Al-Ghazālī's Critique of Causation as a Perlocutionary Act — Epoche C2
Research Note: Re-evaluating Al-Ghazālī's Critique of Causation The philosophical discourse surrounding Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī's seminal critique of causation in his Incoherence of the Philosophers has long been dominated by interpretations that cast it primarily as an epistemological or metaphysical skeptical argument. Scholars such as Michael Marmura (1962) and, more recently, Robert Koerner (2020) have meticulously dissected al-Ghazālī's arguments, often concluding that his position, frequently labelled 'occasionalism', aims to dismantle the perceived necessary connection between cause and effect, thereby safeguarding God's omnipotence from philosophical encroachments. While acknowledging the profound insights offered by these analyses, particularly their meticulous reconstruction of al-Ghazālī's logical apparatus, I propose that such interpretations, though valuable, may inadvertently overlook a deeper, more theologically charged dimension of his critique. From a Southeast Asian perspective, where the intricate interplay between human agency, divine will, and cosmic order is a constant theme in both indigenous thought and Islamic scholasticism, al-Ghazālī's arguments resonate not just as intellectual exercises, but as pronouncements intended to reshape one's very understanding of reality and one's posture towards the divine. My central contention is that al-Ghazālī's critique of causation is best understood not merely as an illocutionary act—a statement of a belief or an argument—but as a perlocutionary speech act. That is, its primary aim is not just to articulate a philosophical position, but to produce a specific effect on the audience: to compel them towards a profound recognition of God's absolute, unmediated control over all existence. This re-framing necessitates a shift in emphasis from the logical coherence of his argument to its intended theological impact. I identify several key reasons for this re-interpretation, prioritising them based on their explanatory power regarding al-Ghazālī's broader theological project: The Primacy of Divine Will in Ashʿarite Theology Al-Ghazālī, as a prominent Ashʿarite theologian, inherited a tradition that rigorously championed God's absolute freedom and sovereignty. For the Ashʿarites, any philosophical system that posits intrinsic, necessary causal links between created entities implicitly limits God's will. If fire necessarily burns cotton, then God's power to prevent this burning—or to cause it to burn without fire—is constrained. Al-Ghazālī's arguments, such as the famous example of fire and cotton, are not merely demonstrations of logical contingency but are performative assertions of divine omnipotence. They serve to remind the audience that the observed regularities of the world are not due to inherent properties of things, but to God's continuous, moment-to-moment re-creation and sustenance of the cosmos ( tajdīd al-khalq ). This perspective is deeply embedded in the worldview prevalent across many Southeast Asian Muslim communities, where the concept of tawakkul (reliance on God) is often articulated through the understanding that all outcomes are directly willed by the Almighty, regardless of apparent human effort or natural processes. The Pedagogical and Ethical Dimensions of Al-Ghazālī's Works Al-Ghazālī was not merely a philosopher; he was also a prolific spiritual guide and educator. His works, particularly the Iḥyāʾ ʿulūm al-dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), are replete with ethical injunctions and spiritual guidance. His critique of causation, when viewed through this lens, gains an ethical dimension. By dismantling the illusion of fixed natural laws, he seeks to cultivate a profound sense of humility, dependence, and awe before God. If causation is merely a habit ( ʿāda ) established by God, then every event, every blessing, and every trial becomes an immediate manifestation of divine will, demanding a response of gratitude or patience. This pedagogical intent aligns with the didactic nature of many Southeast Asian religious texts, which often blend theological exposition with practical guidance for spiritual cultivation, emphasizing the direct experience of divine presence in everyday life. Countering Philosophical Arrogance ( Ghurūr ) A significant target of al-Ghazālī's critique was what he perceived as the intellectual arrogance of the philosophers ( falāsifa ), who claimed to comprehend the ultimate nature of reality through reason alone. Their assertion of necessary causal connections was, for al-Ghazālī, a manifestation of this intellectual hubris. By demonstrating the contingency of all created things and the absolute dependence of every event on God's will, al-Ghazālī aimed to humble the intellect and redirect it towards revelation and spiritual experience. His arguments function as a rhetorical device to dislodge the reader from intellectual complacency, urging them to recognise the limits of human reason and the boundless nature of divine power. This resonates with a common rhetorical strategy in Southeast Asian religious discourse, where stories and parables are frequently employed not just to convey information, but to induce a particular emotional and spiritual state in the audience, often highlighting the futility of worldly attachments or intellectual pride in the face of divine majesty. Consider, for instance, the practice of selamatan (communal feast) in Java or Malaysia, where blessings are sought for various life events. While practical preparations are made, the ultimate success or well-being is attributed directly to God's grace ( berkat ). The food prepared, the prayers recited, the community gathered—these are seen as means, but never as necessary causes for the desired outcome. The focus remains on the divine will that transcends all apparent connections. Al-Ghazālī's critique, therefore, is not merely stating that fire does not necessarily burn cotton; it is saying, 'Look! God is so utterl