Death is unresolvable problem within holymorphic dualism

[Bahman]

So I start to explain what is holymorphic dualism in simple words: Holymorphic dualism is a theory which states that beings are composed of inseparable matter and form. What is matter? The stuff which is everywhere. What is form? Form is simply a set of properties of a being which they could manifest themselves by matter. A living being is assigned to have a form so called soul.

The problem of death: What is soul when death happen? It is obvious that the set of properties that defines soul is subject to change upon death so it is obvious that soul is nothing more than any other form upon death hence soul is a simple form like other forms. Only dust is left after death hence there is no being and no form.

As you see the changeability is a serious threat to immortality of soul so we have to either accept that soul is not changeable or it is changeable. The problem of immortality is resolved when soul is changeless but soul then cannot be the form hence it lose its functionality when we are dealing with holymorphic dualism.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m only making one post, so don’t feel obligated to respond.

The soul and the body are separate but linked. The soul is what animates the body, what gives us our “being.” When we die, a person’s soul leaves their body to return to God. At the resurrection, our souls will be returned to our newly-glorified bodies, and recommence animating them. The soul does not change at death, but it is either purified or damned, a sentence that is commuted to the physical body at the Resurrection.

No change in state or form, hence, no problems.

Again, Bahman, I urge you to stop latching on to whatever random philosophical argument you find online, and instead spend some time reading St. Thomas Aquinas or other Catholic theologians and thinkers. They’ve covered pretty much all this ground before.

God Bless.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

FYI, it’s “hylomorphic,” and I don’t follow your logic. Have you read Aristotle?

 

[JasonLovesJesus]

My dear friend,

What you are speaking of is folly and vanity;

you cannot, even if you spent your entire lifetime dwelling on it, comprehend the incomprehensible. What you’re trying to do here is define the ineffable. This is grasping for the wind, a fruitless effort.

1 Corinthians 2: 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him,”

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God bless

 

[Bahman]

I’m only making one post, so don’t feel obligated to respond.

The soul and the body are separate but linked. The soul is what animates the body, what gives us our “being.” When we die, a person’s soul leaves their body to return to God. At the resurrection, our souls will be returned to our newly-glorified bodies, and recommence animating them. The soul does not change at death, but it is either purified or damned, a sentence that is commuted to the physical body at the Resurrection.

No change in state or form, hence, no problems.

Again, Bahman, I urge you to stop latching on to whatever random philosophical argument you find online, and instead spend some time reading St. Thomas Aquinas or other Catholic theologians and thinkers. They’ve covered pretty much all this ground before.

God Bless.

So you think of soul as a separate thing which could exist without body? If it is separate then we don’t have hylomorphic dualism but substance dualism. You can believe on both! In one hand you strive to substance dualism to resolve the problem of death and resurrection and in another hand you strive hylomorphic dualism to resolve all problem that substance dualism has!

 

[Bahman]

FYI, it’s “hylomorphic,” and I don’t follow your logic. Have you read Aristotle?

Thanks for the correction. I haven’t read his book but I read enough about his idea around.

 

[Bahman]

My dear friend,

What you are speaking of is folly and vanity;

you cannot, even if you spent your entire lifetime dwelling on it, comprehend the incomprehensible. What you’re trying to do here is define the ineffable. This is grasping for the wind, a fruitless effort.

1 Corinthians 2: 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him,”

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God bless

I can agree with you that it is possible that we could not comprehend certain things but what is the point of revelation if it is so.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So you think of soul as a separate thing which could exist without body? If it is separate then we don’t have hylomorphic dualism but substance dualism. You can believe on both! In one hand you strive to substance dualism to resolve the problem of death and resurrection and in another hand you strive hylomorphic dualism to resolve all problem that substance dualism has!

I -can- believe in both, in the strictest sense of the word “can,” but I don’t. I’ve yet to see any motivating factor to accept it as a philosophical potential. Substance Dualism presents no problem which need reconciled by hylemorphic or other philosophies.

 

[balto]

So I start to explain what is holymorphic dualism in simple words: Holymorphic dualism is a theory which states that beings are composed of inseparable matter and form. What is matter? The stuff which is everywhere. What is form? Form is simply a set of properties of a being which they could manifest themselves by matter. A living being is assigned to have a form so called soul.

