Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



12/30/2017 5:26 pm  #1


Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

I'm trying to figure out the metaphysical foundations of reality. I'm taking a second look at hylemorphism.

 

12/30/2017 6:35 pm  #2


Re: Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

I've always assumed that hylemorphism was the common sense view of the universe. I believe it because it makes a lot of sense and I cannot see how someone can coherently deny it without ever smuggling in a little bit of hylemorphism to account for our experience. I accept the four causes of Aristotle and to me it is very obvious that "what is X?" is very different from the question "what is X made of?". And when asked about a painting, our reply that "it is a horse" is very different from the reply that "it is a bunch of paint pigments". The form is something we perceive -- it is given to us in experience, it's not merely an interpretation we make of reality, and we could only ever make such an interpretation if we can grasp a concept such as "form" which is different from a material composition. So to me it just is commonsensical, it fits right into Aristotle's four causes and our experience of the world.

Moreover, I think we need hylemorphism to make sense of the presence of universals in the world. We know there is a commonality between human beings and a profound difference between us and dogs, for example. Form accounts for the universality of essences in material beings, the common structures shared by many beings (though form can be more than structure). I also think we need hylemorphism to make sense of change and identity; to me it's the best explanation for why our matter can be changed without our identity being lost in the process. Form can persist through a change of matter and matter can persist through a change of form. I see no way to solve the issues of identity and change without somehow smuggling form and matter into the picture.

I also think that hylemorphism may be necessary to account for the difference between real being and an ens rationis. That is, the difference between an existing cow and our thought or concept of that cow. The cow exists in real life as a material being because its form is actually informing some matter. And we can think of that cow because it has a form that is not the same thing as its matter; our concept of a cow is immaterial. The essence that the intellect grasps, therefore, cannot be matter, but must be something like form. Another reason why it must be form is because if our thoughts really are supposed to have a real correlation with reality, there must be something in common between our thought and the world, a relation of identity, and that can only be the case if there is form: the form of the existing cow is one and the same form we have in our intellect when we think of that cow. If hylemorphism were false I don't think we could sustain human thought and its connection with the external world.

 

12/30/2017 7:44 pm  #3


Re: Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

RomanJoe wrote:

I'm trying to figure out the metaphysical foundations of reality. I'm taking a second look at hylemorphism.

And as usual, I would give the same reasons as Miguel.


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

12/31/2017 9:47 pm  #4


Re: Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

Miguel wrote:

I've always assumed that hylemorphism was the common sense view of the universe. I believe it because it makes a lot of sense and I cannot see how someone can coherently deny it without ever smuggling in a little bit of hylemorphism to account for our experience. I accept the four causes of Aristotle and to me it is very obvious that "what is X?" is very different from the question "what is X made of?". And when asked about a painting, our reply that "it is a horse" is very different from the reply that "it is a bunch of paint pigments". The form is something we perceive -- it is given to us in experience, it's not merely an interpretation we make of reality, and we could only ever make such an interpretation if we can grasp a concept such as "form" which is different from a material composition. So to me it just is commonsensical, it fits right into Aristotle's four causes and our experience of the world.

Moreover, I think we need hylemorphism to make sense of the presence of universals in the world. We know there is a commonality between human beings and a profound difference between us and dogs, for example. Form accounts for the universality of essences in material beings, the common structures shared by many beings (though form can be more than structure). I also think we need hylemorphism to make sense of change and identity; to me it's the best explanation for why our matter can be changed without our identity being lost in the process. Form can persist through a change of matter and matter can persist through a change of form. I see no way to solve the issues of identity and change without somehow smuggling form and matter into the picture.

I also think that hylemorphism may be necessary to account for the difference between real being and an ens rationis. That is, the difference between an existing cow and our thought or concept of that cow. The cow exists in real life as a material being because its form is actually informing some matter. And we can think of that cow because it has a form that is not the same thing as its matter; our concept of a cow is immaterial. The essence that the intellect grasps, therefore, cannot be matter, but must be something like form. Another reason why it must be form is because if our thoughts really are supposed to have a real correlation with reality, there must be something in common between our thought and the world, a relation of identity, and that can only be the case if there is form: the form of the existing cow is one and the same form we have in our intellect when we think of that cow. If hylemorphism were false I don't think we could sustain human thought and its connection with the external world.

Can you give me an example of a denial of hylemorphism that "smuggles" hylemorphism into its account of the material world?

