Rambam on the Satan and Ra (Part 1: Aristotelian Primer on Form and Matter)

Length: 1 hour 47 minutes
Synopsis: Turns out, I accidentally forgot to upload last Friday's Iyov shiur! This past Friday morning (3/13/26), in our Friday morning Sefer Iyov series for women, I gave a shiur with the aim of introducing the basics of Aristotelian "hylomorphic" thinking, explaining the concepts of "matter" and "form" to lay the groundwork for the Rambam's explanation of the satan and the nature of ra. We began and ended with halachos in the Rambam but the bulk of the material came from "Aristotle for Everybody" by Mortimer J. Adler and "The Hungry Soul" by Leon Kass. I'm pleased with how succinct this primer turned out to be, and although I acknowledge that I may have erred in the nuances of my understanding, I can assure you that I conveyed what I THINK I know with as much clarity as I could muster!
-----
מקורות:
רמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות יסודי התורה ב:ג; ד:ז
"Aristotle for Everybody," by Mortimer J. Adler (not explicitly quoted)
"The Hungry Soul," by Leon R. Kass, pp.35-38
-----

This week's Torah content is sponsored by Seth Speiser, in honor of the yahrzeit of his father, Rabbi George Speiser (Rav Yosef ben Dovid). Rabbi Speiser was a kind and gentle soul as well as an Intellectual and a scholar. He received smicha from Rav Hutner at Chaim Berlin. His love for teaching and making puns was only outweighed by his love of family.

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-Schneeweiss
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel

