Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

Jan 28, 2014 21:10

Today is the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. Do something logical in his honor.

Read More

thomism

Leave a comment

Comments 6

whswhs January 29 2014, 02:29:03 UTC
"Putrefaction" here seems to be a technical term whose meaning is not exactly what it usually is read as. Can you clarify the underlying idea?

Reply

m_francis January 29 2014, 14:45:26 UTC
The science of the time held that life could emerge from dead matter: maggots coming out of meat being the usual example. So decaying meat could bring forth new creatures "perhaps even new species." I assume that this was the meaning.
Species etiam novae, si quae apparent, praeextiterunt in quibusdam activis virtutibus, sicut et animalia ex putrefactione generata producuntur ex virtutibus stellarum et elementorum quas a principio acceperunt, etiam si novae species talium animalium producantur.
(putrefactio, putrefactionis N F Later very rare
rotting.)

But one may read the term more broadly to include any "corruption" because "corruptible matter" simply meant "changeable matter." So, "mutation" would also suit, even if that's not what Tom had in mind.

Reply

whswhs January 29 2014, 15:08:34 UTC
That seems to make sense. Kind of like Robinson Jeffers's line

The flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth.

I'm wondering about the term "changeable matter," on different grounds, though. Is it tautological? If I understand what's going on in Aristotle, the whole point of the matter/form concept is to make sense of the possibility of change. When I eat a bowl of oatmeal, the matter of the oatmeal persists, but it takes on the form of, well, me (or most of it does; some of it takes on a form of less dignity and is excreted). Matter and form are a unity; so matter always has form, and since the form can change, all matter seems to be changeable. Or does Aquinas have matter that doesn't change its form?

Reply

m_francis January 29 2014, 16:40:04 UTC
By 'matter' I think he included more than what modern chemists and physicists do. It's like when Einstein referred to "ponderable matter." In his view, all matter had weight. Thomas may have used the adjective as an intensive. But don't quote me.

Reply


wombat_socho January 30 2014, 04:14:55 UTC
I prepared tax returns today. I'm not sure if that counts, even though I used software, because I'm pretty sure the Internal Revenue Code is based on rhetoric, i.e. pandering.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up