     Thread Starter
 

1/02/2018 4:31 pm  #5


Re: Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

Miguel wrote:

I've always assumed that hylemorphism was the common sense view of the universe. I believe it because it makes a lot of sense and I cannot see how someone can coherently deny it without ever smuggling in a little bit of hylemorphism to account for our experience. I accept the four causes of Aristotle and to me it is very obvious that "what is X?" is very different from the question "what is X made of?". And when asked about a painting, our reply that "it is a horse" is very different from the reply that "it is a bunch of paint pigments". The form is something we perceive -- it is given to us in experience, it's not merely an interpretation we make of reality, and we could only ever make such an interpretation if we can grasp a concept such as "form" which is different from a material composition. So to me it just is commonsensical, it fits right into Aristotle's four causes and our experience of the world.

Moreover, I think we need hylemorphism to make sense of the presence of universals in the world. We know there is a commonality between human beings and a profound difference between us and dogs, for example. Form accounts for the universality of essences in material beings, the common structures shared by many beings (though form can be more than structure). I also think we need hylemorphism to make sense of change and identity; to me it's the best explanation for why our matter can be changed without our identity being lost in the process. Form can persist through a change of matter and matter can persist through a change of form. I see no way to solve the issues of identity and change without somehow smuggling form and matter into the picture.

I also think that hylemorphism may be necessary to account for the difference between real being and an ens rationis. That is, the difference between an existing cow and our thought or concept of that cow. The cow exists in real life as a material being because its form is actually informing some matter. And we can think of that cow because it has a form that is not the same thing as its matter; our concept of a cow is immaterial. The essence that the intellect grasps, therefore, cannot be matter, but must be something like form. Another reason why it must be form is because if our thoughts really are supposed to have a real correlation with reality, there must be something in common between our thought and the world, a relation of identity, and that can only be the case if there is form: the form of the existing cow is one and the same form we have in our intellect when we think of that cow. If hylemorphism were false I don't think we could sustain human thought and its connection with the external world.

I think also the epistemological work that hylemorphism does and Miguel here points out is tremendously important, whether conceived purely abstractly or intellectually as the basis of human knowledge as such but even in sense knowledge or memory and imgination. It explains how we can in a sense (and at least certain other animals but also in a more qualified sense) can know things without knowing their ultimate material bases or the ultimate nature of matter, one; and two, how both the intellect and the senses can know sensibles without actually realizing or somehow appropriating the matter of the sense object: it allows us to know in both ways (intellectually and sensibly) things without those things having to fully materialize within us when we either think of them or remember/imagine them and their sensible properties/associations (e.g. when I think of a certain flower and remember what it looks, smells and feels like): hylemorphism doesn't require that the actual matter of the object materialize within me (say inside my brain) for this to occur.

Last edited by Timocrates (1/02/2018 5:01 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

1/02/2018 5:03 pm  #6


Re: Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

RomanJoe wrote:

Can you give me an example of a denial of hylemorphism that "smuggles" hylemorphism into its account of the material world?

Honestly do you even need someone else to do this for you?

I hope you mean to preclude rather naive or rash denials of form in reality; e.g., a materialist arguing that a house "is just," say, "bricks and wood and concrete and mortar," etc. or that a man "is just" flesh and bones, etc.

Last edited by Timocrates (1/02/2018 5:05 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

1/05/2018 10:58 am  #7


Re: Why do you believe in a hylemorphic view of the material universe?

Miguel wrote:

[T]o me it is very obvious that "what is X?" is very different from the question "what is X made of?". And when asked about a painting, our reply that "it is a horse" is very different from the reply that "it is a bunch of paint pigments".

That only applies to composites. The horse isn't reducible to, or synonymous with, the pigments because the artist could have decided to paint a Llama instead. However, when the question "what is X made of?" is met with the reply "nothing", the difference no longer exists. To avoid this dissolution of the difference you'd have to argue that simples do not (or cannot) exist, and that would entail the rejection of God's existence.

Miguel wrote:

The form is something we perceive -- it is given to us in experience, it's not merely an interpretation we make of reality, and we could only ever make such an interpretation if we can grasp a concept such as "form" which is different from a material composition. So to me it just is commonsensical, it fits right into Aristotle's four causes and our experience of the world.

The horse is the conjunction of the pigments and their relative spatial relations. Both of those conjuncts are physical/material.

There is a physical difference between a brick wall alongside a race track and a pile of bricks strewn all over the race track, which sufficiently accounts for why the former does not result in a vehicular accident while the latter does.

 

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum