Is man just a pile of aroms?

[Linusthe2nd]

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 everthing has to be explained in those terms, certainly not the issues you raised. And I think those in responsible for answering such questions would use arguments or explanations designed to reach people where they are.

As far as " human nature " and similar terms are concerned, if you know of a way to convey the same notion without sacrificing the meaning I’m sure the Church would be glad to hear it.

]QUOTE]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.

I think he used them because he thought they were true and because he also craved certainty. I don’t think he was inventing things, he wasn’t just making things up…

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.

Of course not and that isn’t what Thomas was after either, he was after truth. I see nothing wrong with using the truth wherever one finds it. . .

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.

I guess that is one difference between the Catholic Church and other religions. The Catholic Church uses valid arguments to explain the truth of Revelation wherever she finds them, and actually Augustine is referred to in the Cathechism more than Aquinas…

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

Not sure what you are referring to.

Let’s see if subsequent discussion can shed light.

I don’t hold out much hope of that .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

So, you never trust the opinion of others, take it on faith?

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

It didn’t begin just yesterday, thats for sure. Did it begin with WW2, WW1, the Napoleonic Wars? I could be wrong of course, but that is my opinion.

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.

But I disagree with that. I don’t think that, by our lonesome, we are capable of decerning God’s purposes. We need the guidance of Revelation and assurance from the Church that we are on the right track.

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.

I was being facetious. I’m sure that they regard their children as intelligent and willful, lovable creatures. At the same time they would deny that they have a spiritual, immaterial soul, destined to live forever.

Linus2nd

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t want to disturb the conversation, but asserting that “people are just a pile of atoms” is akin to someone stating that “a house is just a pile of bricks”. In both cases the whole is a lot more than the simple sum of the parts. I never heard of a materialist who would express such a notion.

Even a very simple structure - a carbon molecule - is much more complicated than the sum of its constituent parts (the six carbon atoms). It can be graphite or it can be diamond, depending on the structure (form???) of the atoms.

 

[inocente]

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.

So for confirmation, you guys are saying there’s no difference in kind between the substantial forms of living and non-living things, it’s just that one can also be called soul and the other can’t?

Also could you resolve that other issue from post #55, which I repeat below, thanks:

“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).”

 

[inocente]

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.

Richca will correct me, but I think Aristotle intends that there is only one kind of matter, and it cannot exist without a form. He didn’t know about elementary particles, but in his model each kind would be matter with a specific form (electron, quark, etc.). Different flavors of quark combine to make protons or neutrons, which in turn combine in different quantities to make nuclei of hydrogen, oxygen or whatever.

Now if that’s correct, and if the Wiki article linked in post #61 is correct, then Aristotle could be dubbed the Father of Physicalism.

 

[davidv]

So for confirmation, you guys are saying there’s no difference in kind between the substantial forms of living and non-living things, it’s just that one can also be called soul and the other can’t?

I don’t know why this conclusion is warranted.

Also could you resolve that other issue from post #55, which I repeat below, thanks:

"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.

Why is this a problem? This the definition of death.

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)."

What some people say is sometimes incorrect.

 

[inocente]

I don’t think everthing has to be explained in those terms, certainly not the issues you raised. And I think those in responsible for answering such questions would use arguments or explanations designed to reach people where they are.

As far as " human nature " and similar terms are concerned, if you know of a way to convey the same notion without sacrificing the meaning I’m sure the Church would be glad to hear it.

I think we all know what is meant by “human nature”. We all know that if we read some ancient text, we can still empathize with people who lived in a very different society long long ago. And all moderns hopefully believe that every human has the same value, is equal in sanctity, whether we define that by rights or something else. We all know this is a person:


Steve McCurry’s “Afghan Girl” (Sharbat Gula, at Nasir Bagh refugee camp, 1984)

But if one tries to be rigorous, one finds that the notion is fuzzy around the edges, largely because traits which were once taken as natural turned out to vary by culture. Human nature isn’t what the West imposed on colonies. It’s also problematic as a moral precept since at various points in history, some believed that women, or people of another ethnicity, or people of another class, had an inferior nature.

