How the soul can affect the body?

[o_mlly]

The soul is immaterial and has no location. The body in another hand has a location. How the soul can affect the body then?

Imagine you are alone and in a situation of sense deprivation. As your mind wanders, you think of the tragic death of a loved one and you begin to cry. Your tears are chemically different than reflex tears. What caused you to produce those special tears?

 

[Richca]

A question to the hylomorphic; how can it be said that being’s are a matter form composite? If matter, as Aristotle defined it and not the physicist, is most fundementally a pure potentiality substance which, when mapped unto a form, is transformed into actuality, then how can it be said that matter is pure potentiality?

Matter is said to be pure potentiality because in itself it is only a potential being and entirely formless. Forms are the act of matter so that matter actually exists only through the form. Actually existent matter is not transformed into a form but remains what it is, namely, prime matter and it only actually exists through the form. Forms are acts and matter is potency so a form/matter composite is also a composite of act/potency.

For to be in potentiality to a given thing is to not have said thing but hold the possibility of attaining such thing. But if existence is something that matter holds by nature, as matter, I believe, is according to Aristotle the underlying substance which denotes something as existing, then matter is in a state of actuality to at minimum one thing; existence. How can we thus call it pure potentiality? It would make more sense to call nonbeing pure potentiality, as it truly is devoid of all attributes and qualities while simultaneously “holding” (I use the phrase analogically) the possibility of future actualization.

The nature of matter is potential being not actual being which is through the form. It is only by being informed that matter actually exists but which really is a being or substance is the composite of form/matter because neither the form or matter exists by itself except in the case of the human soul which can subsist without the body.

Further, on the subject of form; how may it be said that form is that which actualizes potentiality if form is itself not in any state of actuality?

Forms are called acts so they are actual and things are what they are or the kind of thing they are through their form.

We can know this, I presume, from the knowledge that forms are incomplete, in so far as they do not hold existence - the foundation of being - unless they are made actual by matter.

Forms are not made actual by matter which is only potentiality. Rather, forms are the act of matter.

For example, before the construction of chairs there was the “pre-existing” (I use the word analogically) form of chairs; this form was not, however, present in any given matter, and thus not within being.

The form of chair pre-exists in that which it is made out of such as wood. It pre-exists potentially in the matter or substance of the wood, not actually until the chair is made.

As such, it would seem as if the matter is the actualizer whilst the form is the potentiality being actualized.

The actualizer of the chair is the efficient cause of the chair, namely, a human being who formed the wood into a chair. The wood of the chair remains what it was before, namely, wood. The chair is an accidental form of wood which is a composite substance of form/matter.

 

[oliver109]

Could they just be unfriendly rather than evil?(i would say unfriendliness is a venial sin generally) sometimes people say i look angry but i doubt it is because i am evil, it is probably more because i have a serious expression if things are bothering me, i think in British culture it is generally unacceptable to show how you feel and so people tend to make more of an effort to appear friendly and cheerful all the time unlike eastern and southern Europe where it is more acceptable to look serious.

 

[quaestio45]

Matter is said to be pure potentiality because in itself it is only a potential being and entirely formless. Forms are the act of matter so that matter actually exists only through the form. Actually existent matter is not transformed into a form but remains what it is, namely, prime matter and it only actually exists through the form. Forms are acts and matter is potency so a form/matter composite is also a composite of act/potency.

How can this be an act/potency composite relationship if prime matter, as defined by Aristotle, is something which is both pure potentiality but also the underlying substratum which marks something as existent? For, if I am not mistaken, existence is by definition an actuality. How then can it be that one can be pure potency and existent? How then can form be the actuality within the form/matter relationship if form is nonexistent when independent of matter? It seems quite contridictive to say that matter is pure potency and the denoter of existence while simultaneously saying form is nonexistent until in union with matter and that it is also the act of the pair.

neither the form or matter exists by itself

Then how can matter be called the underlying substratum that denotes existence in a being? How can something not existent bring actuality to something nonexistent? An efficient cause, id pressume youd say? But then I may ask how you can therefore call one the actual and the other potency in the relationship if they are simply being actualized both into existence by another.

 

[Richca]

How can this be an act/potency composite relationship if prime matter, as defined by Aristotle, is something which is both pure potentiality but also the underlying substratum which marks something as existent?

Prime matter alone is not the underlying substratum or substance of a thing which marks something as existent. It is prime matter and the substantial form, the composite, which are the fundamental or substantial components of material substances. The relation of prime matter which is pure potentiality to the substantial form is as potency to act. So, substantial forms are the act of matter and makes matter to exist. Without form, matter does not exist, at least actually.

For, if I am not mistaken, existence is by definition an actuality. How then can it be that one can be pure potency and existent?

Matter considered in itself is pure potentiality and thus considered it doesn’t actually exist. It actually exists only in union with form and more specifically, the substantial form.

How then can form be the actuality within the form/matter relationship if form is nonexistent when independent of matter?

Material forms in the actual world are never independent of matter nor is matter ever independent of form. But if matter considered in itself is pure potentiality, i.e., formless and in potentiality to being informed and only a potential being, then some other entity must make it actually exist and this is the form. Matter actually exists by being informed which is why forms are called the act of matter.

It seems quite contridictive to say that matter is pure potency and the denoter of existence while simultaneously saying form is nonexistent until in union with matter and that it is also the act of the pair.

Form and matter were concreated by God. God formed out of formless matter all the creatures of the material world. The ideas of form/matter and act/potency come from observation of the world and from our reasoning about it.

 

[STT]

Imagine you are alone and in a situation of sense deprivation. As your mind wanders, you think of the tragic death of a loved one and you begin to cry. Your tears are chemically different than reflex tears. What caused you to produce those special tears?

I know that ming get affected through the body and can affect the body. The question is how?