The problem of death: What is soul when death happen? It is obvious that the set of properties that defines soul is subject to change upon death so it is obvious that soul is nothing more than any other form upon death hence soul is a simple form like other forms. Only dust is left after death hence there is no being and no form.

As you see the changeability is a serious threat to immortality of soul so we have to either accept that soul is not changeable or it is changeable. The problem of immortality is resolved when soul is changeless but soul then cannot be the form hence it lose its functionality when we are dealing with holymorphic dualism.

I know you brought this up on the other thread but I am still not seeing what the issue is. You are correct in saying that under hylemorphic considerations the soul is the form of the living thing. In general, it is correct to say that the soul goes out of existence when the body goes out of existence, but that is only the case for non-rational animals. Humans are rational animals, capable of intellection and will in addition to all the corporeal powers you’d expect of a sensitive animal. The rational soul is the form of the living thing, so it includes the body and the intellect and will, which the Scholastic would argue are immaterial and irreducible to any material process. If you accept that the intellect is immaterial, then the soul would persist after bodily death because the intellect does not depend on the body for its existence because it is not reducible to the body, so the soul would still be the form of the intellect. Of course, one could deny that the intellect is immaterial, but the point is that there isn’t any contradiction in the hylemorphist’s acceptance of the human soul persisting after bodily death.

 

[Skeptic92]

So I start to explain what is holymorphic dualism in simple words: Holymorphic dualism is a theory which states that beings are composed of inseparable matter and form. What is matter? The stuff which is everywhere. What is form? Form is simply a set of properties of a being which they could manifest themselves by matter. A living being is assigned to have a form so called soul.

The problem of death: What is soul when death happen? It is obvious that the set of properties that defines soul is subject to change upon death so it is obvious that soul is nothing more than any other form upon death hence soul is a simple form like other forms. Only dust is left after death hence there is no being and no form.

As you see the changeability is a serious threat to immortality of soul so we have to either accept that soul is not changeable or it is changeable. The problem of immortality is resolved when soul is changeless but soul then cannot be the form hence it lose its functionality when we are dealing with holymorphic dualism.

Okay, I fail to see the incoherence.

Let us first discuss a few fundamental principles to this viewpoint that you will need to understand; let us forget the subsistence of the rational soul for a moment, and simply go to the basics.

Do you understand the concept of being simpliciter, being simply, that is being in act?
Do you understand the concept of being secundum quid, being in a qualified sense, that is being in potency?
Do you understand the concept of form, both substantial and accidental; which is the actuality of a substance?
Do you understand the concept of matter; that which underlies substantial material change, and persists through accidental material change?

If you alert me which one we need to start it, it would be far easier to explain why your objection fails.

 

[Bahman]

I -can- believe in both, in the strictest sense of the word “can,” but I don’t.

You cannot believe on both since by definition soul cannot exist separate from matter in hylomorphic dualism whereas it can in substance dualism.

I’ve yet to see any motivating factor to accept it as a philosophical potential. Substance Dualism presents no problem which need reconciled by hylemorphic or other philosophies.

Substance dualism have several problems:

1. Arguments from Human Development:
2. The Conservation of Energy Argument
3. Problem of Interaction
4. The Correlation and Dependence Arguments

If you wish we can discuss each in more details but you can read for each problem here.

 

[Bahman]

I know you brought this up on the other thread but I am still not seeing what the issue is. You are correct in saying that under hylemorphic considerations the soul is the form of the living thing. In general, it is correct to say that the soul goes out of existence when the body goes out of existence, but that is only the case for non-rational animals. Humans are rational animals, capable of intellection and will in addition to all the corporeal powers you’d expect of a sensitive animal. The rational soul is the form of the living thing, so it includes the body and the intellect and will, which the Scholastic would argue are immaterial and irreducible to any material process. If you accept that the intellect is immaterial, then the soul would persist after bodily death because the intellect does not depend on the body for its existence because it is not reducible to the body, so the soul would still be the form of the intellect. Of course, one could deny that the intellect is immaterial, but the point is that there isn’t any contradiction in the hylemorphist’s acceptance of the human soul persisting after bodily death.

