-->
@3RU7AL
matter and form are inseparable concepts
They are not seperable in Reality. The mind can seperate them to use reason to know them further.
What's the strongest argument for atheism?
Posts
Total:
590
-->
@MAV99
They are not seperable in Reality. The mind can seperate them to use reason to know them further.
there is no such thing as form without matter
there is no such thing as matter without form
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no such thing as form without matterthere is no such thing as matter without form
Yes, I said that already.
If you mean that we cannot think of them as seperate we obviously can.
-->
@3RU7AL
Energy is a form.
Dark matter is formless.
-->
@MAV99
If you mean that we cannot think of them as seperate we obviously can.
what is the form of non-material ?
-->
@Greyparrot
Energy is a form.Dark matter is formless.
dark matter is nearly but not completely undetectable
the form that we are able to detect is rather like a large blob, based on its gravitational signature
-->
@3RU7AL
what is the form of non-material?
I am not quite sure what you are asking here. What do you mean?
-->
@MAV99
I am not quite sure what you are asking here. What do you mean?
i don't have any material
what form is this ?
-->
@3RU7AL
i don't have any materialwhat form is this ?
It is the form of whatever you got it from.
But if you want to talk about form by itself...
It is obviously what determines what the thing is. Which leads us to reason it is also the principle of its existance. "form brings esse (to be) " we say in philosophy.
It also, being the principle of what it is means it will be the reason a thing is living. For plants animals and humans obviously.
Since it is the principle of its living, it is also then the principle of its movement.
As a few examples of describing form by itself. I got more if you want...
-->
@MAV99
It is obviously what determines what the thing is. Which leads us to reason it is also the principle of its existance.
are you suggesting FORM = SOUL ?
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting FORM = SOUL ?
If by soul you mean "principle of existance" then sure.
But I think I would only apply that to living things. Not things without life.
-->
@MAV99
can an object exist without form ?
-->
@3RU7AL
can an object exist without form ?
No.
-->
@MAV99
can an object exist without form ?No.
EXACTLY
-->
@3RU7AL
EXACTLY
And your point is what? Do you like to make things ambiguous and unclear on purpose?
It has not contradicted anything I have said.
-->
@MAV99
can an object exist without form ?No.
form and matter are inseparable
you cannot understand one without understanding the other
and understanding of either is understanding of both
-->
@3RU7AL
form and matter are inseparableyou cannot understand one without understanding the otherand understanding of either is understanding of both
That is not true.
I said they were inseperable in reality.
Your mind can definitely seperate them and know better each one by itself. I already showed that with examples of form.
-->
@MAV99
I said they were inseperable in reality.
it seems we are in agreement on this particular point
are you suggesting it is possible to imagine form without matter ?
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting it is possible to imagine form without matter ?
Not quite.
There is a difference between imagining something and understanding it.
With imagination you could make up all kinds of ridiculous possibilities.
But with understanding you can only reason about it. That is a way to understand it better.
-->
@MAV99
But with understanding you can only reason about it. That is a way to understand it better.
you can imagine a POSITIVE form (comprised of matter)
you can imagine a NEGATIVE form (surrounded by matter)
both require matter
-->
@3RU7AL
you can imagine a POSITIVE form (comprised of matter)you can imagine a NEGATIVE form (surrounded by matter)both require matter
Only if you imagine it.
But if you actually make the effort to understand it, you don't need it.
There is a difference between imagining and understanding.
-->
@MAV99
But if you actually make the effort to understand it, you don't need it.
what is the benefit you perceive is gained
by divorcing "form" from "matter" ?
-->
@3RU7AL
by divorcing "form" from "matter" ?
Interesting way to put it.
We can know better the nature of something as studied by itself, which, later in turn, helps us to understand better its relation to another thing.
-->
@MAV99
We can know better the nature of something as studied by itself, which, later in turn, helps us to understand better its relation to another thing.
"as studied by itself" divorced from the material aspect ?
-->
@3RU7AL
"as studied by itself" divorced from the material aspect ?
Yes. That is what "understanding" means. You know the "whatness" of something. You can definitely reason with that.
-->
@MAV99
Yes. That is what "understanding" means. You know the "whatness" of something. You can definitely reason with that.
the "material aspect" seems pretty important, even perhaps fundamental
do you have an example of how this examination of "whatness" is useful ?
-->
@MAV99
Thomas Aquinas' hylomorphic theory, which posits that form and matter are distinct yet inseparable aspects of physical objects, has been subject to various criticisms. Some argue that this distinction is not as clear-cut as Aquinas suggests, leading to ambiguities in understanding the true nature of objects. Critics point out that if form and matter are indeed inseparable, then it becomes challenging to explain change, as any alteration would imply a change in the object's essence. Moreover, the concept of prime matter, which Aquinas describes as pure potentiality without form, is seen by some as an abstract notion that lacks empirical evidence. This criticism is rooted in the difficulty of conceiving matter devoid of any form, as our sensory experiences always present matter in some form. Additionally, Aquinas' assertion that form is what individuates matter has been contested on the grounds that forms, according to his theory, are universal, whereas individuality is particular. This raises questions about how universal forms can give rise to unique, individual substances. These critiques suggest that Aquinas' theory may not fully account for the complexities of material existence and the dynamics of change and individuality.
-->
@3RU7AL
Nice! You know where I get my philosophy from.
Critics point out that if form and matter are indeed inseparable, then it becomes challenging to explain change, as any alteration would imply a change in the object's essence.
Seems to me then that they did not read the Physics of Thomas Aquinas very well. That is his work on change. He makes a pretty clear distinction between accidental and substantial change.
Moreover, the concept of prime matter, which Aquinas describes as pure potentiality without form, is seen by some as an abstract notion that lacks empirical evidence.
Yeah! That is exactly what he is saying prime matter is and what he intended to say. Pure potentiality! Can you have empirical evidence of that? No! It is the result of rational and logical reasoning. That is why I do not adhere to the philosophy that only things that are observable can be known with certitude.
This criticism is rooted in the difficulty of conceiving matter devoid of any form, as our sensory experiences always present matter in some form
I think that shows my point that we are dealing with what we understand (through logical reasoning)about something versus what we can sense about it.
Additionally, Aquinas' assertion that form is what individuates matter has been contested on the grounds that forms, according to his theory, are universal, whereas individuality is particular.
He actually condemned that. Makes me think these critics did not read his works. He said what individuates the thing is Matter signed by quantity.
Go read the Physics if you do not believe me. Edward Hugon has a good summary of his Physics.
-->
@3RU7AL
the "material aspect" seems pretty important, even perhaps fundamentaldo you have an example of how this examination of "whatness" is useful ?
Oh the material aspect is very fundamental. We can focus on that if you want.
for the examples:
It is obviously what determines what the thing is. Which leads us to reason it is also the principle of its existance. "form brings esse (to be) " we say in philosophy. It simply means the form determines it to be this thing
It also, being the principle of what it is means it will be the reason a thing is living. For plants animals and humans obviously.
Since it is the principle of its living, it is also then the principle of its movement.
-->
@3RU7AL
They are not seperable in Reality. The mind can seperate them to use reason to know them further.there is no such thing as form without matterthere is no such thing as matter without form
What is the form of an electron, is it in the form of a particle or a wave?