Death is unresolvable problem within holymorphic dualism

[onenow1]

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.

:thumbsup:The ultimate reality come down from heaven. Follow Him.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Bahman]

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.

I was not confused with the hylomorphic dualism and substance dualism.

To me IQ is what is supposed to be explained in term of form and matter in hylomorphic dualism. I was not precise in writing and please accept my apology.

You however contradicting yourself in this place (marked bold) since rational thinking is a IQ which means that it should be explained in term of both form and matter hence once form is gone then rational thinking is gone as well which we have empirical evidence for it too (a kid or a person with brain injury does not have rational thinking). The fact you assume that rational thinking is immaterial just explain that sole matter with not a proper form cannot have rational thinking yet its existence can be explained in term of both form and matter which is hylomorphic dualism. However the assumption that there exist an soul which is immaterial and could survive death requests the soul as a substance which means that we are not dealing with hylomorphic dualism but substance dualism.

 

[Bahman]

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.

To me rationality as well as consciousness, sensation etc does depend on form and matter since each of these qualities are gone upon destruction of form and without no matter there would be no form. Have you ever meet a person with schizophrenia? The person does not have rational thinking yet s/he is still alive! I think rational thinking is overrated.

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.

The intellect cannot survive death if it is not separate substance.

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.

So you are having intellect as a separate thing which does depend on its own hence you are dealing with substance dualism.

 

[Skeptic92]

The intellect cannot survive death if it is not separate substance.

So you are having intellect as a separate thing which does depend on its own hence you are dealing with substance dualism.

Ahhh you are struggling with the immateriality of the intellect? I’ll be brief in this post, and then I’ll go grab Aristotle and Thomas to remind myself of everything. Philosophy of Mind isn’t something I’ve done recently.

The reason that the rational soul can subsist after death is that it has a principle of operation that can function separated from matter. This is the intellect, or rational powers, this is as that their object is not a material particular but the universals which they instantiate. In the reception of forms through sensory experience, the intellect forms immaterial concepts of them.

As the form has this immaterial principle of operation, it can continue to act after separation with the body. This is termed subsistence as the soul subsists as an incomplete substance after death. It is an incomplete substances as it requires union with matter to operate the other formal powers of the rational soul (those of our animal nature).

To the second; the criticism does not follow, for it to be substance dualism the subsisting form would have to be a complete substance in its own right. This is false; as a complete substance is a union of act and potency that can, at least in principle, operate its powers that it has given the type of substance that it is. The subsisting soul can not operate the powers proper to us as an embodied being, and therefore is not a complete substance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Catholics should be aware that they are, according to the consistent teaching of the Church, to believe that the human person is composed of a body and a spiritual soul, that the soul is the form of the body, that it survives death and that it will, at the end of time, be reunited with its body and that the reunified human person will spend eternity in heaven or hell. I believe other Christians, Jews, and Muslims should also hold this view based on their understanding of their holy writings and the teachings of their great philosophers.

It is clear that Bahman incorrectly interprets the teaching of Thomas Aqinas concerning the human person as a composit of material body and an immaterial, spiritual soul. It is also clear that he is attempting to disprove Aquinas’ teaching in favor of his own personal human psychology. So do not allow yourself to be lead astray. If you want to understand what Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on human psychology is you will have to read his Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques. 75-103.

These forums can be dangerous to those who do not know their faith or who are philosophically ill prepared.

Linus2nd

 

[sw85]

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.

It is not a serious threat because you are not the first to think about it. The properties of the human person are not exclusively material: we have immaterial properties like will, reason, and moral responsibility. Hence the form of the human person is not exclusively material. Hence when a person dies, the form is not lost, only the material elements of it. What proceed to judgment (the “soul” – more precisely, its remains) are those portions of the human person which are not material, and which continue to exist in the mind of God, like a yet-unbuilt house exists only in the mind of its architect, awaiting resurrection.

 

[balto]

To me rationality as well as consciousness, sensation etc does depend on form and matter since each of these qualities are gone upon destruction of form and without no matter there would be no form. Have you ever meet a person with schizophrenia? The person does not have rational thinking yet s/he is still alive! I think rational thinking is overrated.

