Is man just a pile of aroms?

[inocente]

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.

Thanks for trying. The explanation of terms such as first and second substance, supposit and hypostasis is interesting, but I think it doesn’t answer the issues which the Church’s Theological Commission raises in that paper.

They are fundamental issues which anyone might raise about Catholicism. Below, I’ve copied each of them from the paper, in italics, and added my interpretations of what is being asked. They are not my issues, remember, just my interpretations.

Answering the issues would be another thread, but as a thought experiment, try giving Thomist answers, and I think you’ll find you can’t. I think Thomism can probably explain technical aspects of the faith to those who understand the terminology, but you won’t be able to use it to give plain-language responses to a wider audience:

They recoil from any notion of salvation that would inject heteronomy into existence as project - Why should my life and continued existence require subjugation to the authority of a hidden deity?

They take exception to what they regard as the purely individualistic character of Christian salvation - If I can only save myself, and cannot save my family or my neighbors or country, then isn’t Christianity selfishly individualistic?

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 - Why bother fighting injustice here and now when justice will come in an imagined paradise beyond the grave? Doesn’t the idea of an eternal life make it pointless bothering with anything?*

They want to know what it is that mankind had to be redeemed from and to whom the ransom had to be paid* - Why should I accept the notion of a deity who arbitrarily imposes a debt on me because two ancestors once broke a rule he arbitrarily imposed on them, and who then gives me a way of escaping this supposed debt? Sounds like a put-up job.

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 - Why did the deity have Jesus killed, especially when Jesus spent his life trying to help the deity?

*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 *- When I do something wrong, it would be immoral for me to get someone else to take the blame and pay for what I did, so how can it possibly be moral for God to have Jesus die for me?

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 - If it is so important to follow the Church’s dogmas, why isn’t there a marked difference between Catholics and the rest of us? Catholics don’t appear to be happier, more moral, longer lived or healthier, so where is this supposed liberation?

 

[inocente]

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.

I sort of understood, but to be frank, and don’t get upset, Thomas always sounds contrived to me. There are deep mysteries about who we are and why we are here, mysteries which everyone encounters, and to me he tries desperately to rationalize them away, and in so doing not only complicates everything but loses all the majesty. It’s perhaps ironic that a physicalist scientist loves mystery, and much prefers not knowing to answers which might be wrong, while Thomas seems unable to live with doubt.

I think that maybe simple Taize chants help many more people than reading Thomas.

*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. *

I think your last sentence doesn’t work, since if Jesus does not require us to study metaphysics, then metaphysics cannot defend Jesus.

And we could return the favor in spades.

But when a skeptic points out errors in A or TA, it’s a fallacy of evasion to return the favor.

to be cont.

My you wrote a lot!

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 [snip]]

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.

I couldn’t find many definitions of de fide, but this gives it as “of the faith: a phrase used in the Roman Catholic Church to qualify certain teachings as being divinely revealed, belief in them therefore being obligatory” and this seems to agree. I can’t see how large sections of the CCC can be obligatory, especially when it puts “form” in air quotes, as if referring to something vaguely but inexplicably not quite like form.

But my question wasn’t about the Church or the CCC, it was “If a Thomist can’t give a clear explanation of form, how are the rest of us supposed to understand?”

And it seems I have you over a metaphorical barrel here.

 

[inocente]

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.

Those who only Kansas know, know not Kansas. Or words to that effect.

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.

If you’ve not read Descartes or other modern philosophers, then I can’t see how you have the means by which to make a comparison.

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

The stability was due to various things, such as the divine right of kings invested by the Church, which underpinned feudalism, with its classes of nobility, clergy, and the bonded serfdom of the peasantry. Strange to hear you lauding that system.

*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? *

I think that’s an argument from incredulity though, it’s not a positive reason. If we look just in terms of logic, as soon as we claim that the purpose is X, we have to defend that claim, and we also have to defend the implicit claim that we are bright enough to discern God’s purpose. We don’t face those issues if instead we claim that the only intelligible purpose and meaning is what we invest for ourselves.

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.

But as I said, I think this is a strawman, as no sane person would ever claim that her daughter is a mere pile or puddle of atoms.

 

[Richca]

But my question wasn’t about the Church or the CCC, it was “If a Thomist can’t give a clear explanation of form, how are the rest of us supposed to understand?”

And it seems I have you over a metaphorical barrel here.

