from the existence of two sides, but is in the same way that those two.

2- Copulative existence causes a kind of existential unification between the two sides, because its truth is in two sides and it is not distinguishable from them.

3- In analytic sentences like "man is man," there is no real, external relation between the two sides and their relation is only mental. This kind of predication is named, in Sadra's philosophy, "primary essential predication."

Also, in sentences whose purport is affirmation of the existence of something, like "man exists", there is no real relation. In these sentences we do not affirm that something has a relation to something else, only the existence of something. Because these sentences do not have the meaning that existence is something and the quiddity of that thing is something else, these are two things in reality and then are related. We know that what existence adds to quiddity is only mental, but in reality there is only existence. By such sentences we affirm existence, which has the two aspects of quiddity and existence in the mind. Therefore, no copulative existence can be affirmed in those sentences, because there is no relation between something and itself.

4- Copulative existences have no quiddity, because quiddities are independent in their notion, but copulative existences have no independent concept.

5- Is it possible by another concentration and attention of the mind to separate the "copulative existence" which has only dependent meaning, from its independent meaning? Can this existence be considered as independent meaning? The answer is "yes", but not the kind of copulative existence in predication. It is possible in another kind of copulative existence which, in so far as it is copulative, is just like that in predication.

It will be discussed in the section "cause and caused" that the need of the caused for the cause is in the essence of the caused. This requires that the caused be nothing but need, its essence stands only by the existence of the cause, and it has no independence in existence. This requires that the existence of the caused must be copulative in relation to its cause by attention to this relation. But, with relation to itself and by attention to itself alone, it will be an independent existence. So, the type of existence of the caused is due to our attention: from one aspect it is copulative, and from another it is independent.

How can one thing have both dependent existence and independent existence?

An example is the meaning of "propositions" like "from". Here the meaning is the same as the kind of existence, because the word "from", for example, has its meaning in the sentence and before a noun dependently. When I say "I went from home to the university by bus", the term "from" here means that beginning of my going was home; it has its meaning by word "home" but dependently; its meaning depends on noun (or verb) which has its meaning independently. But, the word "from" alone has no independent meaning. In spite of the dependent character of the word "from," it can have independent meaning through another approach such as saying the "word from is used for the meaning of beginning". So, "from” has dependent meaning by one attention, and by another it has independent meaning.

This kind of copulative existence -i.e. copulative existence in the cause and the caused- is of two kinds. In the first kind, copulative existence stands on two sides like the existence of relations in predications or in some compound words. In another, copulative existence stands only on one side like the existence of the caused in relation to its cause; this latter sometimes is named "illuminative relation."

6- The existence of substance and accident both are "existence-in-themselves" or "independent existence".

Causality

Introduction:

It was proposed that there is multiplicity in reality that is not other than existence. This arises the following question; "Do the different beings have any relationship? Does the existence of some of them depend on existence of others or not? If so, how many kinds of relationships and dependencies are there? And, what are their characteristics?"15

The notion of cause and caused:

The word “cause” in philosophy is used to define two concepts; general and special. Its general concept is: “a being on which the reality of another being is dependent, although the former is not sufficient for the existence of the latter," and its special concept is: “one being which is sufficient for reality of another.” In other words, in its general meaning, "cause" is something without which the existence and reality of another being would be absurd. In special meaning, the "cause" is something whose existence necessitates the existence and reality of another being. The first meaning is more common than the second, because the first includes all of the conditions and preparatory causes and other incomplete causes that are necessary for the existence of caused, but are not enough for bringing the caused into existence. However, in the second one, the cause is sufficient for the existence of the caused.

The dependent being is called caused only because of its dependency and only in that respect, not because of another respect and not due to another being. The cause, also, is named cause only because of the dependence on it of another being not due to any other respect. For example, heat is caused in the respect of its dependence on fire not in other respect; and fire which is the origin of heat coming into existence is its cause, not any other respect. So, it is not inconsistent that a supposed being is a cause for something at the same time that it is caused by another being. Therefore, heat that is caused by the fire can be the cause for existence of another fire. It is also not inconsistent that a being in addition to be "caused" in one respect, has another respect which can be stated by another concept such as substance, body, changeable and etc. while none of them is the same as causality.

How the mind obtains the notion of causality

As was explained in the meaning of cause and caused, these notions do not point to something in reality whose essence is cause or caused like other quiddities. These notions are not merely conceptual with no “qualification” in the external world; they are intellectual concepts whose qualifications are in the external world. In order to abstract these concepts, two real beings must be compared and the character of dependency of one on another should be considered. Without this consideration, these notions cannot be abstracted. If one sees the fire thousands times and does not compare it to the heat that arises from it and does not consider the relationship between them, one cannot ascribe the notion of cause to the fire and caused to the heat.