Well you seem to be agreeing that it is not the hylemorphic position that is problematic for death, but whether the intellect is really incorporeal or not, which is a separate discussion.

Maybe I am being a little ambiguous by using the word “material” since the hylemorphist has a broader understanding of that term. I meant that sensation and imagination are essentially corporeal processes whereas the intellect is incorporeal. Said schizophrenic person does have rationality even if it is never exercised. To suggest otherwise is to be left with the seemingly absurd conclusion that every time rationality is exercised it is created out of nothing. It is actualized because there is a potency for rationality in the human substance which is there regardless of whatever other accidents happen to be actualized in the human being in question.

The intellect cannot survive death if it is not separate substance.

I don’t see how this follows since death is a physical process and the intellect is arguably non-physical. Even though it is part of the nature of a human to have two arms, if I lost my right arm tomorrow I would not suddenly lose my soul and have it replaced with a new right-armless human soul so why would the intellect suddenly receive a new form when the body becomes corrupted?

So you are having intellect as a separate thing which does depend on its own hence you are dealing with substance dualism.

Well I have explicitly denied this and I’m not seeing how anything I have said would suggest otherwise.

 

[Bahman]

Ahhh you are struggling with the immateriality of the intellect? I’ll be brief in this post, and then I’ll go grab Aristotle and Thomas to remind myself of everything. Philosophy of Mind isn’t something I’ve done recently.

The reason that the rational soul can subsist after death is that it has a principle of operation that can function separated from matter. This is the intellect, or rational powers, this is as that their object is not a material particular but the universals which they instantiate. In the reception of forms through sensory experience, the intellect forms immaterial concepts of them.

As the form has this immaterial principle of operation, it can continue to act after separation with the body. This is termed subsistence as the soul subsists as an incomplete substance after death. It is an incomplete substances as it requires union with matter to operate the other formal powers of the rational soul (those of our animal nature).

I don’t know how to unite matter with a immaterial incomplete substance so they can act united to grant many different attributes such as personal identity, memory, rationality, feeling at the same time accept that they could be subject of change. Simple, do we have people with problems of personal identity, memory, rationality, feeling? Yes. What cause these malfunctions? Form, since matter is changeless and act only as a substrate to allow potentiality of soul to appears as actuality. Hence a person who has identity problem for example has a problem with the form/soul. This changeability is a serious threat to the soul since in one hand is necessary to explain the subject matter well and in another hand can corrupt soul.

In another hand we observe that any living being is subject to decay. Does matter change over time? No. What does decay? Form/soul as it was discussed in OP hence soul cannot be immortal since it decays.

 

[Bahman]

It is not a serious threat because you are not the first to think about it. The properties of the human person are not exclusively material: we have immaterial properties like will, reason, and moral responsibility. Hence the form of the human person is not exclusively material. Hence when a person dies, the form is not lost, only the material elements of it. What proceed to judgment (the “soul” – more precisely, its remains) are those portions of the human person which are not material, and which continue to exist in the mind of God, like a yet-unbuilt house exists only in the mind of its architect, awaiting resurrection.

Does a being is subject to decay, getting old? Yes. Is matter changeable and subject to decay? No. So what changes and subject to decay? Form/soul. We cannot deny that properties like will, reason and moral responsibility is subject to change depending on the form/soul hence the changeability is serious threat to the soul. Consider a person who dies after a coma, vegetation state. What is the state of his/her soul before death? Vegetation state!

 

[Bahman]

Well you seem to be agreeing that it is not the hylemorphic position that is problematic for death, but whether the intellect is really incorporeal or not, which is a separate discussion.

Maybe I am being a little ambiguous by using the word “material” since the hylemorphist has a broader understanding of that term. I meant that sensation and imagination are essentially corporeal processes whereas the intellect is incorporeal. Said schizophrenic person does have rationality even if it is never exercised. To suggest otherwise is to be left with the seemingly absurd conclusion that every time rationality is exercised it is created out of nothing. It is actualized because there is a potency for rationality in the human substance which is there regardless of whatever other accidents happen to be actualized in the human being in question.

I don’t see how this follows since death is a physical process and the intellect is arguably non-physical. Even though it is part of the nature of a human to have two arms, if I lost my right arm tomorrow I would not suddenly lose my soul and have it replaced with a new right-armless human soul so why would the intellect suddenly receive a new form when the body becomes corrupted?

