(November 1, 2021 at 3:18 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 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.
I'm still not quite sure what that is tbh (you guys quickly changed the subject so I had to drop my reading of the Republic (
) and switch over to Aristotle, and I've a long way to go). But by hylomorphism are you just referring to what Aristotle calls substance... ie matter+form? Or are you referring to his concept of the soul - as 'the form of a living body'... that that has to coexist with matter, just as for any other substance? Or something else? It's just that in what I've understood so far, there's nothing particularly otherworldly about how he's defining a soul at this point... there's nothing lost in thinking of that as say the mind or psyche. Granted as I said I haven't finished reading him by a long shot, so I don't know how he gets from 'the form of a living body' (which by definition requires a living body to exist) to an immortal soul, or even if it's him that does that (ie maybe that's Aquinas' contribution).
