Substantial Form (Aquinas 101)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
Science does not deny substantial form, but rather welcomes it.
Substantial Form (Aquinas 101) - Fr. James Brent, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
I really LOVE your videos. Thank you so much! I'm a Religious Education teacher and your work helps me to keep a thomistic, real, orthodox, integral focus in my classes - despite of the secularistic, anthropocentric and fragmentary curriculum. I truly benefit from your work. Thank you very much and may Our Lord reward you! With gratitude, a sister in Christ from Germany.
You're welcome! Thank you for writing such an encouraging note. Please keep the TI and its work in your prayers and know of ours for you and your work. God bless you!
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you so much for your reply! I am currently in Medjugorje and was praying for my students and school and for all Religious and Consecrated during Adoration just a moments ago, when a few minutes later I read your reply which so beautifully reflects my prayer intentions. Providentia Dei. The Lord is so good. Thank you so much again. Of course, I (continue to) pray for you in my humble prayers. United in JMJ! Ana
Ich hätte nicht erwartet, noch jemanden aus Deutschland hier zu sehen. ;)
Wie viel Freiraum hat man als Religionslehrer in Deutschland? Ich studiere gerade Mathematik auf Lehramt und habe eine Zeit lang überlegt, Religion als Zweitfach zu nehmen, allerdings habe ich mich dann doch für Informatik entschieden, da ich das Gefühl habe, dass katholische Schulen in Deutschland nicht gerade orthodox sind (aus eigener Erfahrung).
Grüß Dich! Vielen Dank für deinen Kommentar. Es tut mir leid, dass ich erst jetzt antworte. Mathe und Religion wäre natürlich eine tolle Kombination. Allerdings verstehe ich dein Hadern, und das sehr gut. Ich habe den schwierigen Weg (also Religion als Fach) gewählt, kann aber nicht leugnen, dass ich mir oft wünsche, neben meinem Erstfach ein anderes Fach zu unterrichten - auch als Lehrkraft einer katholischen Schule. Es ist, wird und bleibt hart. Zugleich geben einem die Schüler, die wirklich auf der Suche, interessiert, ehrlich und offen sind, gerade in den Momenten, in denen man versucht ist, das Fach hinzuschmeißen, viel Bestärkung zurück. Also keine Angst! Das Theologiestudium bereue ich in keiner Weise, allerdings bedauere ich die furchtbare Einseitigkeit und zwar in zunehmendem Maße, da ich selbst immer mehr erkenne, wie modernistisch die deutsche akademische Theologie in Wahrheit ist. Um, wie du sagst, orthodox zu bleiben, braucht man da viel Gebet und Selbststudium, allen voran aber natürlich Gottes Gnade.
Wie auch immer du dich entscheidest, lege es in Gottes Hand und vertraue auf Seine Führung. Diese erbitte ich Dir in meinem bescheiden Gebet :)
Viele Grüße! Ana
The distinction made between parts and wholes in relation to cats and motor cars is also explained by phenomenology in terms of 'pieces' (independent parts of a whole that are isolatable and examinable, e.g., a leaf from a tree) and 'moments' (non-independent parts which cannot be separated and examined apart from the whole).
Your remark is very clarifying. Thank you!
So, is a heart a "piece" or a "moment"? If the finger ceases to be if it is severed from the body, does not the heart cease to be? And what happens to them if they are transplanted?
Thank you for these wonderful lectures, extremely useful for helping me understand Aquinas. That, in turn, enables me to articulate a coherent philosophical / religious / theological stance. God bless you.
“There is for me a powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.” -Paul Davies
(Physicist Recipient of the Templeton Prize, The Kelvin Medal from the UK Institute of Physics, and the Michael Faraday Prize.)
Thank you, this was very good. I had been wondering about this and now I have my answers.
You're welcome! We're glad it was helpful.
I added this video to my Social Media الحمد لله
So it is not therefore, the particles that arrange in a certain way to make a cat. It is the fact that God made it to BE a cat, that the particles and subsystems fall into order to become a cat.
That implies the perfect kind of order that God would supply, and would explain Jeremiah saying that he knew me in my mother's womb. He was the one to tell the particles to organize into a human being because he called us a human being, not the particles accidentally organizing themselves into what can be called a human being.
That is really profound and eye opening to me. Thank you!
😂 what god?
@@matswessling6600 😂😂😂😂 good one bro you really got me hahaha I now see I am in fact ridiculous 😂🤣😂
@@cadenorris4009 you didnt answer the question.
@@matswessling6600 you didn't ask a serious question worth answering. You know the answer already.
@@cadenorris4009 no, i definitely do not.
Radical composition of material reality: Prime matter + substantial form = actual material substance + accidental form = individual substance
So you mean to tell me that when we take a cornea out of a dead guy's eye and stick it into a living guy, that for however long it took to transplant it, it wasn't actually a cornea?
Thank you for the wisdom
Dear Thomistic Institute
As someone who's deep in St. Thomas and Aristotle, this somewhat basic explanations speaks loudly to me.
Unbeknownst to those who just learn about Aristotle/Thomism this explanation is what you need to counter:
- Contraception
- Abortion
- LGBTQRSTU etc ism
- Attack on The real presence
- Attack on Trinity
Not just that, the last part that was said about how went we know things, the form of it is imprinted in our mind IMMEDIATELY takes me back to how the second person in the Trinity is primarily called the Son and Logos (logic, wisdom, reason). Why? Because "to reason" is to understand a thing, such that it is imprinted in our mind. Upon understanding, a copy of that thing (the imprint) are present in our mind (as previously our mind reasoned to grasp it). This is why Christ is called "Logos" because He is the mirror of His Father. This also connects with the fact that a son is also an imprint of the Father. A cat begets a cat, not a frog nor a mosquito or a squid.
