Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[blase6]

I see no problem in calling the substantial form of inanimate substances spirits, for they clearly are not material. Thomas and Aristotle would cringe and give me a " D " for saying it though. But the truth is that neither of them ever gave a clear definition of what these forms actually were - as far as I know; So as long as we don’t confuse them with living spirits or souls, then we are O.K;

So let’s just say that these " spirits " are simply the organizing principle of a substance, which brings it existence and detemines the specific kind of matter for its nature, and carries with it the " operation manual " for the specific kind of substance it is organizing.

Both these non-living forms and the living forms or souls of man, animals, vegetation fill the entire substance they exist in, every atom, every molecule, through and through. In fact Thomas says the whole soul is in every part of the body. Likewise for the " spirits " of inanimate substances.

So there simply is no boundry between the material and the spiritual, the matter and the form.

You know I am trying to explain things to you that took me fifty years to learn. But then I am a slow learner.

Linus2md

Wow, you made my explanation of physical reality seem more reasonable in comparison.

That is a belief which arises from thinking that one’s perception of the world is objectively and absolutely real, and corresponds to all reality in every way. I see a “dog”, so the dog is objectively real.

I think I can get by in this world without ever having to believe that inanimate objects have “non-spiritual souls”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Wow, you made my explanation of physical reality seem more reasonable in comparison.

That is a belief which arises from thinking that one’s perception of the world is objectively and absolutely real, and corresponds to all reality in every way. I see a “dog”, so the dog is objectively real.

I think I can get by in this world without ever having to believe that inanimate objects have “non-spiritual souls”.

I said forms which were spirits, I warned that they should not be called souls. Well, you asked the question, I tried to answer and I see nothing wrong with the answer I gave. Any way, it is the best I can do.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

I said forms which were spirits, I warned that they should not be called souls. Well, you asked the question, I tried to answer and I see nothing wrong with the answer I gave. Any way, it is the best I can do.

Linus2nd

A spirit is a soul. At least, they should be used to mean the exact same thing.

You can still hold to your belief that physical objects have an objective form. I have concluded otherwise not only from my reasoning, but from experience. So it would be very difficult for you to change my mind from your reason alone.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I see no problem in calling the substantial form of inanimate substances spirits, for they clearly are not material. Thomas and Aristotle would cringe and give me a " D " for saying it though. But the truth is that neither of them ever gave a clear definition of what these forms actually were - as far as I know

In classical philosophy, “material” is “that which is capable of division”, I believe. Since forms are not capable of division, they are immaterial. But it does not follow that they are spiritual. They are *ways *that matter can be arranged.

The statue is made of matter, but the statue is not matter.

 

[blase6]

In classical philosophy, “material” is “that which is capable of division”, I believe. Since forms are not capable of division, they are immaterial. But it does not follow that they are spiritual. They are *ways *that matter can be arranged.

The statue is made of matter, but the statue is not matter.

In that case the “form” or substance is purely subjective. There are so many configurations of matter in the world, that even inside unitary “substances” such as dogs or cats, no two instances are exactly the same. Does that mean that their “substance” is different?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In that case the “form” or substance is purely subjective. There are so many configurations of matter in the world, that even inside unitary “substances” such as dogs or cats, no two instances are exactly the same. Does that mean that their “substance” is different?

Have you ever heard of DNA?

 

[blase6]

Have you ever heard of DNA?

Yes, and in all likelihood it serves no other purpose than the synthesis of proteins within a cell. I don’t think it is the “magical soul vessel” like some philosophers believe it to be.

 

[tonyrey]

In that case the “form” or substance is purely subjective. There are so many configurations of matter in the world, that even inside unitary “substances” such as dogs or cats, no two instances are exactly the same. Does that mean that their “substance” is different?

Do you agree with David Hume that we have no substance and are just “bundles of perceptions”?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, and in all likelihood it serves no other purpose than the synthesis of proteins within a cell. I don’t think it is the “magical soul vessel” like some philosophers believe it to be.

I wasn’t saying it was a magical soul vessel. But obviously it does something more than synthesize proteins. It is the blueprint of the organism. It is a vindication of the concept that organisms have a “form” in addition to their “matter”. The DNA encodes a physical and mental design for the organism. The information it contains is not physical, but rather representational – it is language, existing in nature, uncreated by man.

Also, you never responded to my earlier question. On your view, why would I have reason to believe the thing I see is a dog, and not a chicken? Surely I have no spiritual evidence, only physical evidence. Doesn’t your claim lead to skepticism?

