Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

In this series’ previous post we discussed the incoherence of philosophical materialism. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that there is a realm of existence that is immaterial. This immaterial world is accessible only through the common experience of man (i.e. the common experience of all men, of all times, of all cultures, etc.).

Those in the age of modern science who reject the existence of the immaterial world must also deny the world of appearances and appeal to a privileged knowledge into which one must be initiated. They illogically rule out the immaterial because their gnosis (secret knowledge) does not allow them access to the immaterial. While their gnostic appeal can be seductive for many, the paradox is that even those who profess this gnosis must still live their daily lives in the world of common experience. Thus, they reflect a sort of schizophrenia between what they say and what they do. The last post showed why this is inevitable.

Some of the earliest progenitors of classical Western philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, understood that the intellectual realm, accessible to common experience, is distinguished by its intellectual character. They reasoned that the intellectual world (the world of forms or ideas), because it is the source of intelligibility, has to be the source of the cosmos’s order and even its existence. In other words, they concluded that the form must be the active, organizing principle of all entities present in the material world. The form is likewise, the medium through which the human intellect comes to know the hylomorphic entity.

This intellectual domain of metaphysical reality is distinguished from the material world. The material world in itself, as Heraclitus observed, is a world of change in perpetual flux. This is enshrined in his famous dictum, ‘you can’t step into the same stream twice.’ The changing character of the world that we experience led Heraclitus to reject its intelligibility. But Plato, and especially Aristotle–the master of common sense, recognized that there is still a permanence and intelligibility to the cosmos.

Plato found this intelligibility and permanence in what he called ideas or forms, which as I have said, are intellectual realities. However, Plato’s forms are not immanent in the material things of whose existence and shape they are the cause. Aristotle recognized this as a problem. He saw that this left an unbridgeable gap between the intellectual and material principles of the cosmos, especially with respect to sensible things. Aristotle saw that forms needed to be immanent in the material things. This led to his theory of hylomorphism.

Hylomorphism comes from the Greek terms hyle, which is wood used as technical term for all matter, and morphe, which is the intellectual form. Aristotle theorized that because matter is completely unintelligible (we do not know material things by cramming them into our heads) and because the form is the source of an entity’s intelligibility (and shape), then matter cannot exist alone. Matter is always intelligible so it exists only in union with a form. However, the same is true of forms which are intended for matter. Neither do they have a prior existence.

In other words, hylomorphic entities are not the joining together of preexistent forms and matter. Rather, these entities are unities comprised of two distinct, but not separate, principles–form and matter. They both come into existence when the form “informs” the matter. Contrary to our materialistic intuitions, the intellectual principle must be the substantial principle of this bi-principled entity. Because the intellectual principle defines what the entity is, it must also be the cause of its existence since it cannot exist as some undefined entity. Matter, of itself, cannot be anything. The intellectual principle is the source of the hylomorphic entity’s stability and relative permanence.

For the human being, the soul is the substantial form. This form is the principle of the person’s existence, intellectual capacities and spiritual reality. His spiritual reality is related to the intellectual world in its immateriality but it is distinguished by its more perfect participation in divine existence and its immortal character. Therefore, in a very real sense the soul is of primary importance and the more perfect dimension of human existence.

However, one must not make the reductionist error of assuming, therefore, that the material aspect of human nature is unimportant. This mistake results in almost as severe problems as one experiences by rejecting the spiritual world. Problematic thinking such as gnosticism, which we see today essentially in the New Age movement, succumb to this problem. However, even some Christians, especially those who profess anti-sacramental beliefs often fall into this trap as well.

St. Thomas makes it clear that human nature means to be both material and spiritual–body and soul. The importance and dignity of the body is affirmed by the Incarnation of the Word in Jesus of Nazareth and the resurrection of the body at the Final Judgment. One can only be human with both material and spiritual principles. We have access to the spiritual dimension through the world of senses–the material world. We know its intelligibility, we can reason in it, and make our choices in it with the intellectual dimension. We can only be fully human in this hylomorphic world with both body and soul.

We will discuss examples demonstrating our hylomorphic experiences throughout the rest of the series. Next we will talk about a more recent methodology using common experience that provides evidence of this hylomorphic reality.

Share on Facebook