ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Philosophical Instructions Lesson Fifty-Nine: Motion in Substance Introduction As was indicated, philosophers of the past, including Aristotelians and Illuminationists, considered motion to be specific to accidents. Not only did they fail to establish substantial motion, but they imagined it to be impossible. Also, among the ancient Greek philosophers none are to be found who explicitly discuss substantial motion or establish it.

The only position which is comparable to substantial motion is that reported to have been held by Heraclitus (540-470 B.C.). Other than those Islamic and non-Islamic philosophers and theologians who believed in constant renewing creation, none are found to whom a tendency toward substantial motion can be ascribed.

However, contrary to the famous philosophers of the world, the one who explicitly established substantial motion and boldly insisted on it was the great Islamic philosopher, Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn Shīrāzī. Here, we shall first present the objections raised by those who deny substantial motion and answer them, then we shall explain the theory of Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn and the arguments he has put forth to prove it.

Objections to Substantial Motion The discussions of those who imagine substantial motion to be impossible turn on the notion that one of the prerequisites, or rather one of the constituents, of every motion, is the existence of the moved, or in technical terms, the subject of motion.

When we say that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, or that an apple turns from green to yellow and then to red, or that a sapling or a baby animal or human grows and develops, in each of these cases we have a fixed essence whose attributes and states gradually change. However, if it is said that the essence itself is not fixed, and just as its attributes and accidents change, its substance also is transformed, then to what are we to relate this change?

In other words, substantial motion will be a motion without a thing moved and an attribute without a thing to which attribution is made. This is not rational. Answers to the Objections The origin of this objection is a defect in the analysis of motion. As a result, some philosophers, such as al-Shaykh al-Ishrāq, have consciously considered motion to belong to the category of extraneous accidents, while others have unconsciously considered it so.