Please explain "natural philosophical species"

[grannymh]

While reading off line, I came across the term “natural philosophical species”.

Please, what does that term include? Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While reading off line, I came across the term “natural philosophical species”.

Please, what does that term include? Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

I never heard the term before, certainly isn’t in St. Thomas or Augustine. Can you give a source and/or context?

 

[JDaniel]

While reading off line, I came across the term “natural philosophical species”.

Please, what does that term include? Thank you.

Grannymh:

Of course I could be way off, but just from its construction, I’d say that it would be something that has, as its subject, one that is known strictly through philosophical means and is natural to philosophy, such as “being” or “cause.”

God bless,
jd

 

[hicetnunc]

I don’t think it’s proper to refer to “natural philosophical species”—perhaps you mean to distinguish simply between “natural species” and “moral species”? These are two technical terms in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy.

Classical philosophy distinguishes between genus, species and difference. The genus animal, for example, contains the species man and lion. The difference is that man is “rational” so that the definition of man (his genus and difference) is rational animal–his natural species.

There are also moral species which relate to virtue, such as justice.

The distinction between the two is quite interesting: you could say, for example, that “a good man is also a bad man”, speaking according to natural species and moral species. A good man naturally speaking is a man whose body is good; he is not ill or dead. A dead body is a bad body according to natural species. But a good man naturally could be bad morally—evil so to speak.

 

[ReapReason]

I never heard the term before, certainly isn’t in St. Thomas or Augustine. Can you give a source and/or context?

I thought you was a Thomist?

lonergan.org/?p=642

When commenting on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Aquinas repeats what Aristotle says that form (forma) is ratio. Cf. Sententia super Metaphysicam, 8, 1, 1687. Form is an “intelligible structure.” In Aquinas, species as “intelligible species” (species intelligibilis) commonly refers to form. Form as species, as Lonergan speaks about it, refers to the “intelligibility of data.” Cf. Lonergan, Collection, p. 284. Or, to use a term that originally derives from Aristotle, form is eidos or morphê. Cf. Lonergan, Caring About Meaning, p. 45; Topics in Education, p. 171. For both Aristotle and Aquinas, eidos as form refers to what is known not through sense perception but through an act of the mind, through nous. Cf. Patrick H. Byrne, Analysis and Science in Aristotle (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), p. 198, p. 200. Even if some intellects can engage in acts of understanding without using any images or phantasms, no intellect is able to understand anything apart from an intellectual species or form. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a, q. 11, a. 2, ad 1. Form, like essence, refers to a principle of explanation but in a manner which says that by first understanding a form or intelligible species, one then understands what something is in terms of its essence. Form is the quo est; it is that “by which something is” (quo aliquid est). Cf. Sententia super Metaphysicam, 5, 10, 904. As the cause or mover (movens) of understanding, it is that “by which the understanding understands” (quo intelligit intellectus). Cf. Summa Theologiae, 1a, q. 85, a. 2. It exists as a principle or cause of understanding (it is a causa cognoscendi) whereby one moves from the order of knowing toward the order of being, reality. Cf. Summa Contra Gentiles, 1, 53, 2 & 4.

 

[shoe]

While reading off line, I came across the term “natural philosophical species”.

Please, what does that term include? Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

From: philvaz.com/apologetics/p102.htm
To Christian philosophers, man is an essentially distinct “natural philosophical species,” possessing a spiritual soul, with intellect and will not shared by brute animals.

 

[hicetnunc]

It also struck me today while driving to work: why is this question important? I mean, what relevance is there for the study of genus, species and difference, or Aristotelian categories, etc? Perhaps this should be a new thread, but I thought people involved in this thread might already be wondering the same thing. Why is the distinction between natural and moral species even important? In our call to personal sanctity, does it even figure? It seems to me that threads of this nature get relatively few biters, while arguments for the existence of God threads get loads of correspondence!

I do believe it is very important, but was wondering about other people’s views and especially yours grannymh, since you asked the question.

 

[grannymh]

From: philvaz.com/apologetics/p102.htm
To Christian philosophers, man is an essentially distinct “natural philosophical species,” possessing a spiritual soul, with intellect and will not shared by brute animals.

Exceptional link! Thank you.

Scroll down in the link to this sentence: "As GrannyMH so aptly points out (post 284), “Divine Revelation trumps.” That’s me.

