Volume 5, Issue 1 (2025)
jpt 2025, 5(1): 45-61 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Imanikia H, Nasiri Mahalati A, Hajinia Z. Reinterpreting the Personal Unity of Existence in Light of Metaphysical Grounding; from Vagueness to Precision. jpt 2025; 5 (1) :45-61
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79517-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79517-en.html
1- Department of Philosophy and logic, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Islamic philosophy, Shahid Motahari Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2- Department of Islamic philosophy, Shahid Motahari Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Keywords: Personal Unity of Existence, Necessary-Contingent Relationship, Manifestations and Appearances, Metaphysical Grounding
Full-Text [PDF 679 kb]
(150 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (334 Views)
Full-Text: (2 Views)
In the Personal Unity of Existence (PUE) framework, Mulla Sadra elucidates the relationship between the Necessary Being and contingent entities through the concepts of manifestations and appearances. While these concepts align with the doctrine of PUE, their linguistic ambiguity often leads to multiple interpretations. This study employs an analytical-critical approach based on the metaphysical grounding theory to provide a framework that resolves such ambiguities. Grounding, characterized by its non-causal nature and hyper-intentionality, allows for a redefinition of these Sadrian notions and contributes to a clearer articulation of Mulla Sadra’s terminology, thereby refining the understanding of the Necessary-contingent relationship. By integrating traditional and analytical perspectives, this research highlights the potential of metaphysical grounding in analyzing Sadra’s philosophical system. Furthermore, the study examines how grounding can bridge classical Islamic philosophy and contemporary analytic metaphysics, reinforcing the significance of Sadrian thought in modern debates [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Fine, 1995; Schaffer, 2009].
According to PUE, Mulla Sadra claims (1) there is only one true existence, that of the Necessary Being, and (2) all contingent entities neither possess independent existence nor can they be considered gradational manifestations of the Necessary Being. Instead, they are mere manifestations, determinations, and appearances of the singular existence. This perspective eliminates causal relations between the Necessary and the contingent, substituting them with a structure of manifestation and appearance, thus offering a more coherent framework to explain existence [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Fine, 2012].
Despite the coherence of this framework, the linguistic ambiguity of these terms has led to various and sometimes conflicting interpretations. This study, by employing the theory of metaphysical grounding—which posits a hierarchical explanatory structure of dependence—seeks to clarify these Sadrian concepts. Grounding, characterized by asymmetry, irreflexivity, non-causality, cross-categoricity, and hyper-intentionality, provides a structured approach to redefine and refine these terms, offering a precise understanding of the Necessary-contingent relationship. By applying this theory, we demonstrate that the dependency structure in Sadrian thought closely resembles that of contemporary grounding theories, reinforcing their compatibility [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Schaffer, 2016].
Theoretical Framework of PUE and its Key Concepts PUE is the advanced version of the primacy of existence (asalat al-wujud). The core principles of this doctrine include:
1. Existence is the only real entity, while quiddities are mere conceptual demarcations [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
2. Existence precedes quiddity and is not composed of definitional limits [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
3. Existence is gradational (tashkik) in intensity, resembling contemporary discussions of degrees of reality [Fine, 1995; Quine, 1960].
4. Existence is simple (basit) and indivisible, thus preventing any dualistic interpretation [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
The distinction between PUE and gradational unity (tashkiki) is pivotal. Unlike the latter, PUE negates the reality of contingent beings and considers them mere determinations and manifestations of the Necessary Being. This contrast underscores the philosophical significance of PUE in presenting an ontology that is both holistic and non-dualistic. Furthermore, this distinction helps resolve ambiguities in classical metaphysical discussions regarding the ontological status of contingent beings [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Adams, 1999].
Critical Analysis of the Concepts of Manifestation, Determination, and Appearance Traditional interpretations of these terms suffer from multiple ambiguities:
- Manifestation (tajalli): Used interchangeably for “issuing forth” and “becoming apparent,” lacking precise definitional clarity [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
- Determination (ta’ayyun): Sometimes, it denotes the process of existence appearing in various degrees; at other times, it denotes the realization of a particular entity, leading to interpretative divergence. While allowing for a broad range of interpretations, this flexibility creates challenges in ensuring terminological precision [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Husserl, 1901].
- Appearance (zuhur): Used both as “becoming apparent” and “actualization,” without a clear distinction, which complicates the theoretical foundation of PUE. Resolving these ambiguities is crucial for maintaining the philosophical rigor of the framework [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Kripke, 1980].
Application of Metaphysical Grounding to PUE Metaphysical grounding provides a structured approach to resolving these ambiguities:
- Asymmetry: The Necessary grounds the contingent, but not vice versa, reinforcing the dependence structure proposed in PUE [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Schaffer, 2009].
- Irreflexivity: The Necessary being does not ground itself, ensuring a structured explanatory hierarchy within existence [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
- Non-Causality: The relationship is explanatory, not generative, distinguishing it from classical Aristotelian causality [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Moore, 1903].
