Summa Theologica Q.75 Art. 4

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Thomas Aquinas
  3. » Summa Theologica Q.75 Art. 4

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 06:35 pm
Whether the soul is man?

Pulled from the article:

"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."

The article referenced can be read in full here: SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul (Prima Pars, Q. 75)

I'm not sure I exactly understand what he is saying. I can't figure out exactly what he is intending by 'form' and 'matter'.

This is my thought process on the bold print of Aquinas:
[INDENT]In this quotation, “man” is defined as being more or less exchangeable with “soul” and that Socrates is not human unless his attribute of “man/soul” is combined with his material body. Aquinas states that some believed that form (body) belongs to the species (human kind) and that matter (soul) is part of a particular person (Socrates) but not species.[/INDENT]

Though maybe someone could help me understand that part as well as the rest of the article better?
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 06:59 pm
@click here,
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.
 
Dilys
 
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 06:53 pm
@click here,
I thought that form = soul/mind and matter = the physical body ... Perhaps I am wrong on this. Aquinas followed the teachings of Aristotle, and I think Aristotle believed every living thing had a soul, and that the soul ceased upon death .. unlike Plato.

Dilys

I have recently been following Aquinas myself, more especially his five proofs of god. There is a very good discussion on Aquinas on BBC R4 'In Our Time' go to the listen again facility - Philosophy Archives.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2009 07:14 pm
@prothero,
prothero;101121 wrote:
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.


Yes. To discover what Aquinas is thinking, we have to consult Aristotle. In a well-known passage in Aristotle's De Anima (On the Soul) Aristotle writes that "if the eye were an animal, then sight would be its soul". In other words, without sight, the eye has no function. It is simply matter. And, without the soul, the animal is just (dead) matter.
 
Dilys
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 05:27 am
@click here,
Does Aristotle's more grounded concepts refer to form as the essential category of a thing, ie that which a thing is? And does this relate to his Substance/Change? ie The essential form of a seat is its reason to be/its purpose - so that for instance a metal bowl fulfills the purpose of being a bowl even when it is misshapen and battered, but its function ceases when the metal is melted down and returns to its liquid form. Similarly, a bale of hay upon the barn floor sufficiently satisfies the purpose of being a seat until the hay is scattered upon the barn floor.

Is this the correct understanding of Aristotle's form(s)?

Dilys
 
Dasein
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 12:34 pm
@click here,
You can't fully address what you are trying to address in these postings by taking pieces and parts, combining them together, and trying to understand them.

Who you are is not a definable thing or a collection of definable things. You are not a definable thing called a being, the cogito sum, or the animal rationale. You are be-ing. Be-ing is what you are doing while you are trying to understand the collection of definable things. Be-ing is a phenomenon which needs to be revealed by addressing Be-ing and not covered up by the tradition. Be-ing transcends the tradition. You will never know who you are by defining and understanding (?) the tradition. The tradition is what you are talking about in these posts and has nothing to do with who you are. First, you need to uncover who you are (the phenomenon, Be-ing) and then you will "understand" Aristotle. It doesn't happen the other way around. You will NEVER know who you are by playing patty-cake with the tradition.

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!!!

Dasein
 
Dilys
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 01:35 pm
@click here,
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.

This forum is new to me, and I'm not sure to whom I am replying, and what your areas of interest are,

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.

Best wishes, Dilys
 
Dasein
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 01:57 pm
@Dilys,
Dilys;

The reason you are having difficulty with understanding what I said is because what I said doesn't fit into the tradition. If I try to fit it into the tradition so you can understand, it will no longer be what I said.

I opine that people who post about philosophy aren't just comparing notes with others and trying to impress each other with their "collection" of knowledge. I contend that people who frequent this forum are looking for resolution to questions they have. I don't think that anybody wants to keep "running around the same track" sharing notes with the other participants.

What I said in my post is that you won't find resolution in the traditional way philosophy, religion, etc. addresses who you are. Is the requested understanding and the comparing of notes in the other posts in this thread nothing more than a "cocktail party" or are people trying to find resolution?

Maybe I am the stupid one here and I should butt out.

If nobody is attempting to resolve anything let me apologize for barging in on the party and let me find the door.

