Is man just a pile of aroms?

[Linusthe2nd]

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 can’t agree to that. I think Aristolte defined human nature in clear terms, such that we can conclude that all men, irregadless of race, etc. have the same human nature. However, our cultural environment has a strong influence on how we view ourselves and others. But we employ the same human nature in making those judgments.( al a the thread " how we come to know things. " )

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.

The serfs, whether they could or would revolt, surely thought of themselves as just as human as their masters.

I am not trying ot impose a world view on any one.

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.

Aristotle defined human nature, If he made distinctions based on race, religion, etc, it just showed he made the same human mistakes that nearly everyone has always made, including most of us who would deny the charge, including the people of other races, religions, etc. Those without sin in that regard may pick up the first stone!

A single human nature is Aristotle’s, not one originated by modern Americans. The view of one culture on race, sex, religion has nothing to do with human nature. If a culture regards people as better or worse dependent on these attributes, it just shows how wrong people can be. It does not disprove the commonality of one human nature instantiated in specific individuals.

And human nature was defined by Aristotle.

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.

We certainly can’t rule out that God inspired him, he certainly gave him a fine intellect. And in a sense Aristotle was a prophet. Broadly interpreted, a prophet is one who teaches the truth rather consistantly. Scripture has nothing to do with it. That is a very narrow interpretation.

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).

Is every truth about reality contained in Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say that it contains every truth about reality? No where. Shall we stop thinking then?

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

Incorrect. Everything needed for our salvation is contained in Sacred Tradition, of which Scripture is a part. But the entire Sacred Tradition resides in the Catholic Church, who brings this Tradition to our attention under the guidance of the Holy Spirit…

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

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 think you’re imposing Aristotle onto the CCC. Unless the CCC makes explicit reference to Aristotle, unless it requires that the teaching of the Church be founded on the teaching of Aristotle, there is surely no more reason to impose Aristotle on the Church than there is to impose Aristotle on scripture.

The OED defines human nature as “the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans”, and that would seem fine for the CCC’s purposes, no need to impose Aristotle’s technical definition.

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.

I’m surprised you think this. Aristotle wouldn’t be much of a philosopher, or even a physicist, if after devising his framework of natures, substances, potencias and so on to explain the world, he left the job half-finished. What we all would like to know is what is this stuff he calls matter. Just saying it’s composed of elements doesn’t explain anything, since we then want to know what is this stuff he calls elements.

Anyway, I looked round for articles to support my view, and here are three, in increasing order of difficulty:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_%28Aristotle%29#Book_I_.28.CE.91.3B_184a.E2.80.93192b.29 (last para. under the heading Book I)

faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/zeta17.htm (whole article)

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#WhaSub (keep going until section 12, it’s a marathon)

 

[Richca]

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.

About the one kind of matter, this is correct according to Aristotle/Aquinas. They called it prime matter which is the “stuff” or material all material substances are composed out of. And yes, it cannot exist without form.

Aquinas says in DE PRINCIPIIS NATURAE, The Principles of Nature:
16. Again, notice that prime matter is said to be numerically one in all things. But to be numerically one can be said in two ways: that which has a determined numerically one form, as Socrates; prime matter is not said to be numerically one in this way, since it does not have in itself a form. Also, something is said to be numerically one because it is without the dispositions which would cause it to differ numerically; prime matter is said to be numerically one in this way, because it is understood without all the dispositions which would cause it to differ numerically.
17. Notice, likewise, that, although prime matter does not have in its definition any form or privation, for example neither shaped nor shapeless is in the definition of bronze, nevertheless, matter is never completely without form and privation, because it is sometimes under one form and sometimes under another. Moreover, it can never exist by itself; because, since it does not have any form in its definition, it cannot exist in act, since existence in act is only from the form. Rather it exists only in potency. Therefore whatever exists in act cannot be called prime matter.

