Hylomorphism

Aristotle's hylomorphism

In a previous post I discussed the problem of universals. Briefly, Plato held that universals (like redness, roundness and numbers) exist in a higher realm of the Forms.

On the other hand his pupil, Aristotle, held that universals are immanent in particular things in the everyday, natural world. In fact, he considered every physical thing (termed a particular or a substance) to be an inseparable compound of matter and form. This view is called hylomorphism, where the Greek word hule means matter and morphe means form.

Consider a coffee cup. It has a round rim. For Aristotle, the roundness of the rim (a universal) is part of the form of the cup. So too are the cup's other identifiable characteristics such as its color and weight. But the cup also has a material aspect - it's made of ceramic. Without that material there would be no cup. Similarly, without the form, there would also be no cup. Thus the cup necessarily consists of both matter and form. It's not possible to extract the roundness of the rim or the weight of the cup - the form is inseparable from the cup.

Nonetheless we can think about the roundness of the rim or the weight of the cup. We can even think about a circle as a geometric shape separate from any particular thing at all, consider its geometric properties, and transform it to, say, an oval. This is a process of abstraction. The form is in the cup, but we can think about it in a purely formal manner separate from the cup. That separation is epistemic, not ontological - there are no formal circles floating around the universe apart from the particular cups, checker pieces and rings that exhibit that form.

For Aristotle, hylomorphism is applicable to all things, from atoms to plants, animals and humans. In the case of human beings, Aristotle is the particular (or primary substance), his body is the matter and his soul is the form. The species and genera are secondary substances. So human being and animal are secondary substances of Aristotle.

It's interesting to compare Aristotle's view to the modern view where the hard sciences are considered to be concerned primarily with matter, hence the prominence of materialism. Aristotle's broader naturalism, on the other hand, fully includes notions of purpose, meaning, morality, intentionality and everyday experience. For Aristotle, all things are a holistic integration of form and matter. And it is in our experience of things that we discover their true form (nature).

Do ducks lay eggs?

Aristotle - De Anima (On the Soul)

Ducks lay eggs. True or false? Most people regard the statement as unquestionably true.

Sentences like this are called generics and the interesting feature of generics is that they tolerate exceptions.[1] For example, male ducks don't lay eggs and neither do female ducks that lack the capability due to defects. Yet most of us accept that the statement conveys real information about ducks as a species, despite such exceptions in individual ducks.

Generic sentences are problematic on a nominalist view since universal terms (such as "duck") are considered to be nothing more than a collective name for individuals.[2] So the sentence "ducks lay eggs" would seem to imply a hidden "all" quantifier and thus really means "all ducks lay eggs". So on a nominalist reading "ducks lay eggs" is considered either strictly false or perhaps not a legitimate knowledge claim at all. Whereas realists about universals hold that generic statements differ in meaning from statements that include quantifiers. That is, generic statements refer to universal categories or kinds, not to the individual members of those categories or kinds.

Greg N. Carlson explains the key feature of generics as follows:

Finally, to re-emphasize a point made by Goodman (1955) and more recently by Dahl (1975) (among a host of others), the truth of generics depends on a notion of non-accidental generalization for their truth. The world contains in its extension all manner of possible patterns and convergences, many of which we judge to be purely accidental, but others of which we take to be principled. Only the principled patterns are taken to support true generics.

Truth-Conditions of Generic Sentences: Two Contrasting Views

In Aristotelian terms, this generic meaning is captured by the distinction between essence and accident. One familiar example is the Aristotelian definition of humans as the rational animal. This definition successfully distinguishes between humans as a species and other animal species that lack that rational capability.[3] This is so even though individual exceptions exist. For example, a two-week old embryo, a comatose or sleeping human, or a human acting irrationally.

--

[1] For a brief overview, see Generic Sentences and Predication.

[2] See my previous post on the problem of universals.

[3] For an interesting analysis of this definition, see Essentially Rational Animals.

The problem of universals

This apple is red and so is that stop sign. Bob has two arms and two legs.

The apple, the stop sign and Bob are all individuals or particular things. When we say that the apple is red or that Bob has two arms, we are predicating something of those individuals. And when the same thing can be predicated of more than one individual, then that thing (say, redness or the number two) is termed a universal. A universal is just a general characteristic that those individuals have in common.

Now the status of individuals seems straightforward. We say that there is an apple there - it exists and we can see it and also eat it. But the status of universals seems less obvious. Is redness something real? If so, how does it happen to be in many places at once, in both the apple and the stop sign? And also, the number two seems very abstract, not a physical kind of thing that can exist like the apple and Bob do.

In philosophy, this is called the problem of universals. Plato was the first to discuss the issue in depth and proposed that universals do exist, but they exist in a higher realm of the Forms. So there is an ideal or perfect form for redness, a form for the number two, and a form for every other universal. The (imperfect) individual things that we can see around us are said to participate in those perfect forms. This view is called Platonic realism.

Aristotle (who was Plato's student) strongly disagreed with Plato on this issue. In his view, universals were indeed real, but they were not separable from the individuals that they were found in. That is, there is no redness independent of particular things that are red. This view is called moderate or immanent realism - the universals are immanent within the individuals.

A third view, nominalism, denies that universals are real at all. There are only the names we use and there is no universal quality that they have in common.

