Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Arguments for Hylomorphism

**Posted by AKG** 11/26/2015 8:41 am

I've been looking online, but I'm having trouble finding resources that give a good explanation of hylomorphism and arguments in favor of it. Does anyone have information on this?

**Posted by seigneur** 11/26/2015 12:44 pm

Arguments for hylomorphism against what kind of objections?

Anyway, hopefully this article is helpful http://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Oderberg/HylemorphicDualism2.htm

**Posted by AKG** 11/26/2015 1:34 pm

I'm not looking to respond to objections. Just an introduction to why Aristotle postulated it and why it should be accepted. Thanks for the article

**Posted by AKG** 11/28/2015 3:47 am

According to Aquinas one argument for Hylomorphism is substantial change as all change includes a subject which changes and a change of one substance into another, otherwise their would be creation/destruction not change. He also says that the subject must be common to both substances and due to its ability to take on the features of both must be featureless. Due to this he argues there must be a 2nd principal which gives the subject the characters of the substances otherwise their would be no change in substance as they would have no definite feature.
Can someone please elaborate on why exactly during substantial change 2 substances must have a common subject or otherwise their would be creation/destruction instead of change and why due to the subjects ability to exist in 2 different substances with 2 different features it would have to be featureless as these points don't seem right now to clear to me?

**Posted by AKG** 12/06/2015 11:27 pm

Thanks Alexander, your arguments do definitely convince me of a persisting substance during change. With regards to it being an argument for prime matter, your right that it is a bit doubtful, but I looked at a preview of Dr. Oderberg's Real essentialism where he states that quarks or other fundamental particles cannot be the fundamental substance that persist through change as they themselves substantially change and there is no metaphysical guarantee that they would stay the same during substantial change. Do you find this argument convincing for the existence of prime matter and if yes/no why/why not as for me the last part of the no metaphysical guarantee is still somewhat unclear to me.

**Posted by AKG** 12/07/2015 9:07 am

@Alexander.
Do you know other arguments for prime matter or Aristotelian matter that are strong and convincing that are not open to the objection that you stated above? Is there a way for the argument Dr. Oderberg argued to bypass the objection you stated?

**Posted by AKG** 12/25/2015 1:54 am

@Alexander,
Thanks for the reply and you can take as long as you want to respond. I'm just grateful you have provided so many good answers to my questions. With regards to Aristotelian form do you find viable the claim that DNA has refuted the concept due it determining what a thing is genetically and is something all animals of a certain group posses which makes them what they are?