To stretch it even further, the alikeness of the Father and The Son also explains Filioque. Because the spirative power of the Father is also possessed by the Son, because they are so alike (the spirative power is not transferrrable to the Holy Spirit because it's a power opposite to Him. Just as how the Father's power to begets is not transferrable to the Son because begetting is a power in opposition to the Son).
And THAT ladies and gentleman how this small but succint and beautiful video speaks to me as someone who's deep in Thomist/Aristotle. It just clicks every switches in my brain.
All these Thomistic videos are gold (not to mention the wonderful soft and wise narrations from these priests).
I want to say more and more. But I'll stop.
If I am understanding the concepts Father explained at 8:04, is this why it is proper to call what we are having for dinner tonight a chuck roast rather than cow's neck because when the cow died and was separated, its substantial form as a cow ended and now all those pieces of beef have new names based on how they are cut?
Going to the example of the cat, is this why we have the term "the heart of a cat" to describe what it was?
Yes, but remember that it is possible to use the same name with different meanings. In fact, this is very common. Aristotle's point is that we cannot use the same name with the _same_ meaning to describe both things, and this is a sign of the fact that they are no longer the same _kind_ of things.
I love all your
videos
We're glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
In the case of heart transplant, for example. Would we say that between bodies, what we regard as a human hear is not a human heart?
The heart was temporarily separated from the original body, but It continues being a heart because it keeps the substance and function. It’s useful in the second body
Yes. It is only a human heart analogically. We can speak of the heart having its own form as a heart when it is in a human body, but it only has that form virtually, as in the human has the power to generate the form of a heart by having his heart removed.
According to the video, a person's heart is essentially no longer a heart after death.
However, my guess is that the loss of substantial form does not prevent the matter of a dead person's heart from being assimilated by another person's soul into their body. Mutatis mutandi, the nutritive faculty of the soul must fulfill its essential function of assimilating the matter of the transplanted heart in an orderly way into the body, similarly to what it does when we insert the heart of a chicken into the stomach, in that case without digestion, obviously.
The matter of the heart received in the transplant was assimilated, so now it essentially returns to being a heart in the person who received it.
That a great answer, but how is this distinguished from a part like a fuel pump in a car? The car can be wrecked, but an intact fuel pump may be extracted and used in another car. I see the difference in substantial form being the organizing principle of matter which supervenes development, but it seems the video adds a further distinction in the reducible/irreducible dichotomy. Why is an automobile reducible to its parts but a human isn't (on the claim that parts in the latter cease to be)?
I thought the term "essence" referred to what the phrase "substantial form" is referring to. I've always thought that an essence is what makes something _what it is._ So, to alter an object's essence would be to fundamentally change what the object is. For instance, cutting the tail off a cat would not essentially change the cat; the cat is still a cat, just without its tail. Have I been misunderstanding and misusing these words?
Most of these videos make sense to me but this one is going to require some study and pondering.
From what I do understand, it seems like bottom-up people are those who lack hope and joy. "Behold my beloved, a mobile collection of atoms rather than the substantial form of a real person." It seems like those who are unsure of what is "really real" would live confused lives.
It’s interesting that a “bottom-up” person would see everyone and everything as molecules in motion trying to understand the overarching substance of it all, whereas a “top-down” person sees a person or thing with substance and understands their underlying mechanics. In a similar way, bottom up will have difficulty understanding the nature of God because they would be like the spleen trying to understand the body, whereas top down realizes God is the top and everything down is part of him, subject to him, and loved by him.
Hey, I absolutely love your videos, so thank you very much, but would it be possible for you to make some video on using science in arguing God? Like kalaam, or inteligent design things, and if we should use them, as they usually approach some type of God of the Gaps. Thanks again!
Most Thomist do not rely on probabilistic arguments when arguing for the existence of God which in principle only yield a reasonable level of certainty (e.g., Kalam or Intelligent design). Rather they tent to utilize metaphysical arguments that could in principle yield metaphysical certainty (e.g., Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas).
I would say that science is categorically unfit to answer questions about the transcendent. We can use science to know God’s creation, but knowing about God is more within the realm of reason, and really knowing God is about faith and revelation.
@@jasonpalladino1852 although the Kalam is not probabilistic ... it’s an Deductive argument ( A Priori )... if the premises are true then the argument is sound..... though Aquinas was a empiricist when it came to epistemology ( all knowledge begins with the senses ) which would be A Posteriori . So from my understanding he would hold all A priori arguments as actually A posteriori .
Josh Scheibach the kalam argument relies on probabilistic reasoning. It's just hidden. The primary premise is that everything that has happens has a cause. This premise relies on inductive reasoning. I agree that this premise is likely to be true and so the kalam argument is also likely to be true.
Can you please make a video about transubstansiation? The bread becoming Jesus Christ flesh, by His grace. Because as I understand, it is linked with what you explain in this video.
Peace!
Sure. Already done. Here is a video on Transubstantiation from the first season of Aquinas 101:
ruclips.net/video/93lauv161ks/видео.html
Here is an audio file of a longer and more in depth talk on Transubstantiation:
soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/putting-the-eucharist-in-a-theological-philosophical-context-fr-james-brent-op
@@ThomisticInstitute thank you.
Dear James: I tend to think that thomism has an explanation for this, but I don't know it: When a person dies, some of his body organs can be used on a living person, because they preserve their functionality, at least for a certain time. This fact seems to imply that my heart (for instance) is still a heart if I die. It preserves it's functionality because its cells remain alive, even though I have died. How do you integrate this fact into your explanation?
A good question that I have already asked myself. Common sense attests that a part of a dead person's body is also dead. How does this dead part of a deceased body take on life in someone else's body?
I believe the explanatory key lies in the nourishing potency of the soul.
