Thomist philosophy on form and matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter ivebeenshown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ivebeenshown

Guest
I am new to this, but so eager to grow in understanding of it.

Now, regarding form and matter: it is known that there is the form of humanity, and by the participation therein of matter, a human is said to exist or have being.

When regarding actions, then, is a particular action such as the action of running not a form? And if so, when a human participates in that form, is it only the matter which then participates in two forms (the form of running and the form of humanity)? It would seem so, because it seems that if, by the participation of a human in the form of running, the form of humanity participates in the form of running, all matter which participates in the form of humanity must also participate in the form of running at that time – I run, you run! 😃

Is this not what is meant by ‘accidental’, in that the form of running is accidental to the form of humanity in a running human?
 
ivebeenshown said:
I am new to this, but so eager to grow in understanding of it.

Now, regarding form and matter: it is known that there is the form of humanity, and by the participation therein of matter, a human is said to exist or have being.

When regarding actions, then, is a particular action such as the action of running not a form? And if so, when a human participates in that form, is it only the matter which then participates in two forms (the form of running and the form of humanity)? It would seem so, because it seems that if, by the participation of a human in the form of running, the form of humanity participates in the form of running, all matter which participates in the form of humanity must also participate in the form of running at that time – I run, you run! 😃

Is this not what is meant by ‘accidental’, in that the form of running is accidental to the form of humanity in a running human?
Click to expand...
I think this is closer to the platonic understanding of forms than the Thomistic.

St Thomas followed Aristotle in saying that the form is individualized by the matter and so is no longer universal as you are speaking of it.

The difference between accidental and substantial forms is that substantial forms make a thing to be “that which it is” while accidental forms make a thing to be “in a certain way”.
 
I see.

So then the form of humanity and the matter participating therein do both participate in the form of running, and by extension might participate in the form of fast or slow – and all because the human being consists of both the human form and the appropriate matter.

Now, when a human being participates in two forms, namely the form of humanity and the form of being, how is it that the form of being is individualized, when it should be simple and without division?
 
ivebeenshown

All I can say is: “Go for it.”

Enjoy the ride!
 
ivebeenshown said:
I see.

So then the form of humanity and the matter participating therein do both participate in the form of running, and by extension might participate in the form of fast or slow – and all because the human being consists of both the human form and the appropriate matter.

Now, when a human being participates in two forms, namely the form of humanity and the form of being, how is it that the form of being is individualized, when it should be simple and without division?
Click to expand...
Its the language of “participating” which reminds me of Plato, as though the forms themselves exist apart from everything else, and then other beings join in them to some extent.

I’m a little rusty on the exact phrasing for all of this, but basically, the essence of each individual is made up of form and matter combined, to which existence is added. In the case of God, however, there is simply essence for his existence is his essence and so need not be added. This is how God can remain entirely simple.

Perhaps talking about beings taking on the forms rather than perticipating in them would be a better way of explaining it?

Also, it might help if you read the beginning of Aristotle’s Physics (with commentaries of course :D) as this is where Aristotle explains his understanding of form and matter and why it is necessary to understand it as he does. As I said before, St. Thomas follows Aristotle on this.

Sorry that I am not being more helpful, but if I have time I will go back and look it up again.
 
I am not sure your statements are correct.

I have this idea of a table.

The form or idea is in my head.

I take the wood and make a table.

The form comes from my intellect.

This is an inanimate object.

Animate objects are different.

God places the forms into individual matter.

There are different kinds of being–from humans to canine.

The matter makes the individual.

Then, we as Christians believe, there are angles.

They are spiritual beings without matter.

Thomas says that each one of them is its own species or kind.

To make things even more complex, Thomas’ idea of participation is: Any being, other than God, receives its existence and essence from God. They are said to participate in being. Participate for Thomas means–to receive existence from God.

I do not know if I got it out clearly, but that is my understanding. I hope I am correct.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I am not sure your statements are correct.

I have this idea of a table.

The form or idea is in my head.

I take the wood and make a table.

The form comes from my intellect.

This is an inanimate object.

Animate objects are different.

God places the forms into individual matter.

There are different kinds of being–from humans to canine.

The matter makes the individual.

Then, we as Christians believe, there are angles.

They are spiritual beings without matter.

Thomas says that each one of them is its own species or kind.

To make things even more complex, Thomas’ idea of participation is: Any being, other than God, receives its existence and essence from God. They are said to participate in being. Participate for Thomas means–to receive existence from God.

I do not know if I got it out clearly, but that is my understanding. I hope I am correct.
Click to expand...
That sounds right to me, so if it was me you were disagreeing with then I must not be explaining it very well. I think we probably need someone who has studied this more recently to exlplain it better
 
I was not disagree with any one’s ideas.