Here, a question arises: “How does our mind recognize these notions and this relation between beings?” Some philosophers supposed that the notions of cause and caused are derived from consideration of the pursuit and concurrence of two regular phenomena.

They argue that when we see that the fire and the heat come into existence successively or simultaneously, we abstract the notions of caused and cause from them. The purport of these two notions is only the regular simultaneity or succession of the two phenomena. This can not be true, because there are cases of regular succession or simultaneity which can not be considered as cause or caused. Day and night, for example, come to existence successively, as of light and heat, but none of them is the cause for the other.

Other philosophers have pointed out that when a phenomenon is experienced repeatedly and is regarded not to happen without another being, then the notions of cause and caused are drawn there from. But others reject that and argue that we know that all who experience a phenomenon believe in advance that the relation of causality is a fact between phenomena and that the purpose of this experiment is to clarify what phenomenon is the cause of another and to recognize the special cause and caused of the experienced phenomena. Now, the question is: “How have they realized the notions of cause and caused before experimenting? How have they known that there is this kind of relationship between beings, so that they can find special relations of causality?”

According to Sadraian view16 human beings first find this relation in themselves by intuition. Man considers that his psychological activities and decisions and the production of

some imaginations to be the results of his acts or acts of his will, and the existence of them is dependent to his existence while his existence is not dependent to those; so, he abstracts the notion of cause and caused from these. Then he generalizes these notions to other beings (as will be explained in more detail).

Divisions of cause:

Some problems in this field are the result of confusion between different types of cause, and something which is presumed as a cause without really being such. Therefore, there should be some kinds of differentiation between types of cause in order to have a better understanding of the concept because the dependency of one existence to another existence can be considered in different manners. If the general term "cause" applies to all of those dependencies, then these divisions will be as follows:

1. Complete and incomplete cause: a complete cause is sufficient for the truth and the existence of the caused which is not dependent on any other being. In other words, if the existence of the caused is necessary given the existence of the cause, then that cause is a complete cause. On the other hand, if the cause is such that, alone it is not sufficient for the existence of caused, yet without it the caused would not exist, then it is an incomplete cause.

That is to say that if each of a1, a2, an is necessary for the existence of b (caused) and when the sum of (a1 + a2 +...+ an) exists, the caused (b) necessarily exists, then the ∑ak is named the complete cause and each of a1 or a2 or ....., an or every sum of a1, a2, ..., and an which is less than ∑ak (like (a1 + a2) or (a3 + a7 + an) or (an + an-1 +an-2 +a5) or ) is named incomplete cause. For example, the light of a lamp which is caused (b) is dependent on the existence of lamp (an), wires (an-1), the special metal of wire in the lamp (an-2), the vacuum in the lamp (an-3), the electricity which is continually reaches to the lamp (an-4), the perseverance of some physical laws and etc. (...,a1). To have light from the lamp each of those (ak) must exist, without any of them the existence of (b) is absurd, but if one or two of those (like an-1, an-3) exist it does not necessitate the existence of caused (b). Only the sum of (a1+a2+...+an) makes the caused to exist necessarily. If all of (a1+a2+...+an-1) exists (b) will not exist. This is an that makes the cause efficient for the necessary existence of the caused.

The existence of the last part (which can be any part instead of an) on which the existence or nonexistence of the caused depends for its existence or nonexistence is very important. It shows itself in some cases as the only factor in the existence of b and makes other incomplete causes be ignored or unimportant. The first attempt of sciences is to recognize this last part (like an) then they attempt to know other parts of complete cause (like an-1 or an2). To do this attempting they preserve that last part (an) then examine another part (like an1); if they see that the existence or nonexistence of the caused is depended on the existence or nonexistence of that new last part, then they conclude that this is another incomplete cause. However can every scientist contend that he has recognized all the parts of an efficient cause? Are all the causes that he knows really the parts of the complete cause? It would seem not because, at first he can only speak about what can be experienced and experimented, and he can omit or preserve one factor and examine the dependency of the caused on that factor. But in some cases he can not examine this, either due to the limitation of his instruments or because it is not an experimentable factor such as an immaterial factor.

Because he can not recognize some of those parts, he can not say anything about such other factors that perhaps a philosopher might treat. The development of every science has convinced us that all parts are not known and that all the parts are not simple parts but they can be sums of smaller causes.

Furthermore, in some cases the cause is existence -given to a caused- like when you imagine an apple in your mind, all of these parts depend on one thing -in our example, on me. This means that all the causes (parts) are not the same, and in some cases each part depends on a being that is quite different from each part.

