Do we know things by the Divine Ideas?

[fakename]

Do we know Divine Ideas w/o knowing God’s essence? When Catholic philosophers speak of forms, do they mean it the same way as Plato did?

 

[Katholish]

We do not know Divine Ideas, and no, the perennial Catholic philosophy rejects Platonic forms even if some would argue that the Divine Ideas do bear some resemblance. For human epistemology, the Aristotelean view is mostly accepted as refined by St. Thomas.

 

[fakename]

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the Aristotelian version of Forms. They are universal and eternal but do they exist only in the head? If that were true, then why are forms nobler in being? Don’t the ideas also transcend the particular and so also seem to exist above them? So when we think the universal we are seeing the transcending forms?

Finally, do ideas come only from abstraction from sense? And if they exist only as abstractions then the forms can’t exist outside our perception. Then how could anything w/a form exist outside of our perceptions?

 

[Katholish]

Remember that for Aristotle, forms are grounded in reality and the natures found in nature. (using that term equivocally) The forms we have are first abstracted from actual material things that have a specific nature. That form then in a sense shares in our existence as it exists as part of our mind. The ideas are universal, but they are all grounded in the real nature of the things around us.

 

[fakename]

Remember that for Aristotle, forms are grounded in reality and the natures found in nature. (using that term equivocally) The forms we have are first abstracted from actual material things that have a specific nature. That form then in a sense shares in our existence as it exists as part of our mind. The ideas are universal, but they are all grounded in the real nature of the things around us.

How are forms grounded in nature,if they aren’t platonic?

 

[Katholish]

The form corresponds to the nature of a real thing. Plato thought that trees only participated in what it is to be a tree. Aristotle said that trees fully possess what it is to be a true. Another way of saying is that Plato taught that trees on participation in the nature of tree, Aristotle said that trees have the nature of tree.

The actual existing instances are not cheap imitations or copies of some true form, but actually all share the same form and fully possess it. Basically, Aristotle keeps the notion of forms, but denies the theory of participation (except for the transcendentals, but that is another topic).

 

[fakename]

The form corresponds to the nature of a real thing. Plato thought that trees only participated in what it is to be a tree. Aristotle said that trees fully possess what it is to be a true. Another way of saying is that Plato taught that trees on participation in the nature of tree, Aristotle said that trees have the nature of tree.

The actual existing instances are not cheap imitations or copies of some true form, but actually all share the same form and fully possess it. Basically, Aristotle keeps the notion of forms, but denies the theory of participation (except for the transcendentals, but that is another topic).

Yeah, I was wondering, weren’t the transcendental forms like good, truth, etc. basically platonic?

Anyways, I still wonder what a nature is? The thing doesn’t participate in the form in the way that plato taught, but then that means the form wouldn’t be above the thing in its mode of existence. But then a form is the actualization of the matter or potential. So, is the substance more actual than both the form and matter? I’m not sure -the human soul for instance, seems to be more actual than the human substance since it can’t be destroyed. Also, the forms are said to be shared by all the substances -what does “shared” mean? It could be that the things have the same forms so they “share” these forms in a figurative way in the same way that everyone who has money all “share” this this money. Or it could be something else but certainly it can’t be that all things share a form through participation.

So then what does it mean to have a nature (is a nature a physical, spiritual, or composite thing?), and what does it mean to share a nature?

 

[fakename]

But to add to this further more:

how can forms really only be in the mind when they are spoken of as being causes (formal causes) or how can they only reside in the mind when the angels are considered to be individualized forms? Again the form of the human person survives death.

passages from the Summa also echo this objection -people are spoken of being composed of matter and form -impossible if form is not extra-mental. Also, this: “forms that exist in matter are individual forms which the intellect cannot apprehend as such.” So this passage seems to imply that a form can either exist in or outside of matter and this is almost an admission that forms exist outside the mind.

It seems to me impossible to make “heads-or-tails” of scholastic philosophy w/o thinking that forms have extra-mental existence and so, that humans learn (if not from Divine Forms) then from some immaterial forms.

 

[Katholish]

I realize this doesn’t address everything you asked, but the distinction between substantial forms (human souls for example) and non-substantial forms (the shape of a staute for instance) is critical in answering your most recent question. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but I know that St. Thomas treats all of this in depth. I only wish I could better remember what I have read.