A "heart" received in a transplant is assimilated in an orderly way into the body of the person who received it through the nourishing potency of the soul, similarly (and at the same time distinct) to what happens when the molecules of a steak are integrated in an orderly way in our body.
@@leonardovieira4445 They are not integrated orderly though the body actively rejects the forgein material after the immune system recognize the cells in the organ is not of the body. That is why people with organ transplants are put on immuno-supprents for most of their life so that the body doesn't reject the organ. This isn't the case for all organ and the source of organ also matters. The more genetically similar a donor is the better, an identical twin would be best. I'm not an expert on metaphysics and Thomism, just wanted to chip in on the organ donation part
@@clovebeans713 All right?, Yes, from a purely biological point of view, the assimilation of organic material from another body is not perfect, and there is a need for medication to prevent rejection.
But when we ask ourselves the question, it is in a slightly deeper sense. The body of each of us is animated and shaped by a rational soul, and this composite is what we call a "person." When the soul separates from the body, then the body immediately loses the principle of unity and movement, and therefore begins to be corrupted immediately.
We were talking about what the process by which a person receives a dead part of another person's body would be like. What is the soul that animates the heart of a deceased in the body of a receiver? The soul of the deceased? The receiver's soul?
In this sense our question.
@@leonardovieira4445 Ah ok, I get what you are saying. Looking at it from just the biological perspective the heart to be transplanted is still alive since the cells constituting it are alive, it is case of parts coming together to make a whole, dumb ants coming together to form intelligent colony. It will continue to be alive as long it receives nourishment from vasculature and blood. When it is hosted by the recipient the heart is nourished by the vasculature and blood of recipient and continues to be alive. It never ceases to be alive and can't de considered dead till the recipient dies. It was never dead to begin with, if it where it would be totally worthless for transplant.
@@leonardovieira4445 Some parts of the body can be dead while simultaneously other parts are alive, as is seen in gangrene and avascular necrosis of bones in fracture. What we generally term as death is specifically death of just one organ the brain. All conditions from terminal cancers, heart death/failure ultimately lead to brain death.
Can you characterize substantial form in living things as an immaterial force that is responsible for the organization, regulation and maintenance of the biological system?
Excellent explanation. I'm certain you've been asked this question, but I've not come across it. What do you say with respect to organ transplants? If substantial form is top-down and the components cease to be when the substance dies or undergoes substantial change, doesn't the heart, liver or other organs continue to exist if they are transplanted in another host? How does the theory of substantial forms address that?
The substantial form does not precisely equate to physical structures. It is the principle of being and operation for a living substance as a whole. When an organism dies, its form is corrupted as the intrinsic forces directing matter towards a determinate telos cease. However, individual organs could still retain vestiges of formal perfection for a time after, analogous to how severed limbs from a living body still possess a degree of animation. In transplant, these organs find themselves embedded in a new substance with its own animating form.
The Thomistic view thus does not imply transplanted organs are inert or cease existing. Rather, their incomplete formal principles are perfected anew by being taken up within the teleology of another live whole. The organs live on, so to speak, by participation in the new form governing their host. So while substantial form theory indicates a holistic view of living substance, it also allows for transplant practices by showing how parts can live derivatively through a new metaphysical context. The principles are preserved, though re-oriented to a changed finality.
@@alphazero5614 Your replies here and elsewhere are excellent. Do you have a blog or have you written papers?
@@davidcoleman5860he's a guy who listens to Christian b wagner , this helps
I have a weird thought: what if when using a sword (or any object), your soul actually enters the sword, as though it is really an extension of your hand? You could have a sense of where it is when using it just like you have a sense of where your hand is. Swordsmen with experience could have a use one less like an instrument and more like a actual part of their body. I wonder if that’s just neural experience or if your soul is really entering the object, where before you were a human body animated by a human soul, but now the soul is animating both the body and the sword. Our bodies are very complex machines in a sense, so the material difference between a body and a sword should be insignificant.
Just a mind fart, I wonder what a thomist would say to this.
this is a really cool thought - thank you for sharing
You mind farts have a very pleasant odor.
I think that the difference between our body parts and the sword is that e.g. our hand is a sub-system of our bodies' substantial form, whereas the sword is not. Further, souls dwell in living bodies, not in inanimate objects.
Pax et Bonum
Different cultures (including Christians) actually had extensive rituals, chants, prayers etc. they performed when manifacturing weapons.
That could never happen . Because a sword is of a different form or else it wouldn’t be a sword.... souls don’t enter things , they are what makes the thing be what it is along with prime matter .....it’s not like a Ghost in a machine , it seems to me that your looking at this from a substance dualist prospective not from a hylomorphic one.. a sword wouldn’t even look like a sword if it was part of the human form (soul) , plus every part of the human body would be exactly that, a part of the human body , swords are not part of a human body thus are never part of the form ( soul)
Are accidental forms, such as that of a car, immutable? For example, does a car stop being a car when it loses that which it depends on, that is, an engine?
Accidental forms do not define the essence or primary act of being of a thing in the manner of a substantial form. Rather, they determine secondary aspects or modes of a substance's existence. So while a motor is necessary for a car qua vehicle to fulfill its function of transport, it is not integral to the car's essential definition as an automotive product. Losing its engine would not destroy the integrity of matter structured as a car or change its genus/species. The essence of 'car' resides at the level of its substantial composite of chassis, wheels, passenger compartment, etc. designed for road use - features that could in principle be actualized by alternate propulsion means like electric motors.
So the accidental form of an engine is mutable because it does not touch the substantial nature constituted by the primary synthesis of integrated parts. The accidental configuration depends on this deeper formal constitution for its very existence and possibility of change. We need to distinguish between substantial and accidental features when considering a form's immutability. The latter are alterable accidents, while the prior defines the intrinsic act of a thing's being at the level of quiddity.
I can't remember the language (I think it might've been Chinese) they have separate terms for a car that is usable for transportation and a car that's sitting in a museum. So I think there's something to that.
