The Summa Theologica is Thomas Aquinas synthesis of Aristotle's logic with Chrisitian theology. The other great medieval scholastic Saint Augustine was more indebted to Plato. In any event it was taken as a given that man had both a spiritual dimension (soul) and a material dimension (body). Fot the concept of "form", species and individuals, I suggest you consult Aristotle.

This is not at all clear ... you will have to spell it out if you want to get your meaning across.

You will have to be more specific in your criticisms - bearing in mind that the purpose of philosophy is communication, the onus being on the philosopher to communicate his/her concept to the other.

Exactly what magnificance is being discussed here?

The tradition doesn't define be-ing!!! Be-ing transcends the tradition. Who you are transcends the tradition. You are not the tradition that has been handed down to us. There is no box to "think outside of". "Pull your head out" - - - of the tradition!!!

This is not at all clear ... you will have to spell it out if you want to get your meaning across. However, I am not explaining Heidegger's Being and Time, I am referring to Aristotle's Form and Matter which is pretty straight forward - although tis related to being - ie in Aristotle's grounded terms.

I agree with you that you need to have clarity. However, it is not my responsibility to get you clarity. It is yours. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to do the work required to get clarity.

I beg to differ - if you believe yourself to be taking part in philosophy the onus is on you to present your case, ie in a way that is comprehensible to the other. At the mo, you are merely making assertions. Clearly state your argument, and most importantly the reasons you believe that can support it, and we can take it from there. Otherwise there is no point in discussion. Humility and charity are the special skills of the philosopher. If we fail to convince the other of our argument what is the point - else it is all hot air. As such, I maintain that communication is the business of philosophy/philosophers. Philosophy is not for ivory towers.

Guess what? Nobody can do it for you. Nobody can "clarify" it for you and nobody can "define" it for you. If you don't do it for youself, all you will be left with is your protestations, which have nothing to do with what I am saying.

I don't know who has taught you philosophy or what institution, but judging from your response you seem to have little idea of what a philosophical discussion is about. With respect I used to a more mature and balanced form of debate. I'm therefore banging out of this website. I have also been taught that humility and charity make for a more measured intelligent debate. Moreover, if it is the other person who is challenging your view the onus is on them to state their case with clarity and support it accordingly. Otherwise not only is the challenge mere assertion it is also a waste of time if the argument is unclear. Posturing becomes very boring.

"First, that man is a soul; though this particular man, Socrates, for instance, is not a soul, but composed of soul and body. I say this, forasmuch as some held that the form alone belongs to the species; while matter is part of the individual, and not the species. This cannot be true; for to the nature of the species belongs what the definition signifies; and in natural things the definition does not signify the form only, but the form and the matter. Hence in natural things the matter is part of the species; not, indeed, signate matter, which is the principle of individuality; but the common matter. For as it belongs to the notion of this particular man to be composed of this soul, of this flesh, and of these bones; so it belongs to the notion of man to be composed of soul, flesh, and bones; for whatever belongs in common to the substance of all the individuals contained under a given species, must belong to the substance of the species."

Though maybe someone could help me understand that part as well as the rest of the article better?

On the basis of the Greeks' initial contributions towards an interpretation of Be-ing, a dogma has been developed which not only declares the question about the meaning of Be-ing to be superfluous, but sanctions its complete neglect. It is said that 'Be-ing' is the most universal and emptiest of concepts. As such it resists every attempt at definition. Nor does this most universal and hence indefinable concept require any definition, for everyone uses it constantly and already understands what he means by it.

First, it has been maintained that 'Being' is the 'most universal' concept: 'An understanding of Be-ing is already included in conceiving anything which one apprehends in entities.'

To everybody;

I don't apologize for "hijacking" this thread, it wasn't my intention.

Take a moment to notice that as you sit there reading "First, that man is a soul;" . . . There is you sitting in the chair and then there is what you are reading. There is you then there is what you are reading.


You don't understand Aquinas because you (without knowing it) are trying to have you show up in what you are reading. You are attempting to find the "ground" of your Be-ing. What you are reading isn't you. All literature, all books, all philosophy is a representation . . . it's not you. If you could talk to Thomas Aquinas the questions you would ask would revolve around having you show up in what he is saying so that you can understand where you stand in the matter.


On the first page of "Being and Time" Heidegger says;