Is man just a pile of aroms?

[Linusthe2nd]

There might be someone somewhere who is so mentally deranged that when looking at his baby daughter, he instead sees a bag of chemicals, but I doubt any materialist philosopher could see his child that way. Seems more likely that the phrase “pile of atoms” was made up by opponents as an attempt at mocking a philosophy they don’t like. (Anyhow, as the body is mostly water, shouldn’t it have been a puddle of atoms?)

The point is that there is much more to us, to animals, to vegatation, to minerals than a heap of atoms. The article does a good job of explaning why. In my own words, everthing that exists in the material world, every substance is " more than the sum of its parts. " I am a man, a person, a living, conscious, knowing, thinking being. That is, I have an identifiable nature. And I know the world ouside my mind as being similarly identified. Even a lump of gold has an identifiable nature which is more than the sum of its atomic parts.

It doesn’t matter that the body is mostly water ( I doubt if that is said literally ) or mostly something else. Since it is a body, a material nature, it must be made out of some kind of matter. The old atomists weren’t so far off it seems. Since God wanted to make material bodies, he had to use some material matter to make them. But he was not just making " matter " for the sake of matter, he was making specific natures out of this matter. And it does not matter whether he did this through an evolutionary process of some kind or through the direct creation of each kind of nature.

Even Aristotle wasn’t far off in his conception of how each nature was made. He thought each kind of nature was made of a different combinations of his five elements. That isn’t far from the modern idea - except that we have nearly 300 elements and their sub-atomic corelatives.

Also, naughty materialists did a pincer movement on the OP blogger while he wasn’t looking. He says materialists stupidly only believe in matter, whereas Aristotelians intelligently believe in matter plus form. The only problem being that materialists went one better by coming up with string theory, in which there is no matter, only form.

So the issue seems to be about teleology rather than matter and/or form.

I don’t recall that he used the term " stupidly. " The progress of the materialists cannot be compared to what Aristotle and Aquinas and other philosophers achieved. The object of each science was to advance in acquiring the truth about reality. Science deals with observable matter. Philosophy studies the inner nature and causality of all that exists. Science has had wonderful success, though it has not yet achieved a satisfactory string theory. And it seems highly improbable that it ever will. I think in the end it will be found that the theory of everything is God’s Plan for creation. And that is the provence of philosophy and theology.

I doubt whether science views " teleology " the same way that philosophy and theology do.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The point is that there is much more to us, to animals, to vegatation, to minerals than a heap of atoms. The article does a good job of explaning why. In my own words, everthing that exists in the material world, every substance is " more than the sum of its parts. " I am a man, a person, a living, conscious, knowing, thinking being. That is, I have an identifiable nature. And I know the world ouside my mind as being similarly identified. Even a lump of gold has an identifiable nature which is more than the sum of its atomic parts.

Trouble is, “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” led to the philosophy of emergentism, and to the ideas of synergy and holism, which are all materialist (or perhaps more accurately, physicalist). There’s a lot of fertile ground there, whether you agree with it or not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

It is fundamental to physicalism that a conscious thinking person naturally emerges from the physical world alone. God didn’t need any added extras. Hylomorphism is actually more reductionist in a way, since it forces persons to be reduced to substantial forms, natures and so on, while physicalism makes no such demands.

*It doesn’t matter that the body is mostly water ( I doubt if that is said literally ) or mostly something else. Since it is a body, a material nature, it must be made out of some kind of matter. The old atomists weren’t so far off it seems. Since God wanted to make material bodies, he had to use some material matter to make them. But he was not just making " matter " for the sake of matter, he was making specific natures out of this matter. And it does not matter whether he did this through an evolutionary process of some kind or through the direct creation of each kind of nature.

Even Aristotle wasn’t far off in his conception of how each nature was made. He thought each kind of nature was made of a different combinations of his five elements. That isn’t far from the modern idea - except that we have nearly 300 elements and their sub-atomic corelatives.*

It is different though, since Aristotle forces the explanation to a predefined number of levels (such as elements → natures), which don’t really explain much. So while saying that Linus’ body is a combination of fire, air, earth and water is in principle similar to saying it is mainly oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, neither is much of an explanation. You need emergentism to explain that compound chemicals emerge from elements, with new properties the elements don’t have, and the chemicals form proteins, and then cells, with new properties, and so on.

*I don’t recall that he used the term " stupidly. " The progress of the materialists cannot be compared to what Aristotle and Aquinas and other philosophers achieved. The object of each science was to advance in acquiring the truth about reality. Science deals with observable matter. Philosophy studies the inner nature and causality of all that exists. Science has had wonderful success, though it has not yet achieved a satisfactory string theory. And it seems highly improbable that it ever will. I think in the end it will be found that the theory of everything is God’s Plan for creation. And that is the provence of philosophy and theology.

I doubt whether science views " teleology " the same way that philosophy and theology do.*

Materialism/physicalism is a philosophy just as much a scholasticism, and for good or bad it has changed the world. Scholastics never eradicated smallpox or invented a flat-screen TV.

I still think this is about teleology. You want your purposes and meanings to be there a priori, while physicalism says they can only emerge (if at all) a posteriori.

 

[Bahman]

Trouble is, “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” led to the philosophy of emergentism, and to the ideas of synergy and holism, which are all materialist (or perhaps more accurately, physicalist). There’s a lot of fertile ground there, whether you agree with it or not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

It is fundamental to physicalism that a conscious thinking person naturally emerges from the physical world alone. God didn’t need any added extras. Hylomorphism is actually more reductionist in a way, since it forces persons to be reduced to substantial forms, natures and so on, while physicalism makes no such demands.

It is different though, since Aristotle forces the explanation to a predefined number of levels (such as elements → natures), which don’t really explain much. So while saying that Linus’ body is a combination of fire, air, earth and water is in principle similar to saying it is mainly oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, neither is much of an explanation. You need emergentism to explain that compound chemicals emerge from elements, with new properties the elements don’t have, and the chemicals form proteins, and then cells, with new properties, and so on.

Materialism/physicalism is a philosophy just as much a scholasticism, and for good or bad it has changed the world. Scholastics never eradicated smallpox or invented a flat-screen TV.