Of course not and that isn’t what Thomas was after either, he was after truth. I see nothing wrong with using the truth wherever one finds it.

Well, you’re a fan.

inocente;12950978:

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.

I guess that is one difference between the Catholic Church and other religions. The Catholic Church uses valid arguments to explain the truth of Revelation wherever she finds them, and actually Augustine is referred to in the Cathechism more than Aquinas.

You seem to be saying that Jesus needs philosopher apologists, but I think > 99% Catholics get by without them.

I don’t hold out much hope of that .

I too have my doubts, since whenever it has come up on other threads there have been more interpretations of substantial form than at which a stick can be shaken, and I think ultimately Descartes is correct and it is occult, no one really understands what it’s supposed to be. But, we live in hope.

So, you never trust the opinion of others, take it on faith?

Never in philosophy or science, no, that’s against my religion!

*It didn’t begin just yesterday, thats for sure. Did it begin with WW2, WW1, the Napoleonic Wars? I could be wrong of course, but that is my opinion. *

Did what begin? I got lost.

But I disagree with that. I don’t think that, by our lonesome, we are capable of decerning God’s purposes. We need the guidance of Revelation and assurance from the Church that we are on the right track.

You have a religious view, but I think there is no agreed theological position, let alone philosophical agreement. According to Douglas Adams, God’s Final Message to His Creation is “We apologize for the inconvenience”.

I was being facetious. I’m sure that they regard their children as intelligent and willful, lovable creatures. At the same time they would deny that they have a spiritual, immaterial soul, destined to live forever.

It’s also a religious view. The Lord himself says “for dust you are and to dust you will return” in Genesis.

But I think the physicalist might tell Ecclesiastes to lighten up for “Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

 

[inocente]

I don’t know why this conclusion is warranted.

You wrote “The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things is not a soul.”

Did you mean “The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things is not called a soul”?

Or did you mean "“The substantial forms in living things is the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things is not a soul”?

Or something else?

Why is this a problem? This the definition of death.

Some say the soul cannot exist without a body, on the grounds that it is the substantial form of matter, and cannot exist without matter. On this view, if there is no body after death, the soul would be extinguished forever. Others say the soul can be disembodied, that it can exist independently. I’m interested in what Aristotle says.

What some people say is sometimes incorrect.

The link cites Aristotle as saying the soul cannot exist without a body, and the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as agreeing with that interpretation.

 

[davidv]

You wrote “The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things is not a soul.”

Did you mean “The substantial forms in living things is called the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things is not called a soul”?

Or did you mean "“The substantial forms in living things is the soul. The substantial forms in non-living things is not a soul”?

Or something else?

From my perspective and my intent, the subtle difference is a distinction without a difference.

Some say the soul cannot exist without a body, on the grounds that it is the substantial form of matter, and cannot exist without matter. On this view, if there is no body after death, the soul would be extinguished forever. Others say the soul can be disembodied, that it can exist independently. I’m interested in what Aristotle says.

Since I am not a student of Aristotle, I cannot help you with this.

The link cites Aristotle as saying the soul cannot exist without a body, and the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as agreeing with that interpretation.

Being that this is in direct contradiction with Church teaching, I can safety reject this as untrue.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think we all know what is meant by “human nature”. We all know that if we read some ancient text, we can still empathize with people who lived in a very different society long long ago. And all moderns hopefully believe that every human has the same value, is equal in sanctity, whether we define that by rights or something else. We all know this is a person:

The common understanding is the " human nature " means that we are animals with an intellect. Aquinas would refine that to say that we are bodies with a spiritual, immaterial, intellectual, immortal soul which is united with that body so as to form one person, one human being. But the reason we have the same value and rights is not because we have the same nature but that we were made by God, we are all his children and none is more loved than another… I thought Richa did a fine job explaining this in post # 48.

