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.

philosophers cannot shake the conviction of their

adversaries that the eternal Will is connected with temporal

creation, except by claiming its absurdity by the necessity of

thought, and that therefore they are in no way different from

the theologians who make the same claim against the

philosophical doctrines opposed to theirs. And out of this

there is no issue.

I say:

Zaid and Amr are numerically different, but identical in form. If, for

example, the soul of Zaid were numerically different from the soul of Amr

in the way Zaid is numerically different from Amr, the soul of Zaid and the

soul of Amr would be numerically two, but one in their form, and the soul

would possess another soul. The necessary conclusion is therefore that

the soul of Zaid and the soul of Amr are identical in their form. An identical

form inheres in a numerical, i.e. a divisible, multiplicity, only through the

multiplicity of matter. If then the soul does not die when the body dies, or if

it possesses an immortal element, it must, when it has left the bodies,

form a numerical unity. But this is not the place to go deeper into this

subject.

His argument against Plato is sophistical. It says in short that the soul

of Zaid is either identical with the soul of Amr or different from it; but that

the soul of Zaid is not identical with the soul of Amr and that therefore it is

different from it. But ‘different’ is an equivocal term, and ‘identity’ too is

predicated of a number of things which are also called ‘different’. The

souls of Zaid and Amr are one in one sense and many in another; we

might say, one in relation to their form, many in relation to their

substratum. His remark that division can only be imagined of the

quantitative is partially false; it is true of essential division, but not of

accidental division, i.e. of those things which can be divided, because they

exist in the essentially divisible. The essentially divisible is, for example,

body; accidental division is, for instance, the division of whiteness, when

the bodies in which it is present are divided, and in this way the forms and

the soul are accidentally divisible, i.e. through the division of the substrate.

The soul is closely similar to light: light is divided by the division of

illuminated bodies, and is unified when the bodies are annihilated, and this

same relation holds between soul and bodies. To advance such

50

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!