I still think this is about teleology. You want your purposes and meanings to be there a priori, while physicalism says they can only emerge (if at all) a posteriori.

Physicalism with the fruit of emergentism is wrong for a simple reason namely epiphenomalism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Trouble is, “the whole is more than the sum of its parts” led to the philosophy of emergentism, and to the ideas of synergy and holism, which are all materialist (or perhaps more accurately, physicalist). There’s a lot of fertile ground there, whether you agree with it or not.

The whole that I am refering to is the exsiting nature, the substances we all experience in life. These substances have material constituents, as I said. When God created substances, he created them tout court, whole and entire - whether through an evolutiionary process or directly. That is he created their forms with their appropriate matter ( the arraingement and collection of atoms, molecules, genes, etc. suited to the particular form ) which resulted in an existing nature or substance.

I am aware of myself as a nature that exercises power over my constituent parts. I am also aware of myself as a knowing, thinking, acting being.

Further, we know from science that every molecule of our bodies is replaced several times in our lives ( how many is open to discussion ). Nevertheless, I am aware that I am the same person I was 70 years ago and I can recall many of the thoughts I had decades ago, and people I knew 70 years ago, and some of the things I did 70 years ago. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how my nature does not contain some spiritual element ( intellect ) that is not reducible to the constituents of my body which have been replaced many times, a spiritul governing principle that accounts for my self identity through the decades, that accounts for my life, my knowing and thinking.

And we can say much the same thing about all living things.

Mineral substances are a little more difficult to explain. But I think it reasonable to assume they follow the general pattern of living things.

It is fundamental to physicalism that a conscious thinking person naturally emerges from the physical world alone. God didn’t need any added extras. Hylomorphism is actually more reductionist in a way, since it forces persons to be reduced to substantial forms, natures and so on, while physicalism makes no such demands.

I don’t see how physicalism would be any more in accord with God’s ways than hylomorphism. There is nothing more mysterious about hylomorphism than about physicalism. Indeed it is more reasonable. Hylomorphism resolves the ancient dispute between Parmenides and Heraclitus and Plato. Parmenides held that change was an illusion, Heraclitus that stability was an illusion. Then Plato erred in saying that nature did not arise from substances themselves but that each nature existed as an eternal ’ Idea ’ existing outside the world. Hylomorphism solved all that.According to it natures existed in substances in a particular way, as a result of the ’ form ’ which brought existence to a particularly suitable matter. And it was these particular natures which were the principle of motion ( change ) and rest in every substance which had a nature. Physicalism simply ignores these problems, it does not solve them.

It is different though, since Aristotle forces the explanation to a predefined number of levels (such as elements → natures), which don’t really explain much. So while saying that Linus’ body is a combination of fire, air, earth and water is in principle similar to saying it is mainly oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, neither is much of an explanation. You need emergentism to explain that compound chemicals emerge from elements, with new properties the elements don’t have, and the chemicals form proteins, and then cells, with new properties, and so on.

Naturally Aristotle’s concept of the elements was wrong, but today we do know that each physical body is composed of atoms, etc. But from hylomorphism we know that it is form which determins the kind of matter that is in a substance and this unique composit results in an existing nature. I am not denying that there is a type of emergentism at work in substances, even in my Person. What I do deny is that it defines any substance or determines what a substance is. I am saying that it is the form which determines all factors effecting every existing nature, including whatever emergent factors are at work. It is not the emergent factors which determine the existing nature.

There is also an element of truth to syncretism and holism, but only an element.

Every existing nature is caused by the union of its form to its matter. This can come about through creation or through the causal interaction between existing natures, some of a substnatial nature ( i.e. birth and death, an exploding nuculus, etc. ), some accidentally ( i.e. growing old, metal fatigue, etc. ).

Materialism/physicalism is a philosophy just as much a scholasticism, and for good or bad it has changed the world. Scholastics never eradicated smallpox or invented a flat-screen TV.

It is not materialism/physicalism which has changed the world or invented T.V… Rather it is science and technology that has done these wonders. Philosophy had nothing to do with it.

I still think this is about teleology. You want your purposes and meanings to be there a priori, while physicalism says they can only emerge (if at all) a posteriori.

Certainly teleology is at work in the actions of every substance, animate or inanimate. But there is no end to which an action can be directed unless there are material, formal, and effecient causes of the substances themselves and all their actions. And ultimately there must be one Universal, First Efficient Cause whom Christians identify as God. And God accounts for the teleolgy or directedness of the entire universe. " In him we live, move and have our being. " He is the Alpha and the Omega of all things.

Anyway, that is my view of the universe.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The whole that I am refering to is the exsiting nature, the substances we all experience in life. These substances have material constituents, as I said. When God created substances, he created them tout court, whole and entire - whether through an evolutiionary process or directly. [snip]

Further, we know from science that every molecule of our bodies is replaced several times in our lives ( how many is open to discussion ). Nevertheless, I am aware that I am the same person I was 70 years ago and I can recall many of the thoughts I had decades ago, and people I knew 70 years ago, and some of the things I did 70 years ago. [snip]

Mineral substances are a little more difficult to explain. But I think it reasonable to assume they follow the general pattern of living things.

(Snips in quotes are to fit the 6,000 char limit)

I think notions of substances and natures must have sounded very reasonable in a world where most things were not man-made and most people thought the world came about replete with grass and rivers and birds and so on. But in our high-technology world, in a world we now know developed over an immense period of time from a particle soup into trillions of stars and planets in billions of galaxies, it seems naive, more a folk philosophy. There are good reasons why it is no longer the prevailing position and fell out of favor.

As far as personal identity goes, that’s an ongoing (never ending?) philosophical debate. It’s not difficult to explain how you retain memories even though cells die (the body is good at making new copies). I’m not sure where an immaterial soul fits with hylomorphism, since if the soul is the form of the body (as the CCC says), there is no immaterial component (as there would be with Descartes’ weird scheme).