- Cross-Categoricity: Grounding spans multiple ontological domains, integrating epistemic and metaphysical dimensions [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Van Benthem, 2011].
- Hyper-Intentionality: Grounding distinguishes fine-grained conceptual differences, allowing for more nuanced analyses of existential dependencies [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
A Comparison Between PUE and metaphysical grounding shows that both theories emphasize ontological dependence, hierarchical structuring, and explanatory primacy. However, their key divergence lies in fundamentality. PUE considers existence intrinsically fundamental, while grounding treats fundamentality as extrinsically determined by dependence structures. In contrast to PUE, grounding theory avoids any commitment to an essentialist framework and instead focuses on relational dependencies among entities, offering a more flexible explanatory paradigm [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Schaffer, 2009].
Moreover, while PUE postulates a single, absolute reality from which all existence derives, grounding theory allows for multiple layers of fundamentality, making it more adaptable to contemporary metaphysical debates. This distinction illustrates why the grounding theory, despite its analytical origins, can be fruitfully applied to Sadrian metaphysics to clarify its conceptual ambiguities. This compatibility highlights the relevance of classical Islamic thought in modern philosophy and encourages further interdisciplinary research [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Feynman, 1964].
This study demonstrates that the Sadrian concepts of manifestation, determination, and appearance exhibit the same structural features as metaphysical grounding. By applying grounding theory, we achieve a precise and coherent articulation of these concepts, resolving ambiguities and reinforcing the explanatory robustness of PUE. Furthermore, by incorporating grounding theory into the study of PUE, this research highlights the relevance of classical Islamic metaphysics to contemporary philosophical debates. This comparative analysis clarifies key Sadrian concepts and integrates Islamic metaphysics into contemporary analytic discourse on fundamentality, providing a new avenue for cross-traditional philosophical engagement. Additionally, the integration of grounding theory within PUE enables a more structured understanding of metaphysical dependencies, reinforcing the coherence of Mulla Sadra’s framework. This study paves the way for further research into the intersection of Islamic and analytic metaphysics, fostering deeper engagement between traditional and contemporary schools of thought.
According to PUE, Mulla Sadra claims (1) there is only one true existence, that of the Necessary Being, and (2) all contingent entities neither possess independent existence nor can they be considered gradational manifestations of the Necessary Being. Instead, they are mere manifestations, determinations, and appearances of the singular existence. This perspective eliminates causal relations between the Necessary and the contingent, substituting them with a structure of manifestation and appearance, thus offering a more coherent framework to explain existence [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Fine, 2012].
Despite the coherence of this framework, the linguistic ambiguity of these terms has led to various and sometimes conflicting interpretations. This study, by employing the theory of metaphysical grounding—which posits a hierarchical explanatory structure of dependence—seeks to clarify these Sadrian concepts. Grounding, characterized by asymmetry, irreflexivity, non-causality, cross-categoricity, and hyper-intentionality, provides a structured approach to redefine and refine these terms, offering a precise understanding of the Necessary-contingent relationship. By applying this theory, we demonstrate that the dependency structure in Sadrian thought closely resembles that of contemporary grounding theories, reinforcing their compatibility [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Schaffer, 2016].
Theoretical Framework of PUE and its Key Concepts PUE is the advanced version of the primacy of existence (asalat al-wujud). The core principles of this doctrine include:
1. Existence is the only real entity, while quiddities are mere conceptual demarcations [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
2. Existence precedes quiddity and is not composed of definitional limits [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
3. Existence is gradational (tashkik) in intensity, resembling contemporary discussions of degrees of reality [Fine, 1995; Quine, 1960].
4. Existence is simple (basit) and indivisible, thus preventing any dualistic interpretation [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
The distinction between PUE and gradational unity (tashkiki) is pivotal. Unlike the latter, PUE negates the reality of contingent beings and considers them mere determinations and manifestations of the Necessary Being. This contrast underscores the philosophical significance of PUE in presenting an ontology that is both holistic and non-dualistic. Furthermore, this distinction helps resolve ambiguities in classical metaphysical discussions regarding the ontological status of contingent beings [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Adams, 1999].
Critical Analysis of the Concepts of Manifestation, Determination, and Appearance Traditional interpretations of these terms suffer from multiple ambiguities:
- Manifestation (tajalli): Used interchangeably for “issuing forth” and “becoming apparent,” lacking precise definitional clarity [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
- Determination (ta’ayyun): Sometimes, it denotes the process of existence appearing in various degrees; at other times, it denotes the realization of a particular entity, leading to interpretative divergence. While allowing for a broad range of interpretations, this flexibility creates challenges in ensuring terminological precision [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Husserl, 1901].
- Appearance (zuhur): Used both as “becoming apparent” and “actualization,” without a clear distinction, which complicates the theoretical foundation of PUE. Resolving these ambiguities is crucial for maintaining the philosophical rigor of the framework [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Kripke, 1980].
