R
Richca
Guest
I’m not sure fermions and bosons are actually substantial forms though maybe they can be in some situations. Are they not for the most part accidental forms of the substantial forms of the elements?
- Status
A
Aloysium
Guest
This discussion began with considerations of fermions and bosons. If the universe were simply a vast collection of random interactions between fundamental particles as it seems to be assumed by physics, then there would be no need for any concept like prime matter. This would be, of course, until it might be found that these basic particles change.
We can see that realities like ourselves and our neighbour are in fact true entities which change. A cell is more than a collection of electrochemical reactions. A plant is more than a collection of cells. Animals are something new and different from plants, as are we compared to animals. In order to explain this, some concept of substance has to be employed. Explanations of the material world cannot be reduced to the activity of its constituent elements alone.
:twocents:
We can see that realities like ourselves and our neighbour are in fact true entities which change. A cell is more than a collection of electrochemical reactions. A plant is more than a collection of cells. Animals are something new and different from plants, as are we compared to animals. In order to explain this, some concept of substance has to be employed. Explanations of the material world cannot be reduced to the activity of its constituent elements alone.
:twocents:
U
utunumsint
Guest
Good point.
I think you have illustrated well on more than one occasion the difference in perspectives. Reductionist and eliminativist tendencies within science is a real problem.God bless,
Ut
U
utunumsint
Guest
U
utunumsint
Guest
Yes. lmelahn and Linus helped me realize that the prime matter underlies any substantial form like horse or human being. Elements like molecules and fermions and bosons simply exist within these substantial forms as virtual particles (in the philosophical sense). I suppose they would constitute the accidental forms of the substance in question. That said, if a fermion or boson were on its own, separate from any substance, say, like in a particle accelerator, it would be a substantial form, and you would need to postulate prime matter to explain its limitation and its ability to change.
God bless,
Ut
R
Richca
Guest
Linus, I don’t believe second substance refers to essence or matter but form or species only. Second substance is the form or species of the first substance. It is the universal and answers the question what is it? For example, a man or horse or dog. First substance is the individual existing thing with all its accidents such as an individual man or horse.
"first substance is individual substance…second substances are the “genera” or “species.” (ST, I, q.29, art.1, cf. obj.2).
The substantial form is what places a substance into a particular class of things or species. The substantial form is also called second substance but the substantial form of material substances is not the only substantial part of material substances; matter is the other substantial part of them. A material substance is composed of both matter and form.
R
Richca
Guest
Actually, I think I need to be corrected here. As Imelahn mentioned earlier I believe, fermions and bosons are parts of individual atoms I think and thus they should be considered as incomplete substances as long as they are parts of individual atoms and probably not accidental forms. Here I am refering to an individual elemental substance and not an element that may be a part of another substance.
Protons, electrons, and neutrons are parts of an individual atom and thus are incomplete substances and not accidental forms I believe. The substantial form of an individual atom being gold, silver, carbon, or what have you. In the same way, the parts of the human body such as arms, legs, hands, etc, are substantial parts of the human body but incomplete substances by themselves as long as they are still parts of a whole human body. The parts of the human body are not accidental forms but substantial parts of the whole human body.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
My edition of S.T. reads differently. It concludes, " It is, however, better to say that substance is here taken in a general sense, as divided into first and second, and when “individual” is added, it is restricted to first substance. " There is no mention of substances being " genera " or " species. " So I must disagree with your conclusion.
In material things the essence is composed of matter and form, with form specifying the genus and species. And the actual existence of an essence is a substance, and it doesn’t matter whether we are speaking of second or first substance.
Correct
No. A substance is anything that has actual existence in itself and not in another. And substance is always a composit of matter and form in material substances. So we could be talking of either second or first substance. I like to think of second substance as the thing absent its identifying individual accidents and first substance as the individual with all its accidents.
Correct.
Pax
Linus2nd
B
Bahman
Guest
This is my understanding universe which I can grant arguments for it but we have to agree on few points first. We can discuss the details latter.
First of all, most of thinkers search for linear solution to understand the matter. They argue that if cut matter into the pieces you finally end up with primary matter which is not divisible any longer. There are two big issues here: A) the whole differs from simple sum of the constitutes, B) there exist a regime in which the reality unfolds when you focus very deep in the subject matter meaning that the old framework, whatever, is not a valid framework any longer.
Unfortunately they stick to this linear solution and ends up with tons of contradictions: dilemma of free will and determinism, problem of evil, many misconceptions on God and creation, soul, etc.
I can start with two arguments along this line that consciousness cannot exist if primary matter concept is correct:
- Primary matter exists
- Any feature in secondary matter is the result of primary matter
- Consciousness is also a feature of primary matter as well
- Consciousness cannot have any effect on secondary matter
- There is not use for consciousness hence epiphenomalism is correct
- Consciousness is real and epiphenomalism is wrong
- (1) is wrong
- Primary matter exist
- Any feature in secondary matter is the result of primary matter
- Consciousness is also a feature of primary matter as well
- Consciousness is not divisible in oppose to secondary matter
- (3) and (4) contradict each other hence (1) is wrong
U
utunumsint
Guest
Aquinas and Aristotle would deny that intellect is a feature of prime matter. Also prime matter is pure receptivity of form and never exists without form, but form can exist without prime matter in immaterial beings, as is the case with the human intellect, angels, and God.