For Aquinas, prime matter is pure potentiality. Linus may be thinking along the lines that in substantial changes, substances don’t change into any sort but into specific substances. For example, when I eat something, it does not turn into gold or silver, but flesh and bones. When you mix sodium and chlorine, you get salt, not water or some other substance.

 

[Richca]

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.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

About the one kind of matter, this is correct according to Aristotle/Aquinas. They called it prime matter which is the “stuff” or material all material substances are composed out of. And yes, it cannot exist without form.

Aquinas says in DE PRINCIPIIS NATURAE, The Principles of Nature:
16. Again, notice that prime matter is said to be numerically one in all things. But to be numerically one can be said in two ways: that which has a determined numerically one form, as Socrates; prime matter is not said to be numerically one in this way, since it does not have in itself a form. Also, something is said to be numerically one because it is without the dispositions which would cause it to differ numerically; prime matter is said to be numerically one in this way, because it is understood without all the dispositions which would cause it to differ numerically.
17. Notice, likewise, that, although prime matter does not have in its definition any form or privation, for example neither shaped nor shapeless is in the definition of bronze, nevertheless, matter is never completely without form and privation, because it is sometimes under one form and sometimes under another. Moreover, it can never exist by itself; because, since it does not have any form in its definition, it cannot exist in act, since existence in act is only from the form. Rather it exists only in potency. Therefore whatever exists in act cannot be called prime matter.

For Aquinas, prime matter is pure potentiality. Linus may be thinking along the lines that in substantial changes, substances don’t change into any sort but into specific substances. For example, when I eat something, it does not turn into gold or silver, but flesh and bones. When you mix sodium and chlorine, you get salt, not water or some other substance.

Very good.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with Linus on this one and disagree with your assertion here. Aristotle did not invent nature or the notion of natures, we discover it in the external world of things. God is the one who created all things with their proper natures as we read in Genesis 1:11-13:
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. And so it happened:
the earth brought forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw that it was good.
Evening came, and morning followed—the third day.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you’re imposing Aristotle onto the CCC. Unless the CCC makes explicit reference to Aristotle, unless it requires that the teaching of the Church be founded on the teaching of Aristotle, there is surely no more reason to impose Aristotle on the Church than there is to impose Aristotle on scripture.

No. I’m not ascribing the Church’s teaching to any one, it is simply how the Church understands human nature. The fact that the Church’s understanding is more or less the same as Aristotle’s is not to identify Aristotle as the source. It would be more correct to say that this is what the Church understands from Tradition and from the Scriptures. Similarity of concepts does not entail that one caused the other. The Church is merely reflecting, I assume, on what anyone can read in the Scriptures - as Richa points out in his last post.

The OED defines human nature as “the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans”, and that would seem fine for the CCC’s purposes, no need to impose Aristotle’s technical definition.

Again, I’m not imposing any thing.

I’m surprised you think this. Aristotle wouldn’t be much of a philosopher, or even a physicist, if after devising his framework of natures, substances, potencias and so on to explain the world, he left the job half-finished. What we all would like to know is what is this stuff he calls matter. Just saying it’s composed of elements doesn’t explain anything, since we then want to know what is this stuff he calls elements.

He tells us that matter in its most elemental form does not exist by itself in any substance. Rather it is the most elemental thing out of which the specific matter of any substance is derived as demanded by the form of the substance. For example, the form of hydrogen demands a different kind of matter than that demanded by the form of a man.

Certainly you can fault Aristotle for relying on fire, air, earth, water, and the heavenly element as the elements which compose everything. But it would be unfair to do so, because he did not have the science available that we have had for over a century now. He should get credit, though, for recognizing that there must be different composing elements which determine the matter of each thing.

