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.

conclusion which the philosophers forced upon them: that if the attributes

existed through the essence, the essence would be an existent necessary

through itself, and the attributes would be necessary through something

different from themselves, and the essence of the necessary existent

would exist by itself, but the attributes would be necessary through

something different from themselves, and essence and attributes together

would form a compound. z But the Ash’arites do not concede to the

philosophers that the existence of a necessary existent, subsisting by

itself, implies that it has no cause whatsoever, for their argument leads

only to the denial of an efficient cause additional to the essence. ;

Ghazali says:

The objection against this is to say: The case to be

accepted is the last, but we have shown in the fifth

discussion that you have no proof for your denial of the first

case, that of absolute duality; what is affirmed by you in the

fifth discussion can only be justified by basing it upon your

denial of plurality in this and the following discussions: how

can you therefore base this discussion upon what” is itself

the upshot of this discussion?’ But the correct solution is to

say: `The essence does not need the attributes for its

subsistence, whereas the attributes need a subject, as is the

case with us ourselves. ‘ There remains their statement that

what is in need of something else is not a necessary

existent.

One may ask them: Why do you make such a statement,

if you understand by `necessary existent’ only that which has

no efficient cause, and why is it impossible to say that, just

as there is no agent for the essence of the necessary

existent, which is eternal, there is no agent for its attributes,

which are equally eternal? If, however, you understand by

`necessary existent’ that which has no receptive cause, we

answer that that is not implied in this conception of the

necessary existent, which, according to this conception is all

the same eternal and has no agent; and what is wrong with

this conception?

258

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!