Transcript

SPEAKER_04 0:12

Okay, so we're gonna begin the way that I begin my high school classes. So every high school class, I have a word of the day. Um usually it is an English vocab word that is something that I just don't think the students will know. So, for example, this week uh privation was one, promiscuous was another one, and both of those up in the Ramams we were doing. But sometimes it's a technical term. So I'm curious, I did not know this term, even though I was familiar with the concept. Anyone know what hilomorphism is? And it is not something that is used in everyday conversation, it's not really even used in like technical conversation. Anyone know? Okay, so hylomorphism, uh, I don't know where remember where I got this definition, but uh the Aristotelian theory that physical objects are composed of two inseparable principles, matter or uh material or potentiality, and form, structure, actuality, essence. We'll talk about what those are. It posits that an entity is defined by its organization, explaining how things persist through change and possess unique characteristics. So it's a it's not really a proper noun, but it is a name for a um, it's kind of like you know, the theory of relativity, you know, um like it's it's a name for a uh for a theoretical framework. Okay. Um the etymology is uh um hile is the H Y-L-E, is the uh Aristotelian or Greek term for matter. Uh, I don't know if he coined that or if that's just Greek for matter. Um uh the adjective is highligh, and then morphy you do recognize from form, like to morph uh into something else is to change. And the example uh of how we're gonna use this is since Ramav's explanation of uh Malachim, angels of the Satan, and the nature of Ra uh is rooted in hylomorphism, we'll need to get used to thinking of the world in terms of matter and form. Okay, so I was a little concerned because today, today's uh uh Shir is not, I was worried it was not gonna feel like learning Torah at all, because in many respects it's not. This is really laying the groundwork for then what we are gonna be spending the next uh couple months on. Next couple of months, we're gonna be going through the Ramams chapters in the Mor Navuhim, where he talks about the nature and cause of evil, um, what its relationship with God is, what the types of evil are, what the causes of evil are, um, what the purpose of the um uh of the universe is, uh, and what to what extent can you answer that? Um what I'm trying to go in order here, um, what uh God can and can't do, what God can't and can't know, what the theories of Hajjgaha are, and then finally getting into his commentary on Eog, which is in two chapters. So that's gonna be the trajectory for these next uh few um next probably two months, okay. Um, but it's all built on an Aristotelian way of thinking about the world. And since this is something, this is not something that we're used to thinking about, we're gonna devote an entire session to it, which is today. Okay. Um, but what I want to do is I do want to ground it in in two Torah sources, which is from the Ramam. Okay, in Hilchus Yusode Torah, in the laws of the foundations of Torah, we read this when we first did uh Angels. Actually, I think this is in response to a question from uh Vega. So Ram says like this in Hilkus Isode Torah 2, 3, this is the very beginning of his like introductory course on how to on on uh on the universe. Okay, he says like this Kol Masha Barakarish Baru, Baolama, everything that God created in his universe, nechhlak lishlosha khalakim, can be divided into three categories. Mehem bruim shehem muhubarim i golem vitsurah. Among them are creations that are composed of matter and form. Again, I'm we're not going to define these now. That's what we're gonna spend the whole time on. I just want to read it to like ground our intuition in uh you know how the Ram is approaching this. So there are creations that are composed of matter and form, behim nehvim vinifsadim tamid, and they continually come into being and pass away. Kamo, for example, gufusadam, the bodies of humans, vabhema, animals, machim, and plants, v matechos, and minerals. Uh, and by minerals he means like uh inorganic um, you know, um uh entities. Umehem, so that's category one. Umehem bruim shemu kubaram migolum vitsura, about ina mishtanim mhuf lguuf mitsura litsura. Among them are creations that are composed of matter and form, but do not change from body to body or from form to form like the former. Uh Ella Surasum Kuvua Bagalam La Olam Ena Mishtalam Kumu Elu. Uh rather, their form remains fixed in their matter forever, and they do not change like these. Vihim Hagal Galimbahakuhavim Japan. These are these spheres, these celestial spheres, uh, and the stars or planets um uh within them. Um, sorry, uh in golmam kishar glumim vlo tsurasim kishar tsuros. Their matter is not like other kinds of matter, nor is their form like other kinds of form. And then the last one is the one that we focused on last time, or in the last uh unit, um bruim tsura vlogulum clao. Among them are creations that are formed without matter at all. The him amalachim, those are the angels. Um, shamalachim enam guuf ugviya. Angels are not a body or corporeal substance, a la tsuros nifrados zomizo. Rather, they are forms separate from one another. Okay, now I'll I'll point out, I think I said this uh very, very early on. One of the huge difficulties in learning any of the Rishonim, almost without exception, on certain topics, is that they are operating in an Aristotelian framework. Okay. Um, and uh even the ones who are, you could probably like chart them on a spectrum of the ones who are pro-Aristotle or anti-Aristotle. So, for example, on the pro-Aristotle side, you know, on the extreme side, you have like Ra Bagh and Ibn Kaspi, and then some somewhat Aristotelian is the Ramban, uh, and then like anti is like the Ramban, you know, um Kuzuri, um, I think Kuzeri. But even people like the Ramban and Kuzeri are operating in an Aristotelian world. Aristotle had dominated um thinking for over a thousand years. Um, and and so even the ones who were arguing with his ideas are are thinking about it in those terms. So, for example, you know, if you find, oh, keep on getting and losing people on Zoom. I don't know what's going on. Um I feel bad. Um, but uh um yeah, okay. For those who keep coming on and off on Zoom, if you need me to repeat anything, let me know. I don't know what's going on. Like multiple people are going on and off, but uh uh let me know. Um, I was gonna say that it'd be like today where like let's take the most anti-science people. Okay, let's take like the uh, you know, I I don't know if there are subdivisions, but let's say within Horedin, you know, like even Horadian will use the word gravity, right? Or they'll use the word like they're aware of like the fact that science goes in uh uh with a paradigm that there are elements, you know, or that there are there's like, you know, you know, I they'll use the word particles, you know. So so breaking away from Aristotle, like even the ones who are disagreeing with him are still thinking in Aristotelian ways. So the difficulty is whenever you're learning these rejonim