 

[inocente]

So you don’t think God created men, animals, birds, fish, vegetation, the bodies of waters, etc?. In other words, are you saying that God just created piles of atoms, differently arranged and combined? Does it seem beyond reason to you that God would use " atoms " as the constituent materials for the natures he created for man, animal, bird, etc.?

Now where did you get the strange idea that I said anything of the sort?

A cat isn’t either atoms or cat, we don’t have to deny the reality of one in order for the other to also be real. We don’t have to pick a single level of reality out of world, cat, cells, chemical compounds, molecules, atoms, elementary particles…, as if the others cannot simultaneously be real. After all, reality doesn’t have to conform to our classifications.

On the contrary, it is modern scientism ( notice I am not sayin science ) that is reductionist. It reduces all reality to " atoms, molecules, cells, etc., ignoring the natures God created.

I’ve never heard of anyone who believes that her daughter is really just a pile of atoms, that sounds like a misunderstanding of what she is saying. Can you cite any “scientism-ist” who talks that way?

But on the major point, no servant can serve two masters, and Christians do not bow before the alter of Aristotle. Nowhere in the gospel does it say God designed nature of cat or nature of T Rex or nature of ebola. So no, belief in these so-called natures isn’t part of the faith. :tiphat:

*Here is a quote of mine from another post.

" I think the confusion here is that you are thinking of substantial and accidental changes in a scientific manner. But when I speak of these things I am speaking in a metaphysical way. Science and philosophy view the same reality in different ways. Remember that " metaphysical " means beyond or underlying the physical. …]

Your point about " layering " sees only the physical reality of the " stuff " which makes the man or the cat or the horse or whatever. The philosopher would say, " Yes but there is a deeper reality than the " stuff…" There is the reality of the man, the cat, the horse, or whatever. These natures are certainly composed of a lot of " stuff, " and while this " stuff " retains its own nature, it does not behave entirely on its own. It serves under the guidance or governance of the nature of which it is the physical building blocks.*

I think the confusion here is the notion that there are no philosophers other than A & TA. Whereas in reality the subject of substance is hardly a closed book - plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

 

[blase6]

I wasn’t saying it was a magical soul vessel. But obviously it does something more than synthesize proteins. It is the blueprint of the organism. It is a vindication of the concept that organisms have a “form” in addition to their “matter”. The DNA encodes a physical and mental design for the organism. The information it contains is not physical, but rather representational – it is language, existing in nature, uncreated by man.

Also, you never responded to my earlier question. On your view, why would I have reason to believe the thing I see is a dog, and not a chicken? Surely I have no spiritual evidence, only physical evidence. Doesn’t your claim lead to skepticism?

Sorry, but DNA really isn’t a “blueprint” for an animal’s shape. I don’t think we understand how animals develop body shape yet. All I know is that DNA is a chemical which is used by cells to produce certain kinds of proteins.

You think it is a dog because you have already assigned the label “dog” in your mind to collections of matter with specific attributes. Your mind finds that the matter at hand shares enough of the attributes to be called a “dog”.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Sorry, but DNA really isn’t a “blueprint” for an animal’s shape. I don’t think we understand how animals develop body shape yet. All I know is that DNA is a chemical which is used by cells to produce certain kinds of proteins.

That is simply not true. Dna is entirely the reason a chicken is distinct in form from a cow, and dna is the reason a cow gives birth two a cow and not a chicken. This process involves information. It is a language.

Now some would argue that this language can be explained physically, but since this language involves directional meaning (teleology) it doesn’t lend any support to a purely physical explanation and certainly does not support the idea that “Macro-Natures” do not exist.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sorry, but DNA really isn’t a “blueprint” for an animal’s shape. I don’t think we understand how animals develop body shape yet. All I know is that DNA is a chemical which is used by cells to produce certain kinds of proteins.

See ChainBreaker’s post. And consult any biologist.

You think it is a dog because you have already assigned the label “dog” in your mind to collections of matter with specific attributes. Your mind finds that the matter at hand shares enough of the attributes to be called a “dog”.

So then, I have no reason to believe it is a dog? And I have no reason to treat things that I perceive to be humans different from things I believe to be dogs (or spiders)?

Again, this is just skepticism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Now where did you get the strange idea that I said anything of the sort?

