Document Type : Scientific-research
Author
Assistant Professor of Islamic Philosophy and Contemporary Wisdom, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Mullā Ṣadrā’s most famous reason to prove the substantial movement (al-ḥarakat al-juharīyyah) is the one that persists in the existence of a special relation between accident and substance and is explained by such expressions as accident’s being subordinate (tābiʿīyyah) to, caused by, inseparable of, and affair (shaʾn) of substance. Thus, the substance moves a fortiori. Such proofs are comprehensively evaluated and criticized in this paper. According to the substantial rest critique, the accidental rest too is evidence of the substantial rest and the substance must contradictorily be both in rest and movement. In addition, since all material substances are not proved to actually move, the universal substantial movements cannot be proved. In the not being causal relation between substance and accident critique, that claim that the accident and accidental movement is effect, affair and existence manner of substance is criticized by means of several proofs and counterexamples. Again, the critique of existence unity in essence and its accidents questions the movement of substance existence to be proved. In proving the substantial movement by means of subordination and of relativeness of movement critique, it is shown that Ṣadrā has incorrectly generalized the rule that the correlatives are equal counterparts (mutakāfiʾān). So, the difficulty of the coexistence of substance and relation accident and the difficulty of the presence of one unique thing in the essences of two different objects are appeared and such strange things as the substantial redness is proved if this substantial movement proof is correct.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)