Proof of the Veracious by Mulla Sadra

[Cassianus]

Mulla Sadra was a 17th century Shia Muslim theologian, mystic, jurist, interpreter of shariah law & philosopher from Iran & within the Iranian mystical tradition of the great Islamic philosophers like Avicenna & he refined the ontological argument of Avicenna to prove the Necessary Being & I think his is a very strong argument:

Mulla Sadra*
"Existence as stated earlier is an objective and simple reality which is graded in intensity and perfection.
The most intense degree of perfection of existence is the degree above which there is no degree more perfect and which is not dependent on anything other than its own self.
Hence, a being is either needless of other things or it is essentially in need of other things.
In the first case, that being is the Necessary Being that is at the peak of perfection; it is devoid of any flaw and deficiency. In the second case, it is not a necessary being because it is needy and dependent. In fact, it is essentially dependent on the Necessary Being and it cannot exist but because of the Necessary Being.” *( Four Journeys vol. 6)

"In other words, if existence which, as per the principiality of existence, is real and principal, is needless of other things, we have reached our goal and the Necessary Being is proved but if it is not self-dependent, it will be an effect, so it will be dependent on a needless being because something which is essentially needy and which is entirely dependent cannot come into existence without the existence of an independent, perfect and needless being.”
(Mesbah Yazdi commentary on Four Journeys)

Mulla Hadi Sabzevari version:
"The stronger and shorter way is that, if the existence is principal and prime, quiddity is subordinate to existence; it is an expression of the existence. Hence, existence is pure and free of any limitations, not constrained, polluted and limited. Non-existence is the opposite of existence. Nothing accepts its opposite. Hence existence can never be together with non-existence. It essentially rejects non-existence and it cannot be non-existent. The conclusion is that the reality of existence is eternally necessary by itself.”

Existence itself becomes the proof. I feel that if I accept the reality of reality & reject sophism, then I can’t reject this argument?

 

[TimothyH]

This should be in the philosophy forum.

 

[Cassianus]

Sorry, I posted in the wrong area.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Sorry, I posted in the wrong area

Don’t worry about it - there’s a lot of overlap. A lot of philosophy gets discussed here.

This sounds basically like a long-winded mashup of cogito ergo sum of Descartes and the Unmoved Mover of Aquinas.

 

[Rhubarb]

Mulla Sadra was a 17th century Shia Muslim theologian, mystic, jurist, interpreter of shariah law & philosopher from Iran & within the Iranian mystical tradition of the great Islamic philosophers like Avicenna & he refined the ontological argument of Avicenna to prove the Necessary Being & I think his is a very strong argument:

Existence itself becomes the proof. I feel that if I accept the reality of reality & reject sophism, then I can’t reject this argument?

I would want to hear more about reality being graded in intensity and perfection. That sounds squirreley and the argument depends upon it.

 

[Cassianus]

I would want to hear more about reality being graded in intensity and perfection. That sounds squirreley and the argument depends upon it.

According to Sadra & Avicenna, existence is an *a priori *intuition that all sound intellects possess & within that intuition, the existence of a Necessary Being is logically necessary.
I agreed immediately with the former but only later with the latter

“Existence is a concept that is innately & immediately grasped in the mind; it requires neither definition nor description of any sort”. (Mulla Sadra 2001-5, I: 45-6)

The gradation of being is simply a hierarchy of being where Pure Being which **is of itself **is the absolute point above which there is no higher while ‘existents’ are beneath in varying degrees. When saying that the snow is white, the whiteness has no existence outside of the snow, so nothing exists apart from Being, the top of which is the Necessary Being (God).