I think anyone who has studied Aristotlelian or Thomistic philosophy can get a pretty good grasp of what is meant by form. In the ST, Pt. I, Q. 105, art. 1, St Thomas says “a form is nothing else but the act of matter.” Matter is potentiality, form is act. Matter and form, potentiality and actuality, are two fundamental principles, constituents, or real features of which every material substance is composed of. The matter of any material substance can potentially be the matter of any other substance, for example, bread can potentially be human flesh. Matter is indeterminate, it is a principle of indetermination, while form is the principle of determination which accounts for the thing being the kind of thing it is. The matter of a human body and the matter of a lion’s body are the same. It is the form which accounts for the one being a human being and the other being a lion. The form determines the matter to be the matter of some particular thing such as a human being, lion, rock, or tree. It is the form which places some thing into a particular class of things. Matter is a principle of individuation. Two lions have the same specific, not numeric, substantial form. They are two lions because each lion is individuated by its own matter.

Aristotle liked to use the example of a sculpted block of marble to illustrate his doctrine of the four causes of a thing. An artisan can sculpt a block of marble into a statue, say of David. The block of marble now has a new form, i.e, a statue of David. This is the formal cause. The material out of which the statue is made is marble, this is the material cause. The efficient cause is the artisan and the final cause is the purpose of the statue, for example, to adorn some building. The above is an example of an accidental change of the substance marble which can take on a number of accidental forms. We also find in nature substantial changes where matter looses one substantial form and receives a new substantial form, for example, if you set fire to wood, you get a pile of ashes where the matter of the wood is now the matter of elemental or compound substances.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for trying. The explanation of terms such as first and second substance, supposit and hypostasis is interesting, but I think it doesn’t answer the issues which the Church’s Theological Commission raises in that paper.

They are fundamental issues which anyone might raise about Catholicism. Below, I’ve copied each of them from the paper, in italics, and added my interpretations of what is being asked. They are not my issues, remember, just my interpretations.

Answering the issues would be another thread, but as a thought experiment, try giving Thomist answers, and I think you’ll find you can’t. I think Thomism can probably explain technical aspects of the faith to those who understand the terminology, but you won’t be able to use it to give plain-language responses to a wider audience:

They recoil from any notion of salvation that would inject heteronomy into existence as project - Why should my life and continued existence require subjugation to the authority of a hidden deity?

They take exception to what they regard as the purely individualistic character of Christian salvation - If I can only save myself, and cannot save my family or my neighbors or country, then isn’t Christianity selfishly individualistic?

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 - Why bother fighting injustice here and now when justice will come in an imagined paradise beyond the grave? Doesn’t the idea of an eternal life make it pointless bothering with anything?*

They want to know what it is that mankind had to be redeemed from and to whom the ransom had to be paid* - Why should I accept the notion of a deity who arbitrarily imposes a debt on me because two ancestors once broke a rule he arbitrarily imposed on them, and who then gives me a way of escaping this supposed debt? Sounds like a put-up job.

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 - Why did the deity have Jesus killed, especially when Jesus spent his life trying to help the deity?

*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 *- When I do something wrong, it would be immoral for me to get someone else to take the blame and pay for what I did, so how can it possibly be moral for God to have Jesus die for me?

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 - If it is so important to follow the Church’s dogmas, why isn’t there a marked difference between Catholics and the rest of us? Catholics don’t appear to be happier, more moral, longer lived or healthier, so where is this supposed liberation?

I’m glad you described this as a thought experiment. I assume you do not want me to attempt an answer here. I’m sure we could find a strictly Thomistic answer, but it would take a bit of work. Besides, this would be way beyond the purpose of the O.P. Actually, what you should want is some explanation based on the Chruch’s own teaching in faith and morals. Again, this would be wavy beyond the scope and purpose of the O.P. The only reason I brought this report up was because it mentioned ’ human nature, " which is within the scope of the O.P.

Linus2nd .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I sort of understood, but to be frank, and don’t get upset, Thomas always sounds contrived to me. There are deep mysteries about who we are and why we are here, mysteries which everyone encounters, and to me he tries desperately to rationalize them away, and in so doing not only complicates everything but loses all the majesty. It’s perhaps ironic that a physicalist scientist loves mystery, and much prefers not knowing to answers which might be wrong, while Thomas seems unable to live with doubt.

I don’t think I would describe Thomas’ style as very exciting, because, as you said, he is striving to remove doubt. But this is exactly what the scientist does as well. And I don’t think you would find the typical scientific paper very exciting either. You may find it very confusing, but I don’t think you would call it a mystery. And of course both the scientist and the philosopher love the search for truth.