2. Simple cause and composed cause: a simple cause is not composite as a cause, like the “I” in the example of last paragraph (when I imagine an apple in my mind) or God or intellectual entities. Composed cause such as material causes, have different parts.

3. Direct cause and indirect cause: In for example, the will of a man in movement of his hand can be accounted as a direct cause, but in the movement of a pen that is in his hand is accounted as an indirect cause.

4. Real and preparatory cause: Cause can be considered to that in which the existence of the caused is really dependent so that caused can not be separated from it. Such separation would be absurd like that of mind (or soul) from will and mental imaginations which can not exist in separation from mind (or soul). We name these “real cause."

Sometimes we ascribe cause more generally to a being that is effective in preparing the background for the coming into existence of the effect or caused, though the existence of the effect has no true and inseparable dependency on it, like father as a cause of son, or artist as a cause of painting. This kind of cause is named as “preparatory cause." Indeed in these cases the real cause is a composed one consisting matters and physical laws and etc. For example, in the painting, the matter of colors and their physical and chemical properties must be conserved continually and then the existence of painting as a painting will be conserved. In any moment were one of these parts of the composed cause to cease the efficient cause would be less than efficient and the painting will be destroyed.

Another division of causes is: material, formal, agent or agency and final.

We do not want to assert this division which in some cases is disputable. The only important cause in this division is agent or agency cause, by which the caused comes into existence. This agency is used in two terms: The first one is “natural agent” which is the origination of movements and changes of bodies. The second is “divine agent” or “immaterial agent” that is discussed in theology. This agent is one being that brings caused into existence and gives it existence. This agent is nearly like the human being as the agent of his imaginations - like an apple that has its existence by the one who imagines it. This agent can be found in immaterial beings; material agents cause only movements and changes in things and there is no material being that can bring another thing into existence from nonexistence.

The principle of causality:

As was explained above, the principle of causality is accepted by man as a common and universal postulate. If one does not accept this principle he can not have any scientific experience because any attempt to formulate an experiment requires previous acceptance of causality in order for the experiment to render a general law. Hume truly contends that the necessary relation between cause and effect can not be derived from sensible experience which is based solely on senses. Kant, also correctly accounted this principle to be a priori.

The following concerns the content of this principle and its value and validity. The principle of causality expresses the need of the caused for a cause the caused can not exist without a cause. This proposition which is about reality may be stated in this form: “Every caused need to have a cause” and its purport is that if a caused exists externally, then it needs a cause. As there is no being that is described as caused and comes to existence without any cause, the existence of something caused shows that a cause has brought it into existence.

But this proposition is an analytic one in which the purport of the predicate are derived from the purport of its subject. Therefore, it is evident and does not need any demonstration; the mere concepts of subject and predicate are enough for its judgment. However, this proposition does not show that in the external world there are things that are caused, not can it be prove that there are beings that need to cause in the world. It declares only if there is something caused in the world it must have a cause.

If we add the fact that there are effects in the world that are evident by intuition of things causeds internally the will and its action, by generalizing this fact to the external world we can have the following propositions: “Causeds that are in the external world need causes.”

This proposition is evident because it consists of two other evident propositions (one analytic and another synthetic). However, this proposition, can not declare the instances of causeds either. It expresses that there are beings in common sense of the term to whom the term “caused” is ascribed and that they need a cause. However, this proposition cannot specify what being has this ascription. Therefore, recognition of instances of cause and caused, except those understood by intuition, are not evident and requires demonstration.

Finally, only if external beings are described as cause and caused, can instances of cause and caused be distinguished.

Some philosophers considered the principle of causality to be that: “Every existent being needs a cause” which it follows that all beings must be caused. However, this proposition cannot be accepted because it is not evident; existent being by its nature does not need a cause because it has existence. Furthermore, this proposition immediately outside another famous problem, namely, “Therefore, God must have a cause because God is an existent being.” The subject of the principle of causality can not be merely existent being because in that case not only is it not evident, but also it cannot be demonstrated. Even its contrary can

not be demonstrated by demonstrations that God, in spite of having existence, does not need to a cause.

Basis of the need for a cause:

Why does something need a cause? Why must something be accounted as caused? One answer to this question stated above was that to have existence is the criterion for having a cause. We explained that this can not be true, for existent being does not absolutely need a cause. Therefore, an existent being in so far as it is an existent being is not a criterion of having a cause.

Some Islamic theologians argued that “coming-into-being” is the criteria and basis of the need for a cause for a being. Every being that did not have existence in a moment, but then comes into existence in another moment needs a cause. Therefore, “pre-eternal” being like God does not need to a cause.

