A Critique on implications of Arguments for Substantial Motion as Applying to All Corporeal Substances

Having established the theory of substantial motion Mulla Sadra attempts to argue for movements in all corporeal substances. Many of his philosophical views are based on this principle of continuous flux in world substances. Arguments for substantial movement, however, are of two divisions. The first are proofs that demonstrate the motion in all corporeal substances, which is to be briefly dealt with and criticized. The second group shows only that in addition to accidental change the substance of things is subject to some specific changes. Some of these arguments are endorsed but others fail to demonstrate the point in question. For substantial movement occurs only when external agent is involved and there is no reason for steadily essential change in the very substance of entities. This sort of change is not to be interpreted as establishing the so-called subsatantial movement. This is but a new understanding of what had already been justified as the theory of generation and corruption.