I think your view fails to address following issues:

1. There exist some irreducible features such as consciousness, feeling, etc that we share with animal. Hence your view that animal’s form disappears upon death seems to be irrational.
2. You are mixing substance dualism with hylomorphic dualism where in the former soul could exist as separate substance whereas in later soul by definition is not a substance so it cannot exist without matter.
3. We are dealing with a paradox within hylomorphic dualism since it cannot explain death if form is a irreducible quality of a being. In one hand form does not exist as separate substance hence it could not exist without matter, in another hand it is an irreducible quality and by definition an irreducible quality cannot be reduced to nothing upon death. The only way to avoid this paradox is to assume that form is a reducible quality in term of form of simple elements of matter, like atoms etc. In another word what is irreducible is form of simple elements of matter rather than behavior, logical thinking, consciousness etc.

 

[opusAquinas]

I think your view fails to address following issues:

1. There exist some irreducible features such as consciousness, feeling, etc that we share with animal. Hence your view that animal’s form disappears upon death seems to be irrational.
2. You are mixing substance dualism with hylomorphic dualism where in the former soul could exist as separate substance whereas in later soul by definition is not a substance so it cannot exist without matter.
3. We are dealing with a paradox within hylomorphic dualism since it cannot explain death if form is a irreducible quality of a being. In one hand form does not exist as separate substance hence it could not exist without matter, in another hand it is an irreducible quality and by definition an irreducible quality cannot be reduced to nothing upon death. The only way to avoid this paradox is to assume that form is a reducible quality in term of form of simple elements of matter, like atoms etc. In another word what is irreducible is form of simple elements of matter rather than behavior, logical thinking, consciousness etc.

This is slightly off topic. But if God had not revealed Himself to me as a child and through the sacraments I would not believe. How does someone like you believe?

You are being led here but you resist from pride. It is always pride.

Ok, well anyway, your assumptions are wrong. You don’t know if those are in fact simple properties. You’re guessing. You don’t know what the truth is.

How do you know what is true and how do you know who you can trust?

 

[Bahman]

Okay, I fail to see the incoherence.

Let us first discuss a few fundamental principles to this viewpoint that you will need to understand; let us forget the subsistence of the rational soul for a moment, and simply go to the basics.

Do you understand the concept of being simpliciter, being simply, that is being in act? Yes.
Do you understand the concept of being secundum quid, being in a qualified sense, that is being in potency? Yes.
Do you understand the concept of form, both substantial and accidental; which is the actuality of a substance? Yes.
Do you understand the concept of matter; that which underlies substantial material change, and persists through accidental material change? Yes.

If you alert me which one we need to start it, it would be far easier to explain why your objection fails.

My argument is very simple. Let see if the new version could help the problem. A being is composed of irreducible things so called elementary particles (EPs) which is matter. These EPs have some irreducible properties (IPs) as well which can explain the behavior of EPs within a framework so called law of nature.

Now we have the key question: Does exist any irreducible quality (IQ) that cannot be explained in term of IPs? The answer to this question is either yes or no.

1. If yes, then there either exists another substance which explain IQ or there exists not. If there exists then we are dealing with substance dualism which is beyond the subject of this topic but it has its own problems and if there exists not then we are dealing with hylomorphic dualism which states that the form of substance can explain IQ. We however dealing with a paradox here that there exist an IQ that is reducible to nothing upon death. It should be reducible upon death since IQ is not related to separate substance that could survive death. So the paradox is how a irreducible thing could be reducible to nothing. The paradox is resolvable only if we accept the IPs which define the behavior of individual EPs dose not explain the behavior of EPs in a system hence there exists a new set of IPs which depends on form or structure of system and the new IPs can explain the behavior IQ well. In later case we however have no concept of life after death.
2. If no, we have no problem but we have to accept that there is no life after death.

 

[Bahman]

This is slightly off topic. But if God had not revealed Himself to me as a child and through the sacraments I would not believe. How does someone like you believe?

You are being led here but you resist from pride. It is always pride.

Ok, well anyway, your assumptions are wrong. You don’t know if those are in fact simple properties. You’re guessing. You don’t know what the truth is.

How do you know what is true and how do you know who you can trust?

Are you making an argument?

 

[opusAquinas]

Are you making an argument?

Answer the questions.

