On Quiddity and Essence: An Outline of the Basic Structure of Reality in Islamic Metaphysics

by Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas

This work gives an outline of the basic structure of reality in Islamic metaphysics.

Genres: Islam, Philosophy

57 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

About the author

Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, born September 5, 1931 in Bogor, Java, is a prominent contemporary Muslim thinker. He is one of the few contemporary scholars who is thoroughly rooted in the traditional Islamic sciences and who is equally competent in theology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, and literature. His thought is integrated, multifaceted and creative. Al-Attas’ philosophy and methodology of education have one goal: Islamization of the mind, body and soul and its effects on the personal and collective life on Muslims as well as others, including the spiritual and physical non-human environment. He is the author of twenty-seven authoritative works on various aspects of Islamic thought and civilization, particularly on Sufism, cosmology, metaphysics, philosophy and Malay language and literature.



Al-Attas was born into a family with a history of illustrious ancestors, saints, and scholars. He received a thorough education in Islamic sciences, Malay language, literature and culture. His formal primary education began at age 5 in Johor, Malaysia, but during the Japanese occupation of Malaysia, he went to school in Java, in Madrasah Al-`Urwatu’l-wuthqa, studying in Arabic. After World War II in 1946 he returned to Johor to complete his secondary education. He was exposed to Malay literature, history, religion, and western classics in English, and in a cultured social atmosphere developed a keen aesthetic sensitivity. This nurtured in al-Attas an exquisite style and precise vocabulary that were unique to his Malay writings and language. After al-Attas finished secondary school in 1951, he entered the Malay Regiment as cadet officer no. 6675. There he was selected to study at Eton Hall, Chester, Wales and later at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, England (952 -55). This gave him insight into the spirit and style of British society. During this time he was drawn to the metaphysics of the Sufis, especially works of Jami, which he found in the library of the Academy. He traveled widely, drawn especially to Spain and North Africa where Islamic heritage had a profound influence on him. Al-Attas felt the need to study, and voluntarily resigned from the King’s Commission to serve in the Royal Malay Regiment, in order to pursue studies at the University of Malaya in Singapore 1957-59. While undergraduate at University of Malay, he wrote Rangkaian Ruba`iyat, a literary work, and Some Aspects of Sufism as Understood and Practised among the Malays. He was awarded the Canada Council Fellowship for three years of study at the Institute of Islamic Studies at McGill University in Montreal. He received the M.A. degree with distinction in Islamic philosophy in 1962, with his thesis “Raniri and the Wujudiyyah of 17th Century Acheh” . Al-Attas went on to the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London where he worked with Professor A. J. Arberry of Cambridge and Dr. Martin Lings. His doctoral thesis (1962) was a two-volume work on the mysticism of Hamzah Fansuri.



In 1965, Dr. al-Attas returned to Malaysia and became Head of the Division of Literature in the Department of Malay Studies at the University of Malay, Kuala Lumpur. He was Dean of the Faculty of Arts from 1968-70. Thereafter he moved to the new National University of Malaysia, as Head of the Department of Malay Language and Literature and then Dean of the Faculty of Arts. He strongly advocated the use of Malay as the language of instruction at the university level and proposed an integrated method of studying Malay language, literature and culture so that the role and influence of Islam and its relationship with other languages and cultures would be studied with clarity. He founded and directed the Institute of Malay Language, Literature, and Culture (IBKKM) at the National University of Malaysia in 1973 to carry out his vision.



In 1987, with al-Attas as founder and director, the International Institute of Islamic Thought a

Reviews

[S.M.Y Kayseri · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this monograph, al-Attas elucidated us on a more complex section of his metaphysics: the questions between the primacy of essence or existence.

Metaphysicians have long debated on which one of the two constitutes the reality. Essentialists argues that existence is the most common principle of everything and thus does not add anything to the difference in particulars. For an example, both horse and sheep can be said to exist, to say that they exist do not add anything to the whatness that constitutes the difference between the horse and the sheep. On the other hand, the existentialists retorted that neither quiddity provides difference to the horse and sheep, for the domain of e.g extension applies to both things equally, but it is the difference in portion of existence between the horse and the sheep that distinguished both of them. They added also that while it is perfectly sensible to think quiddity independently, but in experience all quiddity are related to an existent, and it is absurd that the quiddity exists prior to the existentiation of the portion of existence it adheres to.

