72. The Union of Soul and Body: Form and Matter

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• Question 76 Overview: Whether the intellectual principle (ἀρχὴ intellective, principium intellectivum) is united to the body as a form

• Eight Articles to be Addressed:

  1. Whether the intellectual principle is united to the body as form
  2. Whether the understanding beginning is multiplied according to the multiplicity of bodies (refuting Arab philosophers’ doctrine of the unity of the intellect)
  3. Whether there are other souls in the body besides the intellectual soul (addressing Platonic plurality of souls)
  4. Whether there are other substantial forms in the body
  5. What sort of body the understanding principle must be form of
  6. Whether the soul is joined to the body through a medium (addressing Descartes’s pineal gland theory)
  7. Whether the soul is joined to the body through accident
  8. Whether the whole soul is in each part of the body

• The Problem of Immateriality: How an immaterial power (understanding) can belong to a form united to matter

• Common Errors: People oscillate between two extremes—thinking the soul is purely material (like the brain) or thinking it is like an angel imprisoned in a body (Platonic/Origenist error)

• The Role of Etymology: Understanding the Latin word principium and the Greek ἀρχή illuminates philosophical concepts and prevents conceptual confusion

Key Arguments #

The First Objection (From Aristotle) #

Objection: Aristotle states the understanding is separated and not in a body; therefore the intellectual soul cannot be united to a body as a form.

Root Error: This assumes the understanding must be either wholly material or wholly immaterial with no proper connection to body. Converts Aristotle’s statement about understanding’s immaterial character into a rejection of hylomorphism.

Clarification: Aristotle teaches understanding is not an act of a body, but this does not mean the understanding soul is not the form of a body.

The Second Objection (From Form-Matter Proportionality) #

Principle: Every form is determined by the nature of the matter it informs; there must be proportion between matter and form.

Objection: If the intellectual soul is form of a body, it would have a determined bodily nature and thus could not know all things (which requires an undetermined, universal nature).

Force of Objection: Correctly identifies that understanding must be universal and undetermined, not limited by bodily determinacy.

The Third Objection (From Reception According to Mode of Receiver) #

Principle: Whatever receives an act receives it according to the mode of the receiver (quidquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis).

Objection: The body is material and individual; understanding is immaterial and universal. Therefore understanding cannot be received in the body.

Significance: This distinguishes between material and immaterial reception.

Important Definitions #

Principium (ἀρχή / Beginning, Principle, Source) #

Six meanings established in classical philosophy:

1. The beginning of a line (mathematical beginning) — e.g., a point
2. Where you begin a journey (most convenient starting point) — e.g., starting Route 9 from your current location rather than Western Massachusetts
3. The fundamental part (foundation) — e.g., the foundation of a house, the keel of a ship
4. The mover or cause — the prince, the general, the maker; what moves others (outside that which it moves)
5. The starting point in knowledge — compare to cause (causa)
6. Any cause whatsoever (most general sense)

Philosophical Application: In Question 76, intellectivum principium means “that which is the source or first principle of understanding” (whence we first understand). Thomas asks whether this is united to the body as a form.

Linguistic Note: The word prince derives from the same root (princeps); Archbishop means the first chief; Monarchy contains the same root.

Modus (Mode, Way, Manner) #

Etymology: Originally means something determined by measure.

Key Principle: “Received according to the mode of the receiver” — how much and how well something is received depends upon the receiver’s capacity and nature.

Contrast with Other Terms:

• Differs from Greek τρόπος (tropos, a turning of mind)
• Differs from Latin via / Greek ὁδός (odas, road/way—as in odometer)
• More about capacity and measure than literal pathway

Examples of Mode:

• Different-sized carafes receive the same wine but in different quantities
• Wine experts receive/discriminate the same wine better than novices (not more wine, but received better)
• Sensitive ears (like Mozart) hear musical nuances others miss
• Painters discriminate colors (aqua vs. blue) others do not perceive

Examples & Illustrations #

The Wine Carafes #

Different-sized containers are filled with wine from the same source. Each is completely full, but contains different quantities. This illustrates how things receive according to their capacity (modus recipientis).

Different Levels of Happiness in Heaven #

St. Thomas de Sue explains (via Sister St. Joseph) that all souls are fully happy in the next world, but some are more happy than others—like containers of different sizes, all full but holding different quantities.

Wine Tasting and Sensory Discrimination #

Expert tasters like Parker can discriminate wines with great precision—identifying varietals, regions, even specific vineyards. Others might only distinguish red from white. The same wine is received differently based on the receiver’s discrimination and training.

Color Perception and Painters #

Painters and women often discriminate subtle color variations (aqua vs. blue) that others cannot perceive. The same visual input is received with different quality of discrimination.

Mozart’s Sensitive Hearing #

Mozart’s ear was so sensitive that trumpet sounds would cause him to faint. He heard musical nuances that ordinary people could not perceive, illustrating how the mode of reception depends on the receiver’s capacity.

The Wine Decanter Experiment #

Ron MacArthur put different wines in deceptive bottles (empty bottles saved from other wines). Professors were deceived, but Brother Mark could identify the actual wine, not deceived by the label. This illustrates different capacities for reception of the same sensible reality.

Notable Quotes #

“Look at the person to whom you are speaking.” — Sister St. Joseph (anecdote: correcting a student for not maintaining eye contact)

“Who is’t can read a woman?” — Shakespeare, Cymbeline (illustrating intellectus as “to read within” — the inability to perceive the true nature of another person)

“Unnatural deeds do breed unnatural troubles.” — Shakespeare, Macbeth (Doctor’s observation on Lady Macbeth: evil actions naturally produce misery)

“The fruits of the Holy Spirit” — Scripture, cited by Berquist (connecting fructus to the end and ultimate result of action)

Questions Addressed #

Q: What is meant by principium intellectivum (the intellectual principle)? #

A: It means that by which we first understand—the source or beginning of understanding. Given the six meanings of principium, Thomas is asking whether this source is united to the body as a form.

Q: Why is etymological analysis important for this question? #

A: Understanding the meanings of principium prevents confusion about whether the intellectual principle is external, separate, or properly united to the body. It clarifies that Thomas is not asking about a principle that commands from without (like a general) but rather the intrinsic form that makes understanding possible.

Q: What is the significance of the form-matter proportionality objection? #

A: It correctly identifies a real problem: if the soul were a determinate bodily form, it would be limited in its knowing by that determination. However, Thomas must show that the soul, while being the form of the body, is not wholly determined by bodily matter, thus preserving both its role as form and its universal capacity for understanding.

Pedagogical Notes #

Etymological Method: Berquist extensively uses etymological analysis—tracing Latin and Greek roots—to illuminate philosophical concepts. This prevents students from misunderstanding technical terms and reveals layers of meaning in classical thinkers.

Concrete Examples: Abstract principles (like “received according to the mode of the receiver”) are illustrated through sensory experience (wine tasting, color perception, Mozart’s hearing), helping students grasp philosophical principles through lived experience.

Multi-Linguistic Analysis: Comparing English, Latin, and Greek versions of the same concept (e.g., understanding/intellectus/nous; happiness/felicitas/eudaimonia) shows how different languages capture different aspects of truth and why some languages are superior for philosophy.