Islamic philosophers, on the contrary, argued that “possible-beings” in so far as it has possibility, needs a cause. Every being that has essential possibility of non-existence and for whom the supposition of its non-existence is not absurd will need a cause. The need of this being is not only in the moment that comes into being, but this need is derived from its possibility every moment it exists. Therefore, the effect needs a conserving cause and the originating cause is not sufficient. The shortness or length of the life of an existence does not increase due to its need for a cause; rather the length of its life makes it the more in need of a cause. Hence, it is not intellectually absurd that there be a pre-eternal caused being.

In this later view, the possibility that stipulates the need for a cause can be an attribute of quiddity which demands neither existence nor non-existence. In other words, its ascription to existence is the same as to non-existence. There must be another thing to expel quiddity from this equality of ascription; and this thing is cause. Hence, these philosophers assume "being-quiddity possibility" as the basis of the need for a cause of a being.

This view is compatible with the opinion of those who believe that it is quiddity that is fundamentally real. However those who believe that existence is fundamentally real and quiddity is mentally posited need to found their philosophical statements on "existence", not

on "quiddity." So, Mulla Sadra held that the basis of the need of a caused for a cause is its kind of existence. Because causality is a real relation between beings and in reality there is nothing other than existence -as was explained in the last chapter. Therefore, causality cannot refer to anything other than the existence of a being; so the need of the caused for a cause which is a real property is only in the existence of the caused, not anything other because there is nothing really other than existence. In other words, if we assume that A is the cause of B, A and B have two aspects; one is "A-ness" and "B-ness" (quiddity of A and B) and the other is "existence of A" and "existence of B" (existence). As we explained before, what is fundamental in reality is existence, like the existence of A. Quiddity (like Aness) is mentally posited, that so, the mind by its action and consideration of the limitations of existence of A presumes the notion of "A-ness". Therefore, "A-ness" and "B-ness" are not fundamental real, but are as actions of mind. Causality is not essentially between those notions, but is in their reality which is their existence is graded in its reality. Therefore, the only basis and criterion of the need of some beings (as caused) for other beings (as cause) is an "existential need" (or in Sadra's terminology "existential poverty") and "essential dependency". This is the existential need or essential dependency of the caused upon another existence (viz. cause) which must not have this need or dependency, but rather must be an independent one or an existence without need. So, the subject of the principle of causality is dependent beings or beings in which are poor in their existence. The proposition will be something like this: "Every being-poor- in-existence or dependent being needs a cause." When the analogical gradation of existence is considered; since every weaker grade is dependent on a stronger grade of existence; therefore the subject of that proposition can be "weak being," and the basis for the need of a being for a cause will be "weakness in the degree of existence."

It can be understood from the statements of Mulla Sadra that: (1) The relation of causality must be found between the existence of a cause and the existence of a caused, not in their quiddities (thing-ness). (2) Being caused or dependency of the caused upon another being is essential for the existence of the caused; dependent being will never be independent and can never be without need for a cause. The essence of the caused is being caused and having being that is dependent in relation to another being; without this dependency there is no caused being. Not caused can be a supposition even without this dependency; in other words, the existence of the caused is just its dependence and belonging to a cause that gives existence to it. This is what was said when existence was divided into "existence-in-itself” (independent being) and "existence-in-something-else" (copulative existence).

Truth of the relationship between cause and caused:

When it is said that "cause gives existence to the caused," the mind imagines in the beginning that someone gives something to another and that the latter receives it. In other word, it is assumed that in this process there are three things and two actions. First is the cause that gives existence. Second is the caused which receives existence. Third is existence that cause gives to the caused. Fourth is the act of giving that is ascribed to cause, and fifth is the act of receiving that is ascribed to the caused. However, this is not the case.

The truth is that there is nothing in the external world but cause and caused. An example helps to understand the subject: when you imagine an apple in your mind you are its cause and it is the caused. In this causality there is nothing but you and your imagination, viz. the imagination of the apple. It is clear in this example that the apple is not anything which receives something that is existence from another being, viz. yourself. Nor is it that you do something like giving as that the apple does another thing which is taking. Nor can it be accepted that cause (like yourself in the example) gives existence to the quiddity or the caused (like the quiddity of apple); because quiddity is mentally posited and is not real.

Before the existence of the caused there is no receiver to take existence and after the existence of the caused receiving existence from the cause would be meaningless.

Here, the question is: "what is the relation of the caused to the cause?" From the previous example it can be understood that the relation between the apple and you is not a relation between two things; there are not two things you and that apple, nor after your imaginative causation of apple is there a new relation between what were two independent beings. If one assumes that this relation stands on two sides (cause and caused) one can suppose this neither before nor after the existence of cause and together with it because before its existence this relation which must stand on two sides can not stand on the caused on one side because the caused does not exist. If we assume that this relation exists after or together with the existence of the caused, then the caused cannot have any essential relation to the cause and this external connection connects two things like a string. Furthermore, if this connection was concrete then it must be a caused and the question about its relation to its cause will be repeated, and so on ad infinitum.