Anyway, I looked round for articles to support my view, and here are three, in increasing order of difficulty:

I fail to see how they support your view on anything you have said in this post. I did see that they were haveing a great deal of trouble understanding what exactly Aristotle said. That is why I have always said one must always go back to Thomas Aquinas, his own original works and his commentaries. I am not much interested on modern commentaries of Aristotle, one must study Aquinas at the same time. When reading Aristotle one must have Aquinas’ commentaries at hand.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I can’t agree to that. I think Aristolte defined human nature in clear terms, such that we can conclude that all men, irregadless of race, etc. have the same human nature. However, our cultural environment has a strong influence on how we view ourselves and others. But we employ the same human nature in making those judgments.( al a the thread " how we come to know things. " )

Aristotle thinks we are born tabula rasa, in other words born amoral, and all our morality comes from experience a posteriori. Paul disagrees (“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”). Rousseau also disagrees, saying we are by nature born good but are then corrupted. There is no agreement on what constitutes “human nature”.

Aristotle himself believed that some had an inferior nature, for instance: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. …] Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master.” - Politics 5).

*Aristotle defined human nature, If he made distinctions based on race, religion, etc, it just showed he made the same human mistakes that nearly everyone has always made, including most of us who would deny the charge, including the people of other races, religions, etc. Those without sin in that regard may pick up the first stone!

A single human nature is Aristotle’s, not one originated by modern Americans. The view of one culture on race, sex, religion has nothing to do with human nature. If a culture regards people as better or worse dependent on these attributes, it just shows how wrong people can be. It does not disprove the commonality of one human nature instantiated in specific individuals.*

Clearly you’re imposing your modern morality on Aristotle, since whenever you disagree with him you say it’s him who is mistaken. You never think you’re mistaken, it’s always him who you think got it wrong. By definition, that is imposing your morality on him.

We certainly can’t rule out that God inspired him, he certainly gave him a fine intellect. And in a sense Aristotle was a prophet. Broadly interpreted, a prophet is one who teaches the truth rather consistantly. Scripture has nothing to do with it. That is a very narrow interpretation.

Yikes, I know you’re a fan but can’t believe a Catholic thinks Aristotle proclaims the will of God. But you can safely rule out divine inspiration because it is totally inconsistent with your belief that Aristotle made mistakes.

The serfs, whether they could or would revolt, surely thought of themselves as just as human as their masters.

The fact that the system was stable for so long contradicts your notion that serfs thought they were as good. I think it is important to try to understand and have empathy with those who don’t share our own views, rather than impose our worldview on others.

Is every truth about reality contained in Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say that it contains every truth about reality? No where. Shall we stop thinking then?

Non sequitur, I said nothing of the sort. I said, and you quoted me, “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)”.

 

[inocente]

I agree with Linus on this one and disagree with your assertion here. Aristotle did not invent nature or the notion of natures, we discover it in the external world of things.

Well, no we don’t. We discover one God who created one universe with one universal nature.

*God is the one who created all things with their proper natures as we read in Genesis 1:11-13:
Then God said: Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. And so it happened:
the earth brought forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw that it was good.
Evening came, and morning followed—the third day.

The same goes for all the different kinds or species of animals on the fifth and sixth day.

No, we do not discover “proper natures” or substantial forms, or potencia, or any of the rest of Aristotle’s scheme there. I know you guys are fans, but am surprised at you imposing your worldview on the Bronze Age authors of the book of Genesis, as if scripture wouldn’t make sense without your Hellenic subtext.

Beyond Genesis, we can find references to natures all over in Holy Scripture.
"But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all,
and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well. (John 2: 24-25).

I don’t know what translation that is, but am surprised you would only look at one. When I looked at parallel translations, only one uses the phrase “human nature”, indicating that it isn’t in the original Greek. Not to labor the point but:

New International Version - But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.

English Standard Version - But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people

New American Standard Bible - But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men,

King James Bible - But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

Holman Christian Standard Bible - Jesus, however, would not entrust Himself to them, since He knew them all

International Standard Version - Jesus, however, did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English - But Yeshua did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all men,

GOD’S WORD® Translation - Jesus, however, was wary of these believers. He understood people

Jubilee Bible 2000 - But Jesus did not trust himself unto them because he knew all men

King James 2000 Bible - But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

American King James Version - But Jesus did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men,

American Standard Version - But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,

Douay-Rheims Bible - But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,

Darby Bible Translation - But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all [men],

English Revised Version - But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men,

Webster’s Bible Translation - But Jesus did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men.