But if one tries to be rigorous, one finds that the notion is fuzzy around the edges, largely because traits which were once taken as natural turned out to vary by culture. Human nature isn’t what the West imposed on colonies.

I think the traits from which define us as rational animals, as defined by Aquinas above, does not change from place to place because that is the way God made us. I don’t know what the West " imposed " on the colonies, " but it was not human nature. What made you say that?

It’s also problematic as a moral precept since at various points in history, some believed that women, or people of another ethnicity, or people of another class, had an inferior nature.

Just because we are made the same way does not mean we are all ideal in our behaviors. That is the mystery of sin.

You seem to be saying that Jesus needs philosopher apologists, but I think > 99% Catholics get by without them.

No, Jesus does not " need " philosophers. " He does expect us to use our talents as best we can. So if we can find a defence for Revelatin or aspects of revelation which is valid, I think he would expect us to use it.

I too have my doubts, since whenever it has come up on other threads there have been more interpretations of substantial form than at which a stick can be shaken, and I think ultimately Descartes is correct and it is occult, no one really understands what it’s supposed to be. But, we live in hope.

People claim not to understand many things. Sometimes that is just an excuse not to be bothered, sometimes it is for other reasons, sometimes it is because they simply can’t understand. Catholics have no option. The Catechism has pretty well spelled it out for us.

Did what begin? I got lost.

We were talking about the supposed decline of the West and when it began. Not really important to the O.P.

You have a religious view, but I think there is no agreed theological position, let alone philosophical agreement. According to Douglas Adams, God’s Final Message to His Creation is “We apologize for the inconvenience”.

That was funny. But I do hope that the majority of Catholic theologians and philosophers hold to the teaching of the Church.

It’s also a religious view. The Lord himself says “for dust you are and to dust you will return” in Genesis.

And God said, " Let us make man in our image. " And God breathed into his nostrils and he became a living man. Being made into God’s image would mean that we would have an intellectual principle of life, a spiritual, intellectual, immaterial, immortal soul. So says Aquinas, so teaches the Catholic Church.

But I think the physicalist might tell Ecclesiastes to lighten up for “Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

And he would be wrong, wouldn’t he.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Richca will correct me, but I think Aristotle intends that there is only one kind of matter, and it cannot exist without a form. He didn’t know about elementary particles, but in his model each kind would be matter with a specific form (electron, quark, etc.). Different flavors of quark combine to make protons or neutrons, which in turn combine in different quantities to make nuclei of hydrogen, oxygen or whatever.

Now if that’s correct, and if the Wiki article linked in post #61 is correct, then Aristotle could be dubbed the Father of Physicalism.

Ho, ho, then the physicalist would be wrong. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

Aristotle believed that bodies ( matter ) were composed of different combinations of air, earth, water and one heavenly matter. But not all bodies had some of each.

I will stick with the elements on the Periodic table. And according to that hydrogen is hydrogen and oxygen is oxygen.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

From my perspective and my intent, the subtle difference is a distinction without a difference.

Since I am not a student of Aristotle, I cannot help you with this.

Being that this is in direct contradiction with Church teaching, I can safety reject this as untrue.

All I can say is that some Catholic posters say a body is needed in heaven, others that it isn’t, some say their pets will be in heaven, others not, and so on. I don’t think the Church forces itself to teach whatever Aristotle said. I’m trying to unravel what he said, and then whether the Church teaches differently.

Richca’s post explained his interpretation of what Aristotle meant by form, so if you’re not a student of Aristotle, thanks anyway for trying.

 

[inocente]

The common understanding is the " human nature " means that we are animals with an intellect. Aquinas would refine that to say that we are bodies with a spiritual, immaterial, intellectual, immortal soul which is united with that body so as to form one person, one human being. But the reason we have the same value and rights is not because we have the same nature but that we were made by God, we are all his children and none is more loved than another… I thought Richa did a fine job explaining this in post # 48.

