METAPHYSICS
According to Tusi, metaphysics proper consists of two parts, the science of divinity ('ilm-i Ilahi) and the first philosophy (falsefah-i ula). The knowledge of God, intellects, and souls constitutes the science of divinity, and the know¬ledge of the universe and the universals constitutes the first philosophy. The knowledge of the categories of unity and plurality, necessity and contingency, essence and existence, eternity and transitoriness also forms part of the latter.
Among the accessories (furu`) of metaphysics fall the knowledge of pro¬phethood (nubuwwat), spiritual leadership (imamat), and the Day of Judgment (qiyamat). The range of the subject itself suggests that metaphysics is “of the essence of Islamic philosophy and the realm of its chief contribution to the history of ideas.”45
GOD
After denying the logical possibility of atheism and of an ultimate duality, Tusi, unlike Farabi, Ibn Miskawaih, and Ibn Sina, argues that logic and metaphysics miserably fall short of proving the existence of God on rational grounds. God being the ultimate cause of all proofs, and, therefore, the foundation of all logic and metaphysics, is Himself independent of logical proof. Like the fundamental laws of formal logic, Ile neither requires nor lends Himself to proof. He is an a priori, fundamental, necessary, and self-¬evident principle of cosmic logic, and His existence is to be assumed and postulated rather than proved. From the study of moral life as well, he arrives at a similar conclusion and, like Kant in modem times, regards the existence of God as a fundamental postulate of ethics.
Tusi further argues that proof implies perfect comprehension of the thing to be proved, and since it is impossible for the finite man to comprehend God in His entirety, it is impossible for him to prove His existence.46
CREATIO EX NIHILO
Whether the world is eternal (qadim) or was created by God ex nihilo (hadith), is one of the most vexing problems of Muslim philosophy. Aristotle advocated the eternity of the world, attributing its motion to the creation of God, the Prime Mover. Ibn Miskawaih agreed with Aristotle in regarding God as the creator of motion but, unlike him, reasoned out that the world, both in its form and matter, was created by God ex nihilo.
Tusi in his Tasawwurat (written during the period of Isma`ilite patronage) effects a half-hearted reconciliation between Aristotle and ibn Miskawaih. He begins by criticizing the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. The view that there was a time when the world did not exist and then God created it out of nothing, obviously implies that God was not a creator before the creation of the world or His creative power was still a potentiality which was actualized later, and this is a downright denial of His eternal creativity. Logically, therefore, God was always a creator which implied the existence of creation or world with Him. The world, in other words, is co-eternal with God. Here Tusi closes the discus¬sion abruptly with the remark that the world is eternal by the power of God who perfects it, but in its own right and power, it is created (muhdath).
In a later work, Fusul (his famous and much commented metaphysical treatise), Tusi abandons the above position altogether and supports the orthodox doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, without any reservation. Classifying Being into the necessary and the possible, he argues that the possible depends for its existence on the necessary; and since it exists by other than itself, it cannot be assumed in a state of existence, for the creation of the existent is impossible and absurd. And that which is not in existence is non-existent, and so the Necessary Being creates the possible out of nothing. Such a process is called creation and the existent, the created (muhdath).
Similarly, in Tasawwurat, Tusi agrees with Ibn Sina that from one nothing can proceed except one, and following this principle explains the emanation (sudur) of the world from the Necessary Being after the Neo-Platonic fashion. In Risaleh-i `Aql, Risaleh-i ‘Ilal wa Ma`lulat, and Sharh-i Isharat too, he supports, both logically and mathematically, pluralization in the creative process taken as a whole. But in later works, Qawa'id at-`Aqa'id, Tajrid al-`Aqa'id, and Fusul, he evidently attacks and blows up the very foundation of this principle, once held so dearly by him.
The reflection of the first intellect is said to have created the intellect, soul, and body of the first sphere. This position, he now points out, obviously implies plurality in what is created by the first intellect, which goes against the principle that from one nothing can proceed except one. As to the source of plurality, he further argues that it exists either by the authority of God or without His authority. If it exists by the authority of God, then there is no doubt that it has come from God. If, on the other hand, it exists without the authority of God, that would mean the setting up of another god besides God.47
Again, in Tasawwurat, Tusi holds the view that God's reflection is equivalent to creation and is the outcome of His self-conscious necessity. But in Fusul, he abandons this position as well. He now regards God as a free creator and blows up the theory of creation out of necessity. If God creates out of necessity, he argues, His actions should spring out of His essence. Thus, if a part of the world becomes non-existent, the essence of God should also pass into nothingness; for the cause of its non-existence is conditioned by the non-existence of a part of its cause, the non-existence of which is further deter¬mined by the non-existence of the other parts of its cause and so on. And since all existents depend for their existence on the necessity of God, their non¬existence ultimately leads to the non-existence of God Himself.48
PROPHETHOOD
After establishing freedom of the will and resurrection of the body, Tusi proceeds to establish the necessity of prophethood and spiritual leadership. Conflict of interests coupled with individual liberty results in the disintegration of social life, and this necessitates a divine Code from God for the regulation of human affairs. But God Himself is beyond all sensory apprehension; there¬fore, He sends prophets for the guidance of peoples. This, in turn, makes necessary the institution of spiritual leadership after the prophets to enforce the divine Code.
