Metaphysics & knowledge (of Aquinas): Questions

[tonyrey]

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.

I was replying to the OP:

How would we ever grasp the concept of** unity** if we never regarded things in terms of units? We may be mistaken but the success of science demonstrates that we can’t be far off the mark…

 

[Gaber]

I was replying to the OP:

How would we ever grasp the concept of** unity** if we never regarded things in terms of units? We may be mistaken but the success of science demonstrates that we can’t be far off the mark…

Ther root of both words is “One.” But what the unifying substrate is willl never be known by the divisive ability of the mind operating on a seamless whole, while that may and does reveals wonders of structure and dynamic. The “seer” has yet to be accounted for, and that is in the direction of negation of identification with parts.

 

[andremiguel]

Exactly what I was saying: the human does not = the soul. The human is the soul + the body. When a person dies he is no longer a human. So if a human exists, by necessity he must be a soul and a body.

If what you say is correct I was just saying that the body would then not need the soul (there is some imaginable universe where the soul did not have to be in the body for a human to exist) except accidentally in that God wants the soul to be with a body.

To show why this conclusion is unreasonable it is enough to say that some part of nature would then exist without a purpose (for we believe that the soul-body unity is natural and yet you say that this natural unity is per se not necessary, and up to God’s will alone, so how could it be natural for the natural is non-arbitrary?) but nature does not create superfluous things so therefore the soul and body must be united.

Unless of course you think that the soul-body connection is not natural which is problematic for its own reasons. In essence, I think that you would be at least implicitly in some pretty anti-Catholic territory in all the ways you’ve analyzed this problem.

The problem is with words.
“Natural”. What is the naturality of the body-soul connection?
For me, it means that God wants it that way.

On another hand, the soul is not an human no more?
The body without a leg is not a human?
Or a baby who was born without arms and legs? or blind or deaf? Or mentally handiccapped?

 

[fakename]

The problem is with words.
“Natural”. What is the naturality of the body-soul connection?
For me, it means that God wants it that way.

On another hand, the soul is not an human no more?
The body without a leg is not a human?
Or a baby who was born without arms and legs? or blind or deaf? Or mentally handiccapped?

There are two ways God wants something: (1) the necessary wants and (2) the arbitrary wants which are prior to the necessary wants.

The first must be willed given the decision to will it and the second can be willed or not willed absolutely.

So the operations and laws of nature, such as the laws of human nature and psychology which are none other than the laws of the soul and the body composite, are necessary assuming that God made the choice to make humans.

Secondly, I’m not even sure what you’re asking in the second paragraph. For on one interpretation you seem to believe that the body alone is human such that the dead body is a human, that is, such that the human without that whereby it is a human is still a human. That is absurd however you seem to be implying that. Perhaps you should just write an argument or single conclusion without rhetorical questioning since the latter method of expressing yourself is clearly confusing me.

And Thirdly, supposing a certain interpretation of your words, humans were never considered to be just souls. As Aquinas said, “It [the proposition “the soul is man”] may also be understood in this sense, that this soul is this man; and this could be held if it were supposed that the operation of the sensitive soul were proper to it, apart from the body; because in that case all the operations which are attributed to man would belong to the soul only; and whatever performs the operations proper to a thing, is that thing; wherefore that which performs the operations of a man is man. But it has been shown above (Article 3) that sensation is not the operation of the soul only. Since, then, sensation is an operation of man, but not proper to him, it is clear that man is not a soul only, but something composed of soul and body. Plato, through supposing that sensation was proper to the soul, could maintain man to be a soul making use of the body.”

newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article4 Under the article “Whether the soul is man?”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

First of all, you should start your venture in Philosophy with a reliable text in Scholastic Philosophy. Aristotle was a giant of course but he made errors which were corrected by St. Thomas. I would not jump right into St Thomas, he is very, very deep. You can get A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy by Cardinal Mercier Vol 1 and 2 on Archive.org. If you want to spend a few dollars, try to get the Philosophy of Being and the Philosophy of God by Henri Renard. The latter two are written in an easy to read style but quite clearly and are quite faithful to St. Thomas. Also, Thomistic Metaphysics by Charles Hart. Most of these are on Amozon or at other outlets and you may be able to check them out through a good Catholic University Library or through World Cat.

But you are asking questions which really can’t be answered in this format because they are far too complicated. Too many people are dropping half remembered ideas picked up from their school days which they probably didn’t understand too well even them. After you have done what I suggest and studied for a year or two then will have the answers your self.

I will correct you on a couple of points. In Scholastic Philosophy ( and any other is a waste of time and dangerous) all actual and possibly existing reality, material and immaterial, is composed essence and existence but in an analogous manner not in a univocal, nor in a metaphorical manner. Thus in God essence and existence are one, He is, His essence is. Material substances ( essences that demand existence in themselves and not in another) have a principle of potency and a principle of actuality. And these are known as matter and form or prime matter and substancial form. These are not mere principles, they have existence through the composit ( the substance ) which demands existence in themselves and not in another. However you cannot sense any of these, you learn of their existence through reflection on the accidents ( which adhere or exist through the substance) which you apprehend through the senses.

Each being ( a substance) is one and undivided. That is it has its own nature, its own existence, its own goodness and its own accidents ( if any). In this sense it is one. John is one, Mary is one. John is human, Mary is human. They do not share their humanity, nor any part of it with any other being - not even with God. Human nature exists, not as an idea ( as in Plato) but only in John and Mary as individuals.

An analogy is a similarity. Thus existence is said of Man and God analogically. God is his own existence, He is perfect and unlimited existence. Man has a limited existence, which he receives as an " influx " from God. In the same manner we attribute truth and goodness of Man and God. Man’s truth and goodness is limited and dependent upon God, God is Truth and Goodness. God is the perfect One, in Him all imaginable perfectons are One in His Existence, which is an eternal One.

 

[Gaber]

There are two ways God wants something: (1) the necessary wants and (2) the arbitrary wants which are prior to the necessary wants…(snip)

This appears to personify God. So are your two “ways” a quote from Aquinas or of your own interpretation. In either case, how do you explain God “wanting” anything, if God is ALL, and all xyz? God is “maru” whole and complete, and nothing can be added or subtracted from God. So how does God “want???”