Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Is evolution a problem for the Thomistic doctrine of essences?

**Posted by John West** 3/30/2016 1:23 pm

In other words, the standard scholastic realist answer.

**Posted by Shade Tree Philosopher** 3/30/2016 1:52 pm

Is it realism? I used to think ideas in the mind of God were realist (enough), but isn't realism on universals the thesis that they exist with at least some independence? To put it crudely, God, angels, *and* Forms hang out together?

Chris-Kirk

**Posted by iwpoe** 3/30/2016 1:54 pm

No, realism just implies that they are real in some way. Whether they subsist in God's head or elsewhere.

**Posted by Shade Tree Philosopher** 3/30/2016 2:11 pm

Speaking of species and artifice, mon dieu:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/03/28/the-smallest-viable-genome-is-very-weird

Also note how little is known about what a cell needs to be a cell: although having only 473 genes - a 1/10 of that of a bacterium - 193 are of unknown but necessary function.

Chris-Kirk

Last edited by Shade Tree Philosopher (3/30/2016 2:14 pm)

**Posted by John West** 3/30/2016 2:23 pm

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:
Is it realism? I used to think ideas in the mind of God were realist (enough), but isn't realism on universals the thesis that they exist with at least some independence? To put it crudely, God, angels, *and* Forms hang out together?

In discussions about universals, scholastic realism is the position that universals exist only in things that instantiate them or in intellects, including the Divine Intellect (see here and here).

(It's also sometimes used to contrast generally “realist” scholastic metaphysicians, like Aquinas, Scotus, Chatton, etc., with Ockham et al. in history texts.)

**Posted by Shade Tree Philosopher** 3/30/2016 6:18 pm

My emphasis on the primary (individual) substance and importance of family history in this talk has come partly from my interest in trope theory spurred partly for religious reasons, and sparked by this and several related posts at the Maverick Philosopher:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/
(Hm, I like the way this website helps me format links)

The cats today are all descendants of the cats of a previous generation. Cats, dogs and other mammals descend from a proto-mammal species (let's say for simplicity). Their family history is what unites them as a genus, Mammalia, and separates them as species (dog, cat, goat etc.) No need for universals?

Truly, mere speculation.

Chris-Kirk

**Posted by Timocrates** 3/30/2016 11:00 pm

Shade Tree Philosopher wrote:
Dennis and iwpoe:

Heh, my problem is I don't see a problem. I'm not boasting about that, and I should speak more formally. Still, every house needs a Stove, maybe? Stoked with a little Feyer in the abend? I slay me.

Ahem.
I shouldn't say there is *no* problem. Rather, the problem can be solved by using ordinary Aristotelian philosophy:
(1) The substantial form is what gets reproduced in general; the matter is the culprit of corruption.

What? You originally insisted that forms are not produced - which is correct. A form in part helps justify our logical thinking in regards to being and change: something either is or is not. A house under construction is not a house. Form as such - as you earlier correctly pointed out - is not, itself, ever "produced." Certainly not in A-T. Or what was the point of your tirade against iwpoe's point about alluding to form as a principle of activity? You insisted it was not form but substances that did things.

When I draw a circle, I most definitely do not produce circularity. When irrational animals copulate, they don't produce (or even reproduce) their own forms, anymore than the coupling of a man and a woman "produces" humanity. The thing is absurd to suggest.

Last edited by Timocrates (3/30/2016 11:01 pm)

**Posted by Shade Tree Philosopher** 3/31/2016 12:38 am

Timocrates wrote:
When I draw a circle, I most definitely do not produce circularity.

Pardon if I didn't use the right word. When you draw five circles, each time you're reproduced the form 'circle'. When radishes reproduce, they reproduce radishes, and in that sense reproduce the form of radishes in the next generation. That's all I mean.

True, strictly, given the building analogy, is a blueprint is reproduced, it's another blueprint.
What's a better term? Does my use simply render (1) worthless? I want to remember Poe's point about not gnawing on a misused word, like analytical philosophers are prone to.

Chris-Kirk

**Posted by DanielCC** 3/31/2016 5:56 am

Timocrates wrote:
When I draw a circle, I most definitely do not produce circularity. When irrational animals copulate, they don't produce (or even reproduce) their own forms, anymore than the coupling of a man and a woman "produces" humanity. The thing is absurd to suggest.

Absolutely. Your drawing instantiates Circularity, it does not produce it. Circularity itself is a timeless universal, with the newly drawn circle, or strictly speaking the form of the newly-drawn circle, being one particular instance of it.

A pair of animals reproducing may instantiate another form from that of their own; they do not create it.

**Posted by Timocrates** 3/31/2016 3:48 pm

DanielCC wrote:
Timocrates wrote:
When I draw a circle, I most definitely do not produce circularity. When irrational animals copulate, they don't produce (or even reproduce) their own forms, anymore than the coupling of a man and a woman "produces" humanity. The thing is absurd to suggest.

Absolutely. Your drawing instantiates Circularity, it does not produce it. Circularity itself is a timeless universal, with the newly drawn circle, or strictly speaking the form of the newly-drawn circle, being one particular instance of it.

A pair of animals reproducing may instantiate another form from that of their own; they do not create it.

Indeed, they can't, for they already possess it. Thanks also for your much clearer presentation of the problem with the idea of strictly producing certain things (Circularity).