Your arguments above would be good against eliminative materialist and emergent materialists who might agree with you on some approximation of point 2.
God bless,
Ut
B
Bahman
Guest
That I know. So, intellect is a feature of soul? Do you believe in hylomorphic dualism?
U
utunumsint
Guest
Yes.
B
Bahman
Guest
Is soul subjected to corruption upon aging? Prime matter is changeless!
U
utunumsint
Guest
The intellect is not subject to aging or corruption. However, the material faculties upon which the intellect operates can be corrupted.
Prime matter is changeless? It is by definition pure changeability. Pure potentiality.
God bless,
Ut
B
Bahman
Guest
Soul is form of body in case human. Human is made of soul and primary matter. Primary matter is changeless (please read the following comment) hence what is subject to change is soul which the form.
That is secondary matter which is changeable. Primary matter is not, otherwise it couldn’t be primary. Primary matter is something that you construct all material things with and it should have a very clear identity.
R
Richca
Guest
"first substance is individual substance…second substances are the “genera” or “species.”
This is not in the reply to objection 2 but in the objection itself.
I believe I do need to make a correction to the post I made about this though. Second substances are the genera or species of things and they refer to the common nature, essence or quiddity of things. Aquinas mentions this in article 2 of question 29 where he says that substance is twofold. The substantial form places a material substance into a species or class of things but the essence, nature, or definition of a material substance includes matter, not individual matter but common matter or non-signate or non designated matter. Second substance is the universal, the species of things. For example, all human beings have a common nature, i.e, humanity, not indeed numerically the same but specifically the same. This is second substance. All human beings are composed of soul and body, form and matter, flesh and bones; but not this flesh and these bones such as in Socrates. Socrates is a first substance composed of individual matter and form while what kind of class or species of substances Socrates belongs too, i.e., human beings, is second substance. Second substance refers to the common nature or essence found in a class or species of things. Aristotle taught that second substance, the universal, exists only in the individual. Plato, of course, taught otherwise, postulating that the ideas or forms of things have a seperate existence apart from the individual.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I think we are in fundamental agreement. Although I would not say that second substance is the universal, species of things. The universal or species does not exist without non-signate matter. Even secondary substance must have matter united to the universal or species. Second substance does refer to the common nature or essence, but only as actually existing.
It raises an interesting question in regard to Transubstantiation. The accidents of bread and wine remain but as adhering in no substance, according to Thomas. Does that mean the accidents have lost their first substance and, if so, have they also lost signet or designate matter along with their first substance? And if both of these are true, wouldn’t that mean that the accidents have no first substance and no signate or designate matter at all? And wouldn’t that, in turn, mean that there really is no bread or wine left, that we are seeing a kind of mirage and tasting something that really has no existence at all? But if it is no mirage, then wouldn’t we have to say that the accidents represent a second miracle or a different aspect of the same miracle, that the accidents exist without even first substance and without signate or designate matter? And if this is all true, aren’t we saying that the bread and wine no longer exist, that only accidents exist?
Pax
Linus2nd
U
utunumsint
Guest
If primary matter was truly changeless, then it could not receive any form, since it would be static. But in reality, it can change to accommodate any physical form, through all levels of physical being: inanimate, animate, vegetable, animal, human.
Secondary matter is only changeable because of the underlying primary matter which has the potentiality that can be activated by the reception of the form. Primary matter is the subject of change. Form is that which changes the primary matter or brings to actuality a certain form.
Also, you have to bear in mind that primary matter cannot exist on its own except as an abstraction of the mind. It always exists with form.
God bless,
Ut
B
Bahman
Guest
Lets make it clear: is secondary matter the stuff we observe with our naked eyes? If so, their physics is absolutely wrong. Here is the argument:
- Primary matter cannot exist without a form
- Consider an object, a secondary matter, and break it into very small pieces such that each small piece does not longer have any form
- This means that those small pieces don’t exist
- This means that matter does not exist and it is an illusion
- Hence concept of form is wrong since it cannot actualize the matter
What we know these days is that stuff we observe, secondary matter, is build of elementary particles which each is quite stable and changeless.
We know that a pair of electron and positron can be annihilate and produce a photon. This means that either the concept of form is wrong or there exist an anti-form for any form the latter concept is completely absurd hence their physics is wrong.
Hence my argument still stands. Soul is subject to corruption.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Anything that we can observer using the naked eye or using scientific equipment.
The limit to the level that a particle can be divided is set by the form. For example, the form of the fundamental particle.
Not true at all, as is evident in atom smashers. Even at the quantum level, particles change from one fermion to another fermion or one boson to another boson. They are not stable at all.
It means that the electron and positron had a potentiality to become a photon. The continuity of this process is explained through the concept of prime matter.
The corruption of the material parts of the human body given form by the human soul can be corrupted. But not the immaterial aspects of the human soul. Namely the intellect. If you want, we can begin a discussion of the Thomistic view on this question.
God bless,
Ut
- Status