According to Thomism, does my phone have a FORM?

[RealisticCatholic]

And if so, I’m confused on what this means. A random jumble of parts is only what we humans call a phone. But say my phone had all except the button, or all except the back panel, or all except the inside electronic parts ---- would each of these variations, too, have their own “form?”

Is “form” just an arbitrary assignment? Are forms even real, or just merely invented by humans?

Of course, I’m talking about form in the matter and form sense.

Just as we say the soul is the form of a human body.

 

[TechieGuy]

Maybe Thomism isn’t useful as a general model of reality, but is somewhat useful in specific models of theology

 

[RealisticCatholic]

No one would adhere to Thomism it they didn’t think it corresponded to reality.

So any Thomists out there? I’m not that knowledgeable about it.

 

[Richca]

Yes, your phone has a form. It’s called an artificial form or art form made by humans. Most if not all of the parts are artificial forms too. The natural forms in the phone would be the elemental atoms and any natural material it might be made out of. These kind of forms are also called accidental forms in contrast to substantial forms.

Yes, forms are real if you think your phone is real. I have to get going presently so I can’t write anymore right now.

 

[IWantGod]

And if so, I’m confused on what this means. A random jumble of parts is only what we humans call a phone. But say my phone had all except the button, or all except the back panel, or all except the inside electronic parts ---- would each of these variations, too, have their own “form?”

Is “ form ” just an arbitrary assignment? Are forms even real, or just merely invented by humans?

Of course, I’m talking about form in the matter and form sense.

Just as we say the soul is the form of a human body.

I would say it has both a form and an artificial form. There is no natural being that is a mobile phone, but there is forms we can use to simulate the intended purpose of a phone.

But having said that, all beings apart from God are artificial natures.

 

[MPat]

And if so, I’m confused on what this means. A random jumble of parts is only what we humans call a phone.

No, a phone is not “a random jumble of parts”. That’s what you’d get if you would dismantle the phone (perhaps you should keep that just a thought experiment ).

The parts have to be put together in some way to make a phone.

Now that way in which they have been put together is a form (an accidental form, to be more exact), while the parts themselves are the matter.

But say my phone had all except the button, or all except the back panel, or all except the inside electronic parts ---- would each of these variations, too, have their own “form?”

Sure. But they would have the same “essence” - which in this case would be the blueprint, specification, plan. The phone that lost a button is still the phone of the same type, just defective.

That’s the beauty of Thomism: it explains how there is a possibility to repair a phone.

For if you assume that a phone is just “a random jumble of parts”, repairing it becomes strangely mysterious.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Sure. But they would have the same “essence” - which in this case would be the blueprint, specification, plan. The phone that lost a button is still the phone of the same type, just defective.

I’m having a hard time getting past that the notion that the form or even essence is merely human convention.

Sure, there is such a thing as a phone — or a dog, or a human, or a wallet. But aren’t these all bits of the same matter that have been organized in a certain way?

@IWantGod said:

But having said that, all beings apart from God are artificial natures.

So isn’t really everything just an “accidental form,” whether or not humans made them (like a phone) or products of nature (like a human)?

Who gets to decide when something is a new form?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Also if Form is the principle that organizes the matter, then what does it meant to be an objective reality apart from matter?

Because if I invent a new device and call it a Woppler, then it has the form of a Woppler. But why even talk about “form” in a meaningful way if it’s just kind of already there via any organization of matter?

In other words, I’m having a hard time understanding the importance of recognizing the matter vs form distinction. I know forms are important to some proofs about God, like his intelligence, which is why I’m trying to better understand it.

@Wesrock

 

[MPat]

Sure, there is such a thing as a phone — or a dog, or a human, or a wallet. But aren’t these all bits of the same matter that have been organized in a certain way?

Precisely.

Now, seriously, just read what you wrote. You are saying that there is matter (you even use the same word) given some form (“organized in a certain way”).

That is the very claim that you supposedly argue with.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Then maybe I’m more confused about what gets to be called a Form, in the first place.

Because there is matter that is organized. But in my imagination, I think of the “Phone” as a form. But why? Is it still a form when it no longer operates, or when it misses half its hardware?

And like, I am the form of a human. But what does this mean regarding my liver? Does it not have its own form because it’s absorbed into the form of “human”? And what about the cells, the molecules, atoms, protons, etc. — do they retain “form” such that there are really forms within forms within forms (i.e., the protons within atoms within cells within organs within my human form)?

