Sadra's Interpretation of Change
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Open Journal of Philosophy 2013. Vol.3, No.1, 55-62 Published Online February 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.31009 Dressing after Dressing: Sadra’s Interpretation of Change Muhammad Kamal Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Email: [email protected] Received October 22nd, 2012; revised November 25th, 2012; accepted December 10th, 2012 This paper deals with the doctrine of transubstantial change advocated by Mulla Sadra in which sub- stances as well as accidents are thought to be in constant and gradual change. Against Aristotle’s doctrine of accidental change, Mulla Sadra argues that no stable ground can bring about change and since sub- stance is renewable it cannot carry identity of a changing existent. Here we investigate whether identity is possible or not. If it is possible then what becomes a ground for establishing identity of changing sub- stances. Keywords: Ontology; Existence; Essence; Change; Substantial Change; Accidental Change; Identity and Difference Sadra’s Ontology Contrary to Suhrawardi’s ontological position, Mulla Sadra does not accept the idea that “Existence” is unreal or that it is a While Muslim Peripatetic thinkers under the influence of mental concept. For him, “Existence” is an objective reality and Aristotle accepted change in accidents, Mulla Sadra insisted on the principle of all things. Its reality encompasses the lowest change in substance. For him, change in accidents is thinkable and the highest. At the highest it is the existence of the Nece- when substance undergoes change and transformed. Here I ssary Being. At the same time, “Existence” is different from intend to analyse Mulla Sadra’s doctrine of transubstantial existents and transcends all logical categories and definitions, change. I also examine how the implications of this doctrine for the simple reason that “Existence” has neither a genus nor have drastic consequences on the identity of a changing existent, differentia2. This philosophy inaugurates a new system of on- and discuss the possibility of establishing identity without rely- tology in which the theme of inquiry is “Being” as such, and ing on substance in Mulla Sadra’s ontology. philosophy becomes the science of Being or ontology. Mulla Sadr al-Din Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Yahya Shirazi Qawa- Sadra re-asserts this point in al-Masha’ir stating that “The mi, (1572-1640), also known as Mulla Sadra, like Shahab Al- question of existence is the foundation of the principles of wis- Din Suhrawardi (1155-1191) and his teacher Mir Damad (d. dom, the basis of philosophical theology, and the nexus of 1631), believed that “essence” was real and stood as the on- [concern] of those in the circle [lit. the mill-stone, i.e., the cen- tological principle of all existents. But his discontent with this tre] of the sciences of unity, the resurrection of souls and bodies, doctrine made him alter his position and became the defender and of much else that only we have developed and articulated. of the doctrine of the principality of “Existence”. As described It gives them a synthesis [lit. a unity] through its explanation. by him, this change in attitude was the outcome of a mystical Anyone who is ignorant of the gnosis of existence is also igno- experience and divine guidance stating that, “In the past, I used rant of the major [lit. mother] subjects and most significant to be firm on the defense of the principality of essence, making quests, misses the refinements of gnosis and its subtleties, the existence a [mentally dependent] abstract entity, until my God science of the divine and the prophets, the gnosis of the soul, guided me and showed me his proof. It became clear to me that and its connection and return to the [primordial] source and the issue is the opposite of what has been conceived and deter- destiny [i.e., telos]. We therefore open this treatise on the prin- mined. Thank God who took me out of the darkness of illusion ciples of the truths of faith, principles of wisdom and gnosis”3. through the light of comprehension, who removed from my Philosophy qua ontology is engaged with an understanding of heart the clouds of these doubts through the rise of the sun of the meaning of “Existence” rather than existents and “Exi- truth, and who held me close to the true discourse in this life stence” is a nucleus around which all other philosophical issues and the life after. Existences are genuine [determinate] realities revolve. The oblivion of “Existence” will affect our understand- and essences are the eternal “thisnesses” which have never in- ing of other philosophical issues because “Existence” as the haled the perfume of real existence at all. These existences are sole reality and basis for all existents