I don’t see how physicalism would be any more in accord with God’s ways than hylomorphism. There is nothing more mysterious about hylomorphism than about physicalism. Indeed it is more reasonable. Hylomorphism resolves the ancient dispute between Parmenides and Heraclitus and Plato. Parmenides held that change was an illusion, Heraclitus that stability was an illusion. [snip] Physicalism simply ignores these problems, it does not solve them.

It doesn’t ignore them, all it does is to make the assumption that everything is physical. Anyone is welcome to try to prove otherwise, but until they do, it’s a reasonable simplifying assumption.

The basic problem with the change vs. stability and motion vs. rest debates are that they start from unfounded assumptions. We now know that nothing can possibly be at absolute rest, and that what we regard as changing or stable is relative to our scale (and Sta. Teresa recognized that only God never changes ). But even if we didn’t know those things scientifically, from a philosophical point of view they are still unfounded.

*Naturally Aristotle’s concept of the elements was wrong, but today we do know that each physical body is composed of atoms, etc. But from hylomorphism we know that it is form which determins the kind of matter that is in a substance and this unique composit results in an existing nature. I am not denying that there is a type of emergentism at work in substances, even in my Person. What I do deny is that it defines any substance or determines what a substance is. I am saying that it is the form which determines all factors effecting every existing nature, including whatever emergent factors are at work. It is not the emergent factors which determine the existing nature.

There is also an element of truth to syncretism and holism, but only an element.

Every existing nature is caused by the union of its form to its matter. This can come about through creation or through the causal interaction between existing natures, some of a substnatial nature ( i.e. birth and death, an exploding nuculus, etc. ), some accidentally ( i.e. growing old, metal fatigue, etc. ).*

Well, as long as you don’t make “form” supernatural or immaterial, as long as the form is the arrangement of the physical material, you’re preaching a subset of physicalism. I don’t think it’s a very useful subset, because although it might just work for an overview, it complicates any more detailed explanation by forcing in unnecessary concepts which often don’t work too well.

*It is not materialism/physicalism which has changed the world or invented T.V… Rather it is science and technology that has done these wonders. Philosophy had nothing to do with it. *

I think you underestimate the philosophical underpinning. The idea that knowledge could be gained* a posteriori* and tested against empirical evidence was philosophical. Its lack of dependence on a priori knowledge may have then resulted in philosophy lite, but I think the basis is still philosophical, even though it’s since changed departments.

Certainly teleology is at work in the actions of every substance, animate or inanimate. But there is no end to which an action can be directed unless there are material, formal, and effecient causes of the substances themselves and all their actions. And ultimately there must be one Universal, First Efficient Cause whom Christians identify as God. And God accounts for the teleolgy or directedness of the entire universe. " In him we live, move and have our being. " He is the Alpha and the Omega of all things.

Anyway, that is my view of the universe.

I think that’s a particular religious view though, since across and outside religions there is no agreement on what the purpose or meaning of things might by, or even if there is any purpose or meaning.

 

[Tomdstone]

We now know that nothing can possibly be at absolute rest,

I thought that God was at absolute rest and was immutable?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

(Snips in quotes are to fit the 6,000 char limit)

I think notions of substances and natures must have sounded very reasonable in a world where most things were not man-made and most people thought the world came about replete with grass and rivers and birds and so on. But in our high-technology world, in a world we now know developed over an immense period of time from a particle soup into trillions of stars and planets in billions of galaxies, it seems naive, more a folk philosophy. There are good reasons why it is no longer the prevailing position and fell out of favor.

I don’t think that a process of evolution defeats the notion of substances, natures which exist. Nor does the existence of artifacts defeat it. Artifacts have an accidental nature designed by the maker. The reason why the notion does not prevail is because it is not taught, generally. But it should be apparent to Christians at least. .

As far as personal identity goes, that’s an ongoing (never ending?) philosophical debate. It’s not difficult to explain how you retain memories even though cells die (the body is good at making new copies). I’m not sure where an immaterial soul fits with hylomorphism, since if the soul is the form of the body (as the CCC says), there is no immaterial component (as there would be with Descartes’ weird scheme).

Life, knowledge, thinking, exchange of ideas are non-material acts which must have a non-material source, the spiritual soul. The soul directs all the body’s actions and all our intellectual acts as well. Perhaps some people do not experience themselves as a unit, but I do.

It doesn’t ignore them, all it does is to make the assumption that everything is physical. Anyone is welcome to try to prove otherwise, but until they do, it’s a reasonable simplifying assumption.

Certainly some do, but surely not all. And I don’t see how Christians who believe in sin could think so, since it is difficult to see how simple bodies could be resonsible for sin.

The basic problem with the change vs. stability and motion vs. rest debates are that they start from unfounded assumptions. We now know that nothing can possibly be at absolute rest, and that what we regard as changing or stable is relative to our scale (and Sta. Teresa recognized that only God never changes ). But even if we didn’t know those things scientifically, from a philosophical point of view they are still unfounded.

The stability is in the nature, not in the material aspects of the bodies. But even bodies, at least living bodies, do experience partial rest, periods when they are not engaged totally with the environment. But natures are always identifiable in some way, and stable in the fact that their natures are identifiable.

Well, as long as you don’t make “form” supernatural or immaterial, as long as the form is the arrangement of the physical material, you’re preaching a subset of physicalism. I don’t think it’s a very useful subset, because although it might just work for an overview, it complicates any more detailed explanation by forcing in unnecessary concepts which often don’t work too well.

" Form " would certainly be spiritual in living things but in non-living things it would be something immaterial, something non-material, but not spiritual, which informs primary matter, turning it into a particular kind of matter. Whatever it is, it directs the activity of every substance and limits its activity thresholds.

I think you underestimate the philosophical underpinning. The idea that knowledge could be gained* a posteriori* and tested against empirical evidence was philosophical. Its lack of dependence on a priori knowledge may have then resulted in philosophy lite, but I think the basis is still philosophical, even though it’s since changed departments.

I don’t think scientists, at least since the beginning of the 20th century, have regarded themselves as philosophers. But if some want to think so I have no problem with that.

I think that’s a particular religious view though, since across and outside religions there is no agreement on what the purpose or meaning of things might by, or even if there is any purpose or meaning.