And I have been working with Dr. Dennis Bonnette via e-mail. He has completed an extensive manuscript on the reality of Adam and Eve from three positions, theological, philosophical, and scientific. It is truly dynamite. It is there where I read the term “natural philosophical species”. The footnote is his book Origin of the Human Species.

The difficulty is that I am here and the book is at my secondary residence.
:newidea: The sensible thing to do was to post my question about what does natural philosophical species include here on CAF.

My current idea is to approach the reality of Adam and Eve from the philosophical perspective. I need to expand on Dennis’ reference.

It was back at the time of your link, that my faith was shaken on CAF by the idea that Adam and Eve could not be real. I started posting about the challenges of the interpreters of research papers. Please note that I respect the work of the scientists. It is the “interpreter” who has extrapolated particular conclusions to an universal exclusion unwarranted by the evidence.

My first thesis was: “The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.” This did not get very far due to some family situations. Debating this thesis with a non-theist discussion partner taught me a lot, notably that I needed to learn the nitty-gritty of the scientific method in addition to reading actual research papers. This takes time as I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Fast forward to the current CAF environment. Perhaps it is time to look at Adam as the first of a natural philosophical species? As my Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[hicetnunc]

Your thesis sounds fascinating. What in particular do you find appealing about a philosophical approach to Adam and Eve–as opposed to a theological or Biblical/exigetical approach?

I also think that “natural philosophical species” is improper terminology (it smacks of nominalism).

 

[ReapReason]

My current idea is to approach the reality of Adam and Eve from the philosophical perspective. I need to expand on Dennis’ reference.

There is a way around this if we understand that a personal nature is not intrinsic to the biological form that we call the human body. If we start speaking of human organisms as being distinct from that which is a personal being, then it really does not matter if there was always millions of homo-sapiens, since the existence of those organism does not determine whether or not they have a personal nature. Thus God can simply pick two out of a bunch and give them souls. This would allow for there to be many homo-sapiens without contradicting the fact that the human race only had two parents. Also, I am not sure that doctrine is so strict as to say that we only have two **biological **parents; since it could be the case that some humans are both descendent of Adam and Eve and descendent of homo-sapiens that were not ensouled. And yet it can still be the case that we have only two parents in a spiritual sense of having a soul and a theological sense being apart of Gods providential plan for the human race starting from Adam and eve…

 

[grannymh]

It also struck me today while driving to work: why is this question important? I mean, what relevance is there for the study of genus, species and difference, or Aristotelian categories, etc? Perhaps this should be a new thread, but I thought people involved in this thread might already be wondering the same thing. Why is the distinction between natural and moral species even important? In our call to personal sanctity, does it even figure? It seems to me that threads of this nature get relatively few biters, while arguments for the existence of God threads get loads of correspondence!

I do believe it is very important, but was wondering about other people’s views and especially yours grannymh, since you asked the question.

You and I were posting about the same time.

In addition to post 8, not only was my Catholic faith shaken, but at that time, it became apparent that there was a kind of movement to change or adapt or update or modernize certain Catholic fundamental doctrines. The movement is not cohesive nor can it be dated.

It wasn’t until I started working on the theological aspects of Catholic monogenism, that I realized that the simplicity of the Adam and Eve narrative was connected dramatically with the salvific mission of Jesus Christ as True God and True Man. The lynchpin is Original Sin which has been under attack for centuries. (Source: Romans 5:12-21)

With the 1995 research of Francisco J. Ayala, ammunition was added to about everyone’s dispute with the first three chapters of Genesis. However, Ayala was not the first to undermine Genesis. Back in the first half of the 20th century, proposals of some form of polygenism were in place. To clarify the Catholic Church position when faced with issues of polygenism, Pius XII issued Humani Generis in 1950. Section #37 is key.

I love natural science so eventually I became comfortable with a real Adam and Eve. Yet, I do not want others to have their faith shaken.

Blessings,
granny

Adam was the apple of God’s eye.
(example of literal and figurative language)

 

[hicetnunc]

In addition to post 8, not only was my Catholic faith shaken, but at that time, it became apparent that there was a kind of movement to change or adapt or update or modernize certain Catholic fundamental doctrines. The movement is not cohesive nor can it be dated.

Thank you for that. I couldn’t agree more…spot on.

