According to Thomism, does my phone have a FORM?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All philosophy assumes the interlocuters start with a common understanding of the pre-philosophic words used.

The problem it seems to me is that as they interlink such terminology into a networked mutually defining and coherent system these basic words get narrowed in meaning. Then this is where disagreement or misunderstanding or misinterpretation creeps in.

Personally I believe Aristotle uses the word “substance” inconsistently between his initial Natural Philosophy and his later more complex and rarified Metaphysics. In fact even Aristotelians cannot agree on some of his finer meanings of “substance”!

But as I suggest we all agree from common shared experience that all things change in the sensible world. Yet we all also agree that over time many things still retain an identity despite change.
Then again we also recognise when a thing loses its identity and becomes something else.

Form/matter is an attempt to explain how we recognise there is often an underlying substratum that endures despite very dramatic sensible changes.
 
Last edited:
Form/matter is an attempt to explain how we recognise there is often an underlying substratum that endures despite very dramatic sensible changes.
Then might it be better that we say we can claim to know forms exist, even if we can never know what the exact nature of any form (or even an essence) is?
 
Last edited:
Now if a human is a substantial form, for example, then we are at least saying that human is a form, right? Does this mean all humans participate in one single form — or that each human has his or her own form?

After all, couldn’t one say that what we abstract as a universal form of “human” is really just a bare-minimum group of similarities, like DNA, organ systems, and all the rest? No two humans are truly alike in every way, after all. Just similar.

And if one’s going down that track, couldn’t one ultimately say a “Form” is just an illusion or mere convention?
 
Last edited:
Does this mean all humans participate in one single form
Well forms are universals arent they?
That is why we all agree there is something called human nature despite the fact there are very different races and 50% have different genitals from the other 50% and babies look nothing like adults.

On what definitional basis? Who knows really. Not all representatives are rational (and some never will be).
I suspect its simply on the basis of “nature” (ie “natus” - born). ie whatever is born of a human is human regardless of any other indications to the contrary.

Is it the same common form? Allegedly yes. It is matter that apparently individuates and causes disparity of individual substantial forms when “extruded” into the real world via genetics.
 
Last edited:
I understand your question, and I’ll give you an answer, but - before I do so - I will give you a bit of advice.

The first thing you’re going to need to do is distinguish between common parlance and philosophy as a discipline. You admit you don’t really understand what you’re reading, but affecting a breezy manner makes it worse. I’ll explain what I mean at the end of my post, but let me address your question now.

In general - i.e. not specifically from St Thomas - what you are concerned about is called a privation.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religi...acs-transcripts-and-maps/privation-philosophy

For example - and strictly speaking - if you had to graph a straight line on a piece of paper, where a straight line is defined as the shortest distance between two points, then you need two points to draw the line. If you only have the coordinates for one point, then you would be suffering a sort of privation, since you need both points to draw the line.

When St Thomas speaks of privations, he is doing so mainly from an ethical standpoint, so questions of good and evil begin to emerge. See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm

The form he is reckoning isn’t a cell phone, or a broken instance of one. He’s forming a complete philosophical treatise on the existence of God, good and evil, and the like. If I recall correctly, Saint Thomas would argue something like a privation of virtue in the soul would make a person have bad habits. It doesn’t make them a non-person, or mean virtue doesn’t formally exist, or mean they couldn’t acquire those virtues through proper formation. If the Summa were that fatalistic, he’d have little point in writing it, and it certainly wouldnt be Catholic.

I know this because I majored in Philosophy about 30 years ago, and we studied St Thomas. That said, I am not a Thomist. I have respect for him, and I reference his works from time to time, but you’d probably want to ask a Dominican. I can tell by your breezy language you’re only dabbling in serious matters you admittedly don’t understand. I certainly don’t understand everything he writes, although I think it is great that you are having fun enjoying learning. That is what philosophy is like. Just be careful not to let your curiosity get the better of you, or you’re likely to misinterpret his meaning - which could then come back to haunt you in the form of scrupulous concerns.