Teleology is not religious. Anything in the universe that acts acts with a purpose, even non-living things. That is teleology. But nothing can act for an end ( teleologically ) unless it " knows " the end for which it acts and unless it be moved toward that end ( efficient cause ) and unless it be constructed so that it can act ( material and formal causality ). There is nothing religious in those notions. I just brought in religion to show how it conformed to religious thought.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

inocente;12933532:

We now know that nothing can possibly be at absolute rest,

I thought that God was at absolute rest and was immutable?

And God is not a thing.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think that a process of evolution defeats the notion of substances, natures which exist. Nor does the existence of artifacts defeat it. Artifacts have an accidental nature designed by the maker. The reason why the notion does not prevail is because it is not taught, generally. But it should be apparent to Christians at least.

And it isn’t taught because it isn’t true. I like how you try to append a Greek philosophy from 350 BC to scripture, but sorry, no dice, I doubt whether it is apparent to most Catholics, let alone non-Catholic Christians, because it’s got nothing to do with Christ.

Life, knowledge, thinking, exchange of ideas are non-material acts which must have a non-material source, the spiritual soul. The soul directs all the body’s actions and all our intellectual acts as well. Perhaps some people do not experience themselves as a unit, but I do.

I know from other threads that a lot of Catholics prefer Descartes’ immaterial soul, but the CCC still says the soul is the form of the body.

*Certainly some do, but surely not all. And I don’t see how Christians who believe in sin could think so, since it is difficult to see how simple bodies could be resonsible for sin. *

I don’t understand. Sin is turning our back on God.

The stability is in the nature, not in the material aspects of the bodies. But even bodies, at least living bodies, do experience partial rest, periods when they are not engaged totally with the environment. But natures are always identifiable in some way, and stable in the fact that their natures are identifiable.

But that is only about how it feels. The body isn’t objectively at rest, there are all kinds of processes going on all the time. That’s what I meant by calling it folk philosophy, it’s subjective, it cannot describe objective reality, which is another reason why it isn’t taught.

" Form " would certainly be spiritual in living things but in non-living things it would be something immaterial, something non-material, but not spiritual, which informs primary matter, turning it into a particular kind of matter. Whatever it is, it directs the activity of every substance and limits its activity thresholds.

This still sounds Cartesian, but in any event it is unnecessarily complicated. Primary matter with a spiritual conductor for one kind of thing and a non-spiritual conductor for another, spiritual vs. non-spiritual, material vs- immaterial. What have all these boxes got to do with anything, what is gained by all these unnecessary labels, why make all these divisions?

*I don’t think scientists, at least since the beginning of the 20th century, have regarded themselves as philosophers. But if some want to think so I have no problem with that. *

I meant that I think you under-estimate the philosophical ground-shift necessary to get modern science started, some centuries back, the enormous difference between Medieval and Modernity.

Teleology is not religious. Anything in the universe that acts acts with a purpose, even non-living things. That is teleology. But nothing can act for an end ( teleologically ) unless it " knows " the end for which it acts and unless it be moved toward that end ( efficient cause ) and unless it be constructed so that it can act ( material and formal causality ). There is nothing religious in those notions. I just brought in religion to show how it conformed to religious thought.

What I meant is that the particular purposes and meaning you give to things come from your religion. People of other religions will disagree (often those in the same religion will disagree).

But I think you also ignore that for most scientists, and a goodly sprinkling of philosophers, there are no purposes or meanings at all, other than those imposed by people.

 

[Tomdstone]

And God is not a thing.

? Nothing means not a thing. Since God exists He is not nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And it isn’t taught because it isn’t true. I like how you try to append a Greek philosophy from 350 BC to scripture,…[snip]…

The Catholic Church has found it very helpful in explaining verious aspects of the faith including the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ and men in their glorified bodies, the Eucharist, the nature of God and many other things. Not that the faith needs them, it is just that the Church has found them helpful to explain some things. .

I know from other threads that a lot of Catholics prefer Descartes’ immaterial soul, but the CCC still says the soul is the form of the body.

Yes, the Church teaches that the soul is spiritual and is the form of the body. And I realize some Catholics have been duped by modern philosophies.

I don’t understand. Sin is turning our back on God.

The point I’m making is that it is hard to understand how a mere collection of atoms could do evil or even good. It takes an intellect and will to do that.

But that is only about how it feels. The body isn’t objectively at rest, there are all kinds of processes going on all the time. That’s what I meant by calling it folk philosophy, it’s subjective, it cannot describe objective reality, which is another reason why it isn’t taught.

That things have natures by which they can be identified may seem like " folk philosophy " to you but not to a lot of others. Just because moderns don’t like it or don’t want to bothered doen’t mean it isn’t true or worth while.

From a paper by the International Theological Commission by the Vatican.

" III, B. The Genuine Meaning of Today’s Difficulties

1. Many of our contemporaries experience difficulties when the dogma of the Council of Chalcedon is presented to them. Terms such as “nature” and “person”, which the Fathers of the Council use, undoubtedly retain the same meaning in today’s parlance, but the realities they denote are referred to in the various philosophical terminologies by different concepts. For many, the phrase “human nature” no longer denotes a shared and immutable essence; it evokes only a pattern or a summary of the phenomena that, in most cases, we happen to observe in people. Very often, the concept of person is defined in psychological terms to the detriment of the ontological aspect of personhood.

Today many voice even severer difficulties with regard to the soteriological aspects of the Christological dogmas. They recoil from any notion of salvation that would inject heteronomy into existence as project [the plan of life]. They take exception to what they regard as the purely individualistic character of Christian salvation. The promise of a blessedness to come seems to them a Utopia that distracts people away from their genuine obligations, which, in their view, are all confined to this world. They want to know what it is that mankind had to be redeemed from and to whom the ransom had to be paid. They grow indignant at the contention that God could have exacted the blood of an innocent person, a notion in which they sense a streak of sadism. They argue against what is known as “vicarious satisfaction” (that is, through a mediator) by saying that this mode of satisfaction is ethically impossible. If it is true that every conscience is autonomous, they argue, no conscience can be freed by another. Finally, some of our contemporaries lament the fact that they cannot find in the life of the Church and of the faithful the lived expression of the mystery of liberation that is proclaimed. "

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html

This still sounds Cartesian, … it is unnecessarily complicated. Primary matter with a spiritual conductor for one kind of thing and a non-spiritual conductor for another, spiritual vs. non-spiritual, material vs- immaterial. What have all these boxes got to do with anything, what is gained by all these unnecessary labels, …?

