This is Adam's fault - Mulla Sadra's Ontological Argument

On Tuesday, whilst helping me cart things from one classroom to another, Adam said, 'So, Miss, what do you think of the Mulla Sadra thing I wrote about in my blog? I think Kant's objection might apply to his argument too." This posed a dilemma for several reasons: firstly, I hadn't had a chance to catch up with Adam's blog - should I admit to this? Secondly, I had no idea who Mulla Sadra was (is?) - should I reveal my ignorance? And thirdly, I had absolutely no idea how Kant's objection to the Ontological Argument might relate to Sadra's work. Some of this must have showed on my face because almost immediately Adam said, "Don't worry, Miss, read the blog then we'll talk." That's me told!

So, being a responsible teacher and a committed professional, I immediately went off to find out about Mulla Sadra and his connection to the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. For the next two hours I could be found in S03 clutching my head and moaning, 'But I don't get it...'. What is written below is the result of a further twelve hours of thoughtful reflection, some of which can also be found on Adam's blog. I have focused on Sadra's key ideas, rather than a historical biography of his life. 

Mulla Sadra is the most significant Muslim scholar after Avicenna. His work is heavily influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and the metaphysics of Neoplatonism. (Don't forget the relationship between Plato and Aristotle and where it fits into the table of key terms.) Aristotelian philosophy sees matter as being made of substance and accidents. Substance is the thing in itself; the very pen-ness of a pen, if you like, whereas the accidents are the qualities or properties that distinguish one thing from another (red pen, biro, fountain pen, and so on). For Aristotle, what is truly real - what exists - is the substance. The Neoplatonists, on the other hand, understand existence to be movements of acts of being; existence is a process, rather than a thing. 

Like Anselm, Aquinas and Descartes, Sadra distinguishes between the necessary and the contingent:

The necessary is pure existence without essence, quality or property that undergoes change or motion. In other words, the necessary is immutable (remember that word?). The necessary is a simple thing, rather than a complex thing, but it can produce the complexities of contingent things. For Sadra, God is the necessary.

Contingents are a combination of existence (i.e. they are) and essence (bundles of properties that define what they are) - that is, contingents are a combination of substance and accidents.

Since God, the necessary, bestows existence on contingents, existence is ontologically prior to essence (existence comes before essence). This means things are, and then they take on particular properties or qualities. 

Despite this, Sadra understands existence to be a predicate (a quality or property that tells us something about a thing), or else when we say 'green exists' we would be saying 'green is green', which doesn't tell us anything about what green actually is. In other words, 'exists' has to be a predicate - it has to describe something about the thing to which it refers. This leads us neatly onto Sadra's version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, which he calls The Proof of the Veracious.

Mulla Sadra's Ontological Argument unfolds thus:

1. There is existence.

2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection can be conceived [i.e., existence is the supreme perfection - remind you of anyone yet?].

3. God is perfection and perfection in existence. [In other words, God, by definition, is perfect and this perfection includes necessary existence.]

4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical plurality [there are not different types of existence, or different forms, or qualities of existence - existence is one thing and so all things that exist originate from the same thing - can you guess where he's going with that?].

5. That singular reality [existence] is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection [all things that exist are the same to a greater or lesser degree of perfection].

6. That scale (of perfection) must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence [there must be something that exists in a supremely perfect way, than which nothing is greater].

7. Hence, God exists.

Take a breath and read it again! Mulla Sadra is basically saying that existence is a perfection (a la Descartes) and that God, as the supremely perfect being, not only exists necessarily, but is the source of all existence. The latter is what makes this an interesting contrast to the arguments of Anselm and Descartes with which you are already familiar. 

Problems? Of course! All the same criticisms we could raise against many versions of the Ontological Argument: it is tautological (its conclusion is the same as its first premise), it relies on definitions, it treats existence as a predicate - and unashamedly so, - and so on. Nonetheless, its important to see how theologians from a variety of faiths use a priori reasoning to better understand God. 

Now go and make a cup of tea and eat cake - if you've got here, you deserve it!