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.

I say:

inside the world, neither continuous with the world nor

separated from it, cannot be understood, because we cannot

understand this according to our human measure; the right

answer is that it is the fault of your imagination, for rational

proof has led the learned to accept its truth. How, then, will

you refute those who say that rational proof has led to

establishing in God a quality the nature of which is to

differentiate between two similar things? And, if the word

‘will’ does not apply, call it by another name, for let us not

quibble about words! We only use the term ‘will’ by

permission of the Divine Law. It may be objected that by its

conventional meaning ‘will’ designates that which has desire,

and God has no desire, but we are concerned here with a

question not of words but of fact. Besides, we do not even

with respect to our human will concede that this cannot be

imagined. Suppose two similar dates in front of a man who

has a strong desire for them, but who is unable to take them

both. Surely he will take one of them through a quality in him

the nature of which is to differentiate between two similar

things. All the distinguishing qualities you have mentioned,

like beauty or nearness or facility in taking, we can assume

to be absent, but still the possibility of the taking remains.

You can choose between two answers: either you merely

say that an equivalence in respect to his desire cannot be

imagined-but this is a silly answer, for to assume it is indeed

possible or you say that if an equivalence is assumed, the

man will remain for ever hungry and perplexed, looking at

the dates without taking one of them, and without a power to

choose or to will, distinct from his desire. And this again is

one of those absurdities which are recognized by the

necessity of thought. Everyone, therefore, who studies, in

the human and the divine, the real working of the act of

choice, must necessarily admit a quality the nature of which

is to differentiate between two similar things.

57

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!