Michael Barsness
Dr. Savage
12/05/08
Hylomorphism as outlined by Thomas Aquinas in Part One of the Summa Theologiae, Questions 75-76.
When one attempts to describe a human being how does one go about this great task? This is the account of Hylomorphism a teaching that has been developed in ancient and medieval thought that really is essential to modern Catholic thought. To begin with we must understand where Aquinas is coming from and describe his use of Aristotle and to understand the essence of the soul within that scheme. What is the soul what is its job and what is it composed of, along with how it exists and for how long (does it dissolve or die after the body is no more). The next thing we look to understand hylomorphism in St. Thomas’s view is what is meant by the union of body and soul and even if such relationship exists between the two. Finally we will discuss how it matters in the contemporary period and find how really relevant it is to our modern problem Hylomorphism has its roots in Aristotle, but is really developed by Aquinas in his questions, “75 The Essence of the Soul” and “76 The Union of Body and Soul” from the Summa Theologiae.
The soul is the essence or the 'actuality' of any living objects. We can then say that it is the act of the animal which makes it the particular animal. Taken from Aristotle, every living thing has a soul, while non-living things do not and all things are made up of matter and form. The soul is simply the form of living things. Matter and form are distinct in that matter is the material from which a thing is made and form is the shape. Form is what makes particular matter or a particular thing that which it is. Aristotle’s example is that the soul is like sight. The soul’s essence as analogous to the eye would be sight. If the eye did not have sight it would not be an eye at all. Thus sight is what makes the eye what it is and gives it its form and essence. The form of living thing is the soul and we see that this living soul things certain powers. Plants have vegetative or nutritive powers, which nurture the plant body itself as itself preserving itself. The same would be said of sensitive animals, which have souls described by their ability to sense and differentiate simple things. Animals he declares have vegetative powers along with sensitive powers; and these are separated by those with and without locomotion. Lastly is Man, which is seen as having all these powers yet, possessing one more power which is the rational power. Man at the heart of creation and gives him the abilities or powers of plants animals with additional abilities due to his rational nature. This rational nature is the intellectual soul, which is able to transcend (go beyond itself) to relate intelligently with God and the natural world. The natural world is thereby in dominion of Man and serves the purposes of Man. From this we come to see how much St. Thomas uses Aristotle for his proofs on the soul and the important distinctions that are made in his questions on the understanding of the soul and then its relationship to the body. This is a natural and philosophical analysis of the universe as the nature of man is understood in the world relating to the heavens. Man stands in the middle of the meeting point between living things and the things of heaven.
This soul is immaterial, but is acting with the body to complete the full function of that particular animal. Aquinas proves the soul exists but is not the body. The Soul is the first principle of life and Aquinas proves nothing corporeal can be a first principle of life so the soul, "is not a body, but the act of a body". This life principle is important to understand and may be easy to understand as from a physical point of view. That which is moved has to be moved by a force, but where does this first force come from? "As everything which is in motion must be moved by something else, a process which cannot be prolonged indefinitely, we must allow that not every mover is moved." The Body does not consist of matter alone. Matter cannot be the first principle or life source because, “since, if that were the case, every body would be a living thing, or a principle of life.” We see that this is absurd and no rock or thing is living. Those bodies which are living, owes this life to some principle which is called its act.”
The next task for Aquinas is to prove that the soul is subsistent. This has to do with whether the soul dies with the body or lives on after death. Aquinas says that the soul with its intellectual powers does not need the body for certain operations such as the ability to understand concepts or phantasms and therefore subsist after the death of the body. This is opposed to what is stated in article 4 where the souls of animals and plants do not subsist without the body because there souls are not rational. Aquinas then goes on to ask whether the soul is a man, or is a man composed of soul and body? This has to do with defining the soul more and more towards individual men. Do all men have souls or do we share a single soul? Aquinas says that each man has a soul and it corresponds to the individual flesh of this man. He concludes, “This soul is the man.”
The soul is composed of matter and form, as a whole compound. We are a sympositum, which illustrates how essentially united the body is to the soul. The soul is the form of the whole body and gives it all of its function and powers. The soul as the form of man becomes the act of his body. The soul is not the potential or part of the act of the soul. Matter is the principle by which forms are made individuals so we can say this soul and this body. Form is related more to how a body moves and is the mover of the body. We see this composition of matter and form serving to describe the soul as it pertains to eternal life or damnation.
The question of incorruptibility is similar to the subsistent article, but goes further to describe the soul as always wanting to exist because of its desires to exist and because its ability to know “existence absolutely.” “Existence absolutely refers to the ability of the soul to know things apart from it and to understand everything which would become limited due to a material composition. Matter would disrupt the ability to know things because of its composition as material. Because it has intellect it naturally has the tendency to desire to exist and without matter which is corruptible it will be permanent. This really has to do with his proof that souls exist with God in heaven or hell for eternity.
Aquinas then asks whether the intellectual principle is united to the body as its form. He concludes, “The soul is the primary principle of our nourishment, sensation, and local movement; and likewise our understanding.” He asks if the intellectual principle is multiplied according to the number of bodies. This question has to do with the understanding of the soul as one or many souls connected the various parts of a human body. Aquinas proves that each person has one soul. This question is mimicked a bit by the next question, which is the form of the soul and whether there are other forms besides the intellectual souls form. He demonstrates that the body has one soul (one form) because the intellectual soul is the form of the whole person. He states “It cannot be said that they are united by the unity of the body; because it is rather the soul that contains the body and makes it one, than the reverse.”
He questions whether the intellectual soul is properly united to such a body. The soul must be united to the body and be a unity otherwise the body would not be one. Many operations from the different form would divide the body. For instance this would mean that arms could function on their own without the rest of the body. The matter is for the form and form is not just for the matter. If the form of a rock were something other than the form of a rock it would not be a rock. Likewise was its matter not realized as “rock” by the form, the matter would not be rock. Similarly the soul is the substance of a particular man and has particular powers that pertain to a particular man and his particular body. Aquinas finalizes this when he says, “If however, the intellectual soul is united to the body as substantial form as we have said above, it is impossible for another substantial form besides the intellectual soul to be found in man.”
Why does this theory or proof make a difference in the contemporary period? There are several ramifications for this perception of the soul. For one, we look at the consequences of a divorced science. Science is purely empirical in recent times. Pope Benedict, in his Regensburg Address, points out that philosophy and reasoned arguments are absent from the realm of good science. What cannot be proven empirically is no longer considered valid in the scientific world. Humans are put on the same plane as animals, but having more intelligence. Instead of showing that animals have different, powers we to and prove the idea that man is an upgrade-a hop, skip, or jump from the animal kingdom-and not that our souls give us something intrinsically different. We are advanced mechanical beings, but not those who have rational souls which give us permanence. There is no need to see worth in a person. Without souls or even distant relationships of soul and body (with Cartesian thought), we understand the human equation very differently. The lack of continuity between a soul and mind would give the notion that what one does with the body does not affect the soul. Morality then doesn’t matter except on a useful level to keep order. When we understand the need for a soul body composite possessing rationality and subsistence, we then find everything we do matters very much. Our very souls are at stake when we commit any act of sin or do anyone violence. We really find through Aquinas an account of the soul which brings faith, reason, and science together. I have the courage now to say that we need to refine how science is done as well as rethink philosophy.
