Quotation
Last reviewed:
“With any two things that are not identical and do not imply one another, it is not necessary that the existence or the nonexistence of one follow from the existence or the nonexistence of the other.”
Al-Ghazālī · Islamic philosophy · Medieval · c. 1095; this English follows Marmura 1997
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading takes this as the principle behind the more famous line. If two things are distinct, and neither implies the other, then one does not necessitate the existence or the absence of the other. A competing reading treats the principle as a claim that no two events are ever connected, which would empty the rest of the discussion. He uses it to say that the link we call causal is not a logical implication, and then he offers God's decree as what joins the habitual pair. The sentence sits in discussion 17, with the opening already in this library, and before the examples of cotton and fire. It is a modal claim about what must follow, not a report that patterns never occur. Marmura's English is the translation followed. The habitual-cause sentence is the application people quote. This is the wider rule.
Did Al-Ghazālī really say this?
The library’s label is Paraphrase or translation. The general principle stated with the opening of discussion 17, in the English of Marmura's translation. Small differences of wording appear between printings. It is not the same sentence as the line about habitual cause and effect.
Where it comes from
The Incoherence of the Philosophers, discussion 17, following Michael E. Marmura's translation
Approximate date: c. 1095; this English follows Marmura 1997.
How to use it
Two facts in a news story, a rise in rents and a rise in reported anxiety, are not the same fact, and neither is the definition of the other. His principle says you may not call one the necessary consequence of the other on that basis alone. It does not say the two are unrelated. A briefing that needs a must, rather than a pattern with a proposed link, has claimed more than the sentence allows.
A mindset reading
Ask whether you are looking at an implication, where one thing contains the other, or at a sequence you have got used to. The habit stops a slide from 'distinct' to 'unconnected', and from 'regular' to 'necessary'. He is blocking only the second.
Understand the philosophy
This is still discussion 17, beside the sentence on habitual cause and effect. The key contrast is implication and mere conjunction. Marmura's English is the translation, and small differences between editions are why the badge says translation. The chapter then turns to whether the habitual course can be interrupted. That is the theological stake. It is not a second copy of the opening line, and it is not Deliverance from Error.
- knowledge
- mind
FAQ
What does it mean?
The mainstream reading takes this as the principle behind the more famous line. If two things are distinct, and neither implies the other, then one does not necessitate the existence or the absence of the other. A competing reading treats the principle as a claim that no two events are ever connected, which would empty the rest of the discussion. He uses it to say that the link we call causal is not a logical implication, and then he offers God's decree as what joins the habitual pair. The sentence sits in discussion 17, with the opening already in this library, and before the examples of cotton and fire. It is a modal claim about what must follow, not a report that patterns never occur. Marmura's English is the translation followed. The habitual-cause sentence is the application people quote. This is the wider rule.
Did Al-Ghazālī really say this?
Paraphrase or translation. The general principle stated with the opening of discussion 17, in the English of Marmura's translation. Small differences of wording appear between printings. It is not the same sentence as the line about habitual cause and effect.
Which work is it in?
The Incoherence of the Philosophers, discussion 17, following Michael E. Marmura's translation Approximate date: c. 1095; this English follows Marmura 1997.