Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hylomorphism

1000wordphilosophy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 56 posts

Re: Hylomorphism

#31

Post by keybored »

From what I’ve understood of Buddhist philosophy, it rejects this view that some pile of wood can turn into a table. Of course a table exists... but there is nothing special about “forms”. Everything is dependent origination (everything is caused by something else). We conventionally and intuitively split things into sort of the process of making a cake and then say that the cake is something kind of absolute and rigid. But it’s all just process; one thing causes another thing which then causes another thing.

Psychologically speaking it is not helpful to think of forms as anything but convenient signs. Yeah they exist for practical purposes, but they actually don’t. Psychologically speaking (again) we need to get away from thinking that there is ever a split between “things” and “process”. Ultimately it’s all relativistic. The one Absolute Truth is that everything is relativistic... of course most people (philosophers?) reject that as a trivial contradiction, but Mahayana does some tricks (apparently—who am I, Wittgenstein?) which makes this seeming contradiction just work.

At the end of the day our natural intuitions are wrong. They were more towards Aristotle’s view. So we have to actively do things like analyze or meditate in order to see reality for what it truly is. In order to rid ourselves of clinging.

Re: Hylomorphism

#32

Post by hackandthink »

xoac wrote: post #17
hackandthink wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not read much Aristotle, but I can empathize. He tried to get to the bottom of things and pursued various paths. I think his mainstream metaphysics (Genus, Species, Difference, ...) is somewhat different from his Hylemorphism and was more successful. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/index.htm...

“mainstream metaphysics” what??

"Mainstream metaphysics" means categorialism. Everybody knows about genus/species hierarchy.

"What is the relationship between categorialism and hylemorphism, Aristotle’s other major ontological theory? Where does matter fit, if at all, in the categorial scheme?"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/

Re: Hylomorphism

#33

Post by hackandthink »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #24
DiscourseFan wrote: post #4

If only hylo-morphism was so simple...I just spent a few months studying the concept, and let me tell you, Aristotle's form/matter distinction is so strange and complex and difficult to "boil down." Really, it takes a close, and very slow reading of the Physics (as well as other Aristotle texts), and a lot of reference to secondary sources, to get a handle on those difficulties. I'm not sure if this is an apt introdu…

Two points. First, I might recommend the Metaphysics before the Physics. Second, I think reading the original Aristotle as a novice and alone is perhaps not the best move. I think it is best to start with a commentary or something more pedagogically suitable. Contemporary expositors like Edward Feser or David Oderberg write lucidly and approachably on the subject (see “Scholastic Metaphysics” and “Real Essentialism”)…

I would recommend starting with Categories from Organon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Aristotle)

Re: Hylomorphism

#35

Post by wduquette »

hackandthink wrote: post #32
xoac wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“mainstream metaphysics” what??

"Mainstream metaphysics" means categorialism. Everybody knows about genus/species hierarchy. "What is the relationship between categorialism and hylemorphism, Aristotle’s other major ontological theory? Where does matter fit, if at all, in the categorial scheme?" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/

Hylemorphism is how Aristotle further subdivides the category of substance.

Re: Hylomorphism

#36

Post by wduquette »

noduerme wrote: post #5
vnorilo wrote: post #3

TFA is about philosophy, but the computer science concept is also interesting - composition of recursive functions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism_(computer_scien...

Hah. My first read was that this way of looking at the world sounds object-oriented (an instance of a class being state encapsulated with function). Just goes to show how quickly any philosophy can lead to a schism ;)

Yes: the class is the form; the data values are the matter. A superclass is a genus and a subclass is a species. I have long suspected that the creators of Simula had a grounding in Aristotelian metaphysics.

Re: Hylomorphism

#37

Post by empath-nirvana »

jiggawatts wrote: post #11

The issue I've always had with this kind of reductionist philosophy is that there is a very clear and obvious continuum between "table" and "not table". At no point can everyone clearly agree what is and isn't a table. Sure, most people would agree that an assembled IKEA "LISABO" table is a table. Okay.. what if one of the legs is removed and it is sideways? What if one leg is removed but it is propped up with a pile…

Right, anything at a higher level than like vibrations in quantum fields is a mental construct and doesn't exist as such.

Re: Hylomorphism

#39

Post by skrebbel »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #4

If only hylo-morphism was so simple...I just spent a few months studying the concept, and let me tell you, Aristotle's form/matter distinction is so strange and complex and difficult to "boil down." Really, it takes a close, and very slow reading of the Physics (as well as other Aristotle texts), and a lot of reference to secondary sources, to get a handle on those difficulties. I'm not sure if this is an apt introdu…

If it’s so messy and hard to understand, isn’t it maybe simply not Aristotle’s best work? Must we assume that everything he ever wrote was perfect?
Post reply on HN