Weymouth New Testament - But for His part, Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He knew them all,

World English Bible - But Jesus didn’t trust himself to them, because he knew everyone,

Young’s Literal Translation - and Jesus himself was not trusting himself to them, because of his knowing all men,

“Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

Divine nature, not human nature. It comes straight after a reference to “His divine power”, and immediately afterward we’re told how to participate in the divine (“to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love.”)

Again, this is far away from proper natures, substantial forms, and so on. The assertion that the author is discoursing on Aristotle’s philosophy is most strange to me. One of the first things we are taught about scripture is to try to understand what the author was saying to his original audience and never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, to impose our own worldview, but perhaps that’s not taught to all Christians.

The notion that things differ in nature is self evident and is really a matter of common sense. This notion was known to mankind long before Aristotle. The forms or ideas of things, Aristotle inherited from Plato. Accordingly, if you want to ascribe the invention of natures to some person which in my view is not some human invention as if man is the creator of the world, maybe you ought to say Plato.

I skipped the reference to Wisdom as it’s not in my bible. Yes, of course it is evident that things differ, but proper natures, substantial forms, and so on are not self-evident. You and Linus may wish to see the world through the lens of Aristotle’s categories, but I think you would have a hard time finding the evidence to demonstrate that those categories were anything like self-evident to most of humanity from the stone age onwards.

 

[inocente]

Richca;12958429:

About the one kind of matter, this is correct according to Aristotle/Aquinas. They called it prime matter which is the “stuff” or material all material substances are composed out of. And yes, it cannot exist without form.

Very good.

So I take it you changed your mind from post #52 where you maintained that “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”.

 

[inocente]

No. I’m not ascribing the Church’s teaching to any one, it is simply how the Church understands human nature. The fact that the Church’s understanding is more or less the same as Aristotle’s is not to identify Aristotle as the source. It would be more correct to say that this is what the Church understands from Tradition and from the Scriptures. Similarity of concepts does not entail that one caused the other. The Church is merely reflecting, I assume, on what anyone can read in the Scriptures - as Richa points out in his last post.

I think it would be a first-order miracle if the Church independently got to the same understanding of natures, substances, and the rest of Aristotle’s categories. Medieval libraries were full of Aristotle, and Thomas and others were big fans, so that would obviously be the source.

But again I think you’re imposing your worldview on the Church.

Again, I’m not imposing any thing.

Well, you can either prove that Aristotle’s categories are essential to make sense of scripture and/or Catholic dogma, or stop asserting that they are.

*He tells us that matter in its most elemental form does not exist by itself in any substance. Rather it is the most elemental thing out of which the specific matter of any substance is derived as demanded by the form of the substance. For example, the form of hydrogen demands a different kind of matter than that demanded by the form of a man.

Certainly you can fault Aristotle for relying on fire, air, earth, water, and the heavenly element as the elements which compose everything. But it would be unfair to do so, because he did not have the science available that we have had for over a century now. He should get credit, though, for recognizing that there must be different composing elements which determine the matter of each thing.

I fail to see how they support your view on anything you have said in this post. I did see that they were haveing a great deal of trouble understanding what exactly Aristotle said. That is why I have always said one must always go back to Thomas Aquinas, his own original works and his commentaries. I am not much interested on modern commentaries of Aristotle, one must study Aquinas at the same time. When reading Aristotle one must have Aquinas’ commentaries at hand.*

Well I don’t know now whether you agree with Richca or not. The other day you said you don’t read any philosophy more modern than Aristotle or Thomas, now you say you won’t even read any modern commentaries. You say Aristotle and Thomas are wrong when their moralities don’t agree with your own. You assert that Aristotle’s metaphysics could have been divinely inspired. You seem to think scripture is incomplete without Aristotle’s Categories. Your OP tries to make materialism into nihilism. So OK, I learned a number of things about you and have spent a lot of time responding on this thread.

