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

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Hylomorphism

#51

Post by jfoutz »

skrebbel wrote: post #39
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?

I think there are 2 things at play here. 1. It's an old old idea, and the presentation was cogent in ancient times, but takes a lot of effort to get the meaning as expressed at the time. A poor example, because time goes the wrong way, but I'll still offer it, since I think it has some of the flavor of the problem. I theoretically could hand wrap wire memory to run python on a relay based computer, but I'm not going to. and, what would I lose in translation?

2. The form and matter split is probably the core, but I'd guess there are lots of subtleties and consequences of accepting or rejecting the various parts of the argument that the article sorta breezes through.

I don't know though. I'm not a historian or philosopher.

Re: Hylomorphism

#52

Post by jiggawatts »

earthboundkid wrote: post #46
jiggawatts wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A table is an artificial object. Does it have to be? If a natural rock formation or horizontal tree root with a flat top is used as a table, then it is a table, is it not? Tables are anything humans use for the purpose of a table. Their manufacture or lack thereof is immaterial.

I agree discovery vs. manufacture isn't that big of distinction. If a rock table was almost fit for purpose, but not quite, you might do something to make it work, or if it's way too different to work as a table, you wouldn't consider it at all. In any event, human intention is taking raw material (trees, rocks that are almost table) and using it according to an intention, and the intention is what makes it a table.

If you discover a flat surface in the forest that happens to have some stuff on top, like pine-cones or whatever, you might think to yourself: "Hah! It's a table!", even if no human ever touched it or designed it to be a table.

Similarly, if we find aliens and see their tables, then we would also call them tables even though they were not human-designed.

If an AI builds and uses a table, then that is still a table, even if no organic (or even conscious!) being ever intended it to be a table.

Last but not least: tables don't even have to be made of matter! A table is a table, even if it's in a computer game or virtual reality.

These concepts are much more fuzzy around the edges than philosophers like to pretend they are.

Re: Hylomorphism

#53

Post by red75prime »

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…

In short: the way people tried to promote their propensity to form concepts into fundamental structure of universe was messy.

Re: Hylomorphism

#54

Post by canjobear »

earthboundkid wrote: post #15
hmm37 wrote: post #7

It's pretty similar to Chinese Neo-Confucian concepts of 理 (li) and 气 (qi). Qi being matter-energy. Li - being structure or form or pattern. Although to be human in Chinese concepts, required more than just having the form of a human, and e.g. looking human, but also the ability to act like a human with concepts of e.g. 仁 (ren).

I love Xunzi’s definition of human and wish it were more widely discussed in the West: 水火有氣而無生，草木有生而無知，禽獸有知而無義，人有氣、有生、有知，亦且有義，故最為天下貴也。力不若牛，走不若馬，而牛馬為用，何也？曰：人能群，彼不能群也。人何以能群？曰：分。分何以能行？曰：義。故義以分則和，和則一，一則多力，多力則彊，彊則勝物；故宮室可得而居也 Water and fire have qi but lack life. Trees and shrubs have life but lack intelligence. Birds and beasts have intelligence but lack morality. Humans have qi, life, intelligence, and moreover morality,…

Xunzi is underappreciated, even in China.

Re: Hylomorphism

#55

Post by earthboundkid »

jiggawatts wrote: post #52
earthboundkid wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree discovery vs. manufacture isn't that big of distinction. If a rock table was almost fit for purpose, but not quite, you might do something to make it work, or if it's way too different to work as a table, you wouldn't consider it at all. In any event, human intention is taking raw material (trees, rocks that are almost table) and using it according to an intention, and the intention is what makes it a table.

If you discover a flat surface in the forest that happens to have some stuff on top, like pine-cones or whatever, you might think to yourself: "Hah! It's a table!", even if no human ever touched it or designed it to be a table. Similarly, if we find aliens and see their tables, then we would also call them tables even though they were not human-designed. If an AI builds and uses a table, then that is still a table, e…

There's some distinction in Aquinas that I don't remember the word for that would describe a "table" of pinecones as just being a table by analogy but not a real table. It has a form like a table, but if it just arose by accident, it lacks the substance of a table. I don't think aliens or videogames complicate the question that much, but I do think some flat surface in the forest is only like a table but not really a table until some conscious being comes along.

Re: Hylomorphism

#56

Post by Joker_vD »

earthboundkid wrote: post #55
jiggawatts wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you discover a flat surface in the forest that happens to have some stuff on top, like pine-cones or whatever, you might think to yourself: "Hah! It's a table!", even if no human ever touched it or designed it to be a table. Similarly, if we find aliens and see their tables, then we would also call them tables even though they were not human-designed. If an AI builds and uses a table, then that is still a table, e…

There's some distinction in Aquinas that I don't remember the word for that would describe a "table" of pinecones as just being a table by analogy but not a real table. It has a form like a table, but if it just arose by accident, it lacks the substance of a table. I don't think aliens or videogames complicate the question that much, but I do think some flat surface in the forest is only like a table but not really a…

> It has a form like a table, but if it just arose by accident, it lacks the substance of a table.

Incidentally, only the life created by God Himself is actual life, but the life that evolved on its own is not actually life, it lacks the substance of true life. Has nobody tried this argument against Darwin's work before?

Post reply on HN