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.

not, and of the possible with equal chances of happening, and these three

types of the possible do not seem to have the same need for a new

determining principle. For the possible that happens more often than not is

frequently believed to have its determining principle in itself, not outside,

as is the case with the possible which has equal chances of happening

and not happening. Further, the possible resides sometimes in the agent,

i.e. the possibility of acting, and sometimes in the patient, i.e. the

possibility of receiving, and it does not seem that the necessity for a

determining principle is the same in both cases. For it is well known that

the possible in the patient needs a new determinant from the outside; this

can be perceived by the senses in artificial things and in many natural

things too, although in regard to natural things there is a doubt, for in most

natural things the principle of their change forms part of them. Therefore it

is believed of many natural things that they move themselves, and it is by

no means self-evident that everything that is moved has a mover and that

there is nothing that moves itself.; But all this needs to be examined, and

the old philosophers have therefore done so. As concerns the possible in

the agent, however, in many cases it is believed that it can be actualized

without an external principle, for the transition in the agent from inactivity

to activity is often regarded as not being a change which requires a

principle; e.g. the transition in the geometer from non-geometrizing to

geometrizing, or in the teacher from non-teaching to teaching.

Further, those changes which are regarded as needing a principle of

change can sometimes be changes in substance, sometimes in quality, or

in quantity, or in place.

In addition, ‘eternal’ is predicated by many of the eternal-by-itself and

the eternal-through-another. According to some, it is permissible to admit

certain changes in the Eternal, for instance a new volition in the Eternal,

according to the Karramites, and the possibility of generation and

corruption which the ancients attribute to primary matter, although it is

eternal. Equally, new concepts are admitted in the possible intellect

although, according to most authors, it is eternal. But there are also

changes which are inadmissible, especially according to certain ancients,

though not according to others.

Then there is the agent who acts of his will and the agent which acts by

nature, and the manner of actualization of the possible act is not the same

34

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!