You could read Aquinas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima or Feser’s Aquinas. He has a good chapter on psychology where he explains the difference between Thomas’ explanation and Decarte’s. Thomas teaches and the Catholic Church teaches that the body and the soul are a unit, each dependent on the other. Decarte’s taught that the body was a prison for the soul, something the soul didn’t need.

I meant that I think you under-estimate the philosophical ground-shift necessary to get modern science started, some centuries back, the enormous difference between Medieval and Modernity.

It was not necessary to drop philosophy to get science going. That idea was started with Hume. Yes, there is an enormous difference between the Middle Ages and Modernity. Does that mean that Moderns must brush aside the entire corpus of Midieval thought? Seems rather heavy handed to me.

What I meant is that the particular purposes and meaning you give to things come from your religion. People of other religions will disagree (often those in the same religion will disagree).

No, those all came from Aristotle.

But I think you also ignore that for most scientists, and a goodly sprinkling of philosophers, there are no purposes or meanings at all, other than those imposed by people.

Oh yes, but they are wrong. There are a lot of people who think like you because they have never been exposed to the other side; which, if presented at all, was presented much as you usually view it. And if they ever dip their toe in contrary waters, it is under the guidance of someone who will not allow their thinking to stray from the reservation. Or, if they read an unbiased author, they don’t read him to find truth but to find reasons ( not usually unbiased or well thought out ) to reject him. Any excuse will do, you see.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

The Catholic Church has found it very helpful in explaining verious aspects of the faith including the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ and men in their glorified bodies, the Eucharist, the nature of God and many other things. Not that the faith needs them, it is just that the Church has found them helpful to explain some things.

Agreed the faith doesn’t need those specific metaphysics, which is really all I’d argue. It’s only when it’s claimed they’re a necessity that it becomes an issue, since for most Christians, the faith is about the message of the cross and amazing grace.

*The point I’m making is that it is hard to understand how a mere collection of atoms could do evil or even good. It takes an intellect and will to do that. *

But no physicalist would make that claim, since no sane person would imagine her own daughter is equivalent to a bowl of salt water. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The physicalist might also argue that the categories of intellect and will (and perhaps good vs evil) are man-made inventions.

*That things have natures by which they can be identified may seem like " folk philosophy " to you but not to a lot of others. Just because moderns don’t like it or don’t want to bothered doen’t mean it isn’t true or worth while.

From a paper by the International Theological Commission by the Vatican.

" III, B. The Genuine Meaning of Today’s Difficulties [snip]*

The questions I had to snip are all excellent questions which need to be answered.

But if you can only answer them by expecting people first learn a metaphysics which requires them to see the world in terms of substances and potencies and so on, and only then will they be able to comprehend your answers, they’ll accuse you of argumentum verbosium, of obfuscation, of obscurantism, of the Emperor’s new clothes.

Surely the gospel is timeless, and able to speak to all people throughout history, without needing to impose any preconditions about Hellenist or Medieval worldviews? At any rate, Baptists, Pentecostals and a great many Catholics seem to get by perfectly happily with a living gospel which meets them where they are without preconditions.

You could read Aquinas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima or Feser’s Aquinas. He has a good chapter on psychology where he explains the difference between Thomas’ explanation and Decarte’s. Thomas teaches and the Catholic Church teaches that the body and the soul are a unit, each dependent on the other. Decarte’s taught that the body was a prison for the soul, something the soul didn’t need.

It still sounds Cartesian to me when you said “” Form " would certainly be spiritual in living things but in non-living things it would be something immaterial, something non-material, but not spiritual, which informs primary matter, turning it into a particular kind of matter."

Physicalism makes a clear break with Descartes, while you appear to reckon the difference between Aquinas and Descartes is so subtle I have to read a book to tell them apart. Is that really the case?

It was not necessary to drop philosophy to get science going. That idea was started with Hume. Yes, there is an enormous difference between the Middle Ages and Modernity. Does that mean that Moderns must brush aside the entire corpus of Midieval thought? Seems rather heavy handed to me.

Serfdom. Magic. Disease. No education. No vote. Women as chattel. The divine right of kings. Yes, the middle ages has much to recommend it.

Does your nostalgia have anything to do with a time when society was regulated by the Church and there were none of us naughty non-Catholics around?

But whatever, there was a revolution, what’s done is done, and no one can turn back time.

*No, those all came from Aristotle. *

Wot, Catholic teleology comes from Aristotle?

*Oh yes, but they are wrong. There are a lot of people who think like you because they have never been exposed to the other side; which, if presented at all, was presented much as you usually view it. And if they ever dip their toe in contrary waters, it is under the guidance of someone who will not allow their thinking to stray from the reservation. Or, if they read an unbiased author, they don’t read him to find truth but to find reasons ( not usually unbiased or well thought out ) to reject him. Any excuse will do, you see. *

Now, now, temper temper . You need a conspiracy theory in which, apparently, professors indoctrinate us all into blindly buying into their naughty schemes. Whereas the truth is that in medieval times very few people got any education and may never even have left their birthplace. Whereas we are much better educated and daily exposed to many different cultures and worldviews and ideas.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But no physicalist would make that claim, since no sane person would imagine her own daughter is equivalent to a bowl of salt water. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The physicalist might also argue that the categories of intellect and will (and perhaps good vs evil) are man-made inventions.

The questions I had to snip are all excellent questions which need to be answered.

I didn’t think I neglected anything. If you pick out the points you wanted me to " try " to answer, I will do so.

But if you can only answer them by expecting people first learn a metaphysics which requires them to see the world in terms of substances and potencies and so on, and only then will they be able to comprehend your answers, they’ll accuse you of argumentum verbosium, of obfuscation, of obscurantism, of the Emperor’s new clothes.