Your quote: " This seems to be a reductionist attempt to mate Aristotle’s notion of substances and natures with modern biology. But there is no jump straight from elementary particles to cats, there are many steps along the way: atoms, molecules, cells, organs, etc. There is no reductionist “nature of cat” which supernaturally directs individual electrons hither and thither for the benefit of the cat. At every level, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, patterns beget patterns. "

---

A cat isn’t either atoms or cat, we don’t have to deny the reality of one in order for the other to also be real. We don’t have to pick a single level of reality out of world, cat, cells, chemical compounds, molecules, atoms, elementary particles…, as if the others cannot simultaneously be real. After all, reality doesn’t have to conform to our classifications.

I am not denying the reality of either. But some on this thread and others are, and many materialists and naturalists today do deny that there are such things as natures, substances, essences - in the Aristotelian/Thomistic sense.

I’ve never heard of anyone who believes that her daughter is really just a pile of atoms, that sounds like a misunderstanding of what she is saying. Can you cite any “scientism-ist” who talks that way?

Quite a few on this forum might say that. Forgive me if I don’t cite any notable except atheists and skeptics in general. I am taking the word of people I have read or heard and trust.

But on the major point, no servant can serve two masters, and Christians do not bow before the alter of Aristotle. Nowhere in the gospel does it say God designed nature of cat or nature of T Rex or nature of ebola. So no, belief in these so-called natures isn’t part of the faith. :tiphat:

And nothing in the Scriptures say that God didn’t create natures for man, the beasts, the crawling things, the fish, the birds, the vegetation, the elements. Indeed Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas believe and tautght that that is exactly what he did.

And I say that if you don’t think God created natures. then you deny the truth of Divine Revelation.:tiphat:

I think the confusion here is the notion that there are no philosophers other than A & TA. Whereas in reality the subject of substance is hardly a closed book - plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

Ah, yes, but only one school can be right, that of God and Aristotle and St. Thomas. :tiphat:.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

That is simply not true. Dna is entirely the reason a chicken is distinct in form from a cow, and dna is the reason a cow gives birth two a cow and not a chicken. This process involves information. It is a language.

Now some would argue that this language can be explained physically, but since this language involves directional meaning (teleology) it doesn’t lend any support to a purely physical explanation and certainly does not support the idea that “Macro-Natures” do not exist.

It is a language for ordering which proteins are created. I don’t know much beyond that, but even if it does control detailed bodily composition, it doesn’t change the fact that it is still just matter.

 

[blase6]

And nothing in the Scriptures say that God didn’t create natures for man, the beasts, the crawling things, the fish, the birds, the vegetation, the elements. Indeed Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas believe and tautght that that is exactly what he did.

And I say that if you don’t think God created natures. then you deny the truth of Divine Revelation.:tiphat:

You are reading way too far into the words of Scripture. God would know that most people are not hardcore devoted philosophers. Everything in Scripture is worded mostly for the simple folk’s understanding. Philosophers can take from it what they will as long as they don’t clearly deny defined dogma.

Ah, yes, but only one school can be right, that of God and Aristotle and St. Thomas. :tiphat:.

Linus2nd

And that’s why arguing with you is probably a waste of my time.

 

[blase6]

So then, I have no reason to believe it is a dog? And I have no reason to treat things that I perceive to be humans different from things I believe to be dogs (or spiders)?

Again, this is just skepticism.

You have the reason that the matter at hand fits with your definition of “dog”. If you think that the matter at hand looks like a human being, and you believe that human beings are persons, then it is most reasonable to assume so.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You have the reason that the matter at hand fits with your definition of “dog”. If you think that the matter at hand looks like a human being, and you believe that human beings are persons, then it is most reasonable to assume so.

But your evidence of whether the “matter at hand” is a dog or a man is purely physical evidence. If physical evidence cannot reveal the nature of things, then your treating me as a human being (and not a dog) is irrational.

 

[ChainBreaker]

It is a language for ordering which proteins are created. I don’t know much beyond that, but even if it does control detailed bodily composition, it doesn’t change the fact that it is still just matter.

So you admit that proteins are real natures despite being composed of subatomic particles.

A human being is made of matter, but that doesn’t change the fact it is a human being.

 

[blase6]

So you admit that proteins are real natures despite being composed of subatomic particles.

A human being is made of matter, but that doesn’t change the fact it is a human being.

A protein is a real nature because we see it as such. But if we don’t see it as proteins, then it doesn’t exist. Its has no objective nature.