Dasein

---------- Post added 11-19-2009 at 01:48 PM ----------

Dilys;

Please do not take this as an attack. If you do you will miss out on what I'm saying.
You said;
Quote:

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

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.

Instead of doing the work required what we do is perpetuate the "tradition" and question those that question the tradition. That is the cowards way out.

You also said;
Quote:
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.


I disagree. The purpose of philosophy is not communication. The purpose of philosophy is for you to uncover who you are and philosophy isn't getting its job done because we lean on the tradition with its already-existing answers, explanations, and definitions.

Who the hell are we to doubt our magnificence and give the un-questioned tradition un-bridled control over who we are.

Dasein
 
Dilys
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 03:25 pm
@Dasein,
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.

Best wishes

---------- Post added 11-19-2009 at 09:33 PM ----------

Dasien wrote: "Who the hell are we to doubt our magnificence and give the un-questioned tradition un-bridled control over who we are.?"

Exactly what magnificance is being discussed here? Have you been reading too much Neiztche? Hummm ! Whom I actually like - but come on, get real! Humankind is not the centre of the universe for goodness sake, we are pretty small fry in the larger scheme of things.

Dilys
 
Dasein
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 03:39 pm
@click here,
Dilys;

Who made you the Pope? Why do I have to follow your "Roberts Rules of Order"? "Thinking" in Greek is "to let something lie there and take it to heart." Nowhere in that definition does it say I "have" to give you clarity. It says "let something lie there and take it to heart" not judge it and toss it out like the newspaper you used to clean up after your dog.
I invite you to let what I said lie there and "take it to heart." Otherwise you are right what I said is just "hot air."

Dasein

---------- Post added 11-19-2009 at 02:51 PM ----------

Dilys;
Quote:

Exactly what magnificance is being discussed here?

Who you are is not the combination of "soul" and "corporeal matter." Be-ing has a totally different set of questions to be asked which fight the proclivity to define who you are as a collection of things. Only by dis-entangling youself from the traditional way of defining who you are will you discover who you are.

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.

Dasein
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 04:09 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein;104506 wrote:


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!!!

Wich tradition is the one you are talking about?

Dilys;104514 wrote:
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 think what he is trying to say is that "you cannot understand what you are observing the world". Not sure if that is it, but thats a good one anyway =)

Dasein;104516 wrote:

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.
Its your responsability to write your texts with clarity, at least if you want someone else to be able to understand then =)

Dilys;104530 wrote:
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.
In essence, though, he is correct. Philosophy is not for communication, philosophic discussion is =)

Dasein;104533 wrote:

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.
We can never really see the gap between information being presented and comprehended by the other person's head, we could say there is no transmission of knowledge and we are merely leading horses to the water.
 
Dasein
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 05:17 pm
@manored,
Manored;

You said;
[QUOTE]
Wich tradition is the one you are talking about?
[/QUOTE]

The tradition we are all born into attempts to define/reduce Be-ing into ego, id, cogito sum, soul, body, corporeal matter, form, matter, spiritual dimension, material dimension, mind, living thing, animal rationale, or form and function. Furthermore the tradition involves us into the on-going debate and WE entangle ourselves in the debate. The questions and discussions we have address thing-ness.

Who you are is not-a-thing. You can define yourself as the things I have listed above or you can "pick at the fabric" of those things I have listed, dis-mantle them, and who you are will un-covered. There is no other way to do it. While you are perpetuating the tradition you are still Be-ing. Be-ing transcends the tradition.

Be-ing cannot be broken up into contents which may be pieced together. That is the tradition. What I am saying doesn't fit into the tradition. You may not "understand" what I am saying, yet somewhere you "know" what I am saying. We need to address what you "know" and not spend our time proving what we "understand."

You said;
[QUOTE]
In essence, though, he is correct. Philosophy is not for communication, philosophic discussion is =)
[/QUOTE]

There is no philosophy. There are no philosophic discussions. They are the tradition and don't require you to bring you into the conversation. You have nothing at risk. You can share and agree/disagree with all kinds of opinions and you don't have to show up! A cowards way out!!

Come out from behind the curtain of tradition and stop whimpering about me not making things clear for you.

Dasein
 
Dilys
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 06:12 pm
@Dasein,
I'm sorry I thought we were having a coherent philosophical discussion. I was mistaken.