The existence of things intensifies depending upon the realm in which they subsist: as things or beings move upwards from the sensible world through the intermediate realm towards the spiritual world, also known as the intelligibilia, they experience an intensification in their existence, alternatively speaking as things ascend upwards from the sensible world of matter through the intermediate realm of imaginilia towards the *intelligibilia *they become more real i.e. their reality becomes stronger. Similarly as existents descend downwards from the spiritual world through the intermediate realm (called Barzakh, roughly corresponding with purgatory) towards the sensible world they experience a diminution in their existence, in other words it could be said that their existential reality becomes weak as they move downwards in their descent from the intelligibilia towards the sensible world. Therefore the intelligibles that subsist in the spiritual world have a more intense existence and a stronger existential reality as compared to those existents that subsist in the world of matter. Similarly when an existent realizes its latent potential into an actuality so then too it experiences intensification in its existence, in other words it is said to have become more real and actual. This intensification of existence and actualization of latent potentiality enhances the existential reality of the thing.

An object becomes more perfect as it becomes more actual & real. In the sensible world the cause of the intensification in the existence of an object or being is substantial motion that actualizes the latent potentialities into an actuality thereby resulting in a more real & intense existential reality.

hasnainnaqvi93.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/mulla-sadra-on-gradation-of-existence/

The argument is summarized as follows by scholar Sajjad Rizvi:

1: There is existence
2: Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
3: God is perfection and perfection in existence
4: Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
5: That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
6: That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
Hence God exists (= existence).

 

[Michael19682]

An object becomes more perfect as it becomes more actual & real. In the sensible world the cause of the intensification in the existence of an object or being is substantial motion that actualizes the latent potentialities into an actuality thereby resulting in a more real & intense existential reality.

I recall I think it was in the book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” by Saint John Paul II that the best response for interfaith dialogue was to encourage the other person to “intensify” his or her faith. I do not recall either the verbiage or the profundity of [the interview] but the same root word “intense” is used in the Islamic quote. I can only guess naively that our Saint was basing his moral advice on interfaith dialogue on:
Eph 1:8-10
8 In all wisdom and insight,
9 he has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him
10as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth.

A great thing about our religion is that we have the second person of the Trinity to intensify us. He tells us that the result of our intensification, the final destination for which we were all created, is god-like status in Heaven. He enjoins this intensification with abstention from all forms of sin and with the “performance” of good deeds. He “rewards” abstention from and regret for sin with the fellowship of his Third person, which proceeds from the first two as all Catholics know. As far as latent potentialities is concerned, in Catholic terms this would mean greater and greater integration of repressed or forgotten aspects of our life into the life of the spirit, or stated differently, exposure of even tendencies (latent desires?) to sin to the purifying light, the Second Person, our savior. Intensification takes time, so does full acknowledgement of the manifest gift we receive at Baptism. How we continue to be intensified once in Heaven is a mystery.

 

[Rhubarb]

According to Sadra & Avicenna, existence is an *a priori *intuition that all sound intellects possess & within that intuition, the existence of a Necessary Being is logically necessary.
I agreed immediately with the former but only later with the latter

“Existence is a concept that is innately & immediately grasped in the mind; it requires neither definition nor description of any sort”. (Mulla Sadra 2001-5, I: 45-6)

The gradation of being is simply a hierarchy of being where Pure Being which **is of itself **is the absolute point above which there is no higher while ‘existents’ are beneath in varying degrees. When saying that the snow is white, the whiteness has no existence outside of the snow, so nothing exists apart from Being, the top of which is the Necessary Being (God).

The argument is summarized as follows by scholar Sajjad Rizvi:

1: There is existence
2: Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
3: God is perfection and perfection in existence
4: Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
5: That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
6: That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
Hence God exists (= existence).

I would need to see more laid out arguments. There’s… so much that I don’t agree with here on face-value. I think the intuition of existence is a posteriori, I don’t understand why a being must be logically necessary. I don’t agree (on he face of it) that existence is perfection. I don’t understand how reality can be ‘graded in a scale.’ Now, I haven’t done any research on the matters so, there might be good explanation in it but I don’t see it right away. If I were doing a paper on the subject, those are the areas I’d look into.