Given what I have seen here in this thread, if you’re really interested in studying Saint Thomas, I would find a good Dominican to act as a Spiritual Director.

Good luck and God’s blessings.

Wm
 
Last edited:
BTW, I fear I may have came across too harshly, but I wasn’t trying to be mean… I’m a philosophical goofball myself… 🙂

When we studied philosophy in school, the fun part wasn’t in what we knew, or thought we knew, but in exploring our ignorance… That’s the joy of higher learning, and why people who are true professors become professors… as ironic as it sounds - they enjoy sharing their ignorance in an effort to correct it…

In other words, what I mean is, I dont know what you’re thinking, but I hope my post helped in some way… 🙂
 
So Thomas does believe in the existence of forms, thought, right?

Sorry, to be perfectly honest, I’m not seeing the relevance of most of your explanation to the question.

Are you providing the context for understanding form in Aquinas’ thought?

I just feel as if this goes to show that some people are saying the idea of form is too complicated. But I just have a hunch that a simple divided classification of “form” and of “matter” on the other hand should have some common definition that doesn’t require knowing the whole of Thomistic philosophy, right?
 
Last edited:
Well forms are universals arent they?
Yes, but I could still see that someone would argue that forms exist only in the human mind.
 
Now if a human is a substantial form, for example, then we are at least saying that human is a form, right? Does this mean all humans participate in one single form — or that each human has his or her own form?
The substantial form of humans is the spiritual rational soul but humans are not just a form or soul but a compound of form (soul) and matter (body). As the CCC says, the soul or spirit is the form of the body. All humans do not have numerically the same soul or substantial form. I am not you and you are not me. God creates each human being’s soul at conception. The soul of each human being is specifically the same, i.e, it’s a human soul and thus all humans are of one species and share a common nature but human souls are not numerically the same, i.e, there are as many individual souls as their are human beings. Each human being has their own individual soul which God creates at conception. We are going to celebrate the Feast of All Soul’s Day on Nov. 2 where the universal Church commemorates the souls of the dead and offers prayers for those souls who may be in purgatory.
And if one’s going down that track, couldn’t one ultimately say a “Form” is just an illusion or mere convention?
Catholics believe we have a soul or spirit and that the soul is the form of the body and this we believe as the truth so it’s not an illusion or the Feast of All Soul’s day on Nov. 2 would be an illusion. Jesus talked about souls too. All substances whether human or non-human, living or non-living, have their own individual substantial form which determines the species or nature of the substance and which nature they share with other individuals of the same species. All substances or things also have accidents or accidental forms.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, to be perfectly honest, I’m not seeing the relevance of most of your explanation to the question.
That is fine. 🙂

In considering the best you can do for yourself, I’d say you should probably take your question to a Dominican for Spiritual Direction - preferably a very kind and gentle one, who has lots of common sense, and yet a soul you can enjoy getting along with.
So Thomas does believe in the existence of forms, thought, right?
Don’t make it hard. The answer is actually very simple, although the enormity of the Summa can make it seem (and actually be) like finding a needle in a haystack.

If I have it right, I think the difficulty you are experiencing seems to be more that your looking for an instance of a tree, whereas the answer to your question requires you to look at the basic unit that makes up the forest.

I honestly hope this helps. God bless you for your love of Christ. I shall leave go now.

Be well.
🙂

Wm
 
Last edited:
Aristotle’s understanding of matter (material cause) and form (formal cause).

That phone is a material substance, thefore it has both matter (material cause) and form (formal cause). The form is the arrangement, nature and state of the phone. The phone has an internal order that changes and it performs functions and each is a part of the phone. It is not possible to separate the activity of the phone from the actual phone. So phone’s form determines the properties and activities of every physical part of the phone. The matter is determined by the phone so that particular activities and properties appear.
 
