Difference between revisions of "Form and Matter" - New World Encyclopedia
Keisuke Noda (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | The terms form and matter have had various usages throughout the history of philosophy and so the precise definition of each will differ depending on the specific philosophical system. In general, though, the terms derives from classical philosophy, most significantly from [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]]. In Plato form comes from the Greek word ''eidos'' and is often translated as idea or essence and refers to the basic “whatness” of a thing. Aristotle likewise links form to essence but distinguishes between form and matter where form refers to the essential determination or organic structure of a thing while matter is that which the thing is made of. The Scholastics incorporated the use of form and matter while making certain developments. In modern philosophy, though, the traditional uses of the terms radically shifted. Whereas in classical thought form was considered to be a more permanent and stable entity determined by real natures, in modern philosophy, particularly [[Kant]], the form of things is determined more by our reason or understanding which shapes the matter given by our senses. | |
| − | + | == Plato == | |
| + | In Plato form has often been translated as [[idea]] (''eidos''), which is the basis for Plato’s famous “Theory of Forms”. In short, for Plato the Form or Idea is the permanent reality which makes a thing be what it is. It contrasts with the particulars of that Form which are finite and so subject to change. Although it was Aristotle who first explicitly made the distinction between form and matter, it can be helpful to draw the distinction here for it is implicit in Plato’s Theory of Forms. For Plato any particular material thing, such as an actual dog, is subject to change; for the particular dog can die and when it does, it is no longer “a dog” – it is merely dead matter. The Idea of dog (Dogness), however, does not change. It is eternal. Thus, for Plato the Idea or Form enjoys a higher (seemingly [[ontological]]) status. The particulars or all actual dogs, then, merely participate in the one unchanging and eternal Form. | ||
| − | + | Although this theory can be difficult to grasp it is often helpful to think of it in relation to mathematics, to which Plato himself often linked the theory. We can think of a perfect triangle whose exact definition is a three-sided figure whose angles add up to precisely 180 degrees. All particular triangles that we draw on paper, or construct out of some kind of material, will always fall short of perfection. For our most precise instruments will reveal that the lines or angles are not quite exact, even if only by the slightest margin of error. For this reason the particular, material “triangles” are not “real” triangles; for they do not fulfill the definition of a triangle, strictly speaking. The only real triangle, then, is the perfect or ideal one that we know in our minds. Plato used this same theoretical model to contrast all particulars things (trees, cats, human beings), which are perishable, and their Ideas or Forms, which are imperishable. Whether Plato understood these Forms as actually existing apart from all the particular examples (in some higher Sphere), or as simply being the intelligible nature of immutable physical laws, is a matter of controversy that scholars continue to debate over today. | |
| − | + | == Aristotle == | |
| + | As already mentioned, the distinction between form and matter first became explicit with Aristotle. For Aristotle form and matter are the co-principles of which all real or actual things ([[substances]]) are composed. Aristotle criticized Plato’s Theory of Forms for positing this higher realm where the eternal Ideas were supposed to exist. In contrast, Aristotle argued that the forms (which he often equated with [[essences]]) exist in real things. Our minds are equipped with the rational power to abstract these essences out of real things in order to know them (as [[universal]]). For Aristotle, then, form is the determinate structure (''morphe'') which gives things their essential characteristics or attributes. Matter, on the other hand, is the ultimate substrate or “stuff” (''hyle'') out of which all (physical) things are made. From this Aristotle developed his theory of hylomorphism which explains all actual things or substances in terms of the principles of form and matter. | ||
| − | + | In Aristotle’s [[metaphysics]], though, it is form rather than matter which enjoys priority. For although matter is the undifferentiated primal element out of which all things are made, it is not itself a “thing”. For in order to be a thing it would have to possess some kind of form. Thus, matter without form cannot exist. Or, to put it in more Aristotelian language, matter is pure [[potentiality]], rather than [[actuality]]. Pure or “prime” matter is the potential from which things develop or emerge without being an actual thing itself. The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, that is, in the acquisition of particular forms or [[natures]] which make up the entire intelligible universe. In this way, Aristotle developed his theory of [[causation]] in terms of formal causation and material causation. Both contribute to the emergence of the concrete particulars of specific species. Again, matter is the stuff out of which things are made while form is that which gives them their definite shape and structure and determines its various powers and functions. Aristotle uses the example of the birth of animals or humans where the menstrual fluid of the female provides the material while the seed of the male gives the form. Together they form a new being of the particular species. Aristotle is able to account for the eternal nature of these forms (the essences of species) without falling into a Platonic idealism because he followed the ancient cosmology in viewing the universe as eternal. Therefore, there have always been trees, birds, and human beings. Moreover, the perfection of the form of a thing is its [[entelechy]] in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function. The entelechy of the body, then, is the soul which provides the determinate structure and so actualizes (forms) the potential (matter). Ultimately, the priority of form, as well as the origin of the differentiation process, is found in the ''prime mover'' (or the “unmoved mover”). The prime mover is the pure form, entirely separate from all matter, and it is eternal and unchangeable. It is its own activity and so is both the efficient (or moving) cause which moves all things, as well the final cause (''telos'') to which all things are directed. | |