I think that maybe simple Taize chants help many more people than reading Thomas.

It may result in more physiological rest and emotional peace, but it cannot provide intellectual satisfaction and moral peace of soul.

I think your last sentence doesn’t work, since if Jesus does not require us to study metaphysics, then metaphysics cannot defend Jesus.

This response does not relate to my comment. It is not the ordinary believer who is involved in shaping Church teaching and answering heretics. So naturally the ordinary Catholic would not be expected to study metaphysics, though many more are doing so today than a few years ago. And remember, answering atheists and non-believers will require more than appealing to Revelation. At least that is my opinion.

But when a skeptic points out errors in A or TA, it’s a fallacy of evasion to return the favor.

But you are assuming that that would be all the answer we would have.

My you wrote a lot!

It seemed to be what you wanted.

I couldn’t find many definitions of de fide, but this gives it as “of the faith: a phrase used in the Roman Catholic Church to qualify certain teachings as being divinely revealed, belief in them therefore being obligatory” and this seems to agree. I can’t see how large sections of the CCC can be obligatory, especially when it puts “form” in air quotes, as if referring to something vaguely but inexplicably not quite like form.

I don’t know why ’ form ’ is in quotes. Perhaps because the meaning is problematical in todays world or because the Church meant something not tied to any philosophy. And I did mention that it was not intended as a dogmatic endorsement of any particualr aspect of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. However, it is not air quoted in the original document of the Council of Vienne. ’ De Fide ’ simply means that a teaching has been formally defined by the Roman Pontiff or by some Council of the Chruch or in some other manner too lengthy to go into here.

But my question wasn’t about the Church or the CCC, it was “If a Thomist can’t give a clear explanation of form, how are the rest of us supposed to understand?”

I presented the discussion on the human soul to illustrate what ’ form ’ meant in regard to man. And really, that is all that is required based on the O.P. Did I fail in that respect? I think that to discuss ’ form ’ in regard to other living things and to non-living substances would take us beyond the scope of the O.P. Though we have discussed it some.

And it seems I have you over a metaphorical barrel here.

I don’t see how, but if it makes you feel better to think so, that is fine.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Those who only Kansas know, know not Kansas. Or words to that effect.

If you’ve not read Descartes or other modern philosophers, then I can’t see how you have the means by which to make a comparison.

I am relying on those whose judgement I trust, who have had their works peer reviewed.

The stability was due to various things, such as the divine right of kings invested by the Church, which underpinned feudalism, with its classes of nobility, clergy, and the bonded serfdom of the peasantry. Strange to hear you lauding that system.

Well the answers to these questions are beyond the scope of the O.P. But there are certainly many learned books on both sides of these issues. I don’t feel the need to discuss them, I’ll leave that to the historians…

I think that’s an argument from incredulity though, it’s not a positive reason. If we look just in terms of logic, as soon as we claim that the purpose is X, we have to defend that claim, and we also have to defend the implicit claim that we are bright enough to discern God’s purpose. We don’t face those issues if instead we claim that the only intelligible purpose and meaning is what we invest for ourselves.

I think Scriptures make it pretty clear why God created the universe and man and that was to give himself glory and he created us to honor and serve him in this life and to be united with him in the next. And it is pretty clear that he gave man an intellect and a free will by which he intended man to seek him out. So we do invest in ourselves, God does not cause us to act one way or another. He expects us to use the intelligence and will he gave us to make our way toward him.

But non-human beings are for another thread or we could just start a thread on the types of causality.

But as I said, I think this is a strawman, as no sane person would ever claim that her daughter is a mere pile or puddle of atoms.

Then you would be wrong, that is why I raised the question.

Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

I am relying on those whose judgement I trust, who have had their works peer reviewed.

Well the answers to these questions are beyond the scope of the O.P. But there are certainly many learned books on both sides of these issues. I don’t feel the need to discuss them, I’ll leave that to the historians…

I think Scriptures make it pretty clear why God created the universe and man and that was to give himself glory and he created us to honor and serve him in this life and to be united with him in the next. And it is pretty clear that he gave man an intellect and a free will by which he intended man to seek him out. So we do invest in ourselves, God does not cause us to act one way or another. He expects us to use the intelligence and will he gave us to make our way toward him.

But non-human beings are for another thread or we could just start a thread on the types of causality.

Then you would be wrong, that is why I raised the question.

Linus2nd

You are far more trusting than myself. Everything that you have mentioned are creations of man…occasionally claiming divine revelation. I, on the other hand, have become one who observes the world in front of me.
In virtually every case, IMO, your view, and what I see, do not line up.