Is the bacteria in our gut a primary substance? I imagine that when it’s “severed” from our body, it still works like a part of a car. That’s why I’m asking about its metaphysical status.
I think the bacteria would be a primary substance since it could independently subsist past it’s relationship to the human. Unlike a hand which is known in relation to the whole substance, bacteria is more of an independent parasitic being of sorts that we have a kind of symbiotic relationship with.
@@matthewmayuiers , I second your answer. Let’s see if anyone corrects us
@@MountAthosandAquinas Unless it can't live outside of the gut alone. Then it is dependent on the living gut for it to have life.
What if the heart of a cat was transplanted? Does the heart then join to the substantial form of another being?
Anima forma corporis
Yeah, I think in a transplant the heart is joined to the receiving organism’s substantial form.
The heart is a material part of an individual substance (X). The substantial form of X is what ordered that matter to be a heart.
If the heart were cut out of X and thrown away, its internal vigor as part of a living (self-moving) thing and its intelligibility within the whole organism (as the engine behind the circulation of the blood in the cat) would be lost. The heart in this condition is no longer alive since its movement as a living part of a living (self-moving) thing ceases; for this reason the removed organ is no longer, properly speaking, a heart. It is now simply the organic matter that was formerly the heart of X. While this “heart” received its current heart-like structure/organization from the substantial form of X (having formerly been a material part of X), in its current condition, the organic matter will decompose as the individual cells that make up the (now removed) “heart” will soon run out of energy to move and sustain their cellular unity. But right after being removed, the organic matter still has all the makings of a heart, such that it can readily rejoin X as a material part, sharing again in the unity and vitality of X through its substantial form.
Similarly, in a successful transplant, the heart is first removed (becoming heart-like organic matter that hasn’t yet had the time to decompose and so is still well-suited to functioning as a heart), and then this heart-like organic matter is joined to the new organism (Y) in a way that shares in the formal intelligibility of the organism-being heart-like in structure, being connected to the organism in the a manner proper to a heart, and ultimately functioning as a heart for Y. In this condition, the organic matter, formerly a living part of X, now shares in the vigor, unity, and self-motion of the new organism, Y.
So it seems to me that, yes, in a successful transplant, the heart comes to be joined to (or enformed, vivified, or made alive by) a new substantial form. I probably have some details wrong and defer to any OP who wants to jump in and provide a better answer.
@@hgv85 I like your answer (I have the same question), but it seems to blur the distinction between substantial and accidental forms. One of the key differences is the irreducibility of substantial forms and the reducibility of accidental ones. A fuel pump in an automobile shares in the formal intelligibility of an automobile, but if the car is wrecked, the fuel pump may be extracted and "transplanted" into another vehicle. True, the fuel pump will not decompose, but it will serve no other purpose until it is conjoined to an automobile.
I can see how substantial form is the organizing principle of matter. A human being has not been constructed with preexisting parts from the heart, lung, liver factory, whereas that's how a car is made (from preexisting parts). And if that's all irreducibility means, I can see that clearly. The waters get murky when Thomists (and I consider myself one) say a component ceases to be. I wonder if the theory would have been modified if organ transplants were available in Aristotle's day.
I don't get how when the cat loses its form in 7:00 the parts of the cat cannot be what they are.. if the eye is preserved or the heart is transplanted in another cat, won't those parts retain their identity?
That's because by definition an organ is a part of a living body. Once it's severed from the animal, it no longer fulfill the requirements to be an organ. For example, one cannot say that a corpse is a man, even if it's preserved, because being a man requires being alive.
@@luizfernandogontijo6751 But the organ continues to be alive and thrive independently of the original body right?
@@clovebeans713 life is defined as immanent self perfecting movement in the thomistic philosophy. It does not apply to a severed organ, because even though it may be transplanted if it's well preserved, it's not a life on its own. An organ for transplant needs to be preserved frozen precisely because it isn't alive, even though it may be functional.
@@luizfernandogontijo6751 The heart is still alive, the cells constituting it are alive, something can be alive and dead in the body simultaneously as is the case in gangrene and necrosis of bones in fracture. What you are referring to as death is primarily the death of one single organ the brain. Why would the death of brain immediately cause the death of heart? The heart is self exitatory due to SA node and continues to beat for few hours after brain death. Same is not the case conversely death of heart cause death of brain in few minutes. The body is an intricate balance between interlinked systems not a single unit. Hence all parts of body don't die simultaneously.
@@clovebeans713 your sentence seems to assume a bottom up explanation, that describes the living being as an aggregate of systems, not as an unit. Now, in order to understand what the video is saying, you gotta think about it in a top down perspective. The kind of death I was talking about isn't quite brain death, because it would also assume a bottom-up perspective. So what kind of death was I talking about? Well, pretty much the same one the video points out, the loss of the substancial form. Now, you're saying that the parts continue to be alive after death because they still have some kind of metabolism or residual activity. Although it's true the parts continue to maintain some movement after brain death, it's not exactly the point of the video. The friar presents a definition of an organ as a living part of a living being. If the living being dies, even though it may remain exactly the same in its exterior, it cannot be called an organ, except in a equivocal way, because it ceased to be part of the living being. I suggest you to watch the video again with special attention to the part about bottom up and top down explanations.
How do we explain genetics and the genomes / DNA of living beings which are the physical blueprint of any individual life form? It is said that the 'substantial form' is the very thing behind a primary being, like a cat, a dog, and a human which forms the individual entity as a closed / independent system within the larger system; that it is the substantial form of a certain 'cat', for example, that gives birth and governs everything the cat is and does. I am not sure how, naturally speaking, the forming substantial form actually shapes and forms things where it is from my perspective everything within, down to the smallest things and fabrics, which give birth to the whole entity, like the DNA molecules or genetics which determine a species of an individual being by taking matters from outside to divide cells and create the physical entity of a living individual or thing.
