To use an example, a glass cup has as its matter the glass
and takes on the form of the cup. To be sure, the matter dictates what a thing
is made of while the form dictates what it is. There are many objects made
of glass that are not cups, and there are many cups that are not made of glass.
But when the form (cupness) comes together with matter (glass) they instantiate
a particular object—the glass cup.
However, this example is not without its flaws (as most
examples and analogies eventually break down at some point). There is a
difference between naturally occurring objects and, what are traditionally
called, artifacts. Naturally occurring objects are just that—objects that occur
in the natural world. Artifacts, in contrast, are objects that do not occur
naturally but have their form given to them by an agent. For example, an oak
tree is a naturally occurring object but a glass cup is not. The glass cup is
made by an agent for an intended purpose, so in this way you can say the form
of the thing (cupness) was ‘placed on to it’ so to speak. The oak tree has its form
naturally.
As such, one can differentiate between natural objects and artifacts
by an appeal to substantial and accidental forms. Substantial forms are
naturally occurring and dictate what a thing is, while accidental forms (while they too can be naturally
occurring) are properties of the thing that it can do without while still being
the type of thing that it is. The oak tree is naturally occurring, but to take
down the oak tree and turn it into a table is not. Its natural function isn’t
to be a table, rather, its natural function is to absorb nutrients and engage in
behaviors that promote its flourishing and well-being. To be sure, it is form that also grounds what is good for
a thing, since doing what is good for a thing is just to perfect its form. To
use a more precise example, a triangle, according to its form, is a plane-figure
in which the total degrees of the angles add up to be 180. A good or more perfect triangle, then, is going to be one that instantiates this
form well. A triangle drawn from crayon by a 2-year old will not be as ‘good’
of a triangle as one drawn with rulers by a geometrist (assumingly), as the
latter will instantiate that form better than the former.
Likewise, substantial forms come in degrees of goodness and
perfection depending on the matter they take on. There are many oak trees, and
some oak trees are better than others. There are oak trees that do a great job
of absorbing nutrients and others that might fail due to a defect in some way,
in which case the latter does not instantiate its form as well as the former.
Humans, of course, are also composed of matter and form (or
to use the proper terminology, they are hylomorphic
compounds). Thus, since they too have a substantial form, they have a
principle that dictates what is good and bad for them. To be sure, ‘good’ and ‘bad’
are dependent on a thing’s nature (or substantial form). Thus, what is good and
bad for one thing might not be good and bad for another, since the forms they
take are different. It is good for a
human being to exercise and eat healthy and bad
for them to drink poison and sit around all day eating McDonald’s. Essentially,
‘good’ and ‘bad’ are dictated by a thing’s flourishing and well-being, and what
constitutes a thing’s flourishing and well-being is dependent on its
substantial form.
There are many reasons why I believe the hylomorphic
principle to be true, but that might be a subject for another entry. I just
wanted to lay this out there as I think it is important for further entries and
the reader to understand where my other ideas come from.
No comments:
Post a Comment