Pax

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I thought you was a Thomist?

lonergan.org/?p=642

When commenting on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Aquinas repeats what Aristotle says that form (forma) is ratio. Cf. Sententia super Metaphysicam, 8, 1, 1687. Form is an “intelligible structure.” In Aquinas, species as “intelligible species” (species intelligibilis) commonly refers to form. Form as species, as Lonergan speaks about it, refers to the “intelligibility of data.” Cf. Lonergan, Collection, p. 284. Or, to use a term that originally derives from Aristotle, form is eidos or morphê. Cf. Lonergan, Caring About Meaning, p. 45; Topics in Education, p. 171. For both Aristotle and Aquinas, eidos as form refers to what is known not through sense perception but through an act of the mind, through nous. Cf. Patrick H. Byrne, Analysis and Science in Aristotle (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), p. 198, p. 200. Even if some intellects can engage in acts of understanding without using any images or phantasms, no intellect is able to understand anything apart from an intellectual species or form. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3a, q. 11, a. 2, ad 1. Form, like essence, refers to a principle of explanation but in a manner which says that by first understanding a form or intelligible species, one then understands what something is in terms of its essence. Form is the quo est; it is that “by which something is” (quo aliquid est). Cf. Sententia super Metaphysicam, 5, 10, 904. As the cause or mover (movens) of understanding, it is that “by which the understanding understands” (quo intelligit intellectus). Cf. Summa Theologiae, 1a, q. 85, a. 2. It exists as a principle or cause of understanding (it is a causa cognoscendi) whereby one moves from the order of knowing toward the order of being, reality. Cf. Summa Contra Gentiles, 1, 53, 2 & 4.

Very good Reap. Are you reading Lonergan? What a trip that will be!! I am a Thomist. I still have not seen the term " natural philosophical species. " One of the other posters included a link, it may be there.

I can now answer one of you earlier questions ( at least I think it was you). As a provisional assessment, I could not think of myself as a " transendental " Thomist. And by the way, I don’t think Lonergran was correct in describing the School of Louvain as " Scotust " or " Suarizist. " I would call the Louvain School moderat realist. And until something makes me decide differently, that is where I am.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There is a way around this if we understand that a personal nature is not intrinsic to the biological form that we call the human body. If we start speaking of human organisms as being distinct from that which is a personal being, then it really does not matter if there was always millions of homo-sapiens, since the existence of those organism does not determine whether or not they have a personal nature. Thus God can simply pick two out of a bunch and give them souls. This would allow for there to be many homo-sapiens without contradicting the fact that the human race only had two parents. Also, I am not sure that doctrine is so strict as to say that we only have two **biological **parents; since it could be the case that some humans are both descendent of Adam and Eve and descendent of homo-sapiens that were not ensouled. And yet it can still be the case that we have only two parents in a spiritual sense of having a soul and a theological sense being apart of Gods providential plan for the human race starting from Adam and eve…

Excellent, I agree. Edward Feser also argues along these lines, and his model elegantly solves the issue of theological monogensim vs. genetic polygenism.

In the following post I give links to Feser’s posts on the issue, and a brief summary of his position:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8931157&postcount=1327

 

[grannymh]

Life hasn’t changed since I declined to count the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.

Thank you all for your kind replies to my question which now appears to be rather silly. However, I did learn a lot. There seems to be a third mode of speaking. The first is the scientific mode. The second is the philosophical mode. And the third mode is for ordinary folk.

Blessings and prayers for the future,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Exceptional link! Thank you.

Scroll down in the link to this sentence: "As GrannyMH so aptly points out (post 284), “Divine Revelation trumps.” That’s me.

And I have been working with Dr. Dennis Bonnette via e-mail. He has completed an extensive manuscript on the reality of Adam and Eve from three positions, theological, philosophical, and scientific. It is truly dynamite. It is there where I read the term “natural philosophical species”. The footnote is his book Origin of the Human Species.

The difficulty is that I am here and the book is at my secondary residence.
:newidea: The sensible thing to do was to post my question about what does natural philosophical species include here on CAF.

My current idea is to approach the reality of Adam and Eve from the philosophical perspective. I need to expand on Dennis’ reference.

It was back at the time of your link, that my faith was shaken on CAF by the idea that Adam and Eve could not be real. I started posting about the challenges of the interpreters of research papers. Please note that I respect the work of the scientists. It is the “interpreter” who has extrapolated particular conclusions to an universal exclusion unwarranted by the evidence.