In the eyes of faith; by the will, divine providence, and pre-destination power of God, God can determine something or someone to exist out of natural orders and events seemingly random or by chance to the human perspective, in this way I can understand that God constantly creates or allows the forming of something or someone by 'substantial form', that is the idea or image in the mind of God to be accomplished wholly in whatever purpose God allows or sees fit. The way I understand 'substantial form', or simply 'form', is that it is not a pre-existing "ghostly" or invisible vessel, a limiter, to be achieved in time or has been put in place, but if anything it is the very basic entity by intellect of something or someone by being exist as determined by God in God's own power and intellect; something like the fabric of binary codes behind every image or programs in computers. And so, as the matters and events change, the 'form' changes naturally in existence, and vice versa if God changes the 'form', the matters and events change also in nature by God's act of sustaining existence and creative power.
In the natural eyes and by scientific findings and investigation, we can actually modify nature to create something based on our 'purpose', as long as the established natural law allows, the well-known example is selective breeding, natural selection, and hence genetic modification; does this mean the human minds, even animals and plants, have power over substantial form of other things or are changes of substantial form can only be determined by God? I understand that mechanical non-living things, the 'accidental form' as called, are just working components of individual parts which are created separately from different sources using a technical design or drawings and hence what makes a car for example is its function and appearance and not its nature. If substantial forms have been pre-determined, and they determine everything and every function, and that is the way God creates things and beings, that would mean we are also creators or co-creators because in nature we can modify things and hence by the concept, we change or create new substantial forms, which is not the case as a believer. To me 'forms' do not make things, 'forms' themselves are results of creations and they can be manipulated in certain ways naturally or on purpose.
In my view, what is real and gives forth meaning, beauty, and value is the intellect, the mind, by which humans and other creatures reflect the very being of God, the intellect of God. For example, to a lizard, the values of a beautiful, kind, and virtuous woman are meaningless in each and every way because she is irrelevant and incomprehensible to its intellect, the lizard will not form a relationship with the woman only perhaps by the concept of rewards and punishment. However, to a dog, a kind and animal-loving person can be understood in limited ways as bringing comfort and security to the dog and the dog will respond in positive ways to the humans, but the dog still cannot and will not fully value and comprehend the human person's whole entity the same way as another human can.
My point is, in my view, regardless of the concept of how we see entities come into being and operate, the 'substantial form' of each one of them, for example even if I can only know a person through exchange of letters or just by a name that a person exists or once existed, my intellect and mind value and acknowledge the person, or the deceased person, fully as a human being or entity, with everything that God gives or gave the person regardless of my own personal perspectives or others', by God's objective truths and will. I also see the importance of emphasizing the mentioned 'bottom-up' approach, that we value someone and something not just by the appearance or completion of something or someone (that is by its / his / her 'completeness' so to speak), and hence recognizing its / his / her 'substantial form', but also through and by every bit of the person or thing; a person in the womb who is one-day old is as much a person as a twenty-one-year old healthy and productive person, a person with prosthetic arms and legs is fully a person with dignity and values just as any person, because of our intellect in connection with God's that we know what and who a person or a being is.
Thank you Fr. James Brent, O.P. and also the Thomisitc Institute, always love to see new teachings and updates, and inspirations. Good to know there is unity and purpose in everything, and science and the true religion are not in conflict but complement each other in God's eternal wisdom and glory.
I don’t really follow the leap from “bottom up implies the cat is accidental” to “bottom up implies the cat isn’t real.” For example, Spinoza denies substantial form to anything/one except God but unambiguously is of the position that a cat is real.
Will there be a video on artifacts?
How do we get kittens? Does the feline zygote, have the feline substantial form, somehow orienting the primitive organism toward some goal in its development?
This was addressed in the video. Substantial form is the organizing principle of matter which controls throughout the development of the being in question to its full actuality.
Hylomorphism!
Isn't Aristotle's formulation of parts of a substantial form ("a living member of a living thing") begging the question a little? Why is it necessary for something to be living to be a member of some living thing?
I don't think that was meant to be a description of the parts of a _form_, since forms do not have parts in that sense. The claim was rather that when you take a particular kind of part of a living body, for example, a _finger_, and then look at what it means for something to be a finger, you will realize that it is essential for a finger in so far as it is a finger that it be a member of a larger body, that it be a living member, and that the larger body be living. This is the primary meaning of what it is to be a finger. There are other things we call "fingers," to be sure, but we only call them "fingers" because they resemble or are related to fingers in this primary sense. In particular, the "finger" that is severed or is dead is only a finger in an equivocal sense, not in the primary sense. This is because it is no longer the same kind of thing as it used to be.
Does this beg the question? Well, the video didn't present any argument for this claim, it just offered the theory, so it can't really be begging the question. Perhaps some argument could be given, but I think the main idea is an invitation to think about examples like these with this explanation in mind. I find that when I think about it for a long time, I see that this must be the right way to explain how we speak, and ultimately, to explain what we see.
@@danieltraceski2513 if you want to italicize your words, the underscore before and after are proper, but you cannot add punctuation immediately after the last underscore or it will not format. What I normally do is add a space between the last underscore and the period (or comma). That way, the text will italicize.
By the way, very good answer!
How can form be a substance if it can be destroyed?
Form is properly reduced to the category of substance, as it is an incomplete substance. I am not sure what is the problem where being destroyed is concerned.
Did God give "Substantial Form" to Kaitlain Jenner or Chastity Bono...? I think not.
To me, there seems to be a hesitation (if not an outright denial) in Thomism to consider ‘formal causes’ as synonymous with ‘laws of nature’?
If this is accurate, then what difference is there between the tenet that a ‘substantial form’ organizes parts into an integrated organism, on the one hand, and that ‘laws of nature’ organize parts into an integrated organism, on the other hand?