Dilys

PS Are you sure you understand what philosophy discussion is about?
 
Dasein
 
Reply Thu 19 Nov, 2009 06:26 pm
@click here,
Dilys;

Don't get testy because what I'm proposing goes against your way of thinking. Instead of attempting to insult me, why don't you ask yourself why you are getting testy?

All human upset is caused by unfulfilled expectations. Do you really expect me to lay down for your program? Is that what you really want? Really?

Did you even take a moment to notice that it is "your" definition of "coherent"? That its "your" definition of "philosophical"?

Are you actually telling me that you aren't capable of expanding yourself beyond your "comfort zone" to include what I am proposing, or are you telling me that you just don't want to?

Dasein
 
Dilys
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 06:06 am
@Dasein,
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.

Dilys
 
Justin
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 07:30 am
@Dilys,
Dilys;104617 wrote:
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.

I don't know who taught you how to communicate but judging by your response you seem to have little idea of what communicating effectively is about. With respect, we are used to more mature and balanced responses from members on this forum. I've been taught that humility and clarity among member communications is more productive than anything you've stated above.

Moreover, not everyone is as perfect as yourself and some of the members have never actually participated in a philosophical debate. Your expectations of members on a free and open forum are a bit beyond reality. While there may have been what you call posturing, acting like a child and insulting members because they aren't what you expect them to be is not only naive but also becomes very boring.

With all due respect, and as you requested, your membership here is terminated.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 07:55 am
@click here,
The original poster asked for an explication of a passage, not for a hijacked debate between various philosophical perspectives upon it.

The answer should therefore be couched in what Aquinas meant when he used certain terms, not whether these terms were "correct." It certainly should not have disintegrated into a discussion of which Member was more "philosophical" in his approach to the topic.
Let's attempt to answer the question at hand, not propandise for a particular philosophical position.
John
Forum Adminstrator
 
Dasein
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 09:30 am
@click here,
To everybody;

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

My intent was to point out that the "traditional" philosophical language uses us and it doesn't open up any possibility. Aren't we here to bring forth possibility, isn't that who we are? Or are we just going to spend our time on this planet memorizing data?

Passionately;
Dasein
 
Dasein
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 11:40 am
@Dasein,
Returning to click here's original post.

Quote:

"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."


[QUOTE]I'm not sure I exactly understand what he is saying. I can't figure out exactly what he is intending by 'form' and 'matter'.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

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


Let me first say that there is no difference between Thomas Aquinas, you, or myself other than the fact that his "posts" got delivered by donkey. He struggled to understand like you struggle to understand. My point is that he has no talent that you don't have. Just because he is published and the Roman Catholic Church elevated him to the status of "Saint" doesn't eliminate the fact that he was "posting on the Philosophy Forum" just like you and I.

When you read "Summa Theologica" or any other philosophy what isn't being considered is the one reading or writing the subject matter. The only thing being considered is the content of the subject matter, our interpretation of the subject matter, and our doubts about whether or not we understand what Aquinas is saying. Notice also that because we can't question Aquinas we assume that the doubt is ours and Aquinas must know what he is talking about because all those people in history said so.

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;
Quote:

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.


And then on the second page he says;
Quote:

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.'


Traditionally philosophy ignores the one doing the reading. Because of this I contend that we will never understand Aquinas or anybody else until we inject "something else" into the reading. We need to "invent" the questions that will uncover Be-ing so we can inject this "something else" into our reading.

Dasein
 
Pangloss
 
Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 11:46 am
@Dasein,
Dasein;104644 wrote:
To everybody;

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


Maybe you should apologize, because your hijacking rants left a new member so befuddled that he ended up leaving the forum and getting banned. Your posts were all way off-topic, and are what we call in logic, collections of 'loosely associated statements', with little argumentation going on.

Dilys was quite courteous to even entertain your various rants for as long as he/she did, and imo, was certainly in the right, in this exchange.


Dasein;104672 wrote:

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;


Well this is very enlightening but incredibly off-topic; you should take it to a new thread, this thread has nothing to do with Heidegger.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Thomas Aquinas
  3. » Summa Theologica Q.75 Art. 4
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2022 at 09:19:15