Nope, Richca’s post was confined to A & TA, he said nothing about Malachi’s assertion that we all have one Father. And nope, the common understanding of human nature is that humans share common traits and feelings. I think very few would agree that the essence of being human is intellect rather than love, mercy, compassion, and very few would define intellect as love, mercy, compassion.

*I think the traits from which define us as rational animals, as defined by Aquinas above, does not change from place to place because that is the way God made us. I don’t know what the West " imposed " on the colonies, " but it was not human nature. What made you say that? *

In the middle ages, it was generally believed that serfs had an inferior nature to nobility. A few centuries ago, many Americans and Europeans believed Africans had an inferior nature, hence the Atlantic slave trade. Up until only a few decades ago, many believed women had an inferior nature to men, and as we both know, that included Thomas. The notion of natures changes according to the morals of the age, it is inherently relativist.

Just because we are made the same way does not mean we are all ideal in our behaviors. That is the mystery of sin.

It’s not about sin, it’s about the lack of rigor in the notion of natures. Some think that there are different races, and that each race has a different nature, and there’s nothing about the notion of natures to stop them. The notion of natures is a human invention, and humans get things wrong. Malachi does not use the notion, instead he asks simply “Do we not all have one Father?”. Paul even has “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation”.

And God said, " Let us make man in our image. " And God breathed into his nostrils and he became a living man. Being made into God’s image would mean that we would have an intellectual principle of life, a spiritual, intellectual, immaterial, immortal soul. So says Aquinas, so teaches the Catholic Church.

“Let us make man in our image” is another issue with the invented notion of natures. The Church doesn’t teach that God has human nature or that humans have God nature.

Ho, ho, then the physicalist would be wrong. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

Aristotle believed that bodies ( matter ) were composed of different combinations of air, earth, water and one heavenly matter. But not all bodies had some of each.

I will stick with the elements on the Periodic table. And according to that hydrogen is hydrogen and oxygen is oxygen.

I’m saying that Aristotle would not agree with your assertion in post #52 that “there surely must be different kinds of matter suitable to each kind of material being” because for him there is one and only one kind of matter. The matter is always the same, it is the form which changes. And that’s cool, since we know that E=mc[sup]2[/sup], all matter is energy. But if you are right, and he thought the matter of his elements changed as well as the form of his elements, then he’s not actually saying anything, he might as well stick with either matter or form.

 

[davidv]

All I can say is that some Catholic posters say a body is needed in heaven, others that it isn’t, some say their pets will be in heaven, others not, and so on. I don’t think the Church forces itself to teach whatever Aristotle said. I’m trying to unravel what he said, and then whether the Church teaches differently.

Richca’s post explained his interpretation of what Aristotle meant by form, so if you’re not a student of Aristotle, thanks anyway for trying.

For those posters the say there is no body in heaven are being contrary to Scripture (Rom 8:11.) and Church teaching (CCC art. 988 ff).
If Aristotle said there is no body after death then this is contrary to Church teaching and therefore the Church does not teach what Aristotle said.

 

[Richca]

So for confirmation, you guys are saying there’s no difference in kind between the substantial forms of living and non-living things, it’s just that one can also be called soul and the other can’t?

I don’t have a lot of time right now, so I will say just a few things here. The substantial forms in substances are evidently not all the same which is why there are different things and species of things such as rocks, plants, brute animals, and human beings. Obviously, an ant is not the same as an elephant though they both have souls since they are living things. They have different soul, substantial forms which makes one an ant and the other an elephant. And earth or a rock is not the same as a plant, we can distinguish that the one is a non-living substance and the other is a living substance.

Also could you resolve that other issue from post #55, which I repeat below, thanks:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Nope, Richca’s post was confined to A & TA, he said nothing about Malachi’s assertion that we all have one Father. And nope, the common understanding of human nature is that humans share common traits and feelings. I think very few would agree that the essence of being human is intellect rather than love, mercy, compassion, and very few would define intellect as love, mercy, compassion.