In fact, this relation is not concrete one, nor does it stand on two sides; but only on one side. This relation is like the relation between a lamp and its light. In fact, the existence of the caused is a radiation of the cause. The existence of the caused is just the relationship of dependency and belonging to the cause. Was the existence of the apple in my imagination anything but relationship belonging to me? The conception of belonging and relationship is understood from the essence of its existence. This kind of relationship that is between cause and caused is named "illuminative relation." So, the existence of the caused is an illuminative relation of the existence of cause. This dependency of caused in existence is due to its cause, and its cause is independent being. If the cause itself caused by another being then it will have dependent existence due to its cause. Therefore, a being due to its being caused has both an independent and a dependent existence. The absolute independent being is a cause that is not caused by another being. This is what we said about analogicity of existence and its gradation.

How the causal relationship can be known?

The causal relationship analyzed above concerns is about an existential cause that gives existence to its caused; this kind of cause does not involve preparatory and material causes.

Here, there are two questions: First, how can that relation between existential causes and their effects be known and some of its instances be recognized? Second, how can causal relation between bodies or material beings that are not existential in kind be known?

As was explained, human beings find some instances of cause and caused in themselves by intuition. When they compare direct acts of the soul such as will, construct some mental concepts and brings about some changes in them with themselves, and recognize that they are dependent on the soul, then they abstracts the meaning of cause from soul and the meaning of caused from its acts. Then, they generalize the meanings of cause and caused to everything that has any kind of dependency on another.

In other words, finding some instances of cause and caused leads the soul to abstract a universal meaning from them. This meaning (cause) that is abstracted from soul is not recognized from the special manner of its existence and is not known also from its being soul; but this abstraction is from the respect of dependency of another being upon it.

Therefore any such other being will be an instance of cause material or immaterial, either contingent or necessary. Similarly the meaning of caused is abstracted from its dependency on another being; and everything that is such will be an instance of caused.

For abstracting a universal meaning, recognition of one or some instances is enough; but, this is not enough for the recognition of other instances of that universal concept.

Therefore, for the recognition of other instances that are not known by intuition, another criterion must be found. The causal existential relation between a cause that gives existence and its caused must be demonstrated beyond the soul. Why does this kind of causal relation exist beyond the soul? Why is the existence of other beings derived from another existent being? Can the universe stands on its own in existence without any need to another existence? These questions must be answered by the intellectual demonstration.

Since the "existence-giving-cause" can not be found in material beings, and experimental methods have no way of reaching the immaterial realm, therefore the recognition of this kind of cause and causal relation outside of the realm of intuitional knowledge is possible only by an intellectual method. This means that it is not possible to know the existence-giving-cause of materials by laboratory instruments, changing their conditions and controlling the changes. Furthermore, in experimental methods, one changes some conditions and then tries to find some other changes modes to conclude that some changes are causes of other changes, but it is not possible to remove immaterial being and then consider what will be removed by such a removal. So mere rational demonstration is the only way to recognize the intellectual properties of these causes and by those properties their instances can be known. In this they are unlike material causes and causeds that can be recognized by experimental methods.

In brief there are three ways to recognize the causal relationship: firstly, intuitional knowledge in the realm of soul and its acts and mental phenomenon; secondly, mere rational demonstration about immaterial beings and thirdly rational demonstration that is based on the experimental premises, which is about material causes and effects.

Characteristics of the Cause and the Caused or Effect

As proposed, the recognition of cause and caused and their relation can be clearer in the light of Mulla Sadra's philosophy based on such principles is: (a) existence is fundamentally real, (b) the caused has copulative existence in relation to its cause, and (c) existence has analogical gradation. According to these principles, the caused is a weaker

existence than its cause, so that the caused depends on - nay is a dependence of – the cause, while this is not so of the cause. On the other hand, the cause is a stronger existence in comparison with its caused, and it is more complete in the existence. The cause, also, can be a weaker grade in existence than another being which is its cause and which is more complete than it in existence. This series continues until there is no weakness in a being. At the end of the series there is a being that has no weakness, no incompleteness, no deficiency and no limitation in its existence; in other words, it must be infinite in completeness. This being can not be an effect of any other being.

