We may be derailing Neo's thread a bit here. I think we can get it back on track though, and even make the pitstop at Plato relevant. We can compare Plato to Aristotle real quick, focus on the necessaries of Aristotle, and then head back to Aquinas.
I am somewhat familiar with hylomorphism. Enough to conduct an analysis comparing it to Plato's forms. I wonder, though, how much hylomorphism is present in Aquinas's 5 ways?
@Neo-Scholastic Is it? ^^
If hylomorphism is impertinent to the subject matter, then I see little value in examining it. But if it IS relevant, let's explore it. I've always thought hylomorphism is better than materialists take it to be. It takes what Plato says about intelligibility and removes Plato's forms from it. It's a cleaner and more succinct rendition of Plato's forms.
But, as I said before, I'm curious how much hylomorphism is present in Aquinas's thinking.
I am somewhat familiar with hylomorphism. Enough to conduct an analysis comparing it to Plato's forms. I wonder, though, how much hylomorphism is present in Aquinas's 5 ways?
@Neo-Scholastic Is it? ^^
If hylomorphism is impertinent to the subject matter, then I see little value in examining it. But if it IS relevant, let's explore it. I've always thought hylomorphism is better than materialists take it to be. It takes what Plato says about intelligibility and removes Plato's forms from it. It's a cleaner and more succinct rendition of Plato's forms.
But, as I said before, I'm curious how much hylomorphism is present in Aquinas's thinking.