My first thesis was: “The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.” This did not get very far due to some family situations. Debating this thesis with a non-theist discussion partner taught me a lot, notably that I needed to learn the nitty-gritty of the scientific method in addition to reading actual research papers. This takes time as I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Fast forward to the current CAF environment. Perhaps it is time to look at Adam as the first of a natural philosophical species? As my Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

You know what, I think we should all stick just to what the Church teaches and stop all this wild speculation - especially if it " shakes " peoples’ faith.

That term " natural philosophical species " has no accepted meaning that I can find. Looks like a manufactured term designed for a specific argument of some kind. The term has never been used in Scholastic Philosopy ( i.e. Thomism ) as far as I am aware. It is not always a good idea to throw out terms like this unless you give them a thorough explanation and how they are to be applied. Personally I don’t intend to go running off to examine a book which may not have any merit and may be just a waste of time.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Exceptional link! Thank you.

Scroll down in the link to this sentence: "As GrannyMH so aptly points out (post 284), “Divine Revelation trumps.” That’s me.

And I have been working with Dr. Dennis Bonnette via e-mail. He has completed an extensive manuscript on the reality of Adam and Eve from three positions, theological, philosophical, and scientific. It is truly dynamite. It is there where I read the term “natural philosophical species”. The footnote is his book Origin of the Human Species.

The difficulty is that I am here and the book is at my secondary residence.
:newidea: The sensible thing to do was to post my question about what does natural philosophical species include here on CAF.

My current idea is to approach the reality of Adam and Eve from the philosophical perspective. I need to expand on Dennis’ reference.

It was back at the time of your link, that my faith was shaken on CAF by the idea that Adam and Eve could not be real. I started posting about the challenges of the interpreters of research papers. Please note that I respect the work of the scientists. It is the “interpreter” who has extrapolated particular conclusions to an universal exclusion unwarranted by the evidence.

My first thesis was: “The possibility of two sole parents of the human race lies within the nature of the human species.” This did not get very far due to some family situations. Debating this thesis with a non-theist discussion partner taught me a lot, notably that I needed to learn the nitty-gritty of the scientific method in addition to reading actual research papers. This takes time as I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Fast forward to the current CAF environment. Perhaps it is time to look at Adam as the first of a natural philosophical species? As my Irish mother would say: “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

I found this paragraph in the link above : You appear well-versed in the writings of both Aristotle and St. Thomas. That is why the following quote from you (post 280) surprises me:
"So we turn to your claims about the existence of a spiritual dimension and about how consideration of philosophical species indicates that a substantial form exists, separate from any material form and sovereign over it, and which determines our intellect and free will, and provides us with personal immortality. This is a very pretty concept, but there is not an iota of evidence in support of any of it. As I have pointed out several times, if we shed all of our preconceptions and our desires for the world to be as we would like it to be, we must conclude that none of these beliefs is warranted.

I did not find the term natural philosophical species only philosophical species so I wonder if the former expression is an error and the latter expression is the one actually referred to. So the term is indeed manufactured on the moment, so to speak. It has no history of usage in Scholastic Philosophy. I think the opponet simply means " man, the rational animal " who has an intellect, will, and memory and is seen by Christians as the species that can do Philosophy. And I suspect that somewhere, the opponet added the noun " natural " to show that man could have the ability to " do philosophy " from his material structure and operations. I am just surmising.

I think this whole discussion indicates how dangerous it is for any but highly trained individuals to be involved in these types discussions.

 

[grannymh]

I think this whole discussion indicates how dangerous it is for any but highly trained individuals to be involved in these types discussions.

You hit the nail on the head. Thank you. Odd thing is that I have the same feeling about natural science discussions.

I would really like to be able to write in a “third mode” language for ordinary folk, including myself. The first two modes of language, scientific and philosophical, can be a tad confusing.

I see now the problems involved in asking about philosophical terminology without giving the who, how, what, when, where and why. However, I grew up in an environment of nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Fortunately, I received an answer to my question off line, which answer contained various contexts. The person supplying the information was very gracious to a curious granny.

I agree that we should all stick to what the Church teaches – Original Sin for example. “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” (Sources: CCC 389; Romans 5:12-21; Humani Generis 37)

But that is a topic for another thread, another forum. The topic for this thread has been completed and I am grateful for all the replies.

Question asked; question answered.