There seems to be a need on the part of Thomists to conceive of laws of nature a ‘things’, as opposed to as ‘habitual occurrences’ of things.
I'm not certain what you're driving at. I've read nothing in Thomist literature that denies the laws of nature. Indeed, they insist that substances have an _inherent_ directedness toward actualities in accordance with the kind of substances they are. This directedness or _telos_ permeates the natural order and is the basis of natural law.
What Thomists object to is the denial of inherent teleology and the adoption of a mechanistic view of the cosmos which views the things in our experience as artifacts and not substances.
@@davidcoleman5860 I’m not claiming that Thomists deny laws of nature. I’m asking what difference there is between a ‘law of nature’ and a ‘substantial form’.
If it is true that the parts which come together to make up a hylomorphic object (a synolon, in Aristotle’s terminology) or the parts which are incorporated into the hylomorphic object are led to do so by laws of nature, why is there a need to posit a ‘substantial form’ which combines them or incorporates them, as if it were a entity distinct from them having causal power?
The distinction is important, because unlike ‘substantial forms’, *natural laws* are not additionally said to be separable from the hylomorphic objects which result from them. (Thomists often begin by claiming that substantial forms are as necessarily inseparable from hylomorphic objects as is prime matter, only to then (contradictorily) claim thereafter that the substantial form called ‘the rational soul’ is separable.)
Bertrand Russell, among others, noted the unnecessary complication of the concept of substantial form in his book on the history of western philosophy. Laws of nature are a more parsimonious and by that fact a more preferable rational mental construct than substantial forms in providing an explanation of that which both are attempts to explain.
@@Emcee0302 The term "form" can refer to essence or nature in certain contexts and in others it refers to the actualizing principle of matter (form corresponding to the principle of act and prime matter corresponding to the principle of potency) which results in substantial being (the result being the essence of a thing). For A-T metaphysics, the observed order in nature is located in the physical world in the essences of being or systems. The laws which govern being are understood as descriptions of the way something having the nature of the thing in question will tend to behave. More to the point, they describe the active and passive causal powers that follow from the essence or nature of a thing, being the ways it will tend to affect or be affected by other things. On this understanding, I think the question you ask is then answered. The reason humans produce humans is that the form "human" actualizes matter and directs it to its ultimate material perfection. One does not expect a human mother to give birth to an acorn or a peacock. Thus, form is an essential component to something's existence.
Whether the perdurance of the substantial form human is contradictory to Aquinas' metaphysics, is something Thomists will certainly disagree with. But your ultimate point that the theory of forms is an unnecessary complication is curious from our perspective. Identifying the natures of things is to identify inherent realities of the things in question. They are not purely mental constructs. They are rather abstractions from what we recognize as real features and final causes of being. And we of course consider competing claims to be demonstrably incoherent or contradictory.
@davidcoleman5860
I agree with those who find both substantial form (also called “nature”) and prime matter to be merely mental constructs, and superfluous ones at that. You could never *come across* either prime matter or pure substantial form, both of which are nothing more than unncessary reifications of mental constructs.
Prime matter, by definition, could never be identified in the world. Prime matter is, therefore, indistinguishable from nothing. In other words, there is no such thing as prime matter. Rather, it is *merely postulated* as an explanatory mental construct to explain change.
Substantial forms, it is said, interact with matter (whether prime or proximate) to effect whole objects - so-called “hylomorphic compounds”. But tell me, has this ever been observed? No, it has not. And what would it even be like to observe substantial form changing matter into a hylomorphic compound? It’s unimaginable.
Rather, it is always a (already en-formed) hylomorphic compound which incorporates matter (which is also already en-formed matter, not prime matter) into itself. Like prime matter, pure substantial form is a *postulated* explanatory mental construct meant to explain change.
Substantial form is, furthermore, said to be that which is "to be blamed" (cf. the Greek word ‘aitia’ used by Aristotle) for an object having the parts that it does and the potentials that it does. But this is just to use “substantial form” in place of “definition” and in place of “habit”.
In truth, there is simply no reification of mental constructs needed, whether they be kinds unecessarily reified into so-called “substantial forms”, or something literally unimaginable (much less observable) reified into so-called “prime matter”.
Instead of prime matter and substantial form, it would be more parsimonious to say that there are (i) singular objects which are transformable into other objects, (ii) singular objects which transform other objects into themselves, and (iii) kinds (which are soley mental objects) which these singular objects exemplify.
@@Emcee0302 Please forgive my tardy reply. I've been caught up in all kinds of projects, so that necessitated my putting this on the back-burner. You write:
_I agree with those who find both substantial form (also called “nature”) and prime matter to be merely mental constructs, and superfluous ones at that. You could never come across either prime matter or pure substantial form, both of which are nothing more than unncessary reifications of mental constructs_ .
And we simply disagree. The evidence for the myriad forms is in existing things. These things exhibit routine, predictable and repeatable characteristics due to their natures. As I stated, humans do not produce acorns or peacocks. The nature is real, whether or not we're around to observe it. If all humans died tomorrow, lions would still produce lions, and apple trees would still produce apple trees. And why would they do so? The would do so precisely because there is a real lion nature and a real apple tree nature that organizes matter in particular ways. It is a real feature of the thing in question.
_Prime matter, by definition, could never be identified in the world. Prime matter is, therefore, indistinguishable from nothing. In other words, there is no such thing as prime matter. Rather, it is merely postulated as an explanatory mental construct to explain change_ .
Of course prime matter cannot “be identified in the world.” Since prime matter by definition is formless, and since form is that which makes the world intelligible, it follows that something formless is beyond our means to observe. We cannot observe the quantum vacuum either, but we know it's there, given our understanding of subatomic particles. What matters is whether the argument for prime matter is sound. We do not conclude the nonexistence of things by what we fail to observe. The fact that we cannot observe something does not mean it isn't real.