So basically, I guess, how do we know when something is an actual Form?

 

[runningdude]

Your phone, and each of its parts, would have the form and substance of a “machine”. It is not an object of spiritual significance, so whether or not the machine functions is irrelevant.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But this seems arbitrary and goes back to what I was saying earlier. Why does it matter whether the matter is organized by chance, or by human design, etc.?

 

[MPat]

Then maybe I’m more confused about what gets to be called a Form, in the first place.

Because there is matter that is organized. But in my imagination, I think of the “Phone” as a form.

No, a phone is not a form. It is composed of both matter and form. You don’t get a phone with just matter or just form.

That is, a pile of spare parts of a phone is not a phone, and a clay model of a phone (which is a bit like a form of phone without matter of phone (as it is replaced with clay)) is not a phone.

Is it still a form when it no longer operates, or when it misses half its hardware?

It still has some form. Matter cannot exist without any form at all.

And like, I am the form of a human.

No, you are not just a form. You consist of both matter and form.

But perhaps at this point it would be better to concentrate on the phone example, as it is going to be a bit easier to understand.

So basically, I guess, how do we know when something is an actual Form?

I guess by “form” you really mean “substance”. But again, for now let’s concentrate on one thing only. There are many misconceptions to correct, but it is easier to correct them one at a time.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I guess by “form” you really mean “substance”. But again, for now let’s concentrate on one thing only. There are many misconceptions to correct, but it is easier to correct them one at a time.

is a phone a substance?

I assume some arrangements of matter are regarded as substances. When does some arrangement (matter + form) get to be regarded as a substance (in the Thomastic sense)?

I might be conflated the terms. Throw in essence if you’d like too. I think my bigger problem is I’m having trouble seeing how there is an objective “other” outside of mere jumblings of matter.

 

[chip2]

Blockquote Then maybe I’m more confused about what gets to be called a Form, in the first place.
Because there is matter that is organized. But in my imagination, I think of the “Phone” as a form. But why? Is it still a form when it no longer operates, or when it misses half its hardware?

Thomas Aquinas did not think that there was such thing as matter that did not have a form. It’s not like you can have some soupy loose matter and then organize it into a form. Without form it would have no shape, no quantity, and no position in time and space.

And like, I am the form of a human. But what does this mean regarding my liver? Does it not have its own form because it’s absorbed into the form of “human”? And what about the cells, the molecules, atoms, protons, etc. — do they retain “form” such that there are really forms within forms within forms (i.e., the protons within atoms within cells within organs within my human form)?

Some other philosophers of the era would say that the liver had it’s own form, but that there was then one big “human body” form organizing the forms of the various parts. Aquinas rejected this because he thought that it was redundant. He’d say that outside of the body the liver isn’t a liver anymore because it’s dead and it’s purpose only makes sense in context of its function as an organ in a greater biological system, and in the body it’s function would be determined by the human form, so there was no reason to give it its own form.

Form and matter in Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophy are difficult concepts that are often explained very poorly, so I don’t blame you for being so confused. One thing you need to understand is that this is an anti-reductivist philosophy. Atomism, the philosophy that there are tiny particles that are indivisible and are really the only thing that exist, is reductivist (scientific atoms are named after this philosophical concept but they don’t really fit it, they have smaller parts). If you are an atomist, then there are atoms moving around and that’s it. Nothing really exists besides atoms, and nothing really happens besides atoms moving around. Aristotle/Aquinas/Albert the Great/ect. all rejected this. To Aquinas talking about what a liver does makes no sense unless you are talking about a human body. A human is greater than the sum of its parts and the parts are unintelligible if you try and define them without reference to the whole person. Think about explaining “just and eye,” or talking about “seeing” without talking about what has the eye and uses it to sees why it sees, ect.

I think it’s harder to define what non-living things “really exist” in this philosophy. To St. Thomas an animal is more than the sum of its parts, but I have a hard time seeing why a pile of rocks wouldn’t be reduced at least to the level of individual rocks and maybe further. A phone is somewhere between these two examples and is more ambiguous.

 

[STT]

And if so, I’m confused on what this means. A random jumble of parts is only what we humans call a phone. But say my phone had all except the button, or all except the back panel, or all except the inside electronic parts ---- would each of these variations, too, have their own “form?”