Well I have explicitly denied this and I’m not seeing how anything I have said would suggest otherwise.

Ok. So let me ask you these questions: Does my matter is different from your matter? No. What is different? Form/soul. Does body is subject to decay? Yes. What is then subject to decay considering the fact that matter is changeless? Form/soul. Do we have people with mental malfunctions? Yes. What is responsible for these malfunctions? Form/soul.

Considering all these cases, it is clear that soul can be easily get corrupted by time. It can get so corrupted that it cannot function at all.

 

[Skeptic92]

Ok. So let me ask you these questions: Does my matter is different from your matter? No. What is different? Form/soul. Does body is subject to decay? Yes. What is then subject to decay considering the fact that matter is changeless? Form/soul. Do we have people with mental malfunctions? Yes. What is responsible for these malfunctions? Form/soul.

Considering all these cases, it is clear that soul can be easily get corrupted by time. It can get so corrupted that it cannot function at all.

Answer to the first question; yes. The body that informs my body is different to the matter which informs your body. They are both forms of designate matter designated with quality, quantity, etc. Answer to the second question; the union of Form and matter is what differentiates between individual material substances. You got the third question right. Answer to the fourth question; a simple immaterial subsistent is not subject to decay; as it has its principle of operation immaterially, so therefore can subsist after death.

Answer to the fifth question; yes we do have people with cognitive deficiencies. Answer to the sixth question; the reasons for these deformities are in the vehicle of operation of the power in a material substance; which is, believe it or not, the body.

You got many of those questions wrong.

 

[Bahman]

Answer to the first question; yes. The body that informs my body is different to the matter which informs your body. They are both forms of designate matter designated with quality, quantity, etc.

The amount of matter that my body has is different from yours but the matter which our bodies are constitute are same thing.

Answer to the second question; the union of Form and matter is what differentiates between individual material substances.

To me matter just can provide a substrate for soul to function unless you argue that matter also undergo changes when it unite with soul! I can argue that the atoms that constitute of your body are as same as isolated one and they are governed with the same laws hence matter does not undergo any changes but soul.

You got the third question right.
Answer to the fourth question; a simple immaterial subsistent is not subject to decay; as it has its principle of operation immaterially, so therefore can subsist after death.

Could we agree that matter is not subject of change upon the union with soul, meaning that the stuff you can find in different peoples body is same? Could soul change at all?

Answer to the fifth question; yes we do have people with cognitive deficiencies.
Answer to the sixth question; the reasons for these deformities are in the vehicle of operation of the power in a material substance; which is, believe it or not, the body.

The vehicle does perfect functioning since its functioning is defined by law of physics which is very precise hence any malfunction is related to the soul.

 

[Skeptic92]

The amount of matter that my body has is different from yours but the matter which our bodies are constitute are same thing.

Nope; they are different collections of designate matter. If the matter of my body and the matter of yours were identical we’d be the same being as we’d be indiscernible. So your assertion leads to absurdity; you would have to posit that two distinct beings are identical.

To me matter just can provide a substrate for soul to function unless you argue that matter also undergo changes when it unite with soul! I can argue that the atoms that constitute of your body are as same as isolated one and they are governed with the same laws hence matter does not undergo any changes but soul.

Matter is the principle of change, matter is what itself undergoes change.

Could we agree that matter is not subject of change upon the union with soul, meaning that the stuff you can find in different peoples body is same? Could soul change at all?

No, we couldn’t argue that matter is not subject to change. As that would be a hypothesis contrary to fact. Firstly; matter undergoes change through composition and decomposition. It undergoes spatial and temporal change, it undergoes change in quality, quanity, etc.

The vehicle does perfect functioning since its functioning is defined by law of physics which is very precise hence any malfunction is related to the soul.

Now you’re just begging the question. Anthony Kenny (an Analytical Philosopher, rather than a Thomist) in his book Aquinas on Mind noted that a clear distinction is made between the possessor of a power, the power which it posseses, the vehicle which facilitates operation of the power, and the operation of the power itself. You are arguing that only the power itself can undergo change, which is absurd.

