🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤔 Philosophers seek to understand the essences or forms of things when they inquire about truth, love, justice, and more. 00:56 🐕 Aristotle believed that forms or essences exist within the things in nature, making them what they are. 01:23 🧱 Matter, according to Aristotle, is the universal potentiality that exists in union with form, creating a composition of matter and form in all things. 02:10 🧩 The distinction between matter and form is related to the distinction between act and potency, and it holds true at all levels of analysis, even down to the elements. Made with HARPA AI
Yesterday I listened to the lecture on this subject in Aquinas101,am still in its early stages. It is absolutely engaging. I had been taught about substance and accidents in my instruction to become Catholic, reference the Eucharist, but this really elaborated and is so mentally delightful. Until then I had been reminded of my schooldays Plato, now he diverges, I am intrigued. Each time I comment, I say I am so grateful to you for making all this freely available! It would cost $1000's in college.
I'm confused and I have a few questions. What makes form and essence distinct from one another? What does it mean that a form is actuality while matter is pure potentiality?
Is form more than a visual aspect? It seems so if we use essence. But what is the essence of something? Is it its attributes, the things that distinguish it from other things in terms of tangible, visible, audial, and other more abstract properties like capacity to survive, to love, etc?
Can you explain what "designated matter" is? I've read a bit about it being matter that is designated by quantity and dimension, but I just struggle to understand at all what that means. Thanks!
Aristotle mentions in his metaphysics that the essence of Socrates and man differ only as designated and non designated. Good place to start to parse that out.
I'm confused with some things: 1) The word "Substance": As far as I know, it is what something is. It is what we mention in the definition (As a Category, that means it's necessary to be) - I may be confusing it with "Essence" - 2) If we only know something by the experience of this (I can't know what a German Shepard is but by taking it through analogy-), how can the form be necessary for a thing to be, or to exist? 3) If matter is what something is made of, but it can't exist without a "form", how can it be possible to not exist but to be the "raw materia" that something needs to exist? 4) I found in a book that there is a first and second matter (I understood that the second matter are the elements*). *And how they are related to all these topics. All of these ideas are going around in my mind, and I can't understand any of this. I would appreciate if you could give me an answer. Thanks in advance.
2) we also know something through divinity or mathematic calculation/certainty. For example, I can guess it's going to rain and how acid rain is like, yet I never experienced acid rain but once I do, it becomes exactly as I had predicted. 3) I personally believe that the essence of all things is spiritual (life force/consciousness) therefore all physical things are a material expression of spiritual essence, a form of will turned into being, such as me writting a poem, the writting is the material form and the poem is the intent behind its existence, the purpose and meaning. I believe that the Divine and Spiritual are almost the same, thus Spirits are capable of creation. See Shintoism
@matthewmayuiers Unfortunatelly there is no comment with a link. I think comments with links are automatically deleted. Can you tell me the name so I look it up?
Is another way to explain this, that form exists in mind, and is comprised of matter? For example, melted bronze is matter that is pure potentiality of many forms (statue of Zeus, statue of Jupiter, statue of Hermes, etc). It is only actualized into form when changed and recognized as a form, such as turning the bronze into a statute of Zeus. At some point during the creation of the statue, a person will recognize the form and mentally say "that is a statue of Zeus," thus creating the form. Do I have that right? And then if the statue is melted down again, the actual form goes away, the matter remains as unformed matter, but the idea/memory of the form persists in the viewer's mind? So when compared to a human, when a person dies, their matter returns to unformed matter, and the actual person is no longer, but the form of the person survives in the mind of God, so to speak? And God can re-actualize the form with matter at some point?
How can form be viewed as separate from matter when the form of an object is the direct result of the interactions of the particles the object is made of?
So I can say that form and essence are the same concept for Plato, but for Aristotle the essence of a thing is a compound of its form and matter (considering material beings)?
Is the “essences” of things are their “forms (as you say in the within the first 30 seconds of this video), then what is “essence” in the context of the essence/existence distinction? It seems we have equivocal words and it makes scholastic philosophy a bit messy, IMO.
