14.02.2021 Views

Tahafut_al-Tahafut-transl-Engl-van-den-Bergh

a book on philosophy

a book on philosophy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

by ‘through which it has its necessary existence’ is meant that which is

really an agent, i.e. that which brings potency into act. The second part is

that the term ‘agent’ seems like a genus for that which acts by choice and

deliberation and for that which acts by nature; this is true, and is proved by

our definition of the term ‘agent’. Only this argument wrongly creates the

impression that the philosophers do not regard the first agent as endowed

with will. And this dichotomy that everything is either of necessary

existence by itself or existent through another is not self-evident.

Ghazali, refuting the philosophers, says:

I say:

This designation is wrong, for we do not call any cause

whatsoever an agent, nor any effect an object; for, if this

were so, it would be not right to say that the inanimate has

no act and that only the living exhibit acts-a statement

generally admitted.

His assertion that not every cause is called an agent is true, but his

argument that the inanimate is not called an agent is false, for the denial

that the inanimate exhibits acts excludes only the rational and voluntary

act, not act absolutely, for we find that certain inanimate things have

powers to actualize things like themselves; e.g. fire, which changes

anything warm and dry into another fire like itself, through converting it

from what it has in potency into actuality. Therefore fire cannot make a

fire like itself in anything that has not the potency or that is not in

readiness to receive the actuality of fire. The theologians, however, deny

that fire is an agent, and the discussion of this problem will follow later.

Further, nobody doubts that there are in the bodies of animals powers

which make the food a part of the animal feeding itself and generally

direct the body of the animal. If we suppose them withdrawn, the animal

would die, as Galen says. And through this direction we call it alive,

whereas in the absence of these powers we call it dead.

Ghazali goes on:

If the inanimate is called an agent, it is by metaphor, in

the same way as it is spoken of metaphorically as tending

and willing, since it is said that the stone falls down, because

142

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!