You are right with your observation. He is not clear with what he calls substance. Aristotle himself did not believe in atoms. I am not sure if he hold the same position.

Is “ form ” just an arbitrary assignment? Are forms even real, or just merely invented by humans?

Yes, form is assignment. What do you mean with real?

Of course, I’m talking about form in the matter and form sense.

Just as we say the soul is the form of a human body.

Okay.

 

[Gabika50]

The form is phone, and the matter that makes it recognizable as such in and out makes the form .

 

[MPat]

is a phone a substance?

No, it is an aggregate of other substances.

I assume some arrangements of matter are regarded as substances. When does some arrangement (matter + form) get to be regarded as a substance (in the Thomastic sense)?

Perhaps it would be useful to have a look at Wallace’s “The Modelling of Nature” (https://web.archive.org/web/20111114201233/http://home.comcast.net:80/~icuweb/c02002.htm#4 and International Catholic University: 20.03). It says " So as to differentiate shapes and other accidental forms from the type of form that gives unity to a nature, philosophers label this a natural form or a substantial form – a form that underlies its attributes and make it an enduring substance.".

I think my bigger problem is I’m having trouble seeing how there is an objective “other” outside of mere jumblings of matter.

No, you do not fail to see that something more united than “mere jumblings of matter” exist. You just fail to see that you know it already.

For if you truly thought that only “mere jumblings of matter” exist, each time you wanted to take your phone laying on a table, you’d have to think how much of “mere jumblings of matter” you have to take, sometimes mistakenly trying to take the table with the phone, sometimes trying to take just a part of the phone.

If only “mere jumblings of matter” would exist, we’d have to see you taking your phone at the first try as something miraculous.

In short, if you truly would believe that only “mere jumblings of matter” exist, you wouldn’t be able to live your life.

Thus it is perfectly certain that not only “mere jumblings of matter” exist. You shouldn’t look for proof of this proposition, as alternative axioms are going to be less certain than the one that is supposed to be proved.

No, you should look what other propositions would have to be true for this one to be true.

 

[Richca]

is a phone a substance?

No, the phone is an aggregate of substances (like copper, silver, various metals, and probably plastic) and artificial forms (all the various parts). It is an accidental unity unlike a human being or a dog which is a substantial unity. It’s like a house which is an artificial form composed of an accidental unity or aggregate of substances such as wood and stone. Wood and stone are substances but the form of the house is not. Wood and stone exist by themselves as wood and stone whether they form parts of a house or not. Your arm which is a part of your body will not exist as an arm if it is cut off from the body. It will undergo a substantial change and decompose into elemental substances or compound substances such as minerals.

I might be conflated the terms. Throw in essence if you’d like too. I think my bigger problem is I’m having trouble seeing how there is an objective “other” outside of mere jumblings of matter.

Aristotle liked to use the example of a marble statue lets say of Socrates. Our intellect can distinguish between what the statue is made out of, i.e, its matter as it were, the marble, and the form of the marble, i.e., a statue of Socrates. Marble can be made into a table, a counter top, many other things which is called the form of the marble. This is actually an example of accidental forms of marble because marble is itself a substance composed of matter and form.

Another simple example would be a potter working with clay. The potter can form a lump of clay into a vase, a plate, a cup, a little statue, many things. The clay is like the matter and the shape it becomes is the form the clay is shaped into. We can easily recognize this. The shapes or forms the clay is shaped into are actually called accidental forms because clay is a substance itself composed of matter and form. But these analogies are used to get an idea of the form/matter distinction. In fact, according to the hylemorphic theory, the essence of matter which is pure potentiality is only known by such analogies and through form. Matter does not exist without form and is only known through form. Matter in itself has no characteristics to identify it by, neither, shape, color, weight, quantity, extention, etc. These characteristics of things are due to forms which are united to the matter and which are, incidentally, accidental forms in contrast to the substantial form which is the first form united to matter and causes it to exist simply.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Well, Thomism being largely based off of Aristotelianism, I would say the answer to your question would be yes. It has matter and form. Matter undergoes changes of form. At one time your phone was indeed just a jumbled mess of parts that had a certain potency. Then there was an act, a movement from a prior actuality, and it became actually a phone and the matter underwent change. Your phone screen, the computer chips inside are matter, and we if we can define your phone’s form i.e. it’s substance then congratulations it is a true substance because it has essence clearly defined.