 

[Bahman]

Answer the questions.

What question? If we know the truth? No. If we can comprehend the truth? I assume so otherwise existence is equivalent to torture. How we could understand the truth? With contemplating and arguing.

 

[opusAquinas]

What question? If we know the truth? No. If we can comprehend the truth? I assume so otherwise existence is equivalent to torture. How we could understand the truth? With contemplating and arguing.

How do you know that it true?

You might be persuaded but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

How is it torture - not to know the truth that water is h2o?

For me, it would be torture not to know Jesus Christ who is the Truth and the Way.

 

[Skeptic92]

My argument is very simple. Let see if the new version could help the problem. A being is composed of irreducible things so called elementary particles (EPs) which is matter. These EPs have some irreducible properties (IPs) as well which can explain the behavior of EPs within a framework so called law of nature.

Now we have the key question: Does exist any irreducible quality (IQ) that cannot be explained in term of IPs? The answer to this question is either yes or no.

1. If yes, then there either exists another substance which explain IQ or there exists not. If there exists then we are dealing with substance dualism which is beyond the subject of this topic but it has its own problems and if there exists not then we are dealing with hylomorphic dualism which states that the form of substance can explain IQ. We however dealing with a paradox here that there exist an IQ that is reducible to nothing upon death. It should be reducible upon death since IQ is not related to separate substance that could survive death. So the paradox is how a irreducible thing could be reducible to nothing. The paradox is resolvable only if we accept the IPs which define the behavior of individual EPs dose not explain the behavior of EPs in a system hence there exists a new set of IPs which depends on form or structure of system and the new IPs can explain the behavior IQ well. In later case we however have no concept of life after death.
2. If no, we have no problem but we have to accept that there is no life after death.

I think you are confusing Hylomorphic “Dualism” with substance dualism, and appear to be completely misinterpreting the use of matter.

Let us begin from Philosophy of Nature in general, and work our way to the rational soul.

All created beings are a composite unity of Act and potency; in material substances these are called form and matter. Substantial Form united with Prime Matter (Pure Potency) gives us a substance which will have accidental forms united with it as properties (proper accidents).

Your question about IQ and whether it depends upon body or soul simply gets thing wrong; IQ would depend upon both. Since IQ is a measure of problem solving abilities which employ both the sensitive and rational faculties, so requires both for operation.

As to the subsistence of the soul after death; you would need to look into arguments regarding the souls simplicity, and the intellects immaterial principle of operation. You seem to be sneaking in atomism into your argument; the Aristotelian would rightly question this presumption as it appears to be an operative contradiction.

 

[balto]

1. There exist some irreducible features such as consciousness, feeling, etc that we share with animal. Hence your view that animal’s form disappears upon death seems to be irrational.

Consciousness, sensation, and imagination are all arguably material processes, so an animal’s soul would disappear upon its death. Humans have rationality added on top of that which is essentially immaterial. So there’s no special pleading invoked when one argues that the human soul persists after the body dies but animal souls do not.

1. You are mixing substance dualism with hylomorphic dualism where in the former soul could exist as separate substance whereas in later soul by definition is not a substance so it cannot exist without matter.

I don’t think I am confusing substance and hylomorphic dualism. The intellect is immaterial so the body’s death is not going to corrupt the intellect. The soul is the soul of the body and the intellect. If the body is gone but the intellect is not, the soul is still the form of the intellect. There’s no added substance there.

1. We are dealing with a paradox within hylomorphic dualism since it cannot explain death if form is a irreducible quality of a being. In one hand form does not exist as separate substance hence it could not exist without matter, in another hand it is an irreducible quality and by definition an irreducible quality cannot be reduced to nothing upon death. The only way to avoid this paradox is to assume that form is a reducible quality in term of form of simple elements of matter, like atoms etc. In another word what is irreducible is form of simple elements of matter rather than behavior, logical thinking, consciousness etc.

When the hylemorphist speaks of “matter” she is concerned with something that is more broad than what a modern means by the word “matter.” Matter is simply the principle that grounds the potentialities a thing has. It does not necessarily involve extension in physical space although that is typically involved. An intellect still has potentialities because it has the potential to know various forms and these potentialities to know forms can be actualized. A form does not essentially need to be associated with a physical body.