A Philosophical Explanation of Proximity to and Remoteness from the Divine

Proximity and Remoteness when used in relation to God and the contingent existents are used equivocally [mushtarek-e-lafzi] and not in a univocal [mushtarek-e-man'awi] manner, where by equivocal we mean that it is only the words that are identical but the meanings are different depending upon the subject to which they are applied, therefore while proximity and remoteness denote a lesser or a greater spatial or temporal distance between two material or temporal correspondents that exist within a spatial-temporal paradigm, the same is not true in relation to the divine. Therefore in Islamic Philosophy particularly in accordance with Mulla Sadra's Transcendental Philosophy [Hikmat-e-Muta'aliyah] proximity to and remoteness from the One or the Source of all Being are dependent upon factors such as perfection-imperfection, actuality-potentiality, existential intensity and weakness, priority-posteriority, simplicity-composition etc, such that the more perfect, actualized, existentially intense, prior and simple an existent is the more proximate shall it be in relation to the source, and the more imperfect, potential, existential-weak, posterior and composite it is, the more remote it shall be from the Source, but this proximity or remoteness is not spatial or temporal since the divine realm being non-material or intelligible in character is beyond the confines of both time and space; here proximity and remoteness merely denote the level or the stage of perfection, completion and actuality attained by a contingent being. Therefore that which is nearest to God is more perfect existentially and/or ethically than that which is comparatively remote.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Argument from Contingency [Burhan-al-Imkan]

Proofs or evidences can be both rational and empirical where rational evidence is the one provided by the intellect or reason and empirical evidence is the evidence obtained through sense-perception, observation and experience. Now since God is an immaterial or a metaphysical being that is incorporeal and non-sensible, lying beyond time and space therefore there can be no direct empirical or sensible evidence of the existence of the Divine Essence because the senses only perceive that which is sensible, corporeal, physical or material in nature and hence cannot apprehend a reality that is non-sensible and immaterial, because there has to be suitability between the perceived object and the one who perceives and there is no suitability between something metaphysical or immaterial and the human sense organs that are material or physical. However having said that this is not to deny the absence of rational proofs for the existence of God and the philosophers from time to time have advance
Read more

The Impact of Proximity to and Remoteness from, The One

According to Mullah Sadra the more intense the existence in the arc of ascent the more free it is from the shackles of time and space, and the higher the grade of existence in the arc the more incorporeal it happens to be, such that the ontological intensity of an Existent is indirectly proportionate to the degree of it's association and attachment with matter; therefore the stronger the attachment and association of an existent with matter the more corporeal and weaker it is, in terms of Existence; and the farther removed an Existent is from attachment and association with matter the more intense it happens to be in terms of Existence. Now since Pure Existence is the origin and source of all existence, and being such it is necessarily the Noblest and the Greatest of all existents, because every good and perfection emanates from this August Reality and traces its origin back to it; therefore just as the objects nearest to the Sun receive the greatest amount of light by virtue of
Read more

God, the Absolute or Pure Good

"GOD, THE ABSOLUTE OR PURE GOOD" God, the Necessary Existent, is either Absolute or Pure Good [ khayr e mehaz ], Absolute or Pure Evil [ sharr e mehaz ] or a composite [ murakkab ] of Good and Evil. Now evil [ sharr ] is described as a negation of good and as such has no independent and entified external reality, but can only exist accidentally as a negation or a privation of goodness [ khayr ] such as darkness [ zulmah ] which is the negation of light [ nur ] or death which is the negation of life [ hayat ], in other words evil is said to be a non-entity identified as non-being and is therefore synonymous with non-existence [ adum ]; therefore if the Necessary Existent is said to be Absolute or Pure Evil so such an assertion would be tantamount to equating the Divine Essence with Absolute-Non-existence [ adum e matlaq ] because evil as has been explained above is a negation of goodness and hence absolute-evil is the absolute or  complete negation of goodness, where the
Read more