 

[Michael19682]

I would need to see more laid out arguments. There’s… so much that I don’t agree with here on face-value. I think the intuition of existence is a posteriori, I don’t understand why a being must be logically necessary. I don’t agree (on he face of it) that existence is perfection. I don’t understand how reality can be ‘graded in a scale.’ Now, I haven’t done any research on the matters so, there might be good explanation in it but I don’t see it right away. If I were doing a paper on the subject, those are the areas I’d look into.

I think he means that the Necessary Being is God? and that he is necessary not only for existential reasons but for logical ones: Since people vary in holiness from not at all holy to very holy, the Necessary Being is necessary to help them become more and more holy (existentially necessary) and because God must be that being toward which the upward gradient of holy tends, its logical necessity, a limit, perfect holiness. The Necessary Being explains both that on which people depend in their quest for holiness and the final hope of their quest.
This is obviously my opinion.

 

[Rhubarb]

I think he means that the Necessary Being is God? and that he is necessary not only for existential reasons but for logical ones: Since people vary in holiness from not at all holy to very holy, the Necessary Being is necessary to help them become more and more holy (existentially necessary) and because God must be that being toward which the upward gradient of holy tends, its logical necessity, a limit, perfect holiness. The Necessary Being explains both that on which people depend in their quest for holiness and the final hope of their quest.
This is obviously my opinion.

Oh, yes the idea of a necessary being is used to argue for God. I haven’t seen a compelling argument. Using holiness as a property is clever, but, I’m not sure if holiness ontologically exists. Though it’s clear it nominally exists. It also seems to me that using holiness comes very close to question-begging, as holiness depends on God.

I don’t mean to poke holes in the argument, I don’t want to argue against it. I’m just laying out my first thoughts and where I’d go if I wrote on the subject.

 

[Cassianus]

I would need to see more laid out arguments. There’s… so much that I don’t agree with here on face-value. I think the intuition of existence is a posteriori, I don’t understand why a being must be logically necessary. I don’t agree (on he face of it) that existence is perfection. I don’t understand how reality can be ‘graded in a scale.’ Now, I haven’t done any research on the matters so, there might be good explanation in it but I don’t see it right away. If I were doing a paper on the subject, those are the areas I’d look into.

You accept the fact of personal existence intuitively & if you can’t prove your own personal existence is independent from other things which share with you the fact of existence - doesn’t this mean that there must be a Necessary Existence that has caused & upholds the other existents.

Not accepting existence or the reality of reality is called sophistry or sophism in philosophy. It ultimately means nothing can be established

I’ve never seen an existing thing giving itself existence. Usually, we get it from our mothers & fathers & it’s sustained by consuming other existents such as fruits, vegetables & dead animals, who also had their existence ‘given’ to them from their parents or from the seed, earth & its minerals & sun & water. This Chain of Being continues backward but it can’t go on eternally because it’s logically invalid. Even if all existents evolved from other existents, the fact is each individual existing being received being from other beings - therefore there must be a necessary being to account for this.

 

[Cassianus]

I think he means that the Necessary Being is God? and that he is necessary not only for existential reasons but for logical ones: Since people vary in holiness from not at all holy to very holy, the Necessary Being is necessary to help them become more and more holy (existentially necessary) and because God must be that being toward which the upward gradient of holy tends, its logical necessity, a limit, perfect holiness. The Necessary Being explains both that on which people depend in their quest for holiness and the final hope of their quest.
This is obviously my opinion.

The Necessary Being is a philosophical name for what we would call God. They say Necessary Being because Existence itself can’t be explained without it.

So yes, the more Holy you are, the more ‘Human’ you also are & this means your hierarchically closer to the top of this scale of Being. Because God has established a Universal Form for ‘Human’ in the Incarnation & the degree to which we individually conform to that Form our existence becomes more intense or Real. But that’s 'cuz we accept Christianity & that Jesus is this universal form or ideal for man: the new Adam.

