Death is unresolvable problem within holymorphic dualism

[Bahman]

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

What I am arguing is that hylomorphism has serious problems so it cannot be accepted as a model which can explain death hence life after death. You want to accept a model which has problems, you are welcome. What are the problems:

1. The form/soul is subject to change and decay but matter is not.
2. The form/soul cannot sustain life upon death so all the feature related to life are lost, among them, memory, identity, rationality, feeling, etc. So what is the point of having a soul that cannot even guarantee the passage of identity?
3. It requires resurrection namely reunion of matter and soul in order to allow life but what you get from reunion of a matter and soul with a corrupted soul that it could not function well upon death?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I am arguing is that hylomorphism has serious problems so it cannot be accepted as a model which can explain death hence life after death. You want to accept a model which has problems, you are welcome. What are the problems:

1. The form/soul is subject to change and decay but matter is not.
2. The form/soul cannot sustain life upon death so all the feature related to life are lost, among them, memory, identity, rationality, feeling, etc. So what is the point of having a soul that cannot even guarantee the passage of identity?
3. It requires resurrection namely reunion of matter and soul in order to allow life but what you get from reunion of a matter and soul with a corrupted soul that it could not function well upon death?

The Church does not depend on any philosophical arguments, not even those of Aristotle or Aquinas. Except as regards man, it does regard the soul as the " form " of man. So any particular interpretation of hylomorphism has no problems for the Church. The teaching of the Church is based strictly on Divine Revelation.

But personally, I see no problem with Aquinas’ interpretation of hylomorphism. Your problem is that you interpret it based on certain inferences you claim are scientifically based. I think your inferences are incorrect - as I and others here have argued for months.

Linus2nd

 

[Skeptic92]

What I am arguing is that hylomorphism has serious problems so it cannot be accepted as a model which can explain death hence life after death. You want to accept a model which has problems, you are welcome. What are the problems:

1. The form/soul is subject to change and decay but matter is not.
2. The form/soul cannot sustain life upon death so all the feature related to life are lost, among them, memory, identity, rationality, feeling, etc. So what is the point of having a soul that cannot even guarantee the passage of identity?
3. It requires resurrection namely reunion of matter and soul in order to allow life but what you get from reunion of a matter and soul with a corrupted soul that it could not function well upon death?

I deny the first, the second, but concede the third in a qualified sense.

You have not demonstrated the first; you are presupposing the truth of it without demonstration. This is a case of question-begging; it is also a hypothesis contrary to fact which you have also conceded. In your concession that your basic elements are composite, this seems to lead to an infinite regress or a reductio ad absurdum. This would be as the matter that underlies Quantum Mechanics certainly does not meet your requirements for it being matter; and also refutes your claim that matter doesn’t change.

The second has been answered before; but I’ll repeat again. The soul subsists after death due to its immaterial principle of operation (the intellect) which means that the substantial form of the human being (that is the rational soul) can still continue to operate after the union with the body ceases. Those operations the soul can bring into act without the body, it will continue to operate. Those operations that depend upon the body for exercise would not be brought into act. This is why we call the rational soul a “subsistent” rather than a “substance”; as the soul does not have the ability to actualise its causal powers qua rational soul.

The third, that I concede in a qualified sense, is more straightforward. The bodily resurrection of the dead (which requires a supernatural cause) would allow to soul to complete the substance that it is. At the bodily resurrection the soul of St Peter will be reunited with the body of St Peter and form the material substance that is St Peter; at this point the soul could operate all its causal powers qua rational soul.

 

[Bahman]

You have not demonstrated the first; you are presupposing the truth of it without demonstration. This is a case of question-begging; it is also a hypothesis contrary to fact which you have also conceded. **In your concession that your basic elements are composite, this seems to lead to an infinite regress or a reductio ad absurdum. **This would be as the matter that underlies Quantum Mechanics certainly does not meet your requirements for it being matter; and also refutes your claim that matter doesn’t change.

The elementary particle are not composed of anything within standard model which is a model describing how these particles interact with each other. I don’t think if quantum mechanics refutes my claim that matter doesn’t change to the best of my knowledge since standard model is a quantum model. It allows the creation and annihilation of particles in very high energy scale which is no applicable to low energy scale that our metabolisms work. This I have discussed in post #40 that you didn’t address.

The second has been answered before; but I’ll repeat again. The soul subsists after death due to its immaterial principle of operation (the intellect) which means that the substantial form of the human being (that is the rational soul) can still continue to operate after the union with the body ceases. Those operations the soul can bring into act without the body, it will continue to operate. Those operations that depend upon the body for exercise would not be brought into act. This is why we call the rational soul a “subsistent” rather than a “substance”; as the soul does not have the ability to actualise its causal powers qua rational soul.

We have to first agree on the fact that soul is form and it is changeable since elementary particles are changeless.

The third, that I concede in a qualified sense, is more straightforward. The bodily resurrection of the dead (which requires a supernatural cause) would allow to soul to complete the substance that it is. At the bodily resurrection the soul of St Peter will be reunited with the body of St Peter and form the material substance that is St Peter; at this point the soul could operate all its causal powers qua rational soul.

Again, we have to first agree on the fact that soul is changeable to see what kind of problem my argument is pointing to. We can then accept resurrection as the act of union of matter and soul. The soul however dose not qualified to provide life since it could only offer what it has upon death which is nothing since otherwise could sustain the life and prevent death. Simple, elementary particle are not subjected to decay and changes but they can have a form through configuration of particles which is soul in your interpretation and soul is subject to change.