This lecture, like lectures 3 & 7, takes many repetitions for me to start retaining. For a while, anyway, can I think of FORM as the "DNA" of a thing, a sort of pattern a thing has that "makes" the thing be the thing-expressing-in-nature? What I like about Aristotle/Aquinas is FORM directly expresses as natural forms, rather then nature being a kind of shadow of FORM (which is how I understand Plato). Aquinas makes natural reality so immediately REAL. He's rearranging a bunch of my assumptions, some of which affect me spiritually re: body/soul not as dual as I thought, and reality/things permeated by FORM which seems really significant but I'm not sure in what way
Thanks for your comment and your perseverance. Consider listening to this lecture for a longer description of form: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/jeffrey-brower-form-matter-composition Also, this video on the four causes may help to fill out the picture: th-cam.com/video/QDVON6DeZaM/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for your brilliant videos! Do you have book/resource recommendations to synthesise Aristotlean-Thomistic Philosophy with modern science (especially Physics) pertaining to how matter/substance is understood in both.
Dear, I am a Catholic, a translator, and I study Thomism, and if you are interested, you can free through TH-cam the access to send subtitles suggestions. So I could send subtitles of each video in Portuguese.
Listening to this I am reminded of Jesus' dialogue with the Jewish Temple Leadership who choose not to see the origin of their faith, preferring rather to cleave to their five senses....
But that doesn't explain how these forms came to be codified, does it? At least with Plato, we were fixed on this point, even if it was in a way that couldn't be linked to the material world or discovered from it. I mean, Aristotle did hierarchically classify lifeforms depending on their abilities, so one may imagine a permeable hierarchy that could imply evolution, but apart from that, I don't remember his explanation for it.
Dear James: It seems to me that in your video there is a confusion between the notions of essence and form. Are you using them indifferently? In my opinion, while there is a kind of opposition (or complementarity) relationship between "form" and "matter", there is no such relationship between "essence" and "matter". Therefore, I would think "essence" and "form" are not interchangeable notions.
Here is a philosophical critique of some of the key metaphysical ideas presented in the video "Form and Matter (Aquinas 101)" from an analytic perspective: The video helpfully outlines Aquinas' metaphysical concept of form and matter as the principles of individuation in composite substances. However, some philosophers argue these delineations may reify conceptual divisions not reflected in reality itself. Specifically, the principle that a form's existence depends on and is limited by its individualizing matter remains an open issue. Critics question whether forms and prime matter can truly be abstracted as distinct layers of being. Relatedly, the assertion that the human soul or form is the principle of humanity's substantial unity is disputed. Some physicalists deny any non-physical components fundamentally constitute a person. The explanatory power of the per se/per accidens distinction as applied to attributes is debated. Entities may lack precisely defined essences and instead involve open dynamical relationships. The dependence of accidents on substances is also controversial, as emergent phenomena challenge tidy ontological hierarchies. Some understand attributes as integral to entities' enduring identities. By focusing on Aquinas narrowly, alternative metaphysical models were not sufficiently acknowledged. The video would have benefited from situating his view within modern philosophers' revisions and alternative frameworks. Overall, while clarifying Thomistic metaphysics, the video presents debates as settled without adequately exploring robust philosophical objections and interpretive complexities still very much alive in metaphysical disputes today. A more comprehensive critique was needed.
You know, in fairness, that others disagree with these teachings only mean that they have an opinion that differs from it; it does not mean they are right, only that they fail to understand the deeper meaning behind the teachings. Example, We know the world is round. However there are more modern thinkers who are disagreeing now and are saying the world is flat and round earth is thus being disputed. 'Does this means we are all wrong?' Nope! and Neither is Thomas Aquinas! I enjoyed reading your piece
I believe as Aristotle and philosophers of his time, and those following his thoughts in history, did not have modern science, they didn't have knowledge about molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles, and hence physical and chemical properties of elements and the various molecules that form the matters all around and in us; their knowledge of elements are fire, water, earth, air, and also aether. I imagine they need to somehow explained how material things form as they are, into such intricate shapes and complexities and properties, and hence the many things in the universe need to have "forms", that is things which "mold" elemental material things in the universe into things which they saw. For me, we can now better explain how matters, energies, and other sub-atomic or elementary particles interact with each other to actually form things based on each performing physical characteristics as governed by the laws of physics. So perhaps, I think, Aristotle thought that a dog became a dog because there is a form of that dog which gathers all the required elements in the universe to make that dog (maybe?). The issue for me is how does a specific "form" interact with matters or with other "forms"? where do "forms" come from naturally? what are the working elements or physics of "forms"? (how do "forms" exist in the physical universe anyway?) We can now say that the DNA or genomes of a living