| − | |||
| + | == Scholasticism == | ||
| + | The Aristotelian conception of form and matter was adopted by the Scholastics. The most famous appropriation and further development of Aristotle’s basic metaphysical categories was made by [[St. Thomas Aquinas]]. Aquinas posited that it was matter that provided the principle of individuation. That is, what distinguished one dog from another was its matter rather than its form. Thus, an individual dog is distinguished by all the accidental features which can be attributed to its material make-up (its color, size, etc.) as opposed to its essential features which derive from its form (its powers of sensation, movement, reproduction, etc.). Moreover, Aquinas distinguished the material world, which was inhabited by ''inherent forms'' that exist only in combination with matter (the embodied beings of this world), from the spiritual world, which was inhabited with ''subsistent forms'' (''formae separatae'') that are immaterial and so separate from matter (spiritual beings or angels). Unlike Aristotle, however, Aquinas argued that although these spiritual beings were immaterial, they nevertheless possessed potential. For although all matter possesses potential, not all potential involves matter. Because angels are immaterial though, and matter is the principle of individuation, each immaterial being has to be its own form or essence; in other words, there are no species of immaterial beings. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Modern Philosophy == | ||
| + | [[Francis Bacon]] (1561-1626) was one of first philosophical practitioners of the modern scientific method that rejected an Aristotelian and Scholastic approach to philosophy. In contrast, Bacon advocated that all true research must restrict itself to an empirical method of induction by which one searches for the true form of physical things such as light, heat and so forth, by analyzing the external form given in perception. In this way, one can discover the underlying structure of phenomena by breaking them into simpler forms and distinguishing their differences. For example, Bacon collected all possible instances of hot things in order to discover that which is present in all of them. By excluding the accidental qualities of each, he could determine the form or essence of heat by the residuum that remained and so was common in all of the instances. Such a method is necessarily open-ended since some future instance, positive or negative, might affect the data and so alter the determined form of the particular phenomenon under investigation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Enlightenment philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] radically transferred the notion of form and matter through his [[transcendental]] method by which he analyzed the conditions for the possibility of experience. In considering these conditions for experience he attributed pure form to what the mind or reason brings ([[a priori]]) to all of our perceptions and judgments. The pure forms of sensibility (space and time) determine or form all our sense experience. In contrast to form, Kant called the manifold of sense intuitions that we receive from outward things the matter. There is no essential order to the matter of this manifold of sense intuitions and so when we receive them it is reason which orders or synthesizes them into a particular form of understanding. Kant divided the pure forms of our understanding into twelve [[categories]], three each under the headings of quantity, quality, modality, and relation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | * Aristotle, ''The Basic Works of Aristotle''. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941. | ||
| + | * Bacon, Francis. ''The Essays of Francis Bacon''. New York: The Peter Pauper Press, 1955. | ||
| + | * Kant, Immanuel. ''Critique of Pure Reason''. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965. ISBN: 0-312-45010-9 | ||
| + | * Plato. ''Collected Dialogues''. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntingtion Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. ISBN: 0691097186 | ||
| − | |||
{{credit1|Form|23360631}} | {{credit1|Form|23360631}} | ||
Revision as of 19:41, 10 April 2007
The terms form and matter have had various usages throughout the history of philosophy and so the precise definition of each will differ depending on the specific philosophical system. In general, though, the terms derives from classical philosophy, most significantly from Plato and Aristotle. In Plato form comes from the Greek word eidos and is often translated as idea or essence and refers to the basic “whatness” of a thing. Aristotle likewise links form to essence but distinguishes between form and matter where form refers to the essential determination or organic structure of a thing while matter is that which the thing is made of. The Scholastics incorporated the use of form and matter while making certain developments. In modern philosophy, though, the traditional uses of the terms radically shifted. Whereas in classical thought form was considered to be a more permanent and stable entity determined by real natures, in modern philosophy, particularly Kant, the form of things is determined more by our reason or understanding which shapes the matter given by our senses.