I realize he said nothing about the fact that we have one Father. I said that to explain why we are all brothers and should show love, mercy, compassion, etc. for one another. And another reason is that we are made in God’s " image and likeness, " which means that we are to be holy as God is holy. Richa spoke about human nature, the soul, and form in post # 48, and he just posted again ( # 72 ) which expands more on those things. And he does a very good job.

The human traits and feelings you speak of come from our nature as intelligent beings with a free will. The fact that we do not always or perhaps seldom live up to God’s image which is in us, is due to original sin and personal sin.

In the middle ages, it was generally believed that serfs had an inferior nature to nobility.

I’m sure that the serfs never thought that though . And the Church never thought that.

A few centuries ago, many Americans and Europeans believed Africans had an inferior nature, hence the Atlantic slave trade.

True enough, but aren’t you leaving out the other 2/3rds or the world, in which that feeling was even more prevelant?

Up until only a few decades ago, many believed women had an inferior nature to men, and as we both know, that included Thomas.

If you are still arguing that these things prove the superiority of the modern age, that is a very narrow stick by which to measure. And it still leaves out that pesky other 2/3rds of the world. Sorry, I can’t buy that.

The notion of natures changes according to the morals of the age, it is inherently relativist.

Notions may change but human nature does not. Are you going to abandon your faith in God simply because the world does so?

It’s not about sin, it’s about the lack of rigor in the notion of natures.

The notion about human nature is quite clear. The fact that most men are not as good as they should be is all about sin, it has nothing to do with human nature at all.

Some think that there are different races, and that each race has a different nature, and there’s nothing about the notion of natures to stop them.

No one ever claimed that a common understanding or agreement of the definition of human nature would make things any better. All human nature does is enable us to form acts of a human being, to use our intellects. It also determines us to be living creatures that nourish ourselves, to grow, to reproduce. And it also makes the various parts of the body and its various systems function. It does not determine us to be good or bad. Chinese, Indians, etc. have the same human nature as we. The physical differences are accidental characteristics to the common nature and they are mostly, if not entirely, physical. They are non-essential to our " humaness. "

The notion of natures is a human invention, and humans get things wrong.

Nope. It is God’s invention. When he wanted to create man, he created man, he didn’t create a hippo by mistake. And Adam didn’t have a bit of trouble in naming all the different kinds of natures God made. All we have done is apply a name to what God has created.

Malachi does not use the notion, instead he asks simply “Do we not all have one Father?”. Paul even has “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation”.

Well, if the Scriptures were to include all the truths of philosophy and science which God has embeded in his creation by way of giving a detailed explanation to everything he did, would Malachi and Paul ever have had the time to write it all down?

But Paul, here, is not talking about human nature, per se, he is talking about the sharing of God’s life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that comes from believing in Jesus Christ as the Living God and our Redeemer.This has nothing to do with our human nature except that our human nature has a potentiality to receive this grace from God.

To be continued.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Cont.

“Let us make man in our image” is another issue with the invented notion of natures. The Church doesn’t teach that God has human nature or that humans have God nature.

As I said above, God created the nature, we just gave it a name. Yes, the Church teaches that we have a human nature. From post # 35, " 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

The meaning of " Let us make man in our image and likeness " does not mean that we have a Divine nature or that God has a human nature. It means that God, Who is Intelligence Itself, gave to man an intelligent soul, similar to but far inferior to his own.

I’m saying that Aristotle would not agree with your assertion in post #52 that “there surely must be different kinds of matter suitable to each kind of material being” because for him there is one and only one kind of matter. The matter is always the same, it is the form which changes. And that’s cool, since we know that E=mc[sup]2[/sup], all matter is energy. But if you are right, and he thought the matter of his elements changed as well as the form of his elements, then he’s not actually saying anything, he might as well stick with either matter or form.

