Well, if you're going to posit hylomorphism (as Aristotle did) you open yourself up to attack from mereological nihilists.
But, I agree. Mereology is an interesting aside that can be fruitfully ignored when talking about the 5 ways. I'm the one who really brought hylomorphism up anyway (I think). It *is* foundational to the discussion, but also, not prone to being settled any time soon.
I do wonder if hylomorphism is essential to any of the 5 ways. If it is, then we can say mereology matters. Not that it'd be worth bringing in and discussing, but just that it matters.
I think basic hylomorphism is defensible. I also think the ways the religious have used hylomorphism to articulate certain things (like the existence of souls) are dubious.
But, I agree. Mereology is an interesting aside that can be fruitfully ignored when talking about the 5 ways. I'm the one who really brought hylomorphism up anyway (I think). It *is* foundational to the discussion, but also, not prone to being settled any time soon.
I do wonder if hylomorphism is essential to any of the 5 ways. If it is, then we can say mereology matters. Not that it'd be worth bringing in and discussing, but just that it matters.
I think basic hylomorphism is defensible. I also think the ways the religious have used hylomorphism to articulate certain things (like the existence of souls) are dubious.