pushed to the background. merely the rays and reflected lights of The True Light and of In light of the principality of “Existence”, any discussion de- the Eternal Existence. Exalted Be His Sublimity! However, termining the nature of the relationship between existence and each of them has essential predicates and contains intelligible essence seems irrelevant. For, existence is identical with es- 1 concepts called essences . sence in the external world, and the difference between them arises in thinking. The dichotomy between existence and es- 1Mulla Sadra & Muhammad b. Ibrahim (Sadr al-Din) Shirazi (1992), al- sence is conceptual and exists only in the mind. When we are Masha’ir, translated by Parviz Morewedge, New York, p. 43. Mulla Sadra (1999), al-Asfar al-Arba’a, 1, 1, Beirut: Dar Ihya’al-Turath al-’Arabi, p. 9. 2Mulla Sadra, al-Asfar, 1, 1, p. 50. See also, Mulla Sadra, (1981), al-Shawahid al-rububiyyah, Tehran: Uni- 3Mulla Sadra, al-Asfar, Vol. 1, p. 24. See also Mulla Sadra, al-Masha’ir, pp. versity Publication Centre, pp. 50-51. 3-4. Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 55 M. KAMAL asked about the essence of an existing-entity we analyse its by substance. Against Aristotle’s doctrine of accidental change universal determinations and distinguish them from its exi- he argues that a stable and enduring ground such as substance stence. For example, the existence of a table is in thinking is cannot bring about change in its own accidents as accidents do different from its being brown and round. It is through our not exist independent of substance alteration in the accidents analysis that we separate the existence of the table from its should be seen as the result of change in substance and not vice essence and insist on the principality of one of them over the versa, “The renewal of the source, therefore, certainly brings other. Essence is a product of our conceptual analysis, having about the renewal of the effects”5. Aristotle approved of change no reality of its own. When we employ logical categories to in the categories of quality, quantity, position and space, while describe or define an existent, “essence” rather than “existence” “substance” remained durable simply because there was no is realized and we do not talk about its existence. We do not say contrary to it6. An individual substance, Socrates for example, that “The table is an existent,” but “It is brown and round.” would go through accidental changes. He becomes a philo- Mulla Sadra has no problem with this view as long as “essence” sopher or a father but his “essence” does not change. Aristotle is described as the product of intellectual consideration, and is built his theory of change on the foundation of Plato’s meta- only in thinking, “From the mental point of view, however, the physics dualism and made a sharp distinction between what prior factor is essence, because it is a universal mental notion was changeable and what was not in all existents. There are which is realized in its [deep-seated sense] of being in the metaphysical roots to this analysis based on the conviction that [mental realm]; it is not obtained [in the mode of being concrete] accidental change requires a clear distinction between a sub- from existence, except in a general and mental concept”4. Es- strate: something stable and something in transition. By con- sence is a determinate factor in the intellectual process and the trast, Mulla Sadra’s ontology is a monism, in which change abstract conceptual activity of thinking. But it has no ontologi- becomes a characteristic of reality. The flow of emanation is a cal reality by itself and at the same time cannot exist outside process where multiple existents become manifest. This onto- thinking. It is the principle factor in thinking but not in the ex- logical monism accommodates multiplicity and turns out to be ternal world. This priority of essence in this respect is a priority the foundation for the principle of unity in multiplicity or mul- in meaning rather than a priority in existence. It is also not a tiplicity in unity. Emanation of the modes of “Existence”, the priority in terms of causality or temporality because essence gradation of “Existence” and identity in difference are all cannot become the cause of existence and does not precede it in grounded in the principality of “Existence” and direct our dis- time. There is nothing but “Existence”, and the modification of cussion to the notion of change. “Existence” in different forms. Each form represents a particu- When we examine the doctrine of the principality of “Exis- lar manifestation of “Existence”. The relation between “Exis- tence” and the belief that “Existence” encompasses all existents, tence” and its resultant forms is like that of the ground with the we realize that “Existence” is used univocally (common to all) grounded.