Mulla Sadra is religiously neutral in his philosophical work in the same way Aristotle & Plato was. His philosophy doesn’t depend on the Quran in any way. In other works he interprets the Quran completely allegorically & he was probably a Sufi Muslim - which is the mystical branch of that religion which is closest to Christianity. I’m those days there was a death penalty on leaving Islam & thats still the practice in many places so most profound Islamic philosophers will be Sufi Mystics who are called heretics by the literalists.

 

[fhansen]

Mulla Sadra was a 17th century Shia Muslim theologian, mystic, jurist, interpreter of shariah law & philosopher from Iran & within the Iranian mystical tradition of the great Islamic philosophers like Avicenna & he refined the ontological argument of Avicenna to prove the Necessary Being & I think his is a very strong argument:

Existence itself becomes the proof. I feel that if I accept the reality of reality & reject sophism, then I can’t reject this argument?

Sounds similar to Aquinas’s 3rd and 4th arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Bahman]

Mulla Sadra was a 17th century Shia Muslim theologian, mystic, jurist, interpreter of shariah law & philosopher from Iran & within the Iranian mystical tradition of the great Islamic philosophers like Avicenna & he refined the ontological argument of Avicenna to prove the Necessary Being & I think his is a very strong argument:

Existence itself becomes the proof. I feel that if I accept the reality of reality & reject sophism, then I can’t reject this argument?

They were wrong. What is primary is the consciousness: The essence of any being with the ability to experience and create. Existence by definition is the fundamental mode of experience.

 

[Cassianus]

They were wrong. What is primary is the consciousness: The essence of any being with the ability to experience and create. Existence by definition is the fundamental mode of experience.

Of course, the existence of consciousness is an even stronger proof for the existence of God but basing an argument from consciousness you’ll have to prove that consciousness is universally present in all existing things. It may be that existence & consciousness is the same thing only varying in degrees: the more conscious a thing is, the more intense its existence. But it’s harder to prove.

Existence is intuitively known by everyone. Consciousness is denied by many atheist-materialists as they believe it’s an illusion occurring from the chemical reactions happening in the brain. Therefore it might be harder to use consciousness as the lowest common denominator to demonstrate the intuitive certainty of God’s being.

“Imagine, a man floating in a room with zero sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, no sound, no gravity, no sensation of any kind, floating in complete darkness, no sensation even of his own body because no part of his body touches any other part — say the man was created this way, would he be capable of thought? Can the human mind have thoughts without any external sensory (name removed by moderator)ut? If so, what would this man be thinking? Would the floating man have awareness of anything?”

“Yes, even though the man has no awareness of his environment, or anything external to himself, he would at least be aware of his own existence.”

De Anima, Avicenna

1: Our phenomenal experience of the world confirms that things exist.
2: Their existence is non-necessary because we notice that things come into existence & pass out of it.
3: Contingent existence cannot arise unless it is made necessary by a cause.
4: A causal chain in reality must culminate in one un-caused cause because one cannot posit an actual infinite regress of causes.
5: Therefore, the chain of contingent existents must culminate in & find its causal principle in a sole, self-subsistent existent that is Necessary. This, of course, is the same as God.

 

[Aloysium]

I would say that existence is an act of bringing into being.
So the Father eternally begets the Son.
The son returns that existence, ontologically breathing out.
The Triune Godhead, Love is at the Centre bringing forth creation.
The highest, most “intense”(?) is not static existence, but
Being giving of Itself to what is other in Transcendent form, One.

 

[Bahman]

Of course, the existence of consciousness is an even stronger proof for the existence of God but basing an argument from consciousness you’ll have to prove that consciousness is universally present in all existing things.

Every being which responds to a stimulus is conscious. We cannot disprove the existence of non-conscious beings given the definition but we are sure that they don’t have any contribution in building the reality, what we experience.

Moreover the existence of consciousness does not provide stronger proof for existence of God but quite oppositely put him in the same category, namely being consciousness as others.