and they're talking about concepts in Judaism, you have to differentiate between which aspects are expressed in Aristotelian terms that are still true and we hold by today, okay, which things are totally outdated Aristotelian concepts that we reject, and then which things are true concepts, but we don't think about them in Aristotelian terms anymore. Okay. And those are three categories, and it's very difficult to navigate. I wish we had a Ramam to write a modern Mor Navukim, not like Ruff Cooks, but like a more modern more Navukim to like help us to sift out the uh someone, someone actually um one of my friends uh compared, he used the term like uh microscop, microscopic uh uh uh brain surgery. Like you're dealing with the finest, you know, one error here, you can lose an entire concept if you throw out the baby with the bathwater. Uh, but then other areas you might like embrace a concept thinking that it's true, but it's really an outdated Aristotelian thing. So that's like the challenge that we're gonna be sitting in for the next couple months. Okay. Um, so for example, in this halah we just read, to my knowledge, okay, um this category in the middle of um creations that are composed of form and matter and don't change and are made up of a different substance, uh, is just, I don't think there's a corollary in our modern physics. Okay. They held that terrestrial matter uh or sorry, terrestrial um uh existences were made of the four elements and that the heavens were made out of a fifth element, a quintessence, and had a different property, and they held that the heavens did not undergo change. Whereas we go up to the moon and we see the moon is made out of the same stuff that we find on Earth, you know. So like we chuck that idea, but we just got through a bunch of lessons talking about angels, and we did modernize uh a conception of angels that we can still hold by today. So, like, you know, that's the that's the challenge that we're dealing with here, okay? Um any questions on that point about Aristotelian methodology? Okay, so the central halaqal we're gonna focus on uh is this next one in later on in the Yosode Torah 4-7. Laolam ain atta roe golem belotsura o tsura belogolem. You never see matter without form or form without matter. Ella, rather, lev adam, it is the mind of man, here lev means mind, sh who shamachalik ha guf ha nimsa bidato, viodea shhu muhubar migolem matsura. It is the human mind that divides the existing body in its thought and understands that it is composed of matter and form. It knows that there are bodies whose matter is composed of the four elements. Um, the gufim shagolmam pashut veinu muhubar migolam ahher, uh, and bodies whose matter is simple and not composed of other matter. Vatsuros sha'in lahem golem, inan nearin' ain, the forms that have no matter, those are the angels, are not visible to the eye. Ella bein halavhim yaduim. Uh, they are known in the eye of the mind, the mind's eye, danu, adon hakol below's eye, just like we know the master of all without the seeing of the eye. So this line here of you never see matter without form or form without matter, but it's the mind of man that differentiates between the two. That is the line which I hope to end on today. Okay, the if we're gonna try to clarify this one line in the Ramam. Okay, so set aside the Rambah, we're gonna now go into pure Aristotle. Okay. Um, and there are two books that I'm gonna be using to explain these concepts to you. And the goal here is not so much all the particulars, the goal is to try to train to get practice in in well, so okay, uh goals are like this. Okay, let me actually list our goals here. Okay, so goals, goals of today are one to introduce you to hylomorphic thinking, okay, two, uh, I mean thinking about things of in in terms of matter and form, to understand matter and form uh uh with the greatest uh clarity. And then three is to lay the groundwork um for the Rambaum's uh explanation of the Satan, which is our next major topic, and the nature of Ra. Those two topics are coming in uh hand in hand. Okay, so um that's gonna be our goal. Goals. Okay, so I'm aware that Aristotle has had a lot of thinkers and a lot of writers write about him, and I'm I'm aware that there are differences in his schools of thought. Um, so just in the in the uh interest of transparency, almost all my understanding of Aristotle comes from Mortimer Adler, and most of it comes from this book called Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy. So this is a book, uh you know, uh Adler was of the opinion that uh even though there are outdated Aristotelian concepts, many of them are still relevant to today because uh even though Aristotle was also going into things like science, I mean, this is pre-science, Aristotle was thinking about, you know, natural phenomena, um, there are still aspects of philosophy that even though scientifically are not true, are still useful to use in terms of thinking about everyday life. So if you wanted to write a book for uh teenagers, really, that explains uh basic Aristotelian concepts. Okay, so if this were one of my classes, if you were in my class, I would have given you a 10-page excerpt to do for homework uh and then have questions to answer them. It's too long for us to read in shear today, so I'm gonna summarize this in my own words, but I'm I'm drawing from uh from um from uh uh Mortimer Adler's presentation of Aristotle. Okay, so this is the theory of uh four causes. Okay, so so uh in explaining, I'm gonna zoom in here. So in explaining um in explaining uh being and becoming, okay, meaning like what is the nature of existences and then how do they change. Aristotle posited that all physical phenomena have four causes. Okay, and um if you understand the four causes, then you completely understand the thing. Okay, and they are the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. Okay. The way he defines them are like this, okay. Uh material cause is what it is made of. Formal cause is what it is, or if you're talking about change, what it is made into. Efficient cause is what makes it, okay, uh, or what causes the change. Um and then the final cause is what is it for? Okay. Um uh okay. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna walk through some examples. Okay, and we'll start with my favorite example, uh, the shoe. Okay. Um, so uh you can't see I'm just I'll say which shoe I'm talking about. I'm talking about this shoe, okay? Um, so so what is the so I'll go through the first one, okay? What is the material cause of the shoe? So in this case, it is leather and rubber. There might be other materials in there also, okay? Uh, but it's chiefly leather and rubber, all right? Uh formal cause we're gonna skip, okay? Um actually formal cause we'll say like this it's showness, okay, but we'll define that in a second, okay? Uh its efficient cause is the shoemaker. Because the shoemaker is the one who transforms the leather and rubber into the shoe. Or I don't think this is made from a I mean it might be made with a machine, so okay, shoemaker to the machine, okay, or the tools that he uses. Okay. And then the final cause, so what would you say the purpose of uh of a shoe is?