I disagree. He spoke of prime matter indeed, he also spoke of the kind of matter specific to the form of each existing nature. Certainly, we may be composed of some elemental energy, but that energy takes on concrete, identifiable substances, in different combinations. To me this speaks of specific kinds of matter.

Linusthe2nd .

 

[inocente]

For those posters the say there is no body in heaven are being contrary to Scripture (Rom 8:11.) and Church teaching (CCC art. 988 ff).
If Aristotle said there is no body after death then this is contrary to Church teaching and therefore the Church does not teach what Aristotle said.

No, Aristotle didn’t say that. The link I gave cites Aristotle as saying the soul cannot exist without a body, which you said (post #66) “is in direct contradiction with Church teaching” but now seem to be saying is in agreement with Church teaching.

I’ll take it we are all now of one mind on this, including Aristotle, that the soul cannot exist without a body and therefore souls in heaven is not disembodied.

 

[inocente]

I don’t have a lot of time right now, so I will say just a few things here. The substantial forms in substances are evidently not all the same which is why there are different things and species of things such as rocks, plants, brute animals, and human beings. Obviously, an ant is not the same as an elephant though they both have souls since they are living things. They have different soul, substantial forms which makes one an ant and the other an elephant. And earth or a rock is not the same as a plant, we can distinguish that the one is a non-living substance and the other is a living substance.

Sure, more or less by definition each species of thing has a different form. What I’m trying to straighten out is the difference, in Aristotle’s scheme, between the forms of living and non-living things.

A first possibility is that there are two distinct sets of forms, one for living things, and another for non-living things. In that case the two sets have nothing in common. A second possibility is all forms are in a single set, with those for living things in one subset and those for non-living things in another. In this case all forms share common attributes. And so on.

*That the human soul which is immortal can be seperated from the body is the infallible doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church, so I hold to this teaching regardless of the opinions of others. When asked about the resurrection of the dead, Jesus said, have you never read in the Scriptures “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob.” “He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” We believe that at death when our soul is seperated from the body, comes the immediate judgement of God where our eternal destiny is decided by Him for good or ill. If we have done good, we will enter into eternal life or heaven or possibly purgatory if we need to be purified before entrance to heaven. If we have done evil, we will enter the fellowship of the unhappy fallen angels and hell which is eternal punishment.

[snip to fit 6000 char limit]

Consequenly, we also believe and long for the resurrection of the body where the souls of those who have been seperated from their bodies before the Last Day will again be united to their bodies. It was not God’s original intention that when he created Adam and Eve that they should ever die or their souls be separated from their bodies. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and the penalty of sin is death. By their sin, Adam and Eve lost those preternatural and supernatural gifts which we call the original state of holiness and justice, not only for themselves but for all their descendents. Adam and Eve have passed onto all their decendents a fallen state which we call original sin. However, after their disobedience, God did not abandon our first parents, Adam and Eve, or leave them without hope. On the contrary, God calls them and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and their restoration from their fall (Genesis 3: 9,15). This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first gospel”): the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers. (cf. CCC#410).*

Thanks for that, it was very clear. I think it indicates a difference between Aristotle and Thomas. If we go back to that link I gave earlier, the cited SEP article concludes that:

“In the same way, then, the presence of the soul explains why this matter is the matter of a human being, as opposed to some other kind of thing. Now, this way of looking at soul-body relations as a special case of form-matter relations treats reference to the soul as an integral part of any complete explanation of a living being, of any kind. To this degree, Aristotle thinks that Plato and other dualists are right to stress the importance of the soul in explanations of living beings. At the same time, he sees their commitment to the separability of the soul from the body as unjustified merely by appeal to formal causation: he will allow that the soul is distinct from the body, and is indeed the actuality of the body, but he sees that these concessions by themselves provide no grounds for supposing that the soul can exist without the body. His hylomorphism, then, embraces neither reductive materialism nor Platonic dualism. Instead, it seeks to steer a middle course between these alternatives by pointing out, implicitly, and rightly, that these are not exhaustive options.”

