(February 7, 2020 at 6:34 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:Belacqua Wrote:It's standard Aristotelian hylomorphism, in which, as usual, the soul is the form of the body and doesn't exist without a body.The term "hylomorphism" was coined in the late 19th century. Aristotle defined a soul as some kind of force which makes things alive, that is, "vis vitalis", obviously incompatible with modern science.
The English word was coined in the late 19th century. The concept came from Aristotle.
No, Aristotle did not define the soul as vis vitalis. That's something else. If you want to hold this claim I'll ask you for some kind of link to a source.
The soul is the form of the body. In this context form is more than just shape -- it is also the structure and the active functioning. When the structure is disrupted or the functioning becomes impossible, then the soul is no longer combined with the matter. The form has changed, and the body dies. The soul -- the form -- is not some magical wisp which enters the matter. All matter has form.
I honestly don't see how you can argue against hylomorphism. Do you want to say that matter can exist without form? That seems impossible to me. And if you argue that form can exist without matter, then you're on the side of those who say that soul can be disembodied -- something both Aristotle and Aquinas reject.
The only unbelievable claim Christians in this tradition make is that the same form (the soul) transfers itself at death into a different body -- a different blob of matter. But Aquinas doesn't claim that soul can be disembodied. And he's clear that perception comes through material sense organs, and that if we were different kinds of animals we would perceive the world very differently.