It is just that it is impossible to teach a philosophy course in the space we have. I find your reference to the " Emperor’s new clothes " offensive, it is a prejudical remark ( you told me to remind you of these things. ).

Surely the gospel is timeless, and able to speak to all people throughout history, without needing to impose any preconditions about Hellenist or Medieval worldviews? At any rate,

Again the remark " needing to impose any preconditions about Hellenist or Medieval worldviews " offensive and prejudical. I have told you many times they are not absolutely essential and no one is forcing them on anyone.

Baptists, Pentecostals and a great many Catholics seem to get by perfectly happily with a living gospel which meets them where they are without preconditions.

Certainly, probably most. But when the skeptics and non-believers demand an answer that does not depend on faith, it is good to be able give an answer based strictly on reason. That is what A/T philosophy is all about… But you seem to value only Revelation and hard science as having any value. And that is wrong.

It still sounds Cartesian to me when you said “” Form " would certainly be spiritual in living things but in non-living things it would be something immaterial, something non-material, but not spiritual, which informs primary matter, turning it into a particular kind of matter."

Yes it would be spiritual in living things. I do not quite know how to describe the ’ form ’ of non-living things. Certainly it is not material. Neither is it spiritual. A very poor analogy I have used is to describe it as a " program code " God puts into non-living substances which guides them to their proper ends. This could also be the " material laws " that God has placed in them - which could be compared to a kind of program. Thus they act ’ intentionally ’ or teologically even though they do not have intellect or instinct.

Physicalism makes a clear break with Descartes, while you appear to reckon the difference between Aquinas and Descartes is so subtle I have to read a book to tell them apart. Is that really the case?

It is only one chapter out of one book that I thought would explain it to you, it is quite cheap and you can get second hand ones by now. Besides it would be good for you to have the book. But good libraries will have it too. So if you have internet access to a library system you can probably read it on line. I have not paid much attention to these arguments because I am convinced that I am not merely a body with a soul attached.

Serfdom. Magic. Disease. No education. No vote. Women as chattel. The divine right of kings. Yes, the middle ages has much to recommend it.

And are we so enlightened today? I think you are neglecting much of the evil of the modern age.

go to pg 2

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Page 2

Does your nostalgia have anything to do with a time when society was regulated by the Church and there were none of us naughty non-Catholics around?

Since the Ascension of Christ, there have only been a few centuries, limited to Europe and England and Asia Minor and parts of South America when it might be true that the Catholic Church ruled. We could have a long debate about that. But the influence of the Catholic Church has never been as all embracing as you seem to suggest.

But that has nothing to do with my philosophical convictions, I simply am impressed by the power of A/T argument - though I admit I am not the most talented in explaining it. Imelahn, even Juan , does a much better job. Imelahn is a pro and we are lucky he has seen fit to spend some of his valuable time with us. Go back and read his arguments carefully, it would be time well spent.

But whatever, there was a revolution, what’s done is done, and no one can turn back time.

No one wants to.

Wot, Catholic teleology comes from Aristotle?

I don’t think I said that. It is clear from Revelation that all things function teologically, at least it is clear to me. And the Catholic Church supports the view that God guides the world and all that is in it to its proper end and that God is present to us and to all his creation " most intimately, " In him we live and move and have our being. " But the Church makes no specific comment on how God does this.

But philosophy has been speaking speculatively on the subject of teology since Plato at least. A/T philosophy expanded and clarified the concept. But the Church has not adopted the A/T explanation. Although, from time to time, it has found it useful to employ certain concepts from them. But if you think there is a strict dependence of the Church on them, that would be incorrect. Indeed, the Church lived without them for at least 1,200 years, at least on Aquinas’ interpretation of them.

Now, now, temper temper . You need a conspiracy theory in which, apparently, professors indoctrinate us all into blindly buying into their naughty schemes. Whereas the truth is that in medieval times very few people got any education and may never even have left their birthplace. Whereas we are much better educated and daily exposed to many different cultures and worldviews and ideas.

I am not a conspiracy theorists, but one would have to pretty naive to think that those in power in an institution don’t try to hire those who ageee with them. If that amounts to a conspiracy then it is a conspiracy. perhaps some of us are better educated. But I think we are loosing the battle. It takes more than the ability to read and write to be considered educated. My view of the modern age is not so rosey as yours.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I didn’t think I neglected anything. If you pick out the points you wanted me to " try " to answer, I will do so.

Sorry, I didn’t mean that. In the paper you quoted, section III.B.4 “The Genuine Meaning of Today’s Difficulties” contains a list of issues which people could have with the dogmas of the Church. They are all important issues, described in plain language, and they deserve answers from the Church in equally plain language. As the paper says, “This Church is entrusted with the task of letting all human beings, and all nations, share in the mystery of Christ”.

But if Thomists cannot give plain answers, and instead could only tell us that we won’t understand unless we first go on a course to learn their metaphysics and terminology (natures, substances, potentias, etc.) then Thomists wouldn’t be aiding the Church in this task, quite the opposite in fact.

The point I am making is that A + TA metaphysics and terminology have only ever been taught to a tiny percentage of the world, and so cannot aid the Church in its task. Jesus meets us where we are, He doesn’t require us to first study metaphysics or have a high IQ to comprehend the gospel.

(Hopefully you’ll now see that I intended phrases such as “Emperor’s new clothes” and “Hellenist or Medieval” to denote a hypothetical - only if Thomists can’t give plain answers will they be accused of such.)

*Certainly, probably most. But when the skeptics and non-believers demand an answer that does not depend on faith, it is good to be able give an answer based strictly on reason. That is what A/T philosophy is all about… But you seem to value only Revelation and hard science as having any value. And that is wrong. *

But skeptics will point to the various known errors, from celestial spheres to views on women, and ask why they should believe what’s left.

