Metaphysics or “what comes before nature” aims to investigate everything that is not human. This prima facie seems inconsistent since nature encompasses more than just what is human so it seems that investigating that what is not human is not necessarily metaphysical. However it is consistent since the metaphysical inquiry itself only has meaning in so far it is relatable to human. If reality is experienced through light of human experience description in non-human language carries no meaning.
Since al-Kindi serious thought in Arabic had taken off. Al-Kindi demonstrated that philosophical reflection was also possible in the language of the Arabs. This provided necessary weight to counteract intellectual attacks. Following his seminal work Arabic philosophy can be said to be reinvented by Ibn Sina whose influence is still visible in works of mathematics. Besides mathematics Ibn Sina also penned works of medicine. I believe it is Al-Kindi who broaches the question of the Eternity of the World into Arabic philosophy. After him Ibn Sina considers the question as well and comes to the conclusion that the world is Eternal.[1]
According to Aristotle who authored the field of metaphysics the study of metaphysics inquires into being qua being. “Being” in Arabic intellectual tradition is translated as “wujud” which literally means “to find.” So being is “to be found.” So contrary to not being found existing things are found. This implies at least another entity for if something is to be found there is an entity that is finding the found entity. Thus being always occurs in multiplicity.[2]
This multiplicity means that there is a uniting attribute since for all things that are said to exist it cannot be said that they do not exist. In other words the brilliance of Ibn Sina is that he creates free will which can be said to not exist in Aristotles theory of causes since every action has a teleological cause. By differentiating between contingent beings and necessary being Ibn Sina makes room for volition.
However these last points seem to relate more to logic “mantiq” in Arabic than to Metaphysics[3] proper. Perhaps if we consider some metaphysical models we can arive at greater confidence in our beliefs. We can consider a fairly typical neoplatonic model which has metaphysical intent. In neoplatonic thought human experiences travel on a vertical metaphysical scale. The higher something is located on this scale the closer it is to pure intelligence.
Vice versa the lower something is located on this scale the further it is removed from the One. This hierarchical model allows for the existence of celestial intelligences. Thus intelligence emanates and is therefore graded. A proof for this is that for something to emanate there needs to be a source that is emanating. Related to the world of witnessed things it makes only sense to appeal to a higher entity if it is expected that a) this entity exists and b) that this entity is able and willing to influence human affairs.
But is belief in a higher entity (necessary being in philosophical speech) a proof that metaphysical progress is possible? Aristotle posited some thirty first openers in his Metaphysics which would be used to open up conversation. Contrarily Plato did not order the world of appearences by innate goads but rather emphasized shared ideas of serious consideration. Ibn Sina in this milieu is helpful because he explicitly guides conversation to questions regarding primacy of essence and existence.
‘Ilm is contrasted by ‘aql in Muslim thought. ‘Aql relates more to human access to ‘Ilm. Besides ‘ilm Quranic thought also knows hikmah. Hikmah is more generally known as Wisdom which is a semitic root also found in the Bible. In Hebrew wisdom thought (חָכְמָה) seems to relate to meanings of expertise and skill. Thus these differing semantic labels seem compatible with a separate Greco-Arabic investigation into shared commonalities between semitic vis-à-vis proto-indo-european wisdom tradition.
It does not seem that we have achieved a lot of progress so let us now take a skeptical approach to the possibility of metaphysics and see if we run into any absurdities. Let us assume that metaphysics is not possible. What are the implications of this?
If metaphysics is not possible it means that there are limits to what we can investigate. Specifically it means that we are able to investigate everything up till the question of what things express in their substance if a) we accept Aristotles theory that existence is added as attribute to form and b) if we assume a positivist attitude towards the possibility of knowledge.
Let us focus on premise a since b relates more to epistemology. If we consider premise a we discover that we can only deny metaphysics against metaphysics. It seems to be the case that we either accept Aristotles theory and accept that progress is possible since it seems unplausible that one person initiates a field of inquiry and simultaneously perfects it. Or we reject Aristotles theory. Now it seems we may have shed one layer of covering.
Is there a third approach? We firstly follow via positiva and on exhaustion we approach from via negativa which in coherence requires a somethingness which is to be approached. As I recall there is a third via which arises from exhaustion of both via positiva and via negativa. This seems to be the path which is wished by the author to lead to improved ability vis-à-vis independence. To pursue this independence is probably meant to mean independence of things thought to be adverse to health since utter independence seems lonely. Independence in writing can then mean that it is sought to arive at ease in writing.
[1] Ibn Rushd also discusses the question after Ibn Sina.
[2] This collapses monistic wisdom thought.
[3] Metaphysics is known as ‘ilm al-kulli in arabic. Lit.: “science of all.”