Application of Metaphysical Grounding to PUE Metaphysical grounding provides a structured approach to resolving these ambiguities:
- Asymmetry: The Necessary grounds the contingent, but not vice versa, reinforcing the dependence structure proposed in PUE [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Schaffer, 2009].
- Irreflexivity: The Necessary being does not ground itself, ensuring a structured explanatory hierarchy within existence [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
- Non-Causality: The relationship is explanatory, not generative, distinguishing it from classical Aristotelian causality [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Moore, 1903].
- Cross-Categoricity: Grounding spans multiple ontological domains, integrating epistemic and metaphysical dimensions [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Van Benthem, 2011].
- Hyper-Intentionality: Grounding distinguishes fine-grained conceptual differences, allowing for more nuanced analyses of existential dependencies [Mulla Sadra, 1981].
A Comparison Between PUE and metaphysical grounding shows that both theories emphasize ontological dependence, hierarchical structuring, and explanatory primacy. However, their key divergence lies in fundamentality. PUE considers existence intrinsically fundamental, while grounding treats fundamentality as extrinsically determined by dependence structures. In contrast to PUE, grounding theory avoids any commitment to an essentialist framework and instead focuses on relational dependencies among entities, offering a more flexible explanatory paradigm [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Schaffer, 2009].
Moreover, while PUE postulates a single, absolute reality from which all existence derives, grounding theory allows for multiple layers of fundamentality, making it more adaptable to contemporary metaphysical debates. This distinction illustrates why the grounding theory, despite its analytical origins, can be fruitfully applied to Sadrian metaphysics to clarify its conceptual ambiguities. This compatibility highlights the relevance of classical Islamic thought in modern philosophy and encourages further interdisciplinary research [Mulla Sadra, 1981; Feynman, 1964].
This study demonstrates that the Sadrian concepts of manifestation, determination, and appearance exhibit the same structural features as metaphysical grounding. By applying grounding theory, we achieve a precise and coherent articulation of these concepts, resolving ambiguities and reinforcing the explanatory robustness of PUE. Furthermore, by incorporating grounding theory into the study of PUE, this research highlights the relevance of classical Islamic metaphysics to contemporary philosophical debates. This comparative analysis clarifies key Sadrian concepts and integrates Islamic metaphysics into contemporary analytic discourse on fundamentality, providing a new avenue for cross-traditional philosophical engagement. Additionally, the integration of grounding theory within PUE enables a more structured understanding of metaphysical dependencies, reinforcing the coherence of Mulla Sadra’s framework. This study paves the way for further research into the intersection of Islamic and analytic metaphysics, fostering deeper engagement between traditional and contemporary schools of thought.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Metaphysics (Analytical)
Received: 2025/01/29 | Accepted: 2025/02/27 | Published: 2025/03/10
Received: 2025/01/29 | Accepted: 2025/02/27 | Published: 2025/03/10
References
1. Adams RM (1999). Finite and infinite goods: A framework for ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link]
2. Feynman RP (1964). The Feynman lectures on physics. Boston: Addison-Wesley. [Link] [DOI:10.1063/1.3051743]
3. Fine K (1995). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 95(1):269-290. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/aristotelian/95.1.269]
4. Fine K (2002). The question of realism. In: Individuals, essence and identity: Themes of analytic metaphysics. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 3-48. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-1866-0_1]
5. Fine K (2012). Guide to ground. In: Correia F, Schnieder B, editors. Metaphysical grounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 37-80. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139149136.002]
6. Husserl E (1901). Logical investigations (Volume 2). London: Routledge. [Link]
7. Kripke S (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Link]
8. Moore GE (1903). The refutation of idealism. Mind. 12(48):433-453. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/mind/XII.4.433]
9. Mulla Sadra (1981a). The transcendent philosophy in the four journeys of the intellect (Volume 1). Beirut: DAR IHYA' AL-TURATH AL-'ARABI. [Arabic] [Link]
10. Mulla Sadra (1981b). The transcendent philosophy in the four journeys of the intellect (Volume 2). Beirut: DAR IHYA' AL-TURATH AL-'ARABI. [Arabic] [Link]
11. Mulla Sadra (1981c). Divine witnesses in spiritual methods (Volume 1). Tehran: MARKAZ NASHR-E DANESHGAHI. [Arabic] [Link]
12. Mulla Sadra (1981d). Divine witnesses in spiritual methods (Volume 2). Tehran: MARKAZ NASHR-E DANESHGAHI. [Arabic] [Link]
13. Mulla Sadra (1981e). Divine witnesses in spiritual methods (Volume 3). Tehran: MARKAZ NASHR-E DANESHGAHI. [Arabic] [Link]
14. Quine WVO (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Link]
15. Schaffer J (2009). On what grounds what. In: Chalmers D, Manley D, Wasserman R, editors. Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 347-383. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199546046.003.0012]
16. Schaffer J (2016). Grounding in the image of causation. Philosophical Studies. 173(1):49-100. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-014-0438-1]
17. Van Benthem J (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511974533]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |