Metaphysics & knowledge (of Aquinas): Questions

[fakename]

I was reading some metaphysics by Aristotle and I can’t answer a rather basic question: how is one thing one?

For instance, everything is made up of matter and form. For everything can be defined as informed matter and this definition is not essential since that would be like defining a nose as a slanted piece of cartilage on the face; all of the words in the definition are defined differently and so there is no unity in the essence of the thing besides an accidental one. But that means that nothing is essentially one since they are composed of essentially different principles.

But also, I think that matter and form have no existence beyond the substance right? But in what way then, are angels called formal? By analogy?

Also, if substance is “made up” of matter and form are form and matter together the matter of things so that everything is material (since to be material means to be made up of things)? But of course, if matter and form are not things then this does not follow and yet how could substances be composites?

Also, in what way is analogical knowledge, really knowledge? Does analogical predication equal in some way, essential/univocal predication?

Thanks a lot.

 

[cc42]

I am not an expert but my understanding would be that beyond the substance things have an essence, which is like their soul. Angels have an essence so angels take part in the form of an angel. Not everything has to take part in matter because it could just be formal, like angels.

 

[andremiguel]

I was reading some metaphysics by Aristotle and I can’t answer a rather basic question: how is one thing one?

For instance, everything is made up of matter and form. For everything can be defined as informed matter and this definition is not essential since that would be like defining a nose as a slanted piece of cartilage on the face; all of the words in the definition are defined differently and so there is no unity in the essence of the thing besides an accidental one. But that means that nothing is essentially one since they are composed of essentially different principles.

But also, I think that matter and form have no existence beyond the substance right? But in what way then, are angels called formal? By analogy?

Also, if substance is “made up” of matter and form are form and matter together the matter of things so that everything is material (since to be material means to be made up of things)? But of course, if matter and form are not things then this does not follow and yet how could substances be composites?

Also, in what way is analogical knowledge, really knowledge? Does analogical predication equal in some way, essential/univocal predication?

Thanks a lot.

From Heraclyt (everything changes) and parmenides (nothing changes) that this subject is discussed to present times.

No solution: otherwise we would lose a nice subject of discussion.

 

[fakename]

I am not an expert but my understanding would be that beyond the substance things have an essence, which is like their soul. Angels have an essence so angels take part in the form of an angel. Not everything has to take part in matter because it could just be formal, like angels.

I think at least some of my questions can be answered by saying that form and matter are not beings aside from the beings that they compose, however that creates a bunch of other problems to be touched upon, like what is matter and form?

 

[Qoeleth]

I was reading some metaphysics by Aristotle and I can’t answer a rather basic question: how is one thing one?

For instance, everything is made up of matter and form. For everything can be defined as informed matter and this definition is not essential since that would be like defining a nose as a slanted piece of cartilage on the face; all of the words in the definition are defined differently and so there is no unity in the essence of the thing besides an accidental one. But that means that nothing is essentially one since they are composed of essentially different principles.

But also, I think that matter and form have no existence beyond the substance right? But in what way then, are angels called formal? By analogy?

Also, if substance is “made up” of matter and form are form and matter together the matter of things so that everything is material (since to be material means to be made up of things)? But of course, if matter and form are not things then this does not follow and yet how could substances be composites?

Also, in what way is analogical knowledge, really knowledge? Does analogical predication equal in some way, essential/univocal predication?

Thanks a lot.

It would seem that “unity” is simply a verbal or conceptual concept. Image “a pair of scissors”, or “a pair of trousers”. Is it one (as most people conceptualise it), or “a pair” as we name?

Imagine sheep. I can say “one sheep”, “one pair of sheep”, “one flock of sheep”, “one species of sheep”. The unities seem to be artificial, since anything is a “unity” once named and/or conceptualised in that way.

Is something like a car a unity, or a collection of its parts. If I remove all the parts, there is nothing left. Thus the car, in substance, is nothing but its parts. Once the parts are separate, there is no form left. But if there is no real unity, why even call them parts?

But one can conceptualise it or name it as a unity- it has no substance beyond that.

 

[cc42]

Matter is the material that makes something up, like metal is the matter that makes up a car. Form is what shapes it into a car instead of say helicopter.

Conceptualism would say that the form just exists in the mind but realism would say that the form exists even if not perfectly or even if the matter changes because the substance still participates in the form. I believe that conceptualism would deny that things have an essence. So by imainging a pair of scissors it demonstrates that conceptualism is false because we can imagine the form of scissors even if they are not in front of us in a material object, scissors can exist even if nothing is materially participating in the form of scissors.

 

[fakename]

It would seem that “unity” is simply a verbal or conceptual concept. Image “a pair of scissors”, or “a pair of trousers”. Is it one (as most people conceptualise it), or “a pair” as we name?

Imagine sheep. I can say “one sheep”, “one pair of sheep”, “one flock of sheep”, “one species of sheep”. The unities seem to be artificial, since anything is a “unity” once named and/or conceptualised in that way.

Is something like a car a unity, or a collection of its parts. If I remove all the parts, there is nothing left. Thus the car, in substance, is nothing but its parts. Once the parts are separate, there is no form left. But if there is no real unity, why even call them parts?

But one can conceptualise it or name it as a unity- it has no substance beyond that.

But of course this is exactly the problem I brought up. If we accept that man has parts (a soul and a body) then how is he essentially one? For he exists of heterogeneous and clashing essences and additionally, assuming your example is generalizable as a law of nature (that the separation of a thing into parts suffices to prove that it has no real unity), he dies when his parts are separated.

So your reply agrees with my problems and so they both accord in contradicting the parts of metaphysics that I’m trying to render non-contradictory.

 

[fakename]

Matter is the material that makes something up, like metal is the matter that makes up a car. Form is what shapes it into a car instead of say helicopter.

Conceptualism would say that the form just exists in the mind but realism would say that the form exists even if not perfectly or even if the matter changes because the substance still participates in the form. I believe that conceptualism would deny that things have an essence. So by imainging a pair of scissors it demonstrates that conceptualism is false because we can imagine the form of scissors even if they are not in front of us in a material object, scissors can exist even if nothing is materially participating in the form of scissors.

But even here, it’s not true that the scissors exist as a form or idea (unless you mean as an idea of us or God). It doesn’t exist as a separate form because this form would have to be essentially individual and this thing which would imply the impossible, that a form could be composed of form and matter (since all individuals are form and matter together). In general, platonic ideas are not necessary and therefore are impossible, for there are other ways of explaining how natural things have being (a finite chain of cause and effect operating through movement) and nature does not produce superfluities.

 

[cc42]

I am not sure I follow your explanation of why Platonic ideas are impossible but I am not arguing that forms exist in a Platonic way. When metal takes on the form of scissors it carries the essence of scissors. A man is body and soul. If youre wondering why he isn’t just a bunch of parts it is because he carries the essence of being human, he doesn’t carry the essence of a bunch parts because then that would be just a bunch of separate essences.

 

[Gaber]

I was reading some metaphysics by Aristotle and I can’t answer a rather basic question: how is one thing one? …
Thanks a lot.

The answer to your question can be correctly arrived at by practicing doing nothing.

 

[tonyrey]

I was reading some metaphysics by Aristotle and I can’t answer a rather basic question: how is one thing one?

1. To deny that one thing is one leads to an infinite regress both in time and space.
2. If one thing is not one it must be composed of more than one thing.
3. Each of those things must be composed of one… ad infinitum.
4. This conclusion is unsatisfactory because it infringes the principle of economy.
5. It is also unsatisfactory because it undermines the principle of causality.
6. It is falsified by the success of science which is based on the principle of causality.

 

[fakename]

I am not sure I follow your explanation of why Platonic ideas are impossible but I am not arguing that forms exist in a Platonic way. When metal takes on the form of scissors it carries the essence of scissors. A man is body and soul. If youre wondering why he isn’t just a bunch of parts it is because he carries the essence of being human, he doesn’t carry the essence of a bunch parts because then that would be just a bunch of separate essences.

Yes, but this is the strange thing, the soul is like a part and the body is like a part so it seems that a man is just a collection of parts with no authentic essence. And yet man does have an essence but that essence is a part so the same problem recommences.

So how do we answer this problem?

 

[andremiguel]

Yes, but this is the strange thing, the soul is like a part and the body is like a part so it seems that a man is just a collection of parts with no authentic essence. And yet man does have an essence but that essence is a part so the same problem recommences.

So how do we answer this problem?

Stop! The essence is not a part! That is the problem with your reasoning.
The essence of Man is not the Soul.
A plane is made of 1 million parts, yet, it is a plane.

 

[someperson555]

hi, im not very educated in philosophy, so my take on it may sound kind of stupid
but in my opinion what makes one thing one thing is the idea.
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. an example is a car. you have the engine, the wheels, the glass, etc, but what is missing? the schematic! so yes, a nose is just a collection of atoms, but it is when we assign an abstract idea to that collection of atoms which makes it a nose.

 

[Gaber]

1. To deny that one thing is one leads to an infinite regress both in time and space.

What “thing” is one? Not only are things made of parts, living or not, but those parts often change. The human body is made of new atoms about every seven years, yes? So not only is it not one, it is always changing what appears to be a "discreet: unit. And at the quantum level, not only can you not distinguish where the body ends and air begins, the bits are all flashing in and out of existence.

1. If one thing is not one it must be composed of more than one thing

.Yes, those possibly all being one thing.
In terms of perception, perhaps, up to a point

1. This conclusion is unsatisfactory because it infringes the principle of economy.

It is not a conclusion and how it is, known or not, is always already the greatest economy.

1. It is also unsatisfactory because it undermines the principle of causality.

Causality being an artifice of the human level of perception. At worst we don’t know, at best some do, that causality is an illusion that goes with space/time, which theoretically can run backwards, or is always all already there, past and future.

1. It is falsified by the success of science which is based on the principle of causality.

Science deals in a limited realm of endeavor, ie the measurable surface aspect of things. Science does not measure meaning or being, And elsewhere, Tonyrey, you stated that reason has limits.

Conclusion: If there is “one thing” it is the ALLness of God, which to the human intellect appeas as Nothing. It is that Nothing that is the substance of all that is.

 

[fakename]

Stop! The essence is not a part! That is the problem with your reasoning.
The essence of Man is not the Soul.
A plane is made of 1 million parts, yet, it is a plane.

This seems to be a logical conclusion from my POV. But I think that it is wrong for isn’t it “of faith” that the soul is the form of the human body? Surely since form is distinct from matter then the soul is just a part and since soul is identical with essence (in that one is the definition and the other is the thing defined (the soul is defined as the form which manifests the essence of man which is reason and animal life)), then the essence is just a part of man.

Or am I wrong and why?

But finally, I think I can answer my own question. The soul and body are essentially united because (1) the body needs the soul to be a living thing -a living body in the true sense, and (2) the soul needs the body to realize its power to learn. And so the soul and body are essentially connected and man is truly one since the essential operations of his parts are realized only when they are in a relation of union to one another. And this relation, being essential to them, is the essential unity of the whole man.

Good solution?

 

[andremiguel]

This seems to be a logical conclusion from my POV. But I think that it is wrong for isn’t it “of faith” that the soul is the form of the human body? Surely since form is distinct from matter then the soul is just a part and since soul is identical with essence (in that one is the definition and the other is the thing defined (the soul is defined as the form which manifests the essence of man which is reason and animal life)), then the essence is just a part of man.

Or am I wrong and why?

But finally, I think I can answer my own question. The soul and body are essentially united because (1) the body needs the soul to be a living thing -a living body in the true sense, and (2) the soul needs the body to realize its power to learn. And so the soul and body are essentially connected and man is truly one since the essential operations of his parts are realized only when they are in a relation of union to one another. And this relation, being essential to them, is the essential unity of the whole man.

Good solution?

Perfectly correct reasoning if Man was an Angel.
BUT Man is not an Angel. It has got a Body.
Your reasoning was correct if Angels and Men were the same nature.

 

[Gaber]

…But finally, I think I can answer my own question. The soul and body are essentially united because (1) the body needs the soul to be a living thing -a living body in the true sense, and (2) the soul needs the body to realize its power to learn. And so the soul and body are essentially connected and man is truly one since the essential operations of his parts are realized only when they are in a relation of union to one another. And this relation, being essential to them, is the essential unity of the whole man.

Good solution?

Good reasoning. I think this is well said. Is there somewhere you go with this? It seems a good ground for further inquiry.

 

[fakename]

Perfectly correct reasoning if Man was an Angel.
BUT Man is not an Angel. It has got a Body.
Your reasoning was correct if Angels and Men were the same nature.

I did say man has a body and that soul needs it & I never said that the soul was one of the purely intellectual substances called angels.

Why do you think I implied it?

 

[fakename]

Good reasoning. I think this is well said. Is there somewhere you go with this? It seems a good ground for further inquiry.

Not really, I think my question is pretty much answered. Thanks for the time.