If I gave that impression, I am totally sorry!

Oh, I see my mistake, this is an edit.

I said statement. I should have said that the original questions might be incorrect.

Please accept my apology. I am clerically challenged.

SORRY!!!

I am the King of Clerical Mistakes.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I was not disagree with any one’s ideas.

If I gave that impression, I am totally sorry!

Oh, I see my mistake, this is an edit.

I said statement. I should have said that the original questions might be incorrect.
Click to expand...
No worries. 🙂
 
ivebeenshown said:
I am new to this, but so eager to grow in understanding of it.

Now, regarding form and matter: it is known that there is the form of humanity, and by the participation therein of matter, a human is said to exist or have being.

When regarding actions, then, is a particular action such as the action of running not a form? And if so, when a human participates in that form, is it only the matter which then participates in two forms (the form of running and the form of humanity)? It would seem so, because it seems that if, by the participation of a human in the form of running, the form of humanity participates in the form of running, all matter which participates in the form of humanity must also participate in the form of running at that time – I run, you run! 😃

Is this not what is meant by ‘accidental’, in that the form of running is accidental to the form of humanity in a running human?
Click to expand...
You are waaaay confusing it all - which is awesome. It’s not so complicated. A human has form. (You should probably study the law of Identity -Aristotle) Every attribute and characteristic to this form in unique in and of itself, and yet is part of the form.

The statemtent -
the form of humanity participates in the form of running, all matter which participates in the form of humanity must also participate in the form of running at that time – I run, you run
Click to expand...
I don’t even know that this means…what are you saying? If someone steals a soda pop - then all of humanity steals a soda pop??? huh?? Whaaa?
 
It seems that ‘participation’ signifies that a particular form has been individualized by matter, the result of which is a substance consisting of matter and the form in which it participates – so as the form of humanity is individualized by matter in five instances, there are said to be five humans.

But if the form of humanity did not participate in the form of being, matter could not possibly individualize into the five aforementioned humans; therefore, forms must of necessity participate in the form of being. How, then, is a form individualized without matter?

It follows that participation is not merely the individualization of a form by matter, but the individualization of a form by substance; thus, the form of color is individualized by the form of redness and the form of greenness among others, which are in turn individualized by various substances consisting of both form and matter. Accordingly, it follows that forms would be substances in their own right, some of which are participated therein by matter, others by form, and some by both.
 
ivebeenshown

I am not sure if I follow what your stating, asking, or doing.

What are you trying to do?

I even misunderstood your first post, sorry.

I thought you were asking for help, sorry.

I am sorry that I was unable to help.
 
Jim_Baur said:
ivebeenshown

I am not sure if I follow what your stating, asking, or doing.

What are you trying to do?

I even misunderstood your first post, sorry.

I thought you were asking for help, sorry.

I am sorry that I was unable to help.
Click to expand...
I was speaking in regards to your earlier post:
God places the forms into individual matter.
Click to expand...
Rather than placing a form into individual matter, is it not instead that matter is placed into a particular form, the placement of which causes individualization of the form? A fire may cause a log to participate in the form of burning, thus individualizing the form of burning.
The matter makes the individual.
Click to expand...
If there are individual substances/beings such as angels which are immaterial, does it not follow that substance makes the individual, which may or may not consist in some part of matter?

I am sorry for not clarifying that I was responding to you in my previous post. I hope you can now understand the purpose of it.
 
ivebeenshown said:
I am new to this, but so eager to grow in understanding of it.

Now, regarding form and matter: it is known that there is the form of humanity, and by the participation therein of matter, a human is said to exist or have being.

When regarding actions, then, is a particular action such as the action of running not a form? And if so, when a human participates in that form, is it only the matter which then participates in two forms (the form of running and the form of humanity)? It would seem so, because it seems that if, by the participation of a human in the form of running, the form of humanity participates in the form of running, all matter which participates in the form of humanity must also participate in the form of running at that time – I run, you run! 😃

Is this not what is meant by ‘accidental’, in that the form of running is accidental to the form of humanity in a running human?
Click to expand...
Matter : newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm

Form : newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm

Accident : newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm

Substance : newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

Essence and Existence : newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

In man however is a rational animal, composed of matter and form. His substantial form is the soul whose prime attributes are intellect, will, and memory, with animal attributes of sensing, perceiving, vegetative powerw of growth and reproduction. His particular matter is the body. A particular man is a Being (substance, essence, nature) composed of body ( matter) and soul ( substantial form) which actually exists. His primary act is existing. Everything he does is an expression of his existence as a being, a human being. So " running " would be one of the ways he expresses his existence. The existing man runs, his " form " does not run. Though one could say his form ( soul ) is direction this activity and indeed everything else he does, including thinking, digesting, etc. Hope this helps. 👍
 
ivebeenshown

Keep going.

