14.02.2021 Views

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

a book on philosophy

a book on philosophy

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

may assume that this cause has a cause and so ad infinitum. We do not

therefore arrive at an existent without cause-for this is the meaning of the

expression `entity of a necessary existence'-unless by the possible which

Avicenna assumes as the opposite of what has no cause we understand

the truly possible, for in these possibles there cannot exist an infinite

series of causes. But if by `possible' is meant those necessary things

which have a cause, it has not yet been proved that their infinite number is

impossible, in the way it is evident of the truly possible existents, and it is

not yet proved that there is a necessary existent which needs a cause, so

that from this assumption one can arrive at a necessary entity existing

without a cause. Indeed, one has to prove that what applies to the total

causal series of possible entities applies also to the total causal series of

necessary existents.

Ghazali says:

The terms `possible' and `necessary' are obscure, unless

one understands by `necessary' that which has no cause for

its existence and by `possible' that which has a cause for its

existence;' then, by applying the terms as defined to the

statement, we say: Each member of a causal series is

possible in this sense of `possible', namely, that it has a

cause additional to its essence, but the series as a whole is

not possible in this sense of `possible'.'' And if anything else

is meant by `possible', it is obscure. If it is objected that this

makes the necessary existent consist of possible existents

and this is impossible, we answer: By defining `necessary'

and `possible' as we have done, you have all that is needed

and we do not concede that it is impossible. To say that it is

impossible would be like saying that it is impossible that

what is eternal should be made up of what is temporal, for

time according to you philosophers is eternal, but the

individual circular movements are temporal and have initial

terms, though collectively they have no initial term; therefore,

that which has no initial term consists of entities having initial

terms, and it is true of the single units that they have a

beginning, but not true of them collectively. In the same way

it can be said of each term of the causal series that it has a

226

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!