It is necessary, and it is not necessary from this that this psychological attribute be a cause of it, for it is a psychological attribute, and a thing is not a cause of itself, for it leads to the cause being the same as the effect, so the thing is prior to itself in rank, and this is impossible, so for a thing to be a cause of itself is impossible. If the knower did not have in himself a quality that accepts the description of both existence and non-existence, then it would not be valid for him to be a cause for his probable cause, one of the permissible things considering himself, because the impossible does not accept the quality of existence, so truth is not a cause for it, so it is invalid for its being to be possible to be a cause for it, and it is invalid for the thing to have it. - Two causes, the effect of the cause in the effect was only its existence, so what is the ruling on the other cause in it? If its existence occurred from one of them, then there is no effect left for the other. If it is said that by their coming together, the effect was due to that meeting, then they said about them. Each of them, if it is isolated, is not a cause and the name causality is not valid for it. It is true that it is invalid for its being a cause to be dependent on another matter. If he said, “What is to prevent the cause from being by association?” we would say that a thing is only a cause of itself for this thing that is caused by it, not for another thing. So it would be the effect of that other thing, because that other thing is acquired by causality, and everything acquired is not a psychological quality, even if we said by their combination. It was a reason, so that meeting was not without the possibility that it was something additional to each one of them, or it was the same thing as them