Hylemorphism and the Human Soul

[Milestone]

I’m reading a book by Edward Feser called “Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide”, and it has been for me a wonderful introduction to Thomistic thought. However, I’m a bit confused about how the body and soul relate to one another as a composite of matter and form. I know that hylemorphic dualism doesnt suffer from the problems Cartesian and property dualism face in regards to how the body and soul interact with each other, but if matter is incapable of actually existing apart from form, and the human soul is the form of the body, then why doesn’t the body cease to exist when seperated from its form? Am I misunderstanding something?

 

[IWantGod]

I’m reading a book by Edward Feser called “Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide”, and it has been for me a wonderful introduction to Thomistic thought. However, I’m a bit confused about how the body and soul relate to one another as a composite of matter and form. I know that hylemorphic dualism doesnt suffer from the problems Cartesian and property dualism face in regards to how the body and soul interact with each other, but if matter is incapable of actually existing apart from form, and the human soul is the form of the body, then why doesn’t the body cease to exist when seperated from its form? Am I misunderstanding something?

Because the form of the body remains after it ceases to be a living person. Its no-longer a person, but it is still a body. There are other forms involved in the composite. I think.

I have trouble understanding it myself.

 

[Richca]

I’m reading a book by Edward Feser called “Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide”, and it has been for me a wonderful introduction to Thomistic thought. However, I’m a bit confused about how the body and soul relate to one another as a composite of matter and form. I know that hylemorphic dualism doesnt suffer from the problems Cartesian and property dualism face in regards to how the body and soul interact with each other, but if matter is incapable of actually existing apart from form, and the human soul is the form of the body, then why doesn’t the body cease to exist when seperated from its form? Am I misunderstanding something?

Upon separation of the soul from the body, the matter of the body takes on other substantial forms such as the substantial forms of the elements or substantial forms of mixtures of elements, for the body decomposes into dirt, soil, or earth. The soul animates the body and makes it a living body. Upon death, the body is now a corpse and in time will decompose into the elements which made it up. A substantial change occurs in the matter at death that made up the human body. When alive, the soul is the substantial form of the body. At death, the matter of the body takes on those forms of the elements or mixtures of elements of which the body is made of which when the soul was present it, the soul, was the substantial form of the whole body and all of its matter. In Thomism, the forms of the elements in a mixed body or substance exist only virtually, not actually, because there can only be one substantial form in a substance or being. The union of substantial form and matter makes one being such as human beings are who are composed of soul or spirit (form) and body (matter).

 

[Wesrock]

I echo Richca in this. The corpse no longer has the substantial form of a human being, but the matter has the substantial forms of its elements (atoms and molecules). After death, the remaining matter is attached to each other, but no longer has the unity of operating as a single whole, living person. There has been a substantial change.

 

[AaronJSmith1978]

Upon separation of the soul from the body, the matter of the body takes on other substantial forms such as the substantial forms of the elements or substantial forms of mixtures of elements, for the body decomposes into dirt, soil, or earth. The soul animates the body and makes it a living body. Upon death, the body is now a corpse and in time will decompose into the elements which made it up. A substantial change occurs in the matter at death that made up the human body. When alive, the soul is the substantial form of the body. At death, the matter of the body takes on those forms of the elements or mixtures of elements of which the body is made of which when the soul was present it, the soul, was the substantial form of the whole body and all of its matter. In Thomism, the forms of the elements in a mixed body or substance exist only virtually, not actually, because there can only be one substantial form in a substance or being. The union of substantial form and matter makes one being such as human beings are who are composed of soul or spirit (form) and body (matter).

I find hylemorphism to be very compelling, I really do, it recongnizes the emergent principals that exist in nature, particularly in biological systems. However I always get hung up on this question. If the soul is what is needed to make something alive and to animate it, how than would that be true if abiogenesis would be found to be correct? Also people may make a similar argument about a computer carrying out processes due to its form. It’s not alive but functions, moves internally viva its processes, and consumes energy. I’m not trying to be a jerk or devils advocate, it just a question to clear some doubt in my head.

 

[Richca]

I find hylemorphism to be very compelling, I really do, it recongnizes the emergent principals that exist in nature, particularly in biological systems. However I always get hung up on this question. If the soul is what is needed to make something alive and to animate it, how than would that be true if abiogenesis would be found to be correct?

In the generation and corruption of natural things, substantial forms are educed out of the potentiality of matter. For example, if we set fire to a piece of wood, the wood changes to ashes, it is no longer wood. A substantial change occurs here. The wood takes on the substantial forms of certain elements or the substantial forms of mixtures of elements such as minerals. The substantial form of wood recedes back into the potentiality of matter. The matter of the minerals or elements of the ashes could in turn be used by a living tree which if the tree died this matter would have the form of wood again. Philosophically, matter is potentiality, i.e., it is in potentiality to be informed and to receive all kinds of forms.

God created matter and form together, matter does not exist without form and material forms do not exist without matter. If abiogenesis was found to be correct or possible and this may involve only the very lowest life forms, I don’t see how this would present a problem for hylemorphism or the soul as the animating principle of life in non human living things. In this case, the soul, the substantial form of living things, would be educed out of the potentiality of matter upon the action of some agent and the action of the substantial forms and elemental powers of the elements which God created the elements with. Again, in this case, the soul is a form existing in the potentiality of matter, not having actual being but potential being which God placed in matter upon creation of the world. Now, on supposition that abiogenesis is correct or possible, we are not going to get life from just any elemental or inanimate matter or just any combination of them but from certain elements and certain combinations of them which science I believe calls organic compounds or something of the sort and there also has to be the right environment and external conditions weatherwise. St Thomas Aquinas was actually of the opinion that less perfect animals such as worms could be generated by putrefaction which according to the dictionary I"m looking at presently putrefaction involves the inanimate organic matter of dead things. However, he also held that plants or animals generated from seed could only come from seed.

Interestingly, in the creation of the world by God in the book of Genesis, it is written “And God said, let the waters bring forth” the various species of marine life and the birds. Also “And God said, let the earth bring forth” the various species of plant and animal life. At the first beginning of the world, Aquinas explains this accordingly “Not as though the power possessed by water or earth of producing all animals resides in the earth and the water themselves, as Avicenna held, but in the power originally given to the elements of producing them from elemental matter by the power of seed or the influence of the stars.” This is similar to St Augustine’s seminal virtues or reasons. For Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis 1 is that God in the beginning produced from elemental matter the various species of plants and animals not in act but virtually, i.e., in their causes and that God placed seminal virtues (or powers) in the elements to do this. According to a ‘surface’ reading of the text of scripture, other holy writers and fathers of the Church interpret the work of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th days as God producing from the waters and the earth the various species of plants and animals in act, i.e., as already constituted in their various species and not just virtually.

Also people may make a similar argument about a computer carrying out processes due to its form. It’s not alive but functions, moves internally viva its processes, and consumes energy. I’m not trying to be a jerk or devils advocate, it just a question to clear some doubt in my head.

 

[AaronJSmith1978]

I have held a similar view, the clearification is nice to have. People argue such matter has no soul but as you put it, it is about the potentiality of the matter. Thank you, with computers I always felt that there was a bit of a delusion between the similarities of what they do and what we does living creatures. People argue we are like computers and machines, which I find odd give their purpose and creation was to emulate what we do in the first place. Every task ever given to a computer was first done by us, and emulated by us through the computer. It is far more accurate to say they are like us not the other way around, and they are like us because we made them that way.