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.

is immortal when he will see in himself the purity of the intellect, for he

will see his intellect contemplate nothing sensible, nothing mortal, but

apprehending the eternal through the eternal.’

This passage bears some relation to Descartes’s dictum cogito ergo

sum, but whereas Plotinus affirms the self-consciousness of a stable

identity, Descartes states only that every thought has a subject, an ego.

Neither the one, nor the other shows that this subject is my ego in the

sense of my undefinable unique personality, my awareness who I am: that

I am, for instance, John and not Peter, my consciousness of the continuity

of my identity from birth to death, my knowledge that at the same time I

am master and slave of an identical body, whatever the changes may be

in that body, and that as long as I live I am a unique and an identical

whole of body and soul. Plautus’ Sosia, who was not a philosopher,

expresses himself (Amphitruo, line 447) in almost the same way as

Descartes-‘sed quom cogito, equidem certo idem sum qui fui semper’-but

the introduction of the words semper and idem renders the statement

fallacious; from mere consciousness the lasting identity of my personality

cannot be inferred.

Ghazali answers this point by saying that animals and plants also,

notwithstanding that their matter is continually changing, preserve their

identity, although nobody believes that this identity is based on a spiritual

principle. Averroës regards this objection as justified.

The second argument is based on the theory of universals. Since

thought apprehends universals which are not in a particular place and

have no individuality, they cannot be material, since everything material is

individual and is in space. Against this theory of universals Ghazali

develops, under Stoic influence, his nominalistic theory which is probably

the theory held by the Ash‘arites in general. This theory is quasi-identical

with Berkeley’s nominalistic conception and springs from the same

assumption that thinking is nothing but the having of images. By a strange

coincidence both Ghazali and Berkeley give the example of a hand: when

we have an idea of a hand as a universal, what really happens is that we

have a representation of a particular hand, since there are no universals.

But this particular hand is capable of representing for us any possible

29

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!