Last edited:
But I just have a hunch that a simple divided classification of “form” and of “matter” on the other hand should have some common definition that doesn’t require knowing the whole of Thomistic philosophy, right
I dont think so. Thomism like Aristotelianism is a system of thought. You need to grasp something of the whole to finally make full substantial sense of the main terminology.
Philosophy, like most important goals in life, is hard work regardless of “hunches” in my experience. Thomists dont spring up easily…only weeds do. Cultivation is required 😀.
 
Last edited:
Well of course they are inferred by the mind because its not evident to mere sense perception. Most humans are not identical are they? Yet we still call them human.

So there is also something in sensible substances that is intelligible to the mind but not to the eye.
 
Catholics believe we have a soul or spirit and that the soul is the form of the body and this we believe as the truth so it’s not an illusion or the Feast of All Soul’s day on Nov. 2 would be an illusion.
Well, I am Catholic, and I believe the tenets of the Faith.

But Thomistic or Aristotelian philosophy does not equate to Catholicism, but merely a framework — albeit influential — for understanding aspects of the Faith.

So I do not deny that souls exist. I’m just trying to find a sensible framework. Which I believe Aquinas to provide, but I’m just trying to get it right, first.
 
According to a book I have by Ed Feser, the dominant ideas re: Form can be classified according to:

1) Realism – forms exist independent of both the human mind and the material things that instantiate the form. This is ultimately the Thomistic-Catholic view.
2) Nominalism – forms do not really exist at all
3) Conceptualism – forms exist, but only in the human mind that abstracts from material things, not that material things actually have forms

I think I’m stuck on the third option. I’m trying to move from #3 to #1, Realism.

And the reason I need Realism to make sense is that the next step, after Realism, is to prefer to Thomistic Realism, which holds that the independence of forms from both material things and the human mind is the Divine Mind, and therefore a good argument for God’s existence — and intelligence. (Alternatives are Platonic Realism and Aristotle’s Realism.)

So basically, what I would like to figure out is how Realism is to be preferred over Conceptualism, and why Thomisitic Realism is to be preferred over Aristotle’s Realism, which holds that forms are only in human minds and the things that are instantiated — not really a Divine Mind.
 
Last edited:
P.S. Of course Ed Feser argues for Thomistic Realism, and I think it’s mostly persuasive because his discussion/arguments deal with universals in general — not just forms.

I have a better time accepting the existence of abstract realities like “triangularity” or numbers or propositions, rather than form, which is a subset of the overall argument.

So in a way, the arguments can operate without the whole form discussion, but the form issue is critically important for clarifying the idea of God’s intelligence.
 
Last edited:
This is correct it seems to me.
Like geocentrism, the old cosmology etc etc, soul talk is not from religion but ancient science and rational thinking (Natural Philosophy).
The Church adopted it as a helpful vehicle for its own beliefs…strongly so in the 1200s.

There is no reason why it could not abandon its use just as she had to re geocentrism and the old beliefs that literally defined heaven as having 7 levels beyond the orbit of the moon. Many do not realise we accepted this cosmology even at the time of Aquinas. It has quietly been rejected since with little fanfare…unlike geocentrism and the Galileo affair.

Personally I believe soul talk is past its use by date and really serves no helpful purpose for the educated Catholic today as its another language that no longer appears reasonable.
Much of Aristotle is now revealed to be inadequate in explaining the world revealed by the microscope, the telescope and other instruments not available to him.
 
Last edited:
Personally I believe soul talk is past its use by date and really serves no helpful purpose for the educated Catholic today as its another language that no longer appears reasonable.
Much of Aristotle is now revealed to be inadequate in explaining the world revealed by the microscope, the telescope and other instruments not available to him.
But as Catholics we must believe in some sense of a transiphysical human reality, or else how would we be different from the animals and be among the communion of saints prior to the resurrected body?
 
Nominalism is not to be overlooked. While belief in form at an intuitive level works … in practise it is really nominalism when one tries to get too philosophical.
That was the conclusion of some great thinkers after Aquinas even before the secular enlighgenment consigned scholasticism into the stagnant backwaters of history.
It is also my own cautious position 35 years after my qualifications in Dominican taught Thomism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top