John

 

[inocente]

I think anyone who has studied Aristotlelian or Thomistic philosophy can get a pretty good grasp of what is meant by form. In the ST, Pt. I, Q. 105, art. 1, St Thomas says “a form is nothing else but the act of matter.” Matter is potentiality, form is act. Matter and form, potentiality and actuality, are two fundamental principles, constituents, or real features of which every material substance is composed of. The matter of any material substance can potentially be the matter of any other substance, for example, bread can potentially be human flesh. Matter is indeterminate, it is a principle of indetermination, while form is the principle of determination which accounts for the thing being the kind of thing it is. The matter of a human body and the matter of a lion’s body are the same. It is the form which accounts for the one being a human being and the other being a lion. The form determines the matter to be the matter of some particular thing such as a human being, lion, rock, or tree. It is the form which places some thing into a particular class of things. Matter is a principle of individuation. Two lions have the same specific, not numeric, substantial form. They are two lions because each lion is individuated by its own matter.

The standard dictionary definition of form is the shape, configuration, design or arrangement of something. By this definition, two lions have roughly the same form, but if one looks closer then differences emerge. One has a broader face and so on. The similarities and differences in form continue within the two lions, for instance their brains will look roughly the same on an MRI scan, but there will be many differences in detail.

This is what people usually mean by form, and a physicalist will agree, although she may point out that forms occur at many levels (atoms, chemicals, cells, organs, etc.), and the form of an electron cannot determine whether it is in a lion or a rock, while the form of a lion or rock cannot determine the form of an electron, and so on.

Your Thomist definition then adds the business of act and potencia and such, which is outside the standard definition but fair enough if that’s the hypothesis (and thanks for your explanation btw ).

But Linus then adds another requirement, in post #24, that “” Form " would certainly be spiritual in living things but in non-living things it would be something immaterial, something non-material, but not spiritual". I guess that immaterial and non-material could be synonyms for form here, but we’re then left with spiritual forms and non-spiritual forms, which is a distinction you didn’t make, and which sounds very close the Descartes’ dualism.

And both Linus and the CCC add air quotes around the word form, implying that it doesn’t take its standard definition anyway.

So could I ask you and Linus to agree the Thomist definition, as it seems even more foggy now.

 

[inocente]

inocente;12945711:

But as I said, I think this is a strawman, as no sane person would ever claim that her daughter is a mere pile or puddle of atoms.

Then you would be wrong, that is why I raised the question.

Then it should be dead easy for you to back up your claim with quotes from a couple of well-known physicalists/materialists, to the effect that they regard the people they love as no different than a pile or puddle of atoms.

Will answer other points manaña, sorry, ran out of time, but please see the last line of post #46.

 

[Richca]

The standard dictionary definition of form is the shape, configuration, design or arrangement of something. By this definition, two lions have roughly the same form, but if one looks closer then differences emerge. One has a broader face and so on. The similarities and differences in form continue within the two lions, for instance their brains will look roughly the same on an MRI scan, but there will be many differences in detail.

This is what people usually mean by form, and a physicalist will agree, although she may point out that forms occur at many levels (atoms, chemicals, cells, organs, etc.), and the form of an electron cannot determine whether it is in a lion or a rock, while the form of a lion or rock cannot determine the form of an electron, and so on .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello Inocente,

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Then it should be dead easy for you to back up your claim with quotes from a couple of well-known physicalists/materialists, to the effect that they regard the people they love as no different than a pile or puddle of atoms.

Will answer other points manaña, sorry, ran out of time, but please see the last line of post #46.

I don’t see why it needs to be backed up. If they are physicalists/materialists, then, by definition, they do not believe in a spiritual soul or an immaterial form in man. Therefore, if they do have dauthters, they must regard them as intelligent puddles of atoms. Cute, but just a pile of atoms.

Richa and I do agree.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Very good as always. I would just add that the ’ form ’ also determines the kind of matter that will compose the material elements of a substance ( i.e. Second substance ).

Linus2nd

Thank you. I’m not to sure what you are trying to say here. Matter belongs to the substance of a thing whether we talk about first or second substance. The matter of first substance is individuated such as Socrates has this flesh and these bones. I believe St Thomas Aquinas calls this signate matter. Second substance refers to the universal nature which things of the same species have in common and in this sense matter is not individuated; this I believe is the non-signate matter. However, the universal does not exist except in the individual thing.
For example, if we were to define human nature, we would include flesh and bones; for having flesh and bones is common to all humans and it is a part of their nature and substance. The human nature that each particular human has also includes flesh and bones, but not common or non-individuated flesh and bones as when we are talking about human nature in general, but the flesh and bones that belong to that particular human. The flesh and bones of an individual human belong to the substance of that person.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank you. I’m not to sure what you are trying to say here. Matter belongs to the substance of a thing whether we talk about first or second substance.

