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:

There still remains the fact that the philosophers regard

this as impossible, because they ask why the will should

have distinguished just this body, whereas all other bodies

participate in bodiliness. But we have already explained that

it is of the nature of the eternal Will to differentiate one thing

from a similar one, and that the philosophers are forced to

admit such a quality for the determination of the direction of

the circular movement and for the determination of the place

of the poles and their points, and we shall not repeat this; but

our argument is, in short, that when they deny that a body

can be differentiated for the attachment of the will to it

without a distinctive attribute, this can be turned against

them in regard to this distinctive attribute, for we ask them:

‘Why is the body of heaven distinguished by this attribute,

which sets it apart from all other bodies, although all other

bodies are also bodies; and how can anything occur to it

which does not occur to other bodies? ‘ If this is caused by

another attribute, we must repeat the same question about

this other attribute, and in this way we should get an infinite

series, and they would be forced in the end to acknowledge

an arbitrary judgement of the will and the fact that in the

principles there is something that distinguishes one thing

from a similar one.

That a stone moves downwards through a quality which has been

created in it, and fire upwards, and that these qualities are opposed -this is

a self-evident fact, and to contradict it is pure folly. But it is still more

foolish to say that the eternal Will causes the movement in these things

everlastingly-without any act He deliberately choseIand that this

movement is not implanted in the nature of the thing, and that this is called

constraint; for if this were true, things would have no nature, no real

essence, no definition at all. For it is selfevident that the natures and

definitions of things only differ through the difference of their acts, just as it

is self-evident that every movement forced on a body comes from a body

outside it. And this argument has no sense whatever.

378

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!