GOOD AND EVIL
Good and evil are found mixed up in this world. The obtrusiveness of evil is inconsistent with the benevolence of God. To avoid this difficulty, Zoroastrians attributed light and good to Yazdan and darkness and evil to Ahriman. But the existence of two equal and independent principles itself involves a metaphysical inconsistency. Rejecting the view on this ground, Tusi explains away the reality and objectivity of evil with the enthusiasm of Ibn Sina, his spiritual progenitor.
According to Tusi, the good proceeds from God and the evil springs up as an accident ('ard) in its way. The good, for instance, is a grain of wheat thrown into the soil and watered, so that it grows into a plant and yields a rich crop. The evil is like the foam which appears on the surface of the water. The foam evidently comes from the water-courses and not from the water itself. Thus, there is no evil principle in the world, but as an accident it is a necessary concomitant or by-product of matter.
In the human world, evil is occasioned by an error of judgment or through a misuse of the divine gift of free-will. God by Himself aims at universal good, but the veils of the senses, imagination, fancy and thought hang before our sight and cloud the mental vision. Thus, prudence fails to foresee the conse¬quences of actions, resulting in wrong choice, which in turn begets evil.
Again, our judgment of evil is always relative and metaphorical, that is, it is always with reference to something. When, for instance, fire burns a poor man's cottage or flood sweeps away a village, a verdict of evil is invariably passed on fire and water. But in reality there is nothing evil in fire or water; rather their absence would constitute an absolute evil in comparison to the partial evil occasionally caused by their presence.
Lastly, evil is the outcome of ignorance, or the result of some physical disability, or the lack of something which provides for the good. The absence of day is night, the lack of wealth is poverty, and the absence of good is evil. In essence, therefore, evil is the absence of something - a negative, not a positive something.49
To the question why a finite sin is dealt with infinite punishment by God, Tusi replies that it is a mistake to attribute either reward or punishment to God. Just as the virtuous, by nature and necessity, deserve eternal bliss and happiness, so the vicious by nature and necessity deserve eternal punish¬ment and despair.
LOGIC
On logic, his works include Asas al-Iqtibas, Sharh-i Mantiq al-Isharat, Ta'dil al-Mi`yar, and Tajrid fi al-Mantiq. The first of these gives a comprehen¬sive and lucid account of the subject in Persian on the lines of Ibn Sina's logic in al-Shifa'.
Tusi regards logic both as a science and as an instrument of science. As a science, it aims at the cognition of meanings and that of the quality of the meanings cognized; as an instrument, it is the key to the understanding of different sciences. When knowledge of meanings as well as of the quality of meanings becomes so ingrained in the mind that it no longer requires the exercise of thought and reflection, the science of logic becomes a useful art (san`at), freeing the mind from misunderstanding, on the one hand, and per¬plexity, on the other.50
Having defined logic, Tusi, like Ibn Sina, begins with a brief discussion of the theory of knowledge. All knowledge is either a concept (tasawwur) or a judgment (tasdiq); the former is acquired through definition and the latter through syllogism. Thus, definition and syllogism are the two instruments with which knowledge is acquired.
Unlike Aristotle, Ibn Sina had divided all syllogisms into the copulative (iqtirani) and the exceptive (istithna'i). Tusi has followed this division and elaborated it in his own way. His logical works are Aristotelian in general outline, but he mentions four51 instead of three syllogistic figures; and the source of this fourth figure is found neither in the Organon of Aristotle nor in any of the logical works of Ibn Sina.52
REVIEW
Tusi, as we have already seen, owes his ethics to Ibn Miskawaih and politics to Farabi; but neither of them reaches the depth and the extent of Ibn Sina's influence over him. Tusi's logic, metaphysics, psychology, domestics, and dogmatics - all are substantially borrowed from him. Besides, his long though casual connection with the Nizari Isma`ilites also influenced his ethical, psychological, and metaphysical speculations.
Historically speaking, his position is mainly that of a revivalist. But from the standpoint of the history of culture, even the revival of the philosophical and scientific tradition, especially in an era of political and intellectual decline, though marked by tiresome erudition and repetition, is no less important than origination, inasmuch as it prepares the ground for the intellectual rebirth of a nation.
Selasa, 06 Agustus 2024