I was just thinking that there surely must be different kinds of matter suitable to each kind of material being. For example, one would not find oxygen atoms in a cylinder of hydrogen - except in a contaminated cylider.

The matter of first substance is individuated such as Socrates has this flesh and these bones. I believe St Thomas Aquinas calls this signate matter. Second substance refers to the universal nature which things of the same species have in common and in this sense matter is not individuated; this I believe is the non-signate matter. However, the universal does not exist except in the individual thing.
For example, if we were to define human nature, we would include flesh and bones; for having flesh and bones is common to all humans and it is a part of their nature and substance. The human nature that each particular human has also includes flesh and bones, but not common or non-individuated flesh and bones as when we are talking about human nature in general, but the flesh and bones that belong to that particular human. The flesh and bones of an individual human belong to the substance of that person.

Correct. For some reason I always get the two confused.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I’m glad you described this as a thought experiment. I assume you do not want me to attempt an answer here. I’m sure we could find a strictly Thomistic answer, but it would take a bit of work. Besides, this would be way beyond the purpose of the O.P. Actually, what you should want is some explanation based on the Chruch’s own teaching in faith and morals. Again, this would be wavy beyond the scope and purpose of the O.P. The only reason I brought this report up was because it mentioned ’ human nature, " which is within the scope of the O.P.

I’m not after explanations though. The reason for laboring the issues is that they can’t be answered using the terminology of the OP. One good reason is given by the Commission itself - “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.”

I don’t think I would describe Thomas’ style as very exciting, because, as you said, he is striving to remove doubt. But this is exactly what the scientist does as well. And I don’t think you would find the typical scientific paper very exciting either. You may find it very confusing, but I don’t think you would call it a mystery. And of course both the scientist and the philosopher love the search for truth.

But I didn’t comment on whether it’s entertaining, and I don’t find it confusing. What I said is he appears to me to invent answers because he craves certainty.

It may result in more physiological rest and emotional peace, but it cannot provide intellectual satisfaction and moral peace of soul.

I’m pretty sure Jesus didn’t say Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you intellectual satisfaction.

inocente;12945634:

I think your last sentence doesn’t work, since if Jesus does not require us to study metaphysics, then metaphysics cannot defend Jesus.

This response does not relate to my comment. It is not the ordinary believer who is involved in shaping Church teaching and answering heretics. So naturally the ordinary Catholic would not be expected to study metaphysics, though many more are doing so today than a few years ago. And remember, answering atheists and non-believers will require more than appealing to Revelation. At least that is my opinion.

You missed my point. If Jesus does not require us to study quantum physics and bricklaying, then quantum physics and bricklaying cannot defend Jesus. Metaphysics can only defend dogma based in metaphysics. I’m questioning your assertion that a Church founded by Christ can have theology based in metaphysics when Christ didn’t speak metaphysics.

But you are assuming that that would be all the answer we would have.

It was an assumption-free zone, I just read what you wrote.

I don’t know why ’ form ’ is in quotes.

Let’s see if subsequent discussion can shed light.

 

[inocente]

I am relying on those whose judgement I trust, who have had their works peer reviewed.

I think you may be unique, as philosophy entails critical inquiry, not uncritical obedience.

*Well the answers to these questions are beyond the scope of the O.P. But there are certainly many learned books on both sides of these issues. I don’t feel the need to discuss them, I’ll leave that to the historians… *

Then your assertion that the stability of Europe ended with the Reformation remains unfounded.

I think Scriptures make it pretty clear why God created the universe and man and that was to give himself glory and he created us to honor and serve him in this life and to be united with him in the next. And it is pretty clear that he gave man an intellect and a free will by which he intended man to seek him out. So we do invest in ourselves, God does not cause us to act one way or another. He expects us to use the intelligence and will he gave us to make our way toward him.

But my point was that you wouldn’t have had to write that or any other defense for the alternate claim that the only intelligible purpose and meaning is what we invest for ourselves.

inocente;12945711:

But as I said, I think this is a strawman, as no sane person would ever claim that her daughter is a mere pile or puddle of atoms.