organism are the "molders" of each living organism, and the genomes themselves are naturally governed by the laws of chemical and physical interactions of the molecules within and around them, and flaws in the way genetic molecules and proteins interact will give results in mutations, or diseases, or death of the organism, for example. Unless, if what is meant by form is actually just the physical, elemental, and chemical properties of matters, and the resulting combined properties of individual atoms and molecules, that means form is not actually a separate thing that forms certain materials or beings, but a product of matters and the laws of physics. We can take out the concept of "form" and modern science works fine to be honest, it is just the idea of "form" as explained and given by Aristotle is kind of redundant. We know a thing exists as it is, and that's it, we can now explain how it works and how it will work (simulation) based on the known physical and chemical properties of that thing and its surroundings, based on the known models (scientific theories) of the laws of the universe applied in that situation; whether we say there is a "form" of that thing is just but descriptions of how things work and are in shape. This is not that I discredit the very fact that existence is from and by God alone, and God can interact with matters in the universe as He wishes. But I still think there is a kind of "form" in this universe, but I am not sure if this is what actually meant or not. This "form" I imagine is similar to how binary codes in programming or computer memory works, like how every byte, containing bits, can be made to represent something in a program or memory. The idea is just based on the "intelligibility" of this universe, accessible to the very mind of God alone the Creator, and He, and perhaps superior intelligent creatures like angels, can access and "copy", (and hence it is said angels "can instantly understand") and modify (with angels in limited ways) these universe's "bits", with God alone being the sole Creator of the "bits" here and not other creatures. So God can form in his "mind" the strings of "bits" and "bytes" which He wants to create or change on existing ones and apply them as "form" of the matters, which are the "memory" or "images", just as God can access also our very minds by reading the "bits" and "bytes" imprinted in God's very own existence and intelligence. Still, I am not sure how these whole "matter" and "form" in St. Thomas and Aristotle actually are, the same with his many philosophical terms in describing nature and the supernatural, just trying to make sense of things. I just think the very fact that each person (or animal) has his / her own existence is because each of them has unique "program" imprinted in the mind of God, and that is why we don't lose our consciousness (unless we die), get mixed up with other people's or animals' consciousness, and the fact that each person is unique and not lost (the "memory" is always retained by God).
Does a virus have a substantial form? If so, can you help me understand why God would allow such a reality to exist? What goodness does it have in itself?
Here's his response: "A virus can be compared to a seed. In itself, a seed is alive, but it is not growing. It is not really doing anything. But when you place the seed into soil, it grows into a tree. The tree grows and produces more seeds. The virus is similar. In itself it is alive but it is not growing. It is not really doing anything. But when you place the virus in contact with a cell, it becomes a virosome. The virosome grows within the cell and produces more viruses. You ask whether or not a virus is a substance. The same can be asked about a seed. I would say that a seed is the earliest stage of development of a tree, which is clearly a substance. In the same way, the virus is the earliest stage of a virosome, which I believe can be understood to be a living organism within a cell. It grows, it uses energy, it reproduces and makes more viruses that can spread. So yes, seeds and viruses have substantial forms. And because they are alive, these substantial forms are actually souls. Not souls like ours but souls nonetheless. God makes each living thing so that it can give glory to Him. A virus gives glory to God in the same way that sharks and cobras give glory to God. They simply reveal the ingenuity and creativity of God who creates all of them. In being sharks, cobras, and viruses, they are already good. Notice that we understand that sharks and cobras are good, even when they kill humans. They kill humans because that is what sharks and cobras do when they encounter humans that threaten their well-being. The same thing can be said about mosquitoes that spread malaria or Zika or dengue. They are doing what mosquitoes do. And sometimes people are killed because of their activity. And yet, mosquitoes are good too because God made them to give glory to Him. Most viruses do not infect people. However, some do. They are doing what viruses do. And sometimes people are killed because of their activity too. And yet, they too are good in themselves even though the can cause much suffering and evil. At this time, we pray for God’s mercy and providential guidance of all the people around the world who are fighting hard to control and stem this viral pandemic. The virus is doing what it does. Now, we must do what we do, which is to use our reason to develop drugs and vaccines against the pandemic."
The Thomistic Institute Wow this was an amazingly helpful response. Thank you for being thorough - and so quick. I would ask this in reply, however. I understand the point more about sharks and even mosquitoes. But when it comes to a virus, it almost seems like its only “goal” or “final cause” is to infect others and ultimately kill. In other words, there seems to be a range of activities and ends of a shark. But it’s as if God created (or allowed to form) viruses *only* for their destructive purpose. Can you help me with this? Am I missing something more about the purpose of a virus? Thank you, again!