Following my rift in the previous paragraph, al-Attas is a proponent of the doctrine of primacy of existence. And in this monograph, he would venture some arguments defending his position, whereby he would resolve the apparent contradiction between quiddity and existence. He indeed provided a preliminary account on the more complex idea of Unity of Existence, such as the ontological descent of Being in this monograph, but that would be expounded more extensively by al-Attas in his last chapter of the Prolegomena, The Degrees of Existence.

***

Now, in order to demonstrate the primacy of existence and the secondary function of quiddity, let us perform a phenomenological analysis. Consider a calf; there’re specific quiddity or qualities that make it as such. And this calf then grew into a large cow. And do observe that the qualities that apply to the calf such as color, length et cetera also apply to the cow. But what changes? The scope of the qualities do not change, color still refers to color, length still refer to color, but only their magnitude changes. And the change in magnitude occurs in the portion of existence now increased in the cow, compared to the calf. Thus, we can observe that the qualities do not inhabit the calf materially, for then it can never be intuited to change, but that the qualities are only involved in instantiating the qualities a thing have at that moment. Just as the telescope, when properly calibrated, would see the stars so clear that we forgot the telescope exists. Yet, the telescope does not blend into the stars, it is merely a tool of objectivating so we can see the stars.

We can also see how when there’s a cube in our hand, the qualities are being presented to us. When I turned the cube, and the hidden profiles are being unfurled, I can observe that the prior surface is receding into indeterminateness, while the hidden profile are getting bestowed with determinants of qualities. And even as the hidden profiles are being anticipated via laws of geometry, it remains empty and unable to be fulfilled if there’s nothing behind the cube, thus the instantiation of the qualities of the cube presupposed the existence of the hidden profile of the cube. Through this two demonstration, it can be intuitively prove on the position of primacy of existence.

But then why al-Attas mentioned that the reality of a thing is its quiddity plus existence, if quiddity is a merely conceptual construct? The perception of a thing is does not occur haphazardly; even as the quiddity arises intramentally, it is done via syntheses of a priori laws. A simple observation shows that all acts of consciousness are acts of intending towards something. I can play with the image of a dancing fawn inside my hand and negate it from any real existence, I can imagine a field of golden paddy, or I can bring to my consciousness to the idea of the World; no matter- in all cases, I am intending towards something, and that something is being fulfilled, but with different levels of fulfilment. And when an object of consciousness is being fulfilled, it implies a certain adequateness in its conjuring. When I intend towards a thing, I intend the empty a priori laws in my consciousness to be anticipated of fulfilment. But it is general and not specific to a particular thing, as if I have already perceive a specific color of the sheep inside my head, then both color and the substance it inheres to will present in my consciousness. This would lead to gross idealism and absurdity. In reality, I only construct my act of consciousness out from a priori laws and intent it to be fulfilled only transcendentally; i.e extraneous to my consciousness.

When the immanent-quiddity coincides with the transcendental object, perception arises. And al-Attas mentioned that in reality there’s no dichotomy between quiddity and existence except in reflection. This is due to during the coincidence between the act of intention and the intended object, it is grasped in its entirety without any intermediary. When we intend towards a strawberry which is given in our hand, we cannot conceive our intention-for-a-strawberry without the strawberry-in-my-hand separately and vice versa. It is simply given in toto.

Now we have elaborated on the quiddity or the immanent-quiddity, let us explore the second part of al-Attas’s equation, existence. Now the transcendental object presented to the consciousness cannot be a mere indeterminateness. It must assume a degree of particularity, specific portion of its existence which would particularize the general intention by the consciousness. When we grasped a thing inside a box, the intending-meaning is general so it can anticipate anything, but the object within the box already assumed a certain portion of existence, which the intending-meaning can slowly honed and fixed it into concreteness. And this is the transcendental-quiddity, which is the particularization or contraction of Being assuming specific portion, which will coincide with the immanent-quiddity, forming the reality of a thing.