 

[Bahman]

Nope; they are different collections of designate matter. If the matter of my body and the matter of yours were identical we’d be the same being as we’d be indiscernible. So your assertion leads to absurdity; you would have to posit that two distinct beings are identical.

Matter is the principle of change, matter is what itself undergoes change.

No, we couldn’t argue that matter is not subject to change. As that would be a hypothesis contrary to fact. Firstly; matter undergoes change through composition and decomposition. It undergoes spatial and temporal change, it undergoes change in quality, quanity, etc.

Now you’re just begging the question. Anthony Kenny (an Analytical Philosopher, rather than a Thomist) in his book Aquinas on Mind noted that a clear distinction is made between the possessor of a power, the power which it posseses, the vehicle which facilitates operation of the power, and the operation of the power itself. You are arguing that only the power itself can undergo change, which is absurd.

There is no way that you can defend a theses where an electron in your body is different from mine. Of course they way a set of electron and protons form and take shape are different but the stuff that make my body is the same type of stuff that make your body and that is not subject to change and follow the laws of nature strictly where as the form is subject to change.

Moreover a changeless thing so called soul in your interpretation is static, so it cannot contribute in anything that is changing over time namely memory, feeling, etc.

 

[Skeptic92]

There is no way that you can defend a theses where an electron in your body is different from mine. Of course they way a set of electron and protons form and take shape are different but the stuff that make my body is the same type of stuff that make your body and that is not subject to change and follow the laws of nature strictly where as the form is subject to change.

Moreover a changeless thing so called soul in your interpretation is static, so it cannot contribute in anything that is changing over time namely memory, feeling, etc.

You seem to be proposing a thesis that would mean you and I are identical; which is absurd.

Also; what are these laws of nature? You keep appealing to them, and then keep sidestepping actually defining them.

or, you know, the soul as actuality could be active not static?

Your argument still does not follow, the “problem” you have proposed for an Aristotelian
conception of the soul is no problem.

 

[Bahman]

You seem to be proposing a thesis that would mean you and I are identical; which is absurd.

All I am saying is that electrons are similar, protons are similar, neutron are similar etc, they are simply elementary particles. In simple word we are made of the same stuff and unchangeable within energy scale that our metabolisms function. The configuration of these particles however are no similar which give rise to form. Hence matter is unchangeable and form is changeable. Hence, my thesis is not absurd and it is based on evidences.

Also; what are these laws of nature? You keep appealing to them, and then keep sidestepping actually defining them.

Law of nature is simply as set of premises which define the behavior of these elementary particles in term of in term of their properties. This is well defined within standard model and very well tested.

or, you know, the soul as actuality could be active not static?

How could one entity be active and changeless?

Your argument still does not follow, the “problem” you have proposed for an Aristotelian
conception of the soul is no problem.

It does follow. Atomism is a serious threat to Aristotelian concept of matter since he considered matter changeable which is not. What changes is in fact form!

 

[mikekle]

I wouldnt exactly say death is unresolvable, after watching a documentary about sciences effort to beat death…I was amazed how close they are to actually keeping people alive indefinitely! I dont understand the science or terms they use, but I think the general idea is to somehow ‘download’ a persons conscious to some kind of bio-computer based data storage device, this alone would keep that person technically alive, but they would not be in their original body…Its very hard to explain this on here, you almost have to watch the same documentary I did to get what they are experimenting with, as I dont think I can do it justice with my explanation.

Point is though, they are trying to do something about death, and its amazing where they are now, I cant imagine where they will be after another decade or so, but I wonder what would happen if we really were able to beat death, so people could choose whether to die naturally, or be transplanted into another body, I think once they gain more and more knowledge about the human brain, this will be closer to becoming a reality.

What would God do if man DID find a way to overcome death? Could he do anything, as it would interfere with our free will?

 

[Skeptic92]

All I am saying is that electrons are similar, protons are similar, neutron are similar etc, they are simply elementary particles. In simple word we are made of the same stuff and unchangeable within energy scale that our metabolisms function. The configuration of these particles however are no similar which give rise to form. Hence matter is unchangeable and form is changeable. Hence, my thesis is not absurd and it is based on evidences.