_Substantial form is, furthermore, said to be that which is “to be blamed” (cf. the Greek word ‘aitia’ used by Aristotle) for an object having the parts that it does and the potentials that it does. But this is just to use “substantial form” in place of “definition” and in place of “habit”_ .
And why is there a definition or a habit? What makes something a habit? Either habit is a real feature of the world or it is not. And if habit is a real feature of the world, then what explains it? It either arises due to the inherent active and passive causal powers of a thing or these regularities are externally imposed. If the latter, what explains the regularity of these external agents' causal efficacy? Why do they routinely cause these regularities?
_Instead of prime matter and substantial form, it would be more parsimonious to say that there are (i) singular objects which are transformable into other objects, (ii) singular objects which transform other objects into themselves, and (iii) kinds (which are soley mental objects) which these singular objects exemplify_ .
Why are singular objects transformable into other objects? What are these singular objects (indeed, what is “singular”?) and what are these other objects that they transform into unless these other objects have identifiable natures that result from this transformation?
Your position appears to be self-undermining. It reduces to “All A's are B's” (all categorizations are mental constructs), which is just another categorization. Since this is of the form all A’s are B's, then it is itself a grouping or category. To say that “all categories are conventional” is itself conventional and just undermines the thesis altogether, because it implies that it is just as arbitrary and disconnected from reality. So, why believe it? If there is nothing real that connects the things together into a group, then it is just a projection from our imagination that is ungrounded in reality. Why even put those things in such a group unless there is something that they share in common? Categorization then becomes completely arbitrary, and thus useless, unless it actually represents something in reality.
Why not just deny that reducibility entails _not really existing?_ Do substantial forms _have to_ be irreducible in the normal sense? I'm not sure what hinges on that. Guitars are real, for instance! And they're reducible despite having a form. I also think _I_ would still be real, even if I found out that I happened to have been created by a weird scientist out of deceptively organic-looking but in fact highly sophisticated robot parts. (If I would still count as having an irreducible substantial form in that case, I'm again just not sure the relevant sense of irreducibility is the one I'm familiar with, or if most people who think (e.g.) _computers_ are reducible might be able to agree that they are nonetheless irreducibly in the sense at issue in this video.)
Well a guitar is just an artifact, not a substantial form, because it is manmade and not natural. We can speak of it having form only analogically.
This is how I understand it ...Accidental forms are reducible, primary substances can be changed to other primary substances ( elements , Atoms , so on ) .. so even though I retain the powers of other primary substances with in me , those primary substances only exist potentially in me or in the new composed primary substances and are not actually /actualized primary substances themselves while participating in a larger whole , because the whole is the primary substance not the parts , unless it’s accidental..... hopefully you caught the newest video that Father James Brent just released .. that’s how I understood it .. it’s called virtual presence...
Why dont we say that DNA is the form of the body???
Because that wouldn't be true.
@@RiNickolous why? Haha. Just philosophizing
@@Bosco._ Though the DNA contains "code" which tells the body how to behave, so to speak, the *form* of the body as a whole cannot just be a smaller component of the body. That's not what a form/essence is.
@@RiNickolous thanks
So the substantial form of a cat is the thing the makes the cat a cat. Then a cat is a thing that has the form of a cat which means that it looks like a cat and does cat things and then cat things are defined as things that cats do. So weve learned thats cats have cat forms and they do cat things because they are cats and they are cats because they have cat forms?
How is any of this useful or insightful. When biology, chemistry, and ultimately physics can already explain cats why do we have to add on additional explanations. The scholastics may have had to posit the idea that a cat has a form and a plant has a soul because they had no idea how licing things worked. This is essentially a god of the gaps argument but theyre using a soul or a form to explain things that they dont understand
To say a cat has the "form of a cat" does not negate biological description but provides an indispensable metaphysical account. The form defines the principles of an entity's being - that in virtue of which it acts and exists as the kind of thing it is. Discerning such formal principles aids our understanding of an organism's telos or purpose. While contemporary science explains cat biology, it does not replace philosophy's role in articulating causality. Substantial forms help situate empirical data within a coherent explanatory framework encompassing all four Aristotelian causes.
Rather than a "God of the gaps" move, the scholastics saw forms and souls as conclusions of metaphysical reasoning - not stopgaps for scientific ignorance. Their insights are/remain useful for comprehending an organism's essence and finality alongside modern findings on material constitution. Both perspectives are needed for full apprehension of reality.
No, biology and chemistry do no such thing. Biology and chemistry can deal with material and efficient causes only.
In other words if I ask you "Why?" a cat must take the form of a cat, and say not the form of a sheep, every single time; or if I ask you "why?" must H20 form water, steam or ice 100% of the time, and never once, not even 1 out of 100 trillion times can it do something different, like form into gasoline or acid. A scientist can tell you THAT this is true, even explain the mechanics to one extent or the other, but if you ask "why?" they must behave true to form, every single time, then all they can do is give you some very ignorant and crude attempt at trying to explain formal causes, and they'll say something like "there must be something very mysterious going on, like some sort of scientific laws at work".
Can you send me a sample of some of these "scientific laws"? Maybe I can take a look at them under my microscope and read what they say.
Maybe they're more profound than Aristotle and Aquinas!
Is there any evidence to this?
Yes, but a short video would not do justice to all the arguments on either side. The first two books of Aristotle's _Physics_ is the classical text to begin with, although even there many of the arguments are abbreviated because it's meant to force us to think carefully about it. Some premises that the arguments rely on are the insight that things like the man Peter and the cat Spot are each really and truly _one_ thing, even though they are made up of parts, and that each thing is some specific _kind_ of things, and that things change into other things (when, for example, animals die or food gets eaten).