@@patricpeters7911 More from Fr. Nicanor: "The final cause of every living thing, other than us, is to survive. For animals and some plants, to survive means that others have to die. This is the rhythm of life. Antelopes die so lions may live. Squirrels die so eagles may live. Insects die so the Venus fly trap may live. So in the living world, every organism is destructive. For COVID-19, some of us die so it may live. Notice that not all die. In fact, 95% of COVID patients survive. Therefore, in the end, you cannot say that the virus’s end is to kill humans. The virus infects humans in order to live. Tragically, some are too weak to sustain that infection and they die. But it is not the virus alone, but the virus and the weakened human body together that kill."
The Thomistic Institute Thank you again. This in itself seems consistent to me. My wonder is why God would set things up like this if, ultimately, there will be a “New Creation” that would be lacking in these features. Does Thomas ever address why God would set up the world in this way now? Or do we have reason to think there will in fact be biological death (minus human bodies) in the next life as well?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🤔 Philosophers seek to understand the essences or forms of things when they inquire about truth, love, justice, and more.
00:56 🐕 Aristotle believed that forms or essences exist within the things in nature, making them what they are.
01:23 🧱 Matter, according to Aristotle, is the universal potentiality that exists in union with form, creating a composition of matter and form in all things.
02:10 🧩 The distinction between matter and form is related to the distinction between act and potency, and it holds true at all levels of analysis, even down to the elements.
Made with HARPA AI
Thank you...you anticipate questions within your explanation and therefore offer helpful answers.
Fr. James is a really excellent teacher!
@@ThomisticInstitute he is!
Yesterday I listened to the lecture on this subject in Aquinas101,am still in its early stages. It is absolutely engaging. I had been taught about substance and accidents in my instruction to become Catholic, reference the Eucharist, but this really elaborated and is so mentally delightful. Until then I had been reminded of my schooldays Plato, now he diverges, I am intrigued. Each time I comment, I say I am so grateful to you for making all this freely available! It would cost $1000's in college.
Delighted to hear and happy to provide it!
These videos are fantastically well done! Many thanks gentlemen!
I'm confused and I have a few questions.
What makes form and essence distinct from one another?
What does it mean that a form is actuality while matter is pure potentiality?
Is form more than a visual aspect? It seems so if we use essence. But what is the essence of something? Is it its attributes, the things that distinguish it from other things in terms of tangible, visible, audial, and other more abstract properties like capacity to survive, to love, etc?
Can you explain what "designated matter" is? I've read a bit about it being matter that is designated by quantity and dimension, but I just struggle to understand at all what that means. Thanks!
Aristotle mentions in his metaphysics that the essence of Socrates and man differ only as designated and non designated. Good place to start to parse that out.
I'm confused with some things:
1) The word "Substance": As far as I know, it is what something is. It is what we mention in the definition (As a Category, that means it's necessary to be) - I may be confusing it with "Essence" -
2) If we only know something by the experience of this (I can't know what a German Shepard is but by taking it through analogy-), how can the form be necessary for a thing to be, or to exist?
3) If matter is what something is made of, but it can't exist without a "form", how can it be possible to not exist but to be the "raw materia" that something needs to exist?
4) I found in a book that there is a first and second matter (I understood that the second matter are the elements*).
*And how they are related to all these topics.
All of these ideas are going around in my mind, and I can't understand any of this.
I would appreciate if you could give me an answer. Thanks in advance.
2) we also know something through divinity or mathematic calculation/certainty. For example, I can guess it's going to rain and how acid rain is like, yet I never experienced acid rain but once I do, it becomes exactly as I had predicted.
3) I personally believe that the essence of all things is spiritual (life force/consciousness) therefore all physical things are a material expression of spiritual essence, a form of will turned into being, such as me writting a poem, the writting is the material form and the poem is the intent behind its existence, the purpose and meaning. I believe that the Divine and Spiritual are almost the same, thus Spirits are capable of creation. See Shintoism
So in the question " what is truth?", is there a blend of form and matter that make up truth, or is truth just form?
How does one distinguish form from essence? Or are they interchangeable terms? Thank you!
@Matt Mayuiers thanks for this clarification! God bless.