My own view is that Aristotle's immanent realism best captures what we implicitly mean when we assert things about individuals. The characteristics that the individuals have in common are not merely naming conventions or the creations of humans. Instead they are necessary for the individuals to be observable in any form at all. Granting that, there also seems to be no good reason to posit a non-natural realm for universals to reside in. They are simply features or aspects of the natural world that we experience, albeit at a more abstract level that requires human intelligence to be able to identify and reflect on them.

The image above shows part of the School of Athens fresco by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael. It depicts Plato pointing towards the heavens where he supposed the ideal forms to be. It also depicts Aristotle gesturing downwards to the here-and-now world that he held universals were a part of.

The moral law

In my last post I discussed the solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It so happens that a parallel dilemma can be constructed for ourselves. Do we approve of an action because it is good or is an action good because we approve of it?

For morality to be objective it must be based on something other than subjective opinion. In the case of humans, that something is human nature [1]. What distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capability for rational thought. Unlike other animals, which automatically act on instinct to survive, we face a choice - to live or to die. To live (and flourish) is the value that bridges the gap from the "is" of human nature to the "ought" of morality. [2]

An analogy may be helpful here. Medicine is a normative science based on physiology which presupposes the value of health. Ignoring facts about physiology leads to poor health. Similarly, morality is based on human nature and presupposes the value of life and well-being. Ignoring facts about human nature leads to misery for ourselves and society.

Normative terms such as "moral", "virtuous", "good", "bad", "evil" and so on derive their meaning from the choices we make in ordinary, everyday contexts (with well-being as the standard of value). There is substantial agreement across cultures about the content of morality, as evidenced by the widespread injunctions against murder, violence, theft and so on, and in commonly found maxims such as the Golden Rule. [3] Differences that we do find can be recognized as one of degree rather than as being moralities of a radically different kind. [4]

--

[1] For theists, human nature is usually understood to reflect God's nature which allows the moral law to be discoverable. Otherwise, as C.S.Lewis says, "If we once admit that what God means by "goodness" is sheerly different from what we judge to be good, there is no difference left between pure religion and devil worship." (From the "The Poison of Subjectivism" in "Christian Reflections".)

[2] In Aristotelian terms, humans are rational animals and human flourishing (eudaimonia) is the final cause (telos) that grounds moral actions. We can see precursors to value, purpose and choice in an animal's survival instinct. But value, purpose and choice are intentional terms that derive their literal meaning from their use in everyday human contexts.

[3] See the appendix of "The Abolition of Man" where C.S.Lewis presents textual evidence of a universal moral law across modern and ancient cultures.

[4] C.S.Lewis discusses this point in "The Poison of Subjectivism". He notes that the Nietzschean ethic is innovative not because it grounds a different kind of morality but because it rejects objective morality altogether. That is, Nietzsche accepts the subjective horn of the dilemma.

Euthyphro's Dilemma

In "The Poison of Subjectivism", C.S.Lewis asks, "But how is the relation between God and the moral law to be represented? To say that the moral law is God's law is no final solution. Are these things right because God commands them or does God command them because they are right?" [1]

This is the modern version of the dilemma first posed by Socrates in Plato's "Euthyphro". Lewis explains why he is unable to accept either horn of the dilemma.

"If the first, if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the "righteous Lord." If the second, then we seem to be admitting a cosmic dyarchy, or even making God himself the mere executor of a law somehow external and antecedent to His own being. Both views are intolerable."

Be that as it may, rejecting the dilemma is not a valid option here. In essence, the question posed is whether God's morality is subjective or objective and there is no middle ground between these two alternatives. [2] However, Lewis' concern with the "objective" horn of the dilemma turns out to be unfounded. An objective law need not be external and antecedent to the being that follows it.

To see this, consider the economic law of supply and demand. The truth of this law depends on the actual interactions between people. The law did not precede the existence of people since it depends on what people do. But neither did anyone create the law. Instead it is a discovered generalization of people's behavior. That is, the law of supply and demand describes what people do or, to phrase it differently, people act according to the law of supply and demand. [3] The law is objective rather than subjective because it exists independently of anyone's opinions about it albeit, in this case, not independently of people's behavior.

Similarly the existence of the moral law for God is conditional on God's nature and therefore not antecedent or external to it. Given God's nature, it prescribes what God should and should not do. That is, God is subject to the moral law which he did not create but which nonetheless depends on his existence. Adding the premise that "God is (always) good", the moral law also describes what God does and does not do. As Lewis says elsewhere, "... the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason." [4]

Note: The solution to the dilemma involves other philosophical issues which I haven't explored here but which I take a generally Aristotelian approach to. These include the problem of universals (what does it mean for abstractions, such as the moral law, to exist?), the is-ought problem (how does the moral law derive from a being's nature?) and the argument from morality (does the moral law require God?).

--

[1] "The Poison of Subjectivism" from "Christian Reflections" by C.S.Lewis.

[2] Lewis is aware that he doesn't have a satisfactory solution to the dilemma. He says, "But it is probably just here that our categories betray us. It would be idle, with our merely mortal resources, to attempt a positive correction of our categories - ambulavi in mirabilibus supra me." (Translation: I do exercise myself in great matters, in things too high for me.) However, despite his rejection of the dilemma in this instance, Lewis' general tenor in this essay and other writings is toward the "objective" horn.

[3] The law of supply and command is usually thought of as being true all else being equal. So, for example, when demand increases for a fixed supply of oil, government regulation could prevent the price from rising.

[4] Letter from C.S.Lewis to John Beversluis a few months before his death in 1963. From "C.S.Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion", p295, John Beversluis.