According to Thomism, does my phone have a FORM?

[Sophie111]

Why must we.
The Jews trusted in Gods love for them and death did not seem to contradict this love. Nor did they hold to a heaven after death as essential to their faith.

Aristotelian soul talk may not even be necessary to maintain essential Christian values. Its a useful construct from ancient secular science. Other constructs not yet formulated may one day replace it.

Remember it is not clear Aristole thought immortality of the soul was provable…or even held this. It was Aquinas who interpretted him so.

Why must we be qualitatively different from other animals?
Why must man and the earth be the centre of the solar system rather than the sun.

 

[Richca]

So Thomas does believe in the existence of forms, thought, right?

Absolutely, his writings are permeated throughout with Aristotlelian hylemorphism. He obviously thought he was writing about truth and he is a canonized saint and arguably the greatest doctor, or at least one of them, in the Church. Most of the scholastic theologians accepted Aristotlelianism such as St Albert the Great, St Thomas’ teacher, St Bonaventura, Blessed Duns Scotus. The Church Fathers also speak of form and matter but at this time Platonism was more prominent, but Plato is the one who came up with the formal cause of things in his doctrine of Ideas or Forms. In St Augustine’s literal interpretation of Genesis he writes of God creating the world and everything in it out of formless matter, and out of this primary or basic ‘stuff’ forming all creatures out of it with different forms.

The Fathers just didn’t get this from Plato but it’s right in Holy Scripture, for example, in Gen. 1:2 “The earth was without form and void.” In the creation of Adam, “then the Lord God formed man from dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7). “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air” (Gen. 2: 19). I think it is in Jeremiah where we are compared to clay and God is the potter “We are the clay, you are the potter, we are all the work of your hands.” Wisdom 11:17 says “For thy all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter”. The idea of form and matter or a basic or some material that is formed comes from our experience of reality itself (craftsmen, potters) and it’s not unique to Aquinas or the greek philosophers. Of course, a deeper philosophical understanding of this developed over the course of centuries especially among the ancient greek philosophers and most notably Plato and Aristotle.

 

[Richca]

From RealisticCatholic:

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?

Well, we could meditate on the scripture passages I listed above. The basic idea is you start with some basic material (pliable like) called matter which God created out of nothing, hyle comes from a greek term meaning wood, and which is formless, and then it is formed (greek morphe, form) into all the variety of creatures who have in common the same basic material or matter but with different forms (substantial and accidental) which distinguishes them. By analogy, it is like a potter working with clay or a craftsman working with wood. For example, suppose a potter forms a vase out of clay. The clay is a real feature of the vase as well as the shape the potter forms the clay into and which we call a vase. The shape of the clay is a real feature of the clay which is called the form of the clay, the vase shape is specifically an accidental form which is distinct from the clay itself but inseparately united to it, we can see and perceive this. The potter could have formed or shaped the clay into a plate which we also would recognize. Both the clay and its shape are real features of the vase but distinct. Substantial forms are more abstract and involves penetrating deeper into the reality of things. But the clay formed into a vase is a real example of a substance, the clay which is a matter/form composite, with an accidental form, i.e., the vase-shape. Shape is an accidental form of substances. Is shape a real feature of things? I certainly perceive it to be so. If you agree that shape is a real feature of things such as the vase, then you are agreeing that things at least have objective accidental forms.

 

[Sophie111]

Perhaps a little over generalised. While all these philosophers spoke of “form” they each had very different definitions most of which are incompatible.

Scotus believed matter could exist without form and also that a substance could be a hierachy of forms.

It seems Plato believed forms exist in themselves and matter is not essential to their substance. As Aristotles works here were largely unknown until C12 Plato ruled Church thinking.
His pessimism re matter constantly tempted good theologians down the path of Manicheanism, Gnosticism and Albigensianism/Catharism. That is, flesh tended to be seen as evil or an imprisioning of the good spirit.

 

[Vico]

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.

Well, for St. Thomas Aquinas, Moderate Realism is used, with the concept that: there are universal concepts representing faithfully realities that are not universal.

De Wulf, M. (1911). Nominalism, Realism, Conceptualism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm

 

[RealisticCatholic]

The biblical “soul talk” predates even Aristotle and Thomism, though.

The spiritual component of man is as biblical as it is philosophical.

It is Catholic doctrine that this is what makes man different from all the other animals: That we have a rational nature, made in God’s image — a spiritual soul.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I’ll read that later. But insofar as Moderate Realism is synonymous for the Scholastic Realism that Ed Feser describes, then sure. But Ed is a Thomist and I trust his interpretation of Thomism and realism as well.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

So then mathematical truths are not objective, abstract realities independent of the human mind???