It may be that existence & consciousness is the same thing only varying in degrees: the more conscious a thing is, the more intense its existence. But it’s harder to prove.

No. Consciousness is different from existence. Consciousness has essence but existence is only the fundamental mode of experience hence it doesn’t have any essence.

Existence is intuitively known by everyone.

Because people don’t understand the true meaning of existence, namely the fundamental mode of experience, and moreover they forget to ask themselves that how act of experience is possible in absence of a conscious being.

Consciousness is denied by many atheist-materialists as they believe it’s an illusion occurring from the chemical reactions happening in the brain. Therefore it might be harder to use consciousness as the lowest common denominator to demonstrate the intuitive certainty of God’s being.

First of all most of materialist messed up the definition of consciousness by experience. Moreover, they cannot explain how the experience could be the result of chemical reactions, and finally they cannot explain how experience can affect our lives if it is an illusion.

1: Our phenomenal experience of the world confirms that things exist.
2: Their existence is non-necessary because we notice that things come into existence & pass out of it.
3: Contingent existence cannot arise unless it is made necessary by a cause.
4: A causal chain in reality must culminate in one un-caused cause because one cannot posit an actual infinite regress of causes.
5: Therefore, the chain of contingent existents must culminate in & find its causal principle in a sole, self-subsistent existent that is Necessary. This, of course, is the same as God.

First, the causality is manifestation of consciousness. Second, that is true that what observe on the surface of reality, what we observe, seems like a chain of causality but that does not prove that the reality beneath is the same, in the simple word things could be perfectly interconnected underneath such that it is impossible to realize what is cause of what.

 

[Cassianus]

Every being which responds to a stimulus is conscious. We cannot disprove the existence of non-conscious beings given the definition but we are sure that they don’t have any contribution in building the reality, what we experience.

Moreover the existence of consciousness does not provide stronger proof for existence of God but quite oppositely put him in the same category, namely being consciousness as others.

No. Consciousness is different from existence. Consciousness has essence but existence is only the fundamental mode of experience hence it doesn’t have any essence.

Because people don’t understand the true meaning of existence, namely the fundamental mode of experience, and moreover they forget to ask themselves that how act of experience is possible in absence of a conscious being.

First of all most of materialist messed up the definition of consciousness by experience. Moreover, they cannot explain how the experience could be the result of chemical reactions, and finally they cannot explain how experience can affect our lives if it is an illusion.

First, the causality is manifestation of consciousness. Second, that is true that what observe on the surface of reality, what we observe, seems like a chain of causality but that does not prove that the reality beneath is the same, in the simple word things could be perfectly interconnected underneath such that it is impossible to realize what is cause of what.

You assert consciousness, but don’t prove that it’s more fundamental to reality than existence. Either way, God is necessary. It’s just that the philosophical God is more often than not the pantheistic sum of all that is, directing itself.

That’s why they call it the 'Hard problem of consciousness".

The casualty we see on the surface, with our senses, is what we can build our conclusions from. Simply asserting that everything is interconnected by consciousness underneath it all requires more than what we can plainly observe, although I would agree with this & assert it’s the Holy Spirit which permeates all of existence, but I recognize that this is because of faith.

What if Pure Being is equal to what you call Consciousness? The fundamental property of consciousness is its existence - but consciousness is a scientifically unprovable fact that is denied by atheistic materialism, who believe it’s a phenomena caused by material processes in the brain. That’s why they try to find the ‘part of the brain containing memory’ for example.

Even if we exchange Existence for Consciousness, you still end up with the same problem - how is it that an effect can be without a cause? God is often said to be a consciousness, although the existence of consciousness requires a cause that was other than its effect. There God is conscious, but consciousness is not God.

Why does consciousness have an essence?

 

[Bahman]

You assert consciousness, but don’t prove that it’s more fundamental to reality than existence.

Consciousness is more fundamental than existence given the definitions, namely, consciousness is the essence of any being with the ability to experience and create whereas existence is the fundamental mode of experience. In simple word existence is not possible in absence of consciousness since it is merely an experience.