@matthewmayuiers So what is the distinction?
@matthewmayuiers Unfortunatelly there is no comment with a link. I think comments with links are automatically deleted. Can you tell me the name so I look it up?
Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
Is another way to explain this, that form exists in mind, and is comprised of matter? For example, melted bronze is matter that is pure potentiality of many forms (statue of Zeus, statue of Jupiter, statue of Hermes, etc). It is only actualized into form when changed and recognized as a form, such as turning the bronze into a statute of Zeus. At some point during the creation of the statue, a person will recognize the form and mentally say "that is a statue of Zeus," thus creating the form. Do I have that right?
And then if the statue is melted down again, the actual form goes away, the matter remains as unformed matter, but the idea/memory of the form persists in the viewer's mind? So when compared to a human, when a person dies, their matter returns to unformed matter, and the actual person is no longer, but the form of the person survives in the mind of God, so to speak? And God can re-actualize the form with matter at some point?
How can form be viewed as separate from matter when the form of an object is the direct result of the interactions of the particles the object is made of?
Essence of things: forms; act
Matter; potenciality
Hylomorphism; matter and form (potency and act)
Elements?
So I can say that form and essence are the same concept for Plato, but for Aristotle the essence of a thing is a compound of its form and matter (considering material beings)?
Good question. 3 years later, do you know the answer?
I can see the parallel between matter and form, and potency and act, though what is the relation between essence and substance? AMDG.
Is the “essences” of things are their “forms (as you say in the within the first 30 seconds of this video), then what is “essence” in the context of the essence/existence distinction? It seems we have equivocal words and it makes scholastic philosophy a bit messy, IMO.
This lecture, like lectures 3 & 7, takes many repetitions for me to start retaining. For a while, anyway, can I think of FORM as the "DNA" of a thing, a sort of pattern a thing has that "makes" the thing be the thing-expressing-in-nature? What I like about Aristotle/Aquinas is FORM directly expresses as natural forms, rather then nature being a kind of shadow of FORM (which is how I understand Plato). Aquinas makes natural reality so immediately REAL. He's rearranging a bunch of my assumptions, some of which affect me spiritually re: body/soul not as dual as I thought, and reality/things permeated by FORM which seems really significant but I'm not sure in what way
Thanks for your comment and your perseverance. Consider listening to this lecture for a longer description of form: soundcloud.com/thomisticinstitute/jeffrey-brower-form-matter-composition
Also, this video on the four causes may help to fill out the picture: th-cam.com/video/QDVON6DeZaM/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for your brilliant videos!
Do you have book/resource recommendations to synthesise Aristotlean-Thomistic Philosophy with modern science (especially Physics) pertaining to how matter/substance is understood in both.
You might be interested in Edward Feser. Especially his book "Aristotle's Revenge"
Wolfgang Smith, aged 91 as of 2021.
@@Tyrannosaurus_5000 Any specific book?
Dear, I am a Catholic, a translator, and I study Thomism, and if you are interested, you can free through TH-cam the access to send subtitles suggestions. So I could send subtitles of each video in Portuguese.
Great idea !! We could reach a lot of more people doing that!
Ótimo saber que há pessoas disponíveis para traduzirem para o nosso idioma Português :).
Do the lectures ever go away after a long period of time after I sign up?
Nope! The lectures will be available -- always for free -- for the foreseeable future! Thanks for your interest; may the Lord bless you!
Listening to this I am reminded of Jesus' dialogue with the Jewish Temple Leadership who choose not to see the origin of their faith, preferring rather to cleave to their five senses....
But that doesn't explain how these forms came to be codified, does it? At least with Plato, we were fixed on this point, even if it was in a way that couldn't be linked to the material world or discovered from it.
I mean, Aristotle did hierarchically classify lifeforms depending on their abilities, so one may imagine a permeable hierarchy that could imply evolution, but apart from that, I don't remember his explanation for it.
Dear James: It seems to me that in your video there is a confusion between the notions of essence and form. Are you using them indifferently? In my opinion, while there is a kind of opposition (or complementarity) relationship between "form" and "matter", there is no such relationship between "essence" and "matter". Therefore, I would think "essence" and "form" are not interchangeable notions.
Why should I think yhere is a eal distinctin between matter and form in the objectuve eternal world?
