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.

I say:

connected with Him, since the agent cannot exert influence

upon non-existence, and it is equally impossible to say ‘both

together’, for it is clear that nonexistence is in no way

connected with the agent, for non-existence qua nonexistence

needs no agent at all. It follows therefore that what

is connected with Him is connected with Him in so far as it is

an existent, that what proceeds from Him is pure existence,

and that there is no other relation to Him than that of

existence. If existence is regarded as everlasting, then this

relation is everlasting, and if this relation is everlasting, then

the term to which this relation refers is the most illustrious

and the most enduring in influence, because at no moment

is non-existence connected with it. Temporal production

implies therefore the contradictory statements that it must be

connected with an agent, that it cannot be produced, if it is

not preceded by non-existence, and that non-existence

cannot be connected with the agent.

And if previous non-existence is made a condition of the

existent, and it is said that what is connected with the agent

is a special existence, not any existence, namely an

existence preceded by non-existence, it may be answered

that its being preceded by non-existence cannot be an act of

an agent or a deed of a maker, for the procession of this

existence from its agent cannot be imagined, unless

preceded by non-existence; neither, therefore , can the

precedence of this non-existence be an act of the agent and

connected with him, nor the fact that this existence is

preceded by non-existence. Therefore to make nonexistence

a condition for the act’s becoming an act is to

impose as a condition one whereby the agent cannot exert

any influence under any condition.’

This is an argument put forward on this question by Avicenna from the

philosophical side. It is sophistical, because Avicenna leaves out one of

the factors which a complete division would have to state.

149

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!