Either way, God is necessary. It’s just that the philosophical God is more often than not the pantheistic sum of all that is, directing itself.

Well, first we have to be agree with the definition of God. What is directing itself is perfect but that doesn’t mean that it is God. The perfection could be achieved by knowing and practicing the fundamental laws that govern the sub-cosmos. The perfection is achieved when the person is free.

That’s why they call it the 'Hard problem of consciousness".

No, the hard problem of consciousness is related to the fact that it is very hard to explain the experience in term of biochemical processes.

The casualty we see on the surface, with our senses, is what we can build our conclusions from.

No, that is the wrong way to build our conclusions from. That is why people have been mistaken for long time being trapped in the chain of causality adding God to resolve the problem. Things are highly connected underneath since it is impossible to know who caused what.

Simply asserting that everything is interconnected by consciousness underneath it all requires more than what we can plainly observe, although I would agree with this & assert it’s the Holy Spirit which permeates all of existence, but I recognize that this is because of faith.

What if all conscious beings are involved underneath in this process not being aware of it since they can only observe the surface.

What if Pure Being is equal to what you call Consciousness?

What do you mean with pure being? I already provide a definition for the consciousness.

The fundamental property of consciousness is its existence

Consciousness has an essence meaning that it could persist to exist without any experience. Existence as it is defined is the fundamental mode of experience.

• but consciousness is a scientifically unprovable fact that is denied by atheistic materialism, who believe it’s a phenomena caused by material processes in the brain.

To prove consciousness scientifically!? That is a wrong way to go since science exist because of consciousness. Consciousness is closest thing to every being if people pay attention to it. It is simply you.

That’s why they try to find the ‘part of the brain containing memory’ for example.

You cannot find consciousness anywhere. Consciousness is primary and the fundamental entity of reality. What we experience, time, space, matter, etc is the manifestation of consciousness hence it is wrong to try to find consciousness somewhere.

Even if we exchange Existence for Consciousness, you still end up with the same problem - how is it that an effect can be without a cause?

We cannot exchange existence for consciousness given the definitions which are provided. What we call causality is the manifestation of consciousness as well, simply what we observe on the surface, underneath we are free to do anything we like. How could you have free will if causality rules?

God is often said to be a consciousness, although the existence of consciousness requires a cause that was other than its effect.

We all consciousness no matter how you define God. We are the same given the definition of consciousness. Consciousness is also primary so no supreme being can create it since any supreme being that you define is conscious. In simple word a conscious being cannot create another conscious being since what consciousness can experience and create is the reality.

There God is conscious,

Yes.

but consciousness is not God.

Could you please elaborate?

Why does consciousness have an essence?

First, because nothing could possibly exist if beings doesn’t have any essence, it is simply you in your deepest sense who experience and affect reality deliberately. What we call reality is an illusion, simply a byproduct of consciousness yet consciousness could persist to exist in absence of any reality hence it has to have an essence. Essence is simply is the very sense of you. This could answer the question of where things, namely reality, come from. It is however wrong to ask where consciousness, for example you, come from. You have always existed and will since you are consciousness.

 

[Michael19682]

Oh, yes the idea of a necessary being is used to argue for God. I haven’t seen a compelling argument. Using holiness as a property is clever, but, I’m not sure if holiness ontologically exists. Though it’s clear it nominally exists. It also seems to me that using holiness comes very close to question-begging, as holiness depends on God.

I don’t mean to poke holes in the argument, I don’t want to argue against it. I’m just laying out my first thoughts and where I’d go if I wrote on the subject.

If human beings are that which harbor holiness, and if holiness keeps society from ruination, from devolving everything that is human into inert matter, then God is necessary to preserve being, he is a necessary being. Life depends on him in that without him life would lose its support. It is mystic in that it sees humans as God qua supportive-extension-of-being. Kind of. I think.