Therefore, the characteristic of caused is its weakness in degree of existence in relation to another being; while the character of cause is strength in degree of existence in relation to its caused. The character of absolute cause is to be infinitely complete without any incompleteness. Therefore we may not be able to recognize every particular cause (existence-giver-cause) and caused one by one in the external world, but we can comprehend that every cause (like M) is more complete and stronger in existence than its caused (like N), and it (M) is more incomplete and weaker than its cause (like L). So far as there is any existential weakness and limitation, it must be the character of the caused or effect.

The main question is how can we prove that the material world is weak in existence and incomplete, so that it needs a more complete being? How can we demonstrate that there is a more complete being than material bodies which is their cause? The answer is that being caused is an essential property of the existence of caused, and no caused being can escape this. As was explained the relation between cause and caused is called an "illuminative relation"; and the caused is nothing but dependency on the cause. This dependency is not an accidental property; and it is essential for caused to be a dependent being. If it is possible for something to be a caused being it will be a caused being inevitably and it is not possible for it to be uncaused. Because, if it is possible for it to be uncaused, it means that its existence, essentially, does not require to be caused, and being caused is not essential for its existence; while it was proved that being caused is essential for a caused. No being can have the character of being caused as possible, because the character of being caused is the essential property of its existence. To have three sides is essential for triangle (not for a figure or for a being), while having three equal sides is not essential for it. If we know that (1) it is possible for a triangle to have three sides and (2) the property of having three sides is an essential property of triangle, we will conclude that it is not possible for triangle not to have three sides, and it certainly has three sides. This is because, if it is possible for triangle not to have three sides, it will be possible both having and not having three sides, consequently it will not be essential for triangle to have three sides ( like equality of that three sides that is not essential for triangle), and this is opposite to our first assumption.

The example of the triangle is not a very good one to show our purpose because the triangle is a quiddity that is far from existence. The following explanation makes our purpose clearer: All have heard the wish of some people that they were another person with a better condition or they wish their father and mother were other persons instead of their real father and mother. Let's examine to see whether it is possible or not. For example, Tom wishes his father (A) and mother (B) who are not rich and intelligent were other persons like Dick's father (A') and mother (B') who are both rich and intelligent. Tom thinks that if A'and B' were his father and mother he would have a better life. If he concentrates on the meaning of this proposition he will understand that this sentence is meaningless, because if his father and mother were other persons he would not be Tom. Tom is an existent man whose father and mother are A and B. If A' and B' are father and mother of a person it will not be Tom who wishes so, but will be e.g. Dick who exists with this character. Tom wants to preserve his characteristics that necessitate having A and B as his father and mother, and at the same time not to have A and B as his parents. This is absurd. All of these are the necessary conditions for the existence of Tom. Even, every event that happened in the past of Tom's life is a necessary condition of the present existence of Tom and determines his essential characteristics.

Human beings, in spite of having free will for constructing his present and future, have been obligated by his past. No one can change the previous conditions of his existence, but can change only the result of his act in the past by another present action. He can not change the necessary condition of his past of which his existence is the result. No one can either omit a condition from his past or add another one to it. He is necessarily himself with his past.

Now, if it is possible for a person to have in the past in a specific time a certain condition, he must have this condition necessarily. For example, if it is possible for a person to have M and N as his father and mother, they must be necessarily his father and mother.

Because, if they are not really his father and mother it is absurd or impossible for them to be his father and mother. If they are really his father and mother his personality can not be otherwise, and he necessarily will have this condition. Therefore, only the possibility of having those two persons as his father and mother makes it necessary.

This is similar for the caused. Since it is essential for a caused to have a dependent existence and incompleteness in its existence, therefore if it is possible for an existent being to be a caused being and incomplete existence, it must necessarily be a caused being. Every being that has the possibility of being caused will be necessarily a caused being. A caused being, according to the analogical gradation of existence, has a more incomplete existence than its cause. So, any being for whom a more complete being can be supposed will have the possibility of being caused, and necessarily will be a caused being. The weakness of existence of a being implies the existence of another stronger being with this strength in existence.

There are some evidences that indicate a weakness of existence and by these evidences, the fact of being’s being caused can be known. Some of these evidences are limitation in time and space, changeability, ability of movement and destructibility. These are the characters of material beings which show their weakness in existence. Therefore, material beings must be caused beings and has more complete being or beings as their cause. These beings (causes) must be more complete than material beings, so that they do not have any or all of these limitations. For these, we must search for the cause (or causes) of material beings in the immaterial world.