@@danieltraceski2513 Say this is real, can you point me to the evidence, uses, and if you can also repeat the experiment to make sure it's real? Thanks
@@danieltraceski2513 Also if you can give us a proof that god exist, angels exists, and that your version is the real one vs other religions.
Don't just prove it to me, but please debate someone from another religion to make it real
@@kendelion Well, the evidence is more observation of what we ordinarily experience every day, rather than some specialized experiment. For example, everyday I observe that I have different parts--my hands, my feet, my mouth, my mind--and yet with those different parts, I am really one thing, one being. It is the same being that walks when I walk with my feet and types when I type with my hands and thinks when I think with my mind. I also experience, everyday, that I am the same kind of thing as other people but that we are a different kind of thing from rocks, trees, and birds.
From ordinary experience, we use lots of reasoning to realize that what we ordinarily experience requires that things have a inner principle we call "substantial form." It is possible to say many true things about what we ordinarily experience without averting to substantial forms, but ultimately, real things require that there be substantial forms.
But the reason why this is so is hard to summarize. The arguments are something you will find in Aristotle and Thomas and other philosophers (even though they didn't have the specialized experiments that are required to find out some other truths, such what the chemical elements are, for example).
@@kendelion Hmm. Those are all really things that are better to do over a many-year-long friendship. I'm afraid RUclips comments are not an adequate medium for it.
Sorry but this does not convince, it just all seems semantics to me.
What about the quite conceivable moment when biotechnology can make simple living things indistinguishable from the natural occuring ones? According to you one would have a substantial form and the other one not...
And what complexity does a living thing need to have to have a substantial form, a bacteria is sufficient? Or would one need something as big as an insect?
If you're wondering, I'm a physicist
Hi! I'm not following your reasoning here. The video makes it clear that all living things, down to atoms, have substantial form, considered in themselves. The substantial form of "human" organizes matter (carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, calcium, etc.) into a human being. This organizing principle takes matter and forms the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, etc., so that the base material elements exist virtually in the new substantial form. Hydrogen does not exist as hydrogen, per se; it rather exists in the liquid of the body (e.g., the blood). When the substance dies, the matter undergoes substantial change either back to its original form or to exist in something else. Where do you see mere semantics?
@@davidcoleman5860 you're not a platonist, are you? "The substantial form of "human" organizes matter" sounds pretty platonic to me
@@davidcoleman5860 and if you revive a substance that has died, does it have a substance reversal then as well?
@@davidcoleman5860 so do all trees have the same substantial form 'tree' or do chestnut trees have different substantial form from e.g. willows?
Does God have form and substance? Or form and matter? Though God is not flesh, the father anyway. 😃
Strictly speaking, neither form nor matter are applicable to God, whose essence comprises absolute existence (ipsum esse subsistens) alone with no compositeness. However, following the analogical mode of signifying fitting for Reason's theological discourse, we can attribute a divine "Form" to the Father as Source without principle of the Godhead's Unity-in-Trinity structure. The Father's exemplary Idea of Himself, known eternally in the Word and loved in the Spirit, serves precisely as the divine Form conferring intelligibility and order upon the Trinity's ad intra relations. But this Form identical with the Divine Essence lacks any dependence on or limitation by contingent externalities like prime matter. In God, Form just is the act of to Be in its pure actuality.
How do I convince someone of the dogma of the Trinity? The person denies the deity of Christ on the basis of his personal interpretation of the Bible, and refuses to accept the Church's authority to define such Dogmas.
Does this person believe the Father alone is God and the Son subordinate and the Holy Spirit created? A little more context is needed to assess situation better
John 10 :30 says, "The Father and I are one."
@@MountAthosandAquinas he has explicitly stated that he thinks Jesus is a created being.
@@sethapex9670 , does he confess that the Father is God while confessing the Son is created?
If he is intellectual and enjoys a good read then here are my suggestions. It sounds like he is struggling with Arianism. Here are sources he should look at:
Athanasius “on the incarnation.”
Saint Augustine “tractates on the Gospel of John.”
Saint Hilary “on the Trinity” against the Arians.
And Saint Ambrose “against Arius.”
If he is willing to read these his position will be destroyed in no time. These are the greatest minds and defenders of orthodoxy against a Created Christ.
If you want something as an argument from Sacred Scripture I would be happy to summarize some good arguments from their writings. Otherwise the Saints will do what they do best: fish.
Satire?
Aquinas blows it! If I take the brake calipers off of a car, they cease to be brake calipers by the same logic as a chopped off finger ceases to be a finger. What Aquinas points to here is merely a teleological way of conceiving things.
No, that's not what Aquinas said at all. Substantial forms are irreducible whereas accidental forms are. Substantial form is the organizing principle of matter to exist in a particular way. Eliminate the form, and the matter will naturally undergo substantial change. Artifacts, on the other hand, are reducible to their parts, so that the components continue to function as made and exist as parts whether or not conjoined to another artifact.
@@davidcoleman5860 First, I don’t immediately see how your reply addresses my comment. To which quote of Aquinas’ are you referring?Second, the concept of an accidental form seems oxymoronic to me.
@@michaelkurak1012 An accidental form is also called an artifact. It is imposed teleology by an assemblage of parts to serve a purpose exterior to the things assembled. As in your example, calipers serve the braking function of a car, but there is no inner teleology in the metal to become a caliper; that was imposed on the metal by a human. That, along with the other parts created by man, form an automobile. The components of a car do not naturally become tires, carburetors and fuel pumps. Their functioning in the artifact of a car serves a purpose exterior to their natural telos.
Substantial form, on the other hand, is an internal directedness toward a particular actualization. The substantial form of the oak organizes matter into an acorn which develops into a tree. This is not imposed by another agent. It is rather the outgrowth of the internal potencies of the acorn.
wishful thinking...