I still think the basic issue here is not to do with physicalism vs. Scholasticism, it’s about whether it is better to try to understand other worldviews and see what is valid in them, or better to impose our own meanings and purposes on others.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So I take it you changed your mind from post #52 where you maintained that “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”.

No because prime matter never actually exists. What exists is some kind of matter that is derivied from this universal potence. I still maintain that oxygen is a different kind of matter from hydrogen, and man is composed of a complex " kinds " of matter which are not substances as they compose the material aspect of man. But that is just my opinion.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

No because prime matter never actually exists. What exists is some kind of matter that is derivied from this universal potence. I still maintain that oxygen is a different kind of matter from hydrogen, and man is composed of a complex " kinds " of matter which are not substances as they compose the material aspect of man. But that is just my opinion.

Linus2nd

This wouldn’t be matter as understood by Aristotle/Aquinas. What distinguishes the element of hydrogen from the element of oxygen is not the matter per se for both are composed out of prime matter, but the form. I say per se because matter individuates the form, i.e., two atoms of oxygen are individuated by having their own “bits or parcels” of prime matter. Prime matter is the bearer of subject of the substantial form. The different elements such as earth or water or “kinds” of matter your thinking about in compound substances such as the human body, exists only virtually in the body as St Thomas holds, and not substantially. For there is only one substantial form in a material substance which united to prime matter makes a thing one substance and one thing, for example, an individual lion. Otherwise, an individual lion would not be one thing or an individual but some kind of mixture of substances or individuals. However, the very idea of first substance in Aristotle is that it is an individual thing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think it would be a first-order miracle if the Church independently got to the same understanding of natures, substances, and the rest of Aristotle’s categories. Medieval libraries were full of Aristotle, and Thomas and others were big fans, so that would obviously be the source.

But again I think you’re imposing your worldview on the Church.

Why would it be a miracle? If God created the world a certain way and Adam was able to recognize it, why not the Chruch and Aristotle?
So the Church is guilty of intellectual palagerism because it expresses ideas similar to Aristotle’s? Seems illogical to me. Well, I can’t help what you think.

Well, you can either prove that Aristotle’s categories are essential to make sense of scripture and/or Catholic dogma, or stop asserting that they are.

Good grief, I never asserted that . I said they were helpful at times.

Well I don’t know now whether you agree with Richca or not. The other day you said you don’t read any philosophy more modern than Aristotle or Thomas

I never said that. Obviously I read Thomistic authors and have read many such.

,

now you say you won’t even read any modern commentaries.

I should have said " modern commentaries criticle of Aristotle and Aquinas. " I just don’t have time for that. Sorry.

You say Aristotle and Thomas are wrong when their moralities don’t agree with your own

This seems to be your day for putting words in my mouth. I never said that, that idea came from your own fertile imagination. I disagree with their morality when it is opposed to the teaching of the Church or the clear meaning of Scripture.

You assert that Aristotle’s metaphysics could have been divinely inspired.

I think God even inspires me some times. I think he inspires all of us at times, he constantly prods our conscience for example. And we know he has the power to move the intellect. What he will not do is move the will. Yes, I think even Muslims and heathens can be " inspired. " The Angel Gabriel told Daniel that Cyrus, King of the Persians, resisted him 21 days and it was only with the help of Michael, the Archangel, that Cyrus was moved to wage war against Babylon. ( Daniel 10-13 ). And the Scriptures are full of God’s inspiration and communication to men, both in the Old and New Testament.

You seem to think scripture is incomplete without Aristotle’s Categories.

No I don’t, I just point out that Scripture is obviously speaking about what Aristotle would much later call ’ substances ’ or ’ natures. ’

Your OP tries to make materialism into nihilism.

I don’t know about that but materialism sure doesn’t lead to the Promised Land.

So OK, I learned a number of things about you and have spent a lot of time responding on this thread.

And I return the compliment .

I still think the basic issue here is not to do with physicalism vs. Scholasticism, it’s about whether it is better to try to understand other worldviews and see what is valid in them, or better to impose our own meanings and purposes on others.

Well, my only intention was to defend the validity of the concept of ’ nature, ’ as understood by A & T. It is fine to try to understand other world views. And I am not trying to impose my world view on anyone. I can present it, they can either accept it or reject it. That is not an imposition. But if their is such a thing as truth ( and I am certain that there is ), then it is certainly worth talking about.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This wouldn’t be matter as understood by Aristotle/Aquinas.

I never said that oxygen and hydrogen were prime matter.

What distinguishes the element of hydrogen from the element of oxygen is not the matter per se for both are composed out of prime matter, but the form.

The form of each determines the signate matter suitable to the form. Yes, both come out of the potentiality of prime matter. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to say that both elements were composed out of prime matter. Prime matter and form ( Second substance ) issue in signate matter and species ( First Substance ). And I would say that each is distinguished from the other by both form and matter.

I say per se because matter individuates the form, i.e., two atoms of oxygen are individuated by having their own “bits or parcels” of prime matter.

I think this is wrong. Rather thinking of " bits or parcels " of prime mater, I think we should think of all that can be thought of in relation to material bodies, for instance, how prime matter can be configured to meet the demands of the specific form, mass, specific gravity, potentiality for acting on other substances or receiving such influence, etc.

Prime matter is the bearer of subject of the substantial form.

Not sure I agree to that and what difference does it make?

The different elements such as earth or water or “kinds” of matter your thinking about in compound substances such as the human body, exists only virtually in the body as St Thomas holds, and not substantially.

Of course, I hope I didn’t imply any thing else.

For there is only one substantial form in a material substance which united to prime matter makes a thing one substance and one thing, for example, an individual lion. Otherwise, an individual lion would not be one thing or an individual but some kind of mixture of substances or individuals. However, the very idea of first substance in Aristotle is that it is an individual thing.

I agree with all that.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

Quote: originally from Richca:
Prime matter is the bearer of subject of the substantial form.

Not sure I agree to that and what difference does it make?

This is the metaphysical doctrine of Aristotle/Aquinas. It took me a while to understand it, at least I think I do to some degree, so I can relate to someone (not necessarily meaning you) who may not comprehend at first glance what is meant by “prime matter is the bearer or subject of the substantial form.” I will try to offer some explanation to the best of my ability.

Prime (first) matter means there is no other matter before it. It is a principle. The two most basic or fundamental principles besides that of the act of being and the essence of a material substance are the substantial form and matter, and more specifically, prime matter. Why prime matter? Because if a substance is a composite of already informed matter, i.e., elemental substances, then a thing is a conglomeration of substances, a pile of atoms. A thing would have an accidental unity and not a substantial unity. The substantial form is the act and form of the entire matter of a thing and this constitutes the substance which is an individual thing. This matter of the substance then is called prime matter because the substantial form is the act and form of it. The substantial form is not on top of, so to speak, already informed matter or elemental substances which would make a thing a pile of substances. On the contrary, the substance is that “which stands under.”

So, the difference, I think, that it makes is whether we consider an individual human being, for example, to be one person and one being, or a pile of aroms.

You can try your best to understand this. I think I understand what I’m trying to say, but it seems difficult to put it into words.

 

[inocente]

No because prime matter never actually exists. What exists is some kind of matter that is derivied from this universal potence. I still maintain that oxygen is a different kind of matter from hydrogen, and man is composed of a complex " kinds " of matter which are not substances as they compose the material aspect of man. But that is just my opinion.

Modern science demands one and only one kind of matter, since otherwise there would be all manner of difficulties: How could hydrogen fuse into helium within stars, and how could heavier elements be produced, if they were not all the same kind of matter? How could different kinds of matter somehow preexist the big bang in exactly the proportions we see today? Why would those particular kinds exist and not others? And so on.

Different kinds of matter would also have given Aristotle big problems, for much the same reason - it would leave him with more questions than answers.

A materialist/physicalist would have no issue at all with Aristotle on this point, so it’s surprising that a devotee of Aristotle does.

Why would it be a miracle? If God created the world a certain way and Adam was able to recognize it, why not the Chruch and Aristotle?
So the Church is guilty of intellectual palagerism because it expresses ideas similar to Aristotle’s? Seems illogical to me. Well, I can’t help what you think.

Now, now. You said just a few days ago that you never read any philosophers except A & TA. Therefore it’s not surprising that you see everything through the lens of A & TA. But your notion that Adam and Aristotle saw the world in the same way is far out of left field.

There are two very different things here:

1. There’s what is obvious to everyone who ever lived, that there are different kinds of plants and animals and so on.
2. Then there’s Aristotle’s detailed metaphysical theory, with his accidents, material causes, formal causes, efficient causes, final causes, substances, essences, species, natures, substantial forms, potencies, actualities, primary matter, universals, particulars, etc., etc. etc.

These are two very different things. It does Aristotle a disservice to reduce his analysis to the level of what was obvious to everyone who ever lived. Nor is it sensible to suggest that Apaches and Mongols and Aztecs saw the world in terms of primary matter, substantial forms, actualities and so on. It would be a first order miracle if just one person independently came to the exact same complicated analysis as Aristotle.

So anyone who imagines that God is, or Adam or John the Baptist was, a Scholastic might just need to take off their Scholastic[sup]®[/sup] Special Glasses.

Anyway, I think we’ve done this point to death now. I would say that unless we’re open to other philosophies and other worldviews, we cannot uncover the meaning of scripture or understand other people and cultures, since we will only see what we want to see. You have the last word.

I should have said " modern commentaries criticle of Aristotle and Aquinas. " I just don’t have time for that. Sorry.

You may not have meant it this way, but it sounds cosy in that bubble.

This seems to be your day for putting words in my mouth. I never said that, that idea came from your own fertile imagination. I disagree with their morality when it is opposed to the teaching of the Church or the clear meaning of Scripture.

You said, and I quote, “Aristotle defined human nature, If he made distinctions based on race, religion, etc, it just showed he made the same human mistakes that nearly everyone has always made”. You wouldn’t be calling them mistakes unless you were sure you were right and he was wrong. The defense rests.

Well, my only intention was to defend the validity of the concept of ’ nature, ’ as understood by A & T. It is fine to try to understand other world views. And I am not trying to impose my world view on anyone. I can present it, they can either accept it or reject it. That is not an imposition. But if their is such a thing as truth ( and I am certain that there is ), then it is certainly worth talking about.

I think you can’t attack a philosophy without having first understood why it has adherents. The attractions of physicalism include its minimalistic simplicity and monism. It is basically the null hypothesis, the default position which has least to defend. I don’t think you can mount a successful attack against it with Aristotle’s categories, they are so complicated that even fans can’t agree on interpretation (as evidenced on this and the “How do we” thread).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It would seem that man is more than just a pile of atoms. For one thing, atoms in their own right cannot design. In fact, it is the atoms that appear to be designed to vary one from another.

Yet nature has designed man, and man learns to design nature. Where does this power of design come from if not atoms? Science cannot answer this question, but philosophy can.

The principle of design (and its expression in order) can only come from a power greater than Nature which has infused Nature with design, and that power Aquinas called God. If that principle of design (and order) did not exist, all would be chaos.

So man (and all of Nature) is not just a pile of atoms.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Modern science demands one and only one kind of matter, since otherwise there would be all manner of difficulties: How could hydrogen fuse into helium within stars, and how could heavier elements be produced, if they were not all the same kind of matter? How could different kinds of matter somehow preexist the big bang in exactly the proportions we see today? Why would those particular kinds exist and not others? And so on.