Then, do observe that both quiddity and existence by themselves are inert. As Kant mentioned, understanding without sensibility is empty, and sensibility without understanding is blind. It is quite clear that while our act of consciousness is an act of objectification, it cannot choose what objects is being presented to it now, amongst many other infinite events or objects. Neither the specific portion of existence can be as thus at this point of time, without assumming a contradiction amongst many other infinite events or objects, and can just be attributed to mere coincidence. To attribute this intricate working to coincidence is a lazy philosophizing, and one jaded in prejudice.

In reality, just as in exterior there are sensuous objects in the World, there are also interior principle that forms the condition of experience. It is the Absolute Existence that “breathes in and out” of Divine Creative Activity that perpetually unfolds existence into dynamic unfolding. All accidents cannot endure even less than an iota of duration, it is perpetually annihilated and recreated with new similars, as an effect from God’s perpetual actualization of His Divine Attributes. (see Sea of Gnosis)

Another simple phenomenological observation can show the continuous flux of Reality. An event, e.g the joy of watching a beautiful garden occupies a duration in consciousness, and also extends outwards in a horizon of indeterminateness. Yet this Now does not stands in isolation except as an echo of its prior After. And the After when it was the prior Now also extends itself in a horizon which then connected necessarily to a new Now. And this Now also are being anticipated and replaced by the arriving torrents of ever-new Nows. Yet this torrential Nows appears regular due to a persistent form, i.e the joy watching the beautiful garden.

This persistent form, a receptacle by which the existence can be proportioned as thus through it, is called as the archetypes. It acts as a locus of manifestation of Divine Creative Will, just like the shore as the stage for the imprinting of the shapes of the waves. Yet it does not participate in the shapes as much as the mirror does not share any similar materiality or form with the image it conjures, it only acts as a condition for its conjuring.

The idea of archetypes is important as it answers the problem of intersubjectivity. If reality is the coincidence between quiddity and existence, and yet the consciousness can only see one facet of the cube, what guarantees the Other Ego can or will see the same facet as us? Archetype acts as the unity of possible experience, the presence of other multiple Egos that witnessed the different facets of the same Object only served to enrich its manifestation instead of cancelling each other. And this is guaranteed due to all Egos’s relation in reality abides to the equation of quiddity coinciding with existence.

Last but not least, this model of Reality is called as tashkik, or systematic ambiguity of Reality. It is ambiguous as Reality is being presented as dynamically unfolding instead of static. But it is the only one that can explains the metaphysical question of ontology. Idealism is faulty when it assumes that the transcendental-quiddity can be present mentally. Realism is faulty when it assumes that quiddity can exist independently without mind, while in reality only when the intending meaning coincides with the intended object can the World to be unfolded. Dualism is also infeasible for in Reality, the dichotomy of immanent-transcendental does not exist except in the normal veiled experience. At the level of pure phenomenology, there is only coincidence between the intending meaning and intended objects.

S.M.Y Kayseri
Written on 7th of August 2024

[Jamizal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mengaji falsafah itu sebenarnya mengaji makna. Dan makna pula tidak akan terbuka kalau kita tidak jelas dengan istilah asas. Sebab itu, perbahasan tentang hakikat Wujud bukan perkara tinggi untuk orang tertentu tetapi ia asas untuk sesiapa yang mahu berfikir dengan tertib.

Wujud secara mudah ialah ada yang benar benar ada. Ia bukan sekadar hadir dalam fikiran, bukan sekadar disebut dengan lidah, tetapi ia nyata dalam realiti. Bila kita kata sesuatu itu wujud, kita sedang menegaskan ia memiliki kenyataan, bukan bayangan.