Plato
In Plato form has often been translated as idea (eidos), which is the basis for Plato’s famous “Theory of Forms”. In short, for Plato the Form or Idea is the permanent reality which makes a thing be what it is. It contrasts with the particulars of that Form which are finite and so subject to change. Although it was Aristotle who first explicitly made the distinction between form and matter, it can be helpful to draw the distinction here for it is implicit in Plato’s Theory of Forms. For Plato any particular material thing, such as an actual dog, is subject to change; for the particular dog can die and when it does, it is no longer “a dog” – it is merely dead matter. The Idea of dog (Dogness), however, does not change. It is eternal. Thus, for Plato the Idea or Form enjoys a higher (seemingly ontological) status. The particulars or all actual dogs, then, merely participate in the one unchanging and eternal Form.
Although this theory can be difficult to grasp it is often helpful to think of it in relation to mathematics, to which Plato himself often linked the theory. We can think of a perfect triangle whose exact definition is a three-sided figure whose angles add up to precisely 180 degrees. All particular triangles that we draw on paper, or construct out of some kind of material, will always fall short of perfection. For our most precise instruments will reveal that the lines or angles are not quite exact, even if only by the slightest margin of error. For this reason the particular, material “triangles” are not “real” triangles; for they do not fulfill the definition of a triangle, strictly speaking. The only real triangle, then, is the perfect or ideal one that we know in our minds. Plato used this same theoretical model to contrast all particulars things (trees, cats, human beings), which are perishable, and their Ideas or Forms, which are imperishable. Whether Plato understood these Forms as actually existing apart from all the particular examples (in some higher Sphere), or as simply being the intelligible nature of immutable physical laws, is a matter of controversy that scholars continue to debate over today.
Aristotle
As already mentioned, the distinction between form and matter first became explicit with Aristotle. For Aristotle form and matter are the co-principles of which all real or actual things (substances) are composed. Aristotle criticized Plato’s Theory of Forms for positing this higher realm where the eternal Ideas were supposed to exist. In contrast, Aristotle argued that the forms (which he often equated with essences) exist in real things. Our minds are equipped with the rational power to abstract these essences out of real things in order to know them (as universal). For Aristotle, then, form is the determinate structure (morphe) which gives things their essential characteristics or attributes. Matter, on the other hand, is the ultimate substrate or “stuff” (hyle) out of which all (physical) things are made. From this Aristotle developed his theory of hylomorphism which explains all actual things or substances in terms of the principles of form and matter.