Nominalism goes ever farther than this, though, saying that there are no universals.

 

[Sophie111]

The biblical “soul talk” predates even Aristotle and Thomism, though.

Because certain ancient concepts get finally translated into English as “soul” does not mean they are remotely like each other I would think.
Yes the Greek word obviously existed before Aristotle. Aristotle’s novel scientific theory did not.

The Church since the 1200s has strongly adopted only Aristotle’s framework when it uses the word soul. Sometimes it uses the word soul to translate even more ancient Judaic concepts which had nothing to do with Greek philosophy nor immortality. Translators could equally have used other words such as “life” or “breath” or “spirit”.

As Aristotelian soul talk is the conclusion of ancient science (Natural Philosophy if you will) the Church is not infallible in its adoption of such concepts and thinking. It could jettison such concepts at any time just as it had to re the earth being the centre of the solar system and God’s heaven actually existing in space beyond the orbit of the farthrest planet visible to the eye by the ancients.

 

[Sophie111]

It is Catholic doctrine that this is what makes man different from all the other animals: That we have a rational nature, made in God’s image — a spiritual soul.

This means of expressing man’s relationship to God in the terms of ancient science was only mainstream adopted in medieval times based on the terminology of Aristotle.

The underlying Christian values could I think be expressed in many very different other ways, and was by the Church Fathers before 1000AD.

Judaism at the time of Jesus only recently believed in a spiritual heaven where the just were rewarded. That was a novel concept.
Most up until then had no thought of an afterlife or an immortal spirit and considered God’s love only extended to rewarding the just in this life.

These matters have been a wildly changing work in progress throughout Judao-Christian history continuously evolving until today.

 

[Sophie111]

So then mathematical truths are not objective, abstract realities independent of the human mind???

Nominalism goes ever farther than this, though, saying that there are no universals.

I dont really understand what you are trying to say sorry.

I simply observe that noone I know has ever adequately explained how humans consistently classify different looking entities into single groups commonly called universals, natures, forms.

If this be true then the words we use to label such individuals (eg “human”, “swan”, “duck”) would appear to be arbitrary at times. That sounds like mild nominalism to me. But it works in daily life.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

It’s a matter of Catholic Faith that there is an afterlife, though, and that spiritual entities exist – whatever terms you may want to use.

We have to account for, for example:

1. Matter-less entities called angels
2. The communion of saints, which exists even prior to the resurrected body

And I understand there are different philosophical traditions within Christian history, and that Aristotle enters into Christianity after the Bible. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

I think that Aquinas’ philosophy makes much more sense regarding the soul then the platonic, since you have issues with mind-body interaction and the like.

And of course there may be also issues with Aristotle and Aquinas (I believe Aquinas himself adapted Aristotle where he himself saw Aristotle lacking). But the point of a Christian adapting any philsophical system is to make the faith more reasonable, since faith cannot contradict reality.

Christians believe in these things: God’s simplicity, God’s intelligence, the existence of angelic beings, and the spiritual component of man. These aren’t just due to philosophical system, but to the actual biblical teaching as defined by the Catholic Church. My purpose is to find a way to make most sense of these realities, which do relate to the idea of forms and universals in one way or another. Hence this thread.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Anyway, I’d be open to another way of explaining those Christian concepts, but the reason I started this thread re: forms is because I find Aquinas to be most persuasive in several other areas already.

ALSO. Though I have much to learn, I think Thomists would have issue with the idea that science somehow disproves Thomistic/Scholastic philosophy, even regarding the current subject of forms. I know that Ed Feser is very adamant about it. He even goes so far to say that modern science, if it is honest, has to presuppose something like realism, that things have “essences,” and final causality, and on that.

I’m just now beginning to learn. But what I’m most confident in is the Thomistic tradition talking about God’s existence. I think he’s pretty solid in that area.

Considering my puny mind and the great master Aquinas, I’d readily give the latter the benefit of the doubt when I’m having difficulty understanding something.

 

[Lucretius]

One of our first experience with form is in the forms of artifacts, which tend to be accidental forms, that is to say, forms resulting from things being arranged in a certain way by our skill.

Your question then has a simple answer: the complete phone is a form, and an incomplete phone is a different form, and there are different forms that we would call incomplete, depending on what parts are missing, or which parts are not arranged as they should be according to our design.

This form is artificial, in the sense that the parts are arranged in this way by our power and not from within themselves, but it isn’t exactly arbratrary, because the parts of the phone have their own nature that doesn’t allow for pure potential. Some things have more potential than others too. Coffee beans have a pretty limited potential: to be made into coffee, yetnew can have lots of freedom with something like plaster.

Does that make sense so far?