The problem of the relation of the mobile to the motionless is one of the most complex issues in Islamic philosophy. Like his predecessors, MullaSadra has also dealt with this question. Sadra has given various answers to this question. The first answer is that change does not need any cause except the ...
Read More
The problem of the relation of the mobile to the motionless is one of the most complex issues in Islamic philosophy. Like his predecessors, MullaSadra has also dealt with this question. Sadra has given various answers to this question. The first answer is that change does not need any cause except the very existence of the object, since change is essential to the thing and the essential do not require any cause. The second answer says each category in itself is motionless based on the existential divisions. However, when compared, the objects can be in the form of mobile or motionless. What emanates from the cause is the object itself. The present article studies and analyses these two answers followed by discussion of movement from the perspective of Mulla Sadra. Finally based on these foundations we may offer two answers. Based on the principality of existence, the individuals of quiddity in the external world are extant potentially and in the form of a collective existence. Therefore what exists in the external world and naturally is the effect, is a single individual not actual individuals. Based on substantial movement, every material being has a fourth dimension. Formation of movement in the mind is due to the lack of mental perception of the fourth dimension. Dominating material things in terms of knowledge, the abstract and immaterial causes can also perceive the fourth dimension of things. Thus the material things are mobile according to the mind of human being, and immobile or motionless according to abstract causes. This is the initial contradiction between the two theories of the mobility or fixity of the material world in the perspective of MullaSadra.