Here is a philosophical critique of some of the key metaphysical ideas presented in the video "Form and Matter (Aquinas 101)" from an analytic perspective:
The video helpfully outlines Aquinas' metaphysical concept of form and matter as the principles of individuation in composite substances. However, some philosophers argue these delineations may reify conceptual divisions not reflected in reality itself.
Specifically, the principle that a form's existence depends on and is limited by its individualizing matter remains an open issue. Critics question whether forms and prime matter can truly be abstracted as distinct layers of being.
Relatedly, the assertion that the human soul or form is the principle of humanity's substantial unity is disputed. Some physicalists deny any non-physical components fundamentally constitute a person.
The explanatory power of the per se/per accidens distinction as applied to attributes is debated. Entities may lack precisely defined essences and instead involve open dynamical relationships.
The dependence of accidents on substances is also controversial, as emergent phenomena challenge tidy ontological hierarchies. Some understand attributes as integral to entities' enduring identities.
By focusing on Aquinas narrowly, alternative metaphysical models were not sufficiently acknowledged. The video would have benefited from situating his view within modern philosophers' revisions and alternative frameworks.
Overall, while clarifying Thomistic metaphysics, the video presents debates as settled without adequately exploring robust philosophical objections and interpretive complexities still very much alive in metaphysical disputes today. A more comprehensive critique was needed.
Is there a critique to this critique?
You know, in fairness, that others disagree with these teachings only mean that they have an opinion that differs from it; it does not mean they are right, only that they fail to understand the deeper meaning behind the teachings.
Example, We know the world is round. However there are more modern thinkers who are disagreeing now and are saying the world is flat and round earth is thus being disputed. 'Does this means we are all wrong?' Nope! and Neither is Thomas Aquinas!
I enjoyed reading your piece
Is dna the form of a body?
If the form is what the thing is, and humans are essentially body and soul, does that mean that the soul is not the form of a human person?
Yes, the form of the body (matter).
Those definitions can be related to free-will and determinism somewhat.
I believe as Aristotle and philosophers of his time, and those following his thoughts in history, did not have modern science, they didn't have knowledge about molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles, and hence physical and chemical properties of elements and the various molecules that form the matters all around and in us; their knowledge of elements are fire, water, earth, air, and also aether. I imagine they need to somehow explained how material things form as they are, into such intricate shapes and complexities and properties, and hence the many things in the universe need to have "forms", that is things which "mold" elemental material things in the universe into things which they saw.
For me, we can now better explain how matters, energies, and other sub-atomic or elementary particles interact with each other to actually form things based on each performing physical characteristics as governed by the laws of physics. So perhaps, I think, Aristotle thought that a dog became a dog because there is a form of that dog which gathers all the required elements in the universe to make that dog (maybe?). The issue for me is how does a specific "form" interact with matters or with other "forms"? where do "forms" come from naturally? what are the working elements or physics of "forms"? (how do "forms" exist in the physical universe anyway?) We can now say that the DNA or genomes of a living organism are the "molders" of each living organism, and the genomes themselves are naturally governed by the laws of chemical and physical interactions of the molecules within and around them, and flaws in the way genetic molecules and proteins interact will give results in mutations, or diseases, or death of the organism, for example. Unless, if what is meant by form is actually just the physical, elemental, and chemical properties of matters, and the resulting combined properties of individual atoms and molecules, that means form is not actually a separate thing that forms certain materials or beings, but a product of matters and the laws of physics.
We can take out the concept of "form" and modern science works fine to be honest, it is just the idea of "form" as explained and given by Aristotle is kind of redundant. We know a thing exists as it is, and that's it, we can now explain how it works and how it will work (simulation) based on the known physical and chemical properties of that thing and its surroundings, based on the known models (scientific theories) of the laws of the universe applied in that situation; whether we say there is a "form" of that thing is just but descriptions of how things work and are in shape.
This is not that I discredit the very fact that existence is from and by God alone, and God can interact with matters in the universe as He wishes. But I still think there is a kind of "form" in this universe, but I am not sure if this is what actually meant or not. This "form" I imagine is similar to how binary codes in programming or computer memory works, like how every byte, containing bits, can be made to represent something in a program or memory. The idea is just based on the "intelligibility" of this universe, accessible to the very mind of God alone the Creator, and He, and perhaps superior intelligent creatures like angels, can access and "copy", (and hence it is said angels "can instantly understand") and modify (with angels in limited ways) these universe's "bits", with God alone being the sole Creator of the "bits" here and not other creatures. So God can form in his "mind" the strings of "bits" and "bytes" which He wants to create or change on existing ones and apply them as "form" of the matters, which are the "memory" or "images", just as God can access also our very minds by reading the "bits" and "bytes" imprinted in God's very own existence and intelligence. Still, I am not sure how these whole "matter" and "form" in St. Thomas and Aristotle actually are, the same with his many philosophical terms in describing nature and the supernatural, just trying to make sense of things. I just think the very fact that each person (or animal) has his / her own existence is because each of them has unique "program" imprinted in the mind of God, and that is why we don't lose our consciousness (unless we die), get mixed up with other people's or animals' consciousness, and the fact that each person is unique and not lost (the "memory" is always retained by God).