“unchangeable” so there is no development between childhood and adulthood? The cells in our body are not constantly reproducing and dying? You can explain the human body simply by the interaction of Atoms? By the way, the answer to this last question is no. All theories of atomic theory are based on “all things being equal”, and do not describe the behaviour of atoms that are not free standing.

Law of nature is simply as set of premises which define the behavior of these elementary particles in term of in term of their properties. This is well defined within standard model and very well tested.

So what do these premises describe? If they are true, they must signify something in reality. You can’t appeal to science for an account of the nature of causality; that argument would be circular and self-refuting.

How could one entity be active and changeless?

If you do not understand this; you have no idea of the Aristotelian concept of Form. Substantial form is active; the mark of Substantial form is irreducible causal powers.

It does follow. Atomism is a serious threat to Aristotelian concept of matter since he considered matter changeable which is not. What changes is in fact form!

Atomism isn’t a serious threat- because no one can actually take it seriously. For a number of reasons:

1. Modern atomism rests on a very poorly defined notion of matter. Therefore its non-explanatory.
2. Water exists; composite substances are a death blow for Atomism. As atomism can only concede accidental, and not substantial, change. Which is absurd.
3. It is a performative contradiction. The atomist is forced to deny the validity of their senses, whilst using their sensory experience to attain knowledge. Therefore a premise of Atomism would imply that our senses are both reliable, and not reliable, in the same respect at the same time. Which is a formal contradiction.

So, no. You still haven’t said anything that is a problem, and that hasn’t been refuted long ago.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Your understanding of hylomophism, the matter-form structure of all natures/essences which have been created should be that of Thomas Aquinas since he enhanced the explanation of Aristotle. That being said, it is no problem for Christians, Jews, or Muslims for they all accept on Faith that the human soul is the form of man and that it survives the body upon death and that it will eventually be re-united with its body at the end of the world. So it is a problem only for non-believers.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

“unchangeable” so there is no development between childhood and adulthood?

Body of course changes but body is not a simple elementary particle. It is constitute of elementary particles and it also has form. So what changes is not elementary particle but form.

The cells in our body are not constantly reproducing and dying?

The same rule that applies to body applies to cells too.

You can explain the human body simply by the interaction of Atoms? By the way, the answer to this last question is no. All theories of atomic theory are based on “all things being equal”, and do not describe the behaviour of atoms that are not free standing.

What is the difference between a free particle and confined one? None, if it is elementary. There is a big field of physics so called condensed matter physics which is study of behavior of macro in term of micro and it is very well established. What would be point of searching for laws of physics which applies to micro if the laws are subject to change depending on the form!?

So what do these premises describe? If they are true, they must signify something in reality.

These premises describe how elementary particles interact with each other by exchanging virtual particles related to forces. For example two electron can interact with each other through exchange of a photon.

You can’t appeal to science for an account of the nature of causality; that argument would be circular and self-refuting.

That is what scientist do in advance before they could establish their theory. I mean they first study what things are (ontology) and then work around how things behaves knowing that what things are (epistemology).

If you do not understand this; you have no idea of the Aristotelian concept of Form. Substantial form is active; the mark of Substantial form is irreducible causal powers.

These I understand. What I don’t understand is how a changeless thing so called soul can integrate itself in a system explained by hylemorphic dualism at which the whole can represent some dynamic features.

Atomism isn’t a serious threat- because no one can actually take it seriously. For a number of reasons:

It is.

1. Modern atomism rests on a very poorly defined notion of matter. Therefore its non-explanatory.

It is not poorly defined. I is very well defined. Matter is simply constitute of simple elementary particles each has some specific properties, such as mass, electrical charge etc.

1. Water exists; composite substances are a death blow for Atomism.

Water exists and its behavior can be explained in term of micro very well.

As atomism can only concede accidental, and not substantial, change. Which is absurd.

What do you mean with accidental and substantial change?

1. It is a performative contradiction. The atomist is forced to deny the validity of their senses, whilst using their sensory experience to attain knowledge. Therefore a premise of Atomism would imply that our senses are both reliable, and not reliable, in the same respect at the same time. Which is a formal contradiction.

First, consciousness is compatible with Atomism if you use correct interpretation. Please read this.

Second, what sort of knowledge Aristotle model provides about what nature of matter is? His model is very outdated.