*Yes it would be spiritual in living things. I do not quite know how to describe the ’ form ’ of non-living things. Certainly it is not material. Neither is it spiritual. A very poor analogy I have used is to describe it as a " program code " God puts into non-living substances which guides them to their proper ends. This could also be the " material laws " that God has placed in them - which could be compared to a kind of program. Thus they act ’ intentionally ’ or teologically even though they do not have intellect or instinct. *

This is what I mean about clear answers. If a Thomist can’t give a clear explanation of form, how are the rest of us supposed to understand? Then, I could go on and ask why not simply one kind of form, what are the exact definitions of living and non-living, why are proper ends necessary, where is this “program code” stored and how is it executed, and so on. You may not realize how complicated and foggy it sounds.

*It is only one chapter out of one book that I thought would explain it to you, it is quite cheap and you can get second hand ones by now. Besides it would be good for you to have the book. But good libraries will have it too. So if you have internet access to a library system you can probably read it on line. I have not paid much attention to these arguments because I am convinced that I am not merely a body with a soul attached. *

If it’s so subtle then it’s no wonder that many Catholics I’ve met on CAF subscribe to Descartes’ version rather than Aquinas.

And are we so enlightened today? I think you are neglecting much of the evil of the modern age.

We’re human and humans are not perfect. I think you’d have a hard time trying to argue that the Middle Ages was a utopia or more enlightened an age than now.

Since the Ascension of Christ, there have only been a few centuries, limited to Europe and England and Asia Minor and parts of South America when it might be true that the Catholic Church ruled. We could have a long debate about that. But the influence of the Catholic Church has never been as all embracing as you seem to suggest.

I’d say the Church was unquestionably once a stabilizing power in Europe.

I don’t think I said that. It is clear from Revelation that all things function teologically, at least it is clear to me. And the Catholic Church supports the view that God guides the world and all that is in it to its proper end and that God is present to us and to all his creation " most intimately, " In him we live and move and have our being. " But the Church makes no specific comment on how God does this.

Whether there are “proper ends” and whether God guides the world are other issues which people might have. For example, the Problem of Evil (why does God permit suffering) and so on are live issues inside and outside the Church.

But philosophy has been speaking speculatively on the subject of teology since Plato at least. A/T philosophy expanded and clarified the concept. But the Church has not adopted the A/T explanation. Although, from time to time, it has found it useful to employ certain concepts from them. But if you think there is a strict dependence of the Church on them, that would be incorrect. Indeed, the Church lived without them for at least 1,200 years, at least on Aquinas’ interpretation of them.

Then the view expressed in the OP is not the Church’s, and the issue still seems to be about teleology rather than matter and/or form.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sorry, I didn’t mean that. In the paper you quoted, section III.B.4 “The Genuine Meaning of Today’s Difficulties” contains a list of issues which people could have with the dogmas of the Church. They are all important issues, described in plain language, and they deserve answers from the Church in equally plain language. As the paper says, “This Church is entrusted with the task of letting all human beings, and all nations, share in the mystery of Christ”

I see now. But I am not sure these issues can be explained in plane or simple language. But to begin with the Incarnation, I think one has to begin with the reasons for belief. The Catholic Church claims to be the official voice of God in matters of faith and morals. The reasons one would place their faith in the Catholic Church are many and I am sure you are aware of the basic one, that the Church is the Church founded by Christ and the one he promised to remain in, guiding it to all truth until the end of the world.

O.K. then. You know that heresies began to spring up soon after Pentecost and have grown and persisted to this day. One of these heresies was when some denied the Divinity of Christ and tried to explain Christ in terms which simply didn’t add up. So the Council of Chalcedon declared that Jesus Christ was both true God and true man, that he was possessed of a ture human nature and a true Divine nature but in such a way that there was only one Person and that this Person was the Second Person of the Trinity. This meant that though Christ performed true human actions, lived a true human life, thought with real human thoughts, he also performed Divine actions and had Divine thoughts and knowledge, and whether he was performing human actions or Divine, it was always the Second Person of the Trinity who did all and to whom all his actions are attributable.

All Catholics need do is submit their heart, mind, and soul to this teaching based on the trust they automatically place in the Divine foundation of the Church. In that way one does not need to understand the philosophical problems this causes moderns. Because no matter what, nothing can be contrary to God’s Revealed Word.

So one does not have to be a philosopher, all one needs is faith and the humility to accept the fact that the Incarnation is a miracle of the highest order and does not need to be understood in an absolute sense. All one needs to do is accept the truth of the teaching out of obedience to the faith.

Now I can explain what human nature, and Personhood and hypostasis mean but you probably would object on the grounds that my explanation was not convincing. And as you say, that would be the case with many moderns. That is why I gave you some references. At any rate the terms nature, person, hypostasis are closely related to the terms substance and supposit.

A substance ( and here I mean First Substance, that which can be sensed as opposed to Second Substance, which is the underlying matter-form structure of First Substance) is the concrete thing or A concrete, unified thing which lacks nothing required by its nature ( a man, for instance, must have a body and an intellectual soul ), or what is needed for the full achievement of all the perfections of that nature ( for a man, to be able to nourish, grow, reach intellectual and social maturity, to act freely, to reproduce, etc. ). It must also be independent of all other beings insofar as its existence in itself is concerned, and incommunicabe ( i.e. its incapability of being subsumed into other beings) and it must be the subject of all its perfections - they exist because of the subject and depend on it for existence and functionality.

And a human person would be a single substance having a human nature, a body and intellectual soul, it would be a single supposit or hypostasis. The Divine Person of the Son in the Trinity would be the Divine nature existing in the Person of the Son. And when the Divine nature of the Son is united to the human nature of Jesus Christ, you get the man Who was the Second Person of the Trinity, you get one Person, with two natures. But because this is a miracle, the human nature has been subsumed by the Divine, and you get one Person and one substance, one supposit, one hypostasis, not two…

For Thomas a true human being is a supposit or hypostasis having a human nature and is a single concrete unit he calls a person. The Church addopted these terms when defining what she meant by Christ’s Incarnation. So Jesus Christ is one supposit or hypostasis, one Divine Person, with two natures, one human, one Divine. The miracle here is the the Divine Second Person of the Trinity subsumed a human nature, a human body and rational soul.

And a human person is also, by way of definition, is a substance composed of a body and a rational soul. And this soul is his form, it is what gives the body existence, it is what makes the body functioin, it is what makes man able to think, reason, will, to wonder, etc, and together they unite to form one human person. The body is nothing without the soul and the soul isn’t much without the body. When separated from the body at death the soul pines for its body, for what made him a man.