Then you would be wrong, that is why I raised the question.

As I say, when you back up your claim with quotes from a couple of well-known physicalists/materialists, to the effect that they regard the people they love as no different than a pile or puddle of atoms, then you can call me wrong, otherwise it’s just arm waving.

 

[inocente]

Since I think we are discussing the Aristotlelian/Thomistic idea of form, we need to understand what they meant by it, not what the first definition a standard dictionary may give. For Aristotle, the form of a thing means much more than just external shape, configuration, design or arrangement of something. Shape, configuration, arrangement of parts such as in an animal body are accidents (they are forms, accidental forms, not the substantial form) of a material substance which flow from the substance. The substantial form of a thing is the principle from which is derived the proper ordering or arrangement of material parts in a thing. It is what gives unity to a thing and makes it one thing such as a particular dog, horse, or element. For Aristotle, matter is potentiality, it does not act. The form is act, it gives being and existence to matter. The substantial form is what makes a thing what it is, a dog, horse, tree, etc. The matter of a thing is also a substantial part of a thing but it is not what determines whether some thing is a dog, horse, tree, etc. For the matter of a horse could potentially become the matter of a lion if a lion killed and ate it.

Matter by itself, which Aristotle called prime matter, is formless, shapeless, colorless, it has no characteristics, indeed, it does not even exist without form. It is what is called pure potentiality, lacking all actuality. What has actuality is something that has being or existence. For matter actually to be, it must be united with form, for forms are acts. Material forms also have no existence by themselves, they must be united to matter to be. What properly exists or has being from the union of form and matter is the substance or the individual thing. Material substance is composed of parts, namely, the substantial form and matter. But, from this union, one thing results, for example, an individual tree or dog. The individual existing thing is what Aristotle called substances.

All forms are immaterial whether in living or non-living things. The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things do not have a soul. The soul is the principle of life in living things. Non-human living things on earth do not have a spiritual soul or form. Only humans here have a spiritual soul. This is due to the fact that the soul of human beings have spiritual, immaterial powers of intellect and will which can survive the death of the body. The souls of brute animals depend on the body for their existence, it is wholly tied to matter; when an animal dies, their soul recedes back into matter and the now non-living matter receives other substantial forms. The acts or operations of the intellect and will are independent of any bodily organ so it can survive the death of the body. The sensory powers of the human soul or animals such as sight or hearing depend on a bodily organ for their acts and operation; so when the body dies as in brute animals, these powers go out of existence, the soul recedes back into the potentiality.of matter, for the souls of brute animals do not have the spiritual powers of intellect and will.

Thanks for that, it must have taken some time to write. Descartes and others criticized the notion of substantial forms as occult, as having no explanatory power, and Hume criticized it further. But leaving aside whether we believe the notions, and differences between various interpretations, I’ve highlighted a part which confuses me: in the first highlighted sentence you say that soul is a synonym for the substantial form in living things, the soul is the substantial form, but in the second sentence you say there’s a difference between substantial form and soul, since non-living things have one but not the other. Which is it?

Then there’s an issue which has caused various posters problems on threads about mind or soul, the question of whether the human soul can be separated from the body. One group says that the soul can exist without any body, and often seem to think of it as a substance, as in substance dualism. Others say no, a new body is needed in heaven, the soul is more like a property of the body (which is given as Aristotle’s explanation here).

 

[davidv]

Thanks for that, it must have taken some time to write. Descartes and others criticized the notion of substantial forms as occult, as having no explanatory power, and Hume criticized it further. But leaving aside whether we believe the notions, and differences between various interpretations, I’ve highlighted a part which confuses me: in the first highlighted sentence you say that soul is a synonym for the substantial form in living things, the soul is the substantial form, but in the second sentence you say there’s a difference between substantial form and soul, since non-living things have one but not the other. Which is it?

Then there’s an issue which has caused various posters problems on threads about mind or soul, the question of whether the human soul can be separated from the body. One group says that the soul can exist without any body, and often seem to think of it as a substance, as in substance dualism. Others say no, a new body is needed in heaven, the soul is more like a property of the body (which is given as Aristotle’s explanation here).

If I were knowledgeable enough to write what Richca did, I would have phrase it differently:
The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things -]do/-] is not -]have /-]a soul.

 

[Richca]

If I were knowledgeable enough to write what Richca did, I would have phrase it differently:
**The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things -]do/-] is **not -]have /-]a soul.

Yes and thank you. This is correct and is what I meant and is the answer to inocente’s question about the statements I made.