In Aristotle’s metaphysics, though, it is form rather than matter which enjoys priority. For although matter is the undifferentiated primal element out of which all things are made, it is not itself a “thing”. For in order to be a thing it would have to possess some kind of form. Thus, matter without form cannot exist. Or, to put it in more Aristotelian language, matter is pure potentiality, rather than actuality. Pure or “prime” matter is the potential from which things develop or emerge without being an actual thing itself. The development of particular things from this germinal matter consists in differentiation, that is, in the acquisition of particular forms or natures which make up the entire intelligible universe. In this way, Aristotle developed his theory of causation in terms of formal causation and material causation. Both contribute to the emergence of the concrete particulars of specific species. Again, matter is the stuff out of which things are made while form is that which gives them their definite shape and structure and determines its various powers and functions. Aristotle uses the example of the birth of animals or humans where the menstrual fluid of the female provides the material while the seed of the male gives the form. Together they form a new being of the particular species. Aristotle is able to account for the eternal nature of these forms (the essences of species) without falling into a Platonic idealism because he followed the ancient cosmology in viewing the universe as eternal. Therefore, there have always been trees, birds, and human beings. Moreover, the perfection of the form of a thing is its entelechy in virtue of which it attains its fullest realization of function. The entelechy of the body, then, is the soul which provides the determinate structure and so actualizes (forms) the potential (matter). Ultimately, the priority of form, as well as the origin of the differentiation process, is found in the prime mover (or the “unmoved mover”). The prime mover is the pure form, entirely separate from all matter, and it is eternal and unchangeable. It is its own activity and so is both the efficient (or moving) cause which moves all things, as well the final cause (telos) to which all things are directed.
Scholasticism
The Aristotelian conception of form and matter was adopted by the Scholastics. The most famous appropriation and further development of Aristotle’s basic metaphysical categories was made by St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas posited that it was matter that provided the principle of individuation. That is, what distinguished one dog from another was its matter rather than its form. Thus, an individual dog is distinguished by all the accidental features which can be attributed to its material make-up (its color, size, etc.) as opposed to its essential features which derive from its form (its powers of sensation, movement, reproduction, etc.). Moreover, Aquinas distinguished the material world, which was inhabited by inherent forms that exist only in combination with matter (the embodied beings of this world), from the spiritual world, which was inhabited with subsistent forms (formae separatae) that are immaterial and so separate from matter (spiritual beings or angels). Unlike Aristotle, however, Aquinas argued that although these spiritual beings were immaterial, they nevertheless possessed potential. For although all matter possesses potential, not all potential involves matter. Because angels are immaterial though, and matter is the principle of individuation, each immaterial being has to be its own form or essence; in other words, there are no species of immaterial beings.
Modern Philosophy
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was one of first philosophical practitioners of the modern scientific method that rejected an Aristotelian and Scholastic approach to philosophy. In contrast, Bacon advocated that all true research must restrict itself to an empirical method of induction by which one searches for the true form of physical things such as light, heat and so forth, by analyzing the external form given in perception. In this way, one can discover the underlying structure of phenomena by breaking them into simpler forms and distinguishing their differences. For example, Bacon collected all possible instances of hot things in order to discover that which is present in all of them. By excluding the accidental qualities of each, he could determine the form or essence of heat by the residuum that remained and so was common in all of the instances. Such a method is necessarily open-ended since some future instance, positive or negative, might affect the data and so alter the determined form of the particular phenomenon under investigation.
The Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant radically transferred the notion of form and matter through his transcendental method by which he analyzed the conditions for the possibility of experience. In considering these conditions for experience he attributed pure form to what the mind or reason brings (a priori) to all of our perceptions and judgments. The pure forms of sensibility (space and time) determine or form all our sense experience. In contrast to form, Kant called the manifold of sense intuitions that we receive from outward things the matter. There is no essential order to the matter of this manifold of sense intuitions and so when we receive them it is reason which orders or synthesizes them into a particular form of understanding. Kant divided the pure forms of our understanding into twelve categories, three each under the headings of quantity, quality, modality, and relation.
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941.
- Bacon, Francis. The Essays of Francis Bacon. New York: The Peter Pauper Press, 1955.
- Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965. ISBN: 0-312-45010-9
- Plato. Collected Dialogues. Edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntingtion Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. ISBN: 0691097186
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