Necessity and Possibility

"Necessity and possibility" shape an important part of Sadra's philosophy. He distinguishes between several types of "necessity and possibility". Here we refer only to those types which are essential for understanding the Seddiqin Argument:

Philosophical Essential Necessity and Logical Essential Necessity

Necessity in logical meaning is only about propositions, while in philosophical meaning it is about reality and existence. In logical meaning there are two kinds of this necessity. The first is "descriptive necessity" which is necessity in propositions when the ascription of the predicate to subject is necessary not absolutely but in the special situation in which the subject has a special attribute or condition. For example, when we say: "The moon is in lunar eclipse necessarily when the earth settles between the moon and Sun" this necessity is not for the moon absolutely; only in the situation of the settling of the earth between sun and the moon does it become necessary. This is a descriptive necessity.

The second one is "essential necessity". This necessity is in a proposition in which the ascription of a predicate to a subject is necessary absolutely without any special condition that makes this ascription necessary. "The triangle has three sides necessarily". In this example, to have three sides is necessary for triangle not in any special stipulation, but in all situations, because having three sides is an essential character of triangle. However, in spite of the unconditionality of "essential necessity" to any certain situation, there is a stipulation for this necessary ascription. This stipulation is preservation of the essence of subject. The predicate in these propositions is ascribed to the subject so long as the subject exists and its essence remains. The triangle so long as its "being triangle" is preserved has three sides necessarily. Therefore, in descriptive necessity there are two stipulations for necessity of ascription of predicate to subject: the special condition and the preservation of the essence of subject; while in essential necessity only preservation of the essence of subject is enough.

In a philosophy of which existence and reality is its main subject, this necessity is viewed in another framework. Everything which has existence so that the negation of existence from it is absurd has existence necessarily. In Sadra's philosophy, since negating existence from every existent being is absurd, therefore, all existent beings have existence necessarily. But, this necessity can be of two kinds. Some beings have this necessity by something else as its cause that has given this necessity to it. This necessity is called "necessity-by-something-else". The second is what has this necessity through its essence.

This kind is named "necessity-by-essence" which is not the result of any external cause.

This philosophical division is only about reality, not about the quality of constitution of propositions. In logical view, necessity is not about any specific predicate and subject, but is general, while in philosophy the predicate is only existence and the necessity is about the existence of something. So, philosophical essential necessity is when a being has existence necessarily and does not have this necessity by any external cause. In other word, it must be an independent and uncaused being that stand in itself, while "necessity-by-something-else” is about an existent being which has existence necessarily but its necessity is the result of an external cause.

Philosophical essential necessity requires the eternity of that which has this necessity: if a being has existence necessarily by essence, and it is uncaused and is an essential existence that stands in itself, then it should inevitably be an eternal being because in no condition can it even be supposed not to exist. Therefore, philosophical essential necessity is called "eternal necessity", whereas, logical essential necessity does not require the eternity of subject, because the ascription in logical essential necessity is conditioned by preservation of subject. If the subject disappears then the ascription of predicate to subject will cease to remain, so there will be no such necessity.

Philosophical essential necessity, in philosophical terminology, is the opposite only of "necessity-by-something-else". But, in a broader terminology which consists of both the logical and the philosophical ones, three kinds of necessary ascription can be identified: "descriptive necessity", "essential necessity" and "eternal necessity". The essential necessity is just logical essential necessity and eternal necessity is philosophical essential necessity. In descriptive necessity there are two stipulations for necessary ascription: having that description, and preservation of the essence of subject. In essential necessity there is one stipulation and that is preservation of essence of subject. But in eternal necessity there is no stipulation and condition for ascription of the predicate (which can not be other than existence) to the subject. Therefore, absolute necessity is only in eternal necessity whereas the others are conditioned.

Philosophers try to prove the eternal necessity of God. Necessary Being, in their view, is He who has necessary existence eternally, not essentially in logical meaning.

Possibility and Ontological Poverty17

How can we explain necessity and possibility in the light of fundamental reality of existence that is proposed by Mulla Sadra? According to his view quiddity is mentally posited, and reality is not other than existence. Hence, we can not ascribe possibility and necessity to a quiddity as real properties, but they must be ascribed to existence. They can be ascribed to quiddity figuratively, but not really. Before Mulla Sadra, possibility was ascribed to quiddities like the tree, the horse, etc., which were considered as beings that have existence by essential possibility. In so far as ascription of existence and non-existence to them is the same, quiddities have essential possibility. But according to the fundamental reality of existence we can not ascribe existence as real, to quiddity as mentally posited. The reality, not the concept, of existence is ascribed to existent beings necessarily (as was explained above). Some of these beings have existence necessarily but from something else, whereas the other has this necessity through itself. Those which exist necessarily by something else are caused beings that are not other than dependency to another more complete being. They have essential need for their cause and as was explained, they are not other than that need, while the necessary being that has necessity through itself is an independent existence that is not a caused being. Since caused being is just need and dependent relation to cause, Mulla Sadra named this existence as poor existence that is not other than poverty (in opposition to rich existence). So, in Sadra's view possibility is not in a being that may either exist or not, nor is it in a being to which the ascription of existence or non-existence is the same. It is about an existent being whose existence is dependent.