This would almost but not quite work for Thomas, since he also needs to explain how the soul can survive the journey from its old body to its new body. Therefore it seems that somewhere along the way, Thomas parts company with Aristotle.

 

[inocente]

I realize he said nothing about the fact that we have one Father. I said that to explain why we are all brothers and should show love, mercy, compassion, etc. for one another. And another reason is that we are made in God’s " image and likeness, " which means that we are to be holy as God is holy. Richa spoke about human nature, the soul, and form in post # 48, and he just posted again ( # 72 ) which expands more on those things. And he does a very good job.

The human traits and feelings you speak of come from our nature as intelligent beings with a free will. The fact that we do not always or perhaps seldom live up to God’s image which is in us, is due to original sin and personal sin.

I think we’re talking at cross purposes. The fact remains that there is nothing about Aristotle’s notion of natures which prevents us from concluding, for instance, that rather than a single human nature, there is an Aryan race with a different and superior nature to non-Aryan races. We can only avoid such conclusions by stepping outside Aristotle, to scripture or something else.

I’m sure that the serfs never thought that though . And the Church never thought that.

Of course the serfs thought that. If they had not, they would constantly be revolting against the system. The system was stable because in return for working the land, serfs were protected by the Lord of the Manor (physical security) and the Church (spiritual security). Imho it’s a mistake to try to impose our worldview on other periods of history or other cultures.

*True enough, but aren’t you leaving out the other 2/3rds or the world, in which that feeling was even more prevelant?

If you are still arguing that these things prove the superiority of the modern age, that is a very narrow stick by which to measure. And it still leaves out that pesky other 2/3rds of the world. Sorry, I can’t buy that.*

I don’t know what that’s about, but again we seem to be talking at cross purposes. My whole point is that there is nothing in Aristotle which automatically leads to your modern American concept of a single human nature. Come to that, there was segregation less than 50 years ago, with whites thinking blacks had an inferior nature, and it seems many today think homosexuals have an inferior nature. I’m simply saying that, as above, we have to step outside Aristotle if we want to get to all humans being equally sacred, or in your terms, having one human nature.

*Notions may change but human nature does not. Are you going to abandon your faith in God simply because the world does so?

The notion about human nature is quite clear. The fact that most men are not as good as they should be is all about sin,* it has nothing to do with human nature at all.

No one ever claimed that a common understanding or agreement of the definition of human nature would make things any better. All human nature does is enable us to form acts of a human being, to use our intellects. It also determines us to be living creatures that nourish ourselves, to grow, to reproduce. And it also makes the various parts of the body and its various systems function. It does not determine us to be good or bad. Chinese, Indians, etc. have the same human nature as we. The physical differences are accidental characteristics to the common nature and they are mostly, if not entirely, physical. They are non-essential to our " humaness. "

Nope. It is God’s invention. When he wanted to create man, he created man, he didn’t create a hippo by mistake. And Adam didn’t have a bit of trouble in naming all the different kinds of natures God made. All we have done is apply a name to what God has created.

Here you seem to think that the notion of natures was dictated by God to Aristotle, that Aristotle is a prophet who reveals God’s inventions. Sorry, but nope. There is nothing in scripture about Aristotle’s notion of natures. Aristotle was not a prophet, he was not divinely inspired to invent the notion of natures.

*Well, if the Scriptures were to include all the truths of philosophy and science which God has embeded in his creation by way of giving a detailed explanation to everything he did, would Malachi and Paul ever have had the time to write it all down?

But Paul, here, is not talking about human nature, per se*, he is talking about the sharing of God’s life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that comes from believing in Jesus Christ as the Living God and our Redeemer.This has nothing to do with our human nature except that our human nature has a potentiality to receive this grace from God.

Paul doesn’t say we have the potential to actualize an upgrade, he says if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation (i.e. we were one creation in Adam and a new creation in Christ).

Scripture includes everything we need for salvation. It doesn’t include metaphysics or science because they are irrelevant to getting saved.