Being pula ialah istilah Inggeris yang biasanya merujuk kepada kewujudan sebagai suatu keadaan ada. Ia membawa makna yang hampir dengan wujud, tetapi dalam perbahasan falsafah, being sering digunakan untuk bercakap tentang ada sebagai kategori umum yang meliputi segala yang ada.

Quiddity atau dalam istilah Arabnya mahiyyah, maksudnya apakah ia. Ini merujuk kepada hakikat sesuatu benda dari segi definisi dan identitinya. Contohnya bila kita tanya apa itu manusia, jawapannya bukan nama orang, tetapi ciri yang menjadikan manusia itu manusia.

Essence pula ialah inti atau zat maknawi sesuatu, iaitu sifat yang jika hilang, benda itu tidak lagi menjadi dirinya. Essence ialah kandungan makna yang paling asas. Dalam bahasa mudah, essence menjawab soalan apa yang membuatkan sesuatu itu benar benar sesuatu.

Kenapa semua ini penting?

Sebab ramai orang hari ini bercakap besar tentang hidup, agama, politik, ekonomi, bangsa, bahkan Tuhan, tetapi tidak jelas apa maksud perkataan yang mereka guna. Bila definisi kabur, fikiran jadi keliru. Bila fikiran keliru, keputusan jadi rosak. Mengaji falsafah tidak sah kalau kita tidak tahu makna Wujud, Being, Quiddity dan Essence kerana empat istilah ini ialah pintu masuk untuk memahami realiti dengan tepat.

Contoh paling mudah untuk faham bagaimana definisi bekerja ialah definisi klasik manusia dalam falsafah, Man = Rational Animal, manusia ialah haiwan yang berakal. Ini bukan penghinaan, tetapi penjelasan tentang struktur diri manusia.

Animal bermaksud manusia berkongsi ciri hidup seperti makhluk bernyawa lain. Manusia lapar, dahaga, sakit, letih, takut, marah, ada naluri untuk mempertahankan diri dan ada dorongan nafsu. Seekor kucing bila lapar, dia akan mencari makanan dan makan. Itu naluri.

Tetapi Rational bermaksud manusia ada akal untuk menilai dan memilih. Manusia juga lapar, tetapi manusia boleh bertanya dahulu, ini halal atau haram, ini baik atau mudarat, patutkah aku makan sekarang atau aku berpuasa kerana disiplin rohani. Di sini jelas perbezaannya. Haiwan bergerak kerana dorongan, manusia mampu mengawal dorongan dengan pertimbangan.

Contoh lain, bila marah, haiwan akan menyerang tanpa fikir panjang. Tetapi manusia boleh menahan marah kerana dia tahu marah yang tidak terkawal akan merosakkan hubungan, menzalimi orang lain dan memalukan dirinya sendiri. Manusia boleh memilih untuk diam, memaafkan, atau berbincang dengan adab. Itu tanda akal memimpin nafsu.

Sebab itu, bila manusia hidup hanya menurut makan, marah, seronok dan tamak, dia sedang jatuh ke tahap animal tanpa rational. Tetapi bila manusia hidup dengan ilmu, adab, definisi yang jelas, dan tujuan yang benar, dia sedang mengangkat dirinya sebagai insan yang sebenar.

Manusia diciptakan dengan akal. Dan tugas akal bukan sekadar mengumpul fakta, tetapi membina konsep dan definisi supaya kita tahu hakikat sesuatu benda. Tanpa konsep yang betul, kita hanya melihat rupa, bukan realiti. Kita hanya menilai kulit, bukan isi. Kita hanya ikut rasa, bukan kebenaran.

Akhirnya, bila kita mengenal Wujud, kita sedang belajar membezakan antara yang benar benar nyata dengan yang sekadar sangkaan. Dan di situlah bermula adab ilmu. Kita tidak menamakan sesuatu sesuka hati. Kita meletakkan sesuatu pada tempatnya. Itulah jalan menuju hikmah.

[Mohd Jamizal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Please bear in mind this theory Essence equal quiddity plus existence. The book is about this formula and explication of the formula based on the views of philosopher, Mutakallim and of course Sufis. Enlightening and really open my heart for mukasshafah.