However, in so far as it is an existent being, ascription of existence to it is necessary. The first meaning of possibility which is based on quiddity is called "quidditive possibility"; the second is named by Mulla Sadra "ontological poverty"18.

Notes:

[^1]: Some of these philosophical problems given a new solution by Mulla Sadra are as follows:

a: the unity of the intellect and what is intellected, that is important in the subject of "knowledge".

b: contingency and necessity c: substantial movement d: causality that is in the existence of beings and the relation between cause and caused e: matter and the form and their unity f: individuality g: mental existence h: grades of existence i: copulative existence j: The duality of mind and body [^2]: See Mulla SadraAl-Asfar pp. 23-27 , 68-69; and Al-Shavahid al-Robubiyyat pp. 7,8; and AlMasha'ir pp13-19; See also Sabzavari Mulla hadi Sharh al-Manzumat fi al-Hikmat in its translation by Mohaghegh Mehdi and Izutsu Toshihiko, The Metaphysics of Sabzavari p.31.

[^3]: Mulla Sadra Al-Masha'ir, p.12.

[^4]: Mulla Sadra Al-Shavahid al Robubiyyat, p.7-8.

[^5]: Ibid., pp.14-17, M.H. Tabatabaii Bedayat al Hikmat p.13 , Osoole Falsafeh wa Raveshe Realism (The Principles of Philosophy and Method of Realism) p.29 with its footnotes of Motahhari.

[^6]: M.H. Tabatabaii Bedayat al-Hikmat, p.13

[^7]: Ibid., p.11

[^8]: More about this subject can be found in: Mulla Sadra* Al-Asfar* p. 38, he has a long chapter with a detailed explanation and demonstrations in Al-Masha'ir pp. 28-68, and has seven arguments for fundamental reality of existence in this book. See also Tabatabaii Bedayat al-Hikmat p. 14-16 and Nihayat al-Hikmat, p. 21-48 and Osooli Falsafeh wa Ravishi Realism and its footnotes, p. 29-39.

[^9]: Some of these philosophers are: Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi (Shaykh al-Ishragh), Mir Muhammad Baqir Damad, Mulla Mohsen Feyz Kashani, Mulla Abd al-Razzagh Lahiji, Sheykh Rajab'ali Tabrizi, Ghazi Sa'eed Ghomi and Fayyaz Lahijani.

[^10]: You can find some of these arguments in: Ghazi Sa'eed Ghomi, Kelide Behesht (The Key of Paradise), p.54; Mir Damad, Ghabasat, p. 26; Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi, Hekmat al-Eshragh; and Hayakil al-Noor.

[^11]: You can find that distinction (between two parts propositions and three parts propositions) and the illuminative philosophers’ objection against fundamental reality of existence and Mulla Sadra and his disciples’ answers in these books: Mulla Sadra Asfar I p.40-47, Al-Mashaiir p.135-138, Tabatabaii Bedayat al-Hikmat p.20-21

[^12]: See Mulla SadraAl-Asfar , pp. 36-37, and Tabatabaii Bedayat al-Hikmat, pp.16-20; Nihayat alHikmat pp.48-58, Osoole Falsafeh wa Ravishi Realism III, pp.42-54 with its notes written by M.

Motahhari; and M. Mohaghghegh T. Izutsu, The Metaphysics of Sabzavari, p. [^39]:

[^13]: See Mulla Sadra* Al-Asfar* , pp.78-82; and Tabatabaii, Bedayat al-Hikmat pp. 43-45, and Nihayat al-Hikmat, pp. 69-79.

[^14]:This section has been written according to the views of Mulla Sadra, but is not just his difficult words. His views have been simplified and has made compatible with new philosophical terminology. I use, in this section, Mesbahi Yazdi's writings in his book Amoozeshi Falsafeh (Teaching Philosophy) for this simplification. See Mesbahi Yazdi, Amoozeshi Falsafeh II, pp. 16-79

[^15]: Mesbahi Yazdi Amoozeshi Falsafeh II, pp. 46,47,29.

[^16]: The term 'povertily possibility' is the translation of 'Imkan Faghri' for which I cannot find a better translation; Faghr means poverty and faghri means 'what is ascribed to poverty' and it is a kind of possibility that something has because of its poverty in existence.

[^17]: Mulla Sadra Asfar I, PP. 157, 158; and M.H. Tabatabai, Osoole Falsafeh wa Raveshe Realism (The Principles of Philosophy and Method of Realism), pp. 82-86 with its footnotes of Motahhari.