I am going to watch and learn!!!

Blessings,

Jim Baur
 
I find this a confusing and difficult topic, but I’ve read some good explanations in these sources:

Brian Davies: The thought of Thomas Aquinas

Brian Davies: Aquinas

Eleanore Stump: Aquinas

Robert Pasnau: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas

Etienne Gilson: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas

My understanding from reading Aristotle and Aquinas is that ‘form’ is the organising principle that makes something organised in terms of its nature and structure. Aristotle and Aquinas though had a view of matter different than modern science; matter was not made of atoms or subatomic particles. However, the form of something is the configuration or structure that makes something what it is; for example, the structured configuration of the water molecule as H2O is what makes water ‘water.’ This form of explanation is still relevant if we talk about complex systems, particularly living ones, whose behaviour can’t be reduced simply to the rules or laws relating to its individual components.
 
Greg27 said:
I find this a confusing and difficult topic, but I’ve read some good explanations in these sources:

Brian Davies: The thought of Thomas Aquinas

Brian Davies: Aquinas

Eleanore Stump: Aquinas

Robert Pasnau: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas

Etienne Gilson: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas

My understanding from reading Aristotle and Aquinas is that ‘form’ is the organising principle that makes something organised in terms of its nature and structure. Aristotle and Aquinas though had a view of matter different than modern science; matter was not made of atoms or subatomic particles. However, the form of something is the configuration or structure that makes something what it is; for example, the structured configuration of the water molecule as H2O is what makes water ‘water.’ This form of explanation is still relevant if we talk about complex systems, particularly living ones, whose behaviour can’t be reduced simply to the rules or laws relating to its individual components.
Click to expand...
Gilson is on of the great Aquinas commentators, not familiar with the others.
You might spend a little time exploring the blog site of Edward Feser, very good and he gives lots of resources. edwardfeser.blogspot.com/ 👍
 
ivebeenshown said:
I am new to this, but so eager to grow in understanding of it.

Now, regarding form and matter: it is known that there is the form of humanity, and by the participation therein of matter, a human is said to exist or have being.

When regarding actions, then, is a particular action such as the action of running not a form? And if so, when a human participates in that form, is it only the matter which then participates in two forms (the form of running and the form of humanity)? It would seem so, because it seems that if, by the participation of a human in the form of running, the form of humanity participates in the form of running, all matter which participates in the form of humanity must also participate in the form of running at that time – I run, you run! 😃

Is this not what is meant by ‘accidental’, in that the form of running is accidental to the form of humanity in a running human?
Click to expand...
Good question, IBS.

What you have done is to conflate two very different kinds of form and matter. The Form and Matter of the human soul and body is called substantial, for such as change or motion. Substantial means that Form and Matter are absolutely necessary to the effect, e.g., a “man.” In this scenario, Matter is Primary Matter, which is not a physical stuff, rather is a principle. And, Form, is, of course, not a stuff either, but it too is a principle. Principle to St. Thomas means, that from which anything flows in any manner whatsoever.

Now, your second example is accidental form and matter. The composite of Primary Matter and Form, already existing, is now undergoing local motion. St. Thomas uses the same concepts to define “motion,” because they make sense and because they flow from the foundational principles. A thing on the left is in potency to be that same thing on the right. On the right, it is said to be in act. Because potency and act also mean, when used to describe substantial change, form and matter in a wider sense, they have been used to describe change and motion. But, like the color red is only accidental to an apple, running is only accidental to a human being.

And, interestingly, the act of running is considered to be an act of the potential as potential, which defines “motion.”

God bless,
jd
 
ivebeenshown said:
Rather than placing a form into individual matter, is it not instead that matter is placed into a particular form, the placement of which causes individualization of the form?
Click to expand...
IBS:

Actually, the form is educed from the matter. In secondary causation and motion, the material thing already is, but the accidental form is at one point/time not, but at another point/time is. In substantial change, neither exist as things until the effect which is their composite.
If there are individual substances/beings such as angels which are immaterial, does it not follow that substance makes the individual, which may or may not consist in some part of matter?
Click to expand...
Angels are pure form. We think of them as not possessing any physicality at all.

Now, all of this seems very weird. But, if one thinks of true space, it cannot be the “space” of the physicist. The ‘space’ of the physicist is a soup of greater or lesser density (perhaps, although it might be completely homogeneous). OTOH, if one regards ‘space’ as twofold, continuous, i.e., infinite, for God, but discrete, and finite, for the physicist, then we may be able to render it intelligible to us.

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top