Different kinds of matter would also have given Aristotle big problems, for much the same reason - it would leave him with more questions than answers.

A materialist/physicalist would have no issue at all with Aristotle on this point, so it’s surprising that a devotee of Aristotle does.

Now, now. You said just a few days ago that you never read any philosophers except A & TA. Therefore it’s not surprising that you see everything through the lens of A & TA. But your notion that Adam and Aristotle saw the world in the same way is far out of left field.

There are two very different things here:

1. There’s what is obvious to everyone who ever lived, that there are different kinds of plants and animals and so on.
2. Then there’s Aristotle’s detailed metaphysical theory, with his accidents, material causes, formal causes, efficient causes, final causes, substances, essences, species, natures, substantial forms, potencies, actualities, primary matter, universals, particulars, etc., etc. etc.

These are two very different things. It does Aristotle a disservice to reduce his analysis to the level of what was obvious to everyone who ever lived. Nor is it sensible to suggest that Apaches and Mongols and Aztecs saw the world in terms of primary matter, substantial forms, actualities and so on. It would be a first order miracle if just one person independently came to the exact same complicated analysis as Aristotle.

So anyone who imagines that God is, or Adam or John the Baptist was, a Scholastic might just need to take off their Scholastic[sup]®[/sup] Special Glasses.

Anyway, I think we’ve done this point to death now. I would say that unless we’re open to other philosophies and other worldviews, we cannot uncover the meaning of scripture or understand other people and cultures, since we will only see what we want to see. You have the last word.

You may not have meant it this way, but it sounds cosy in that bubble.

You said, and I quote, "Aristotle defined human nature, If he made distinctions based on race, religion, etc, it just showed he made the same human mistakes that nearly everyone has always made". You wouldn’t be calling them mistakes unless you were sure you were right and he was wrong. The defense rests.

I think you can’t attack a philosophy without having first understood why it has adherents. The attractions of physicalism include its minimalistic simplicity and monism. It is basically the null hypothesis, the default position which has least to defend. I don’t think you can mount a successful attack against it with Aristotle’s categories, they are so complicated that even fans can’t agree on interpretation (as evidenced on this and the “How do we” thread).

Yes, I will continue to look at the world through my A/T rose colored glasses, measured against the truth as taught by the Catholic Church. They are the only glasses worth using.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is the metaphysical doctrine of Aristotle/Aquinas. It took me a while to understand it, at least I think I do to some degree, so I can relate to someone (not necessarily meaning you) who may not comprehend at first glance what is meant by “prime matter is the bearer or subject of the substantial form.” I will try to offer some explanation to the best of my ability.

Prime (first) matter means there is no other matter before it. It is a principle. The two most basic or fundamental principles besides that of the act of being and the essence of a material substance are the substantial form and matter, and more specifically, prime matter. Why prime matter? Because if a substance is a composite of already informed matter, i.e., elemental substances, then a thing is a conglomeration of substances, a pile of atoms. A thing would have an accidental unity and not a substantial unity. The substantial form is the act and form of the entire matter of a thing and this constitutes the substance which is an individual thing. This matter of the substance then is called prime matter because the substantial form is the act and form of it. The substantial form is not on top of, so to speak, already informed matter or elemental substances which would make a thing a pile of substances. On the contrary, the substance is that “which stands under.”

So, the difference, I think, that it makes is whether we consider an individual human being, for example, to be one person and one being, or a pile of aroms.

You can try your best to understand this. I think I understand what I’m trying to say, but it seems difficult to put it into words.

Yes, I know all about what you say. What I don’t agree with is that there is only one kind of matter. Certainly Prime Matter is one kind of matter, But that does not mean that the signate matter of each thing is identical. To me, the signate matter of each species is different, as illustrated by the hydrogen atom and the oxygen atom. To me, each of these atoms is a different kind of matter, and that, along with their respective forms, is what makes them different substances. So I think we will just disagree on this point.

Linus2nd