Thank you for your great job
You're welcome! Thanks for watching.
thanks
You're welcome!
0:02 baby dont hurt me
Levdib’like’ y me suscribí!!!!
0:02 Baby don’t hurt me…
Coolness
Does a virus have a substantial form? If so, can you help me understand why God would allow such a reality to exist? What goodness does it have in itself?
It's a great question. I'm going to ask Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P. and see what he has to say. I'll get back with you soon!
Here's his response: "A virus can be compared to a seed. In itself, a seed is alive, but it is not growing. It is not really doing anything. But when you place the seed into soil, it grows into a tree. The tree grows and produces more seeds. The virus is similar. In itself it is alive but it is not growing. It is not really doing anything. But when you place the virus in contact with a cell, it becomes a virosome. The virosome grows within the cell and produces more viruses.
You ask whether or not a virus is a substance. The same can be asked about a seed. I would say that a seed is the earliest stage of development of a tree, which is clearly a substance. In the same way, the virus is the earliest stage of a virosome, which I believe can be understood to be a living organism within a cell. It grows, it uses energy, it reproduces and makes more viruses that can spread. So yes, seeds and viruses have substantial forms. And because they are alive, these substantial forms are actually souls. Not souls like ours but souls nonetheless.
God makes each living thing so that it can give glory to Him. A virus gives glory to God in the same way that sharks and cobras give glory to God. They simply reveal the ingenuity and creativity of God who creates all of them. In being sharks, cobras, and viruses, they are already good. Notice that we understand that sharks and cobras are good, even when they kill humans. They kill humans because that is what sharks and cobras do when they encounter humans that threaten their well-being. The same thing can be said about mosquitoes that spread malaria or Zika or dengue. They are doing what mosquitoes do. And sometimes people are killed because of their activity. And yet, mosquitoes are good too because God made them to give glory to Him. Most viruses do not infect people. However, some do. They are doing what viruses do. And sometimes people are killed because of their activity too. And yet, they too are good in themselves even though the can cause much suffering and evil.
At this time, we pray for God’s mercy and providential guidance of all the people around the world who are fighting hard to control and stem this viral pandemic. The virus is doing what it does. Now, we must do what we do, which is to use our reason to develop drugs and vaccines against the pandemic."
The Thomistic Institute Wow this was an amazingly helpful response. Thank you for being thorough - and so quick. I would ask this in reply, however. I understand the point more about sharks and even mosquitoes. But when it comes to a virus, it almost seems like its only “goal” or “final cause” is to infect others and ultimately kill. In other words, there seems to be a range of activities and ends of a shark. But it’s as if God created (or allowed to form) viruses *only* for their destructive purpose. Can you help me with this? Am I missing something more about the purpose of a virus? Thank you, again!
@@patricpeters7911 More from Fr. Nicanor: "The final cause of every living thing, other than us, is to survive. For animals and some plants, to survive means that others have to die. This is the rhythm of life. Antelopes die so lions may live. Squirrels die so eagles may live. Insects die so the Venus fly trap may live. So in the living world, every organism is destructive. For COVID-19, some of us die so it may live. Notice that not all die. In fact, 95% of COVID patients survive. Therefore, in the end, you cannot say that the virus’s end is to kill humans. The virus infects humans in order to live. Tragically, some are too weak to sustain that infection and they die. But it is not the virus alone, but the virus and the weakened human body together that kill."
The Thomistic Institute Thank you again. This in itself seems consistent to me. My wonder is why God would set things up like this if, ultimately, there will be a “New Creation” that would be lacking in these features. Does Thomas ever address why God would set up the world in this way now? Or do we have reason to think there will in fact be biological death (minus human bodies) in the next life as well?
Quid est Veritas- Este Vir quid adest