Will stop here for now.

Linus2nd .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…[snip]…But if Thomists cannot give plain answers, and instead could only tell us that we won’t understand unless we first go on a course to learn their metaphysics and terminology (natures, substances, potentias, etc.) then Thomists wouldn’t be aiding the Church in this task, quite the opposite in fact.

Did you understand what I said in the last post? Not that you should accept it but that you understood what I said. Acceptance is a different issue. I don’t think it hurts discussing these things and I can’t see how it harms the Church. No Catholic is bound to agree with anything A or T said except where it touches the Revelation of God or has a direct relationship to it. Catholics would be obliged, for example, to believe that each man has a rational soul created directly by God and that it is the form of the body. They would also be required to believe that Jesus Christ was the Second Person of the Trinity Incanated with a human nature and that in Jesus Christ the Divine nature subsumed the human nature in such a manner that the man Jesus Christ was true man and true God.

The point I am making is that A + TA metaphysics and terminology have only ever been taught to a tiny percentage of the world, and so cannot aid the Church in its task. Jesus meets us where we are, He doesn’t require us to first study metaphysics or have a high IQ to comprehend the gospel.

It aids those who can understand it and it aids the Theology of the Church. But not every one takes part in this and they are not expected to. Yes, Jesus meets us where we are and I agree that he does not require us to to study metaphysics and does not demand a high IQ. The Church uses metaphysics principally to defend itself against heresies and hostile intellectuals, atheists, etc.

(Hopefully you’ll now see that I intended phrases such as “Emperor’s new clothes” and “Hellenist or Medieval” to denote a hypothetical - only if Thomists can’t give plain answers will they be accused of such.)

Only in certain quarters.

But skeptics will point to the various known errors, from celestial spheres to views on women, and ask why they should believe what’s left.

And we could return the favor in spades.

to be cont.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…[snip]…This is what I mean about clear answers. If a Thomist can’t give a clear explanation of form, how are the rest of us supposed to understand? Then, I could go on and ask why not simply one kind of form, what are the exact definitions of living and non-living, why are proper ends necessary, where is this “program code” stored and how is it executed, and so on. You may not realize how complicated and foggy it sounds.

Yes, I understand how ’ foggy ’ it sounds, it took me a long time before I could understand it. But Catholics are not required to understand all that. But we are required to understand what ’ form ’ means when the Chruch says that, ( I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD ) man

356 of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:
What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. and he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:
What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honour? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223

359 "In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man truly becomes clear."224

St. Paul tells us that the human race takes its origin from two men: Adam and Christ. . . the first man, Adam, he says, became a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. the first Adam was made by the last Adam, from whom he also received his soul, to give him life… the second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. the first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. the last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: "I am the first and the last."225

360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor (God) made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”:226

O wondrous vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God. . . in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of its supernatural end: God himself, to whom all ought to tend; in the unity of the means for attaining this end;. . . in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.227

361 “This law of human solidarity and charity”,228 without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and peoples, assures us that all men are truly brethren.

to be cont.
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

cont.
II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.239

Paragraph 365 contains the De Fide teaching of the Church on the soul as the ’ form ’ of the body, declared by the Council of Vienne in 1655. But it is not to be taken as dogmatic recognition either of the uniqueness of the substantial form as taught by Aquinas, nor as a dogmatic recognition of the theory of hylomorphism of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy ( i.e. moderate realism ). Rather this serves as an example of the Chruch using whatever it regards as having true explanatory value for defending the faith, no matter its source. But the sections I have given you from the Catechism should give good enough reasons for why the Church has declared De Fide that the soul is the form of the human body.

But the Church has no views on the ’ forms ’ of animals, vegetation, or of inanimate substances. What Thomas and Aristotle taught on these matters is speculation and must be battled in the forum of ideas. So I won’t go into them any more unless you want me to.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…[snip]…
If it’s so subtle then it’s no wonder that many Catholics I’ve met on CAF subscribe to Descartes’ version rather than Aquinas.

I think it is that many of them do not understand clearly the differences between the teaching of the two. In fact I have not read Descartes and don’t have any desire to do so and besides my remaining years are not all that long that I can waste my time on somethilng I have no interest in.

We’re human and humans are not perfect. I think you’d have a hard time trying to argue that the Middle Ages was a utopia or more enlightened an age than now.

I never suggested that it was, I just said we should not regard ourselves as either morally or intellectually superior. That could be argued until the cows come home and beyond and I don’t want to attempt it.

I’d say the Church was unquestionably once a stabilizing power in Europe.

Yes, but one would have to say that that ended with the Reformation, the stability of Europe has gone down hill since then.

Whether there are “proper ends” and whether God guides the world are other issues which people might have.

Yes, it is one of the most interesting discussions in Aristotelian/Thomistic Scholasticism. But if God guides and causes everything directly, then why did he create the world?

For example, the Problem of Evil (why does God permit suffering) and so on are live issues inside and outside the Church.

Yes, it is a test of faith no matter what religion one claims. One has to read Revelation very carefully to understand it even a little.

Then the view expressed in the OP is not the Church’s, and the issue still seems to be about teleology rather than matter and/or form.

The O.P. was not meant as a precise reiteration of the Chruch’s teaching on the nature of man, only that man’s soul is a vital, indispensible part of his nature. The rest was merely an argument of my own directed at those who would reduce man to a heap or mixture of atoms to which a soul was added or which developed a soul or which demonstrated that man has no soul.

It was also meant as a defence of the hylomorphic structure of all material reality as opposed to those who claim that the atomic composition of material things obviates the hylomorphic structure of material reality. But as I said, the Church has no teaching on these things. But I think Revelation indicates that I am correct - which I have already discussed.

Of course teleology is involved, man has an end for which he was created, union with God, toward which he directs his steps all his life. But it is man, composed of matter and form ( not matter and/or form ), a human person, a single, living being, who directs his steps ( to dircect ones steps to an end is a teleological action) to God. The two notions are not mutually exclusive.

Linus2nd