SPEAKER_03 15:31

Yeah, code um to protect your feet when walking, or okay, good.

SPEAKER_04 15:36

To protect your feet when walking. Okay. Uh oh my goodness, hold on. I forgot to use um uh I forgot to get some visual aids here. Okay, I'm gonna have to open up another folder. Okay. So here's the trick, okay? The of these, so you know, our goal is gonna be our primary goal is to understand the material cause and the formal cause. But here's the difficult thing, okay? Formal cause is a very slippery or difficult or abstract concept here, all right. Other ways of describing the formal cause is what it is is the essence of the thing, okay, or what makes the thing the thing, okay. And it is tempting to uh substitute um formal cause with the form or shape of the thing, okay? But that's not what it is, all right. Uh and the proof is let me go to a uh my uh uh images I forgot to pull up here. Hold on. Um is it here? So, yeah, this is the one. Okay, so oh, okay, this is for me. Um, what I picture, um, this was uh uh level in Super Mario Bros. 3. Um where uh as a kid, this this is the archetypal uh weird shoe. This is called the Goomba shoe. Uh I I found it amusing that it is uh Mario's entire body goes in the shoe, but it is a shoe because it helps him to like to like walk on stuff. Okay, but here's another example, all right. Uh this is an image I found online. Uh and for those who are just listening on the audio, it is shoes that are shaped like rats. Okay. So this is not a classical shoe shape. Okay. Another example, this is a I don't know where this is, but it's a sculpture. Um, and it's funny because this sculpture is a sculpture of a high heel, okay? Um, but it is gi it's gigantic. All right. So the funny thing about this is this is shaped like a shoe, but it's clearly not a shoe. So you see that the shape of the shoe is not what defines it. And the funny thing is that this shoe uh sculpture is made up of shoes. So the funny thing is the material cause of this shoe sculpture is shoes. And then here's another example. One of my students, uh Ezra, uh, has uh these bedroom slippers, which are in the shape of Homer Simpson's face. Okay. So you can have something that's in the shape of a shoe but is not a shoe, or you could have something that is a shoe but is not in the shape of a shoe. So you see that formal cause uh or the form of a shoe is not defined by the shape. Yeah, Hudu, you had your hand up? That was a mistake, sorry. Okay. So so what would you so the the the other difficult thing here is that um is that shoes are um uh sorry, not shoes. Um when you are talking about man-made objects, the form is very tied to the function. So the formal cause is very tied to the final cause. So if you had to define the essence of a shoe, like what makes a shoe a shoe, what would you say that essence is? Like, and and again, you know, the the easiest way to think about the essence of something is uh is like you know, do the chop it off test, which is that if you could get rid of a thing and it still is the thing, then it's not the essence. So for example, with a human being, like you could cut off humans' arms and still be human. So clearly the arms are not part of the definition of a human. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 19:11

I'm not sure I fully understand, but just taking a guess, is it that it has to maybe be um it has to I don't know if it would be enclose the foot, but kind of like if we're going with the with the purpose being protection, then to like actually be something that protects the feet, like okay, right.

SPEAKER_04 19:27

Yeah, something like that, right? So let's call it a um I I know this might be a weird word here, okay, but a wearable um receptacle. Recep Receptacle Receptacle? Receptacle. I knew there was an A in there somewhere. Receptacle um uh that uh that uh let me just go on. A wearable I don't know if there's a word, podiatric, right? Like like podiatrist, like uh like you know foot receptacle that um provides protection um uh for the soles, right? Uh I think those are the uh that's gonna be the essence, right? So for example, a and and that's the thing also is that you cannot define the form visually, all right. So a leather shoe that I'm wearing looks very different from a high heel, which looks very different from a uh a slipper, which looks very different from a, I don't know what you call those Japanese um uh wooden shoes that like are like a platform, you know, that you that like you uh you know that is supported by two two uh uh horizontal planks, yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 20:45

So just question in terms of let's say especially using the word receptacle, um, unless this is just semantic, but the question is if you had a way to slap on a protective sole, let's say a layer, right, on the bottom of your shoe of your foot. Um but it didn't have straps, it didn't, it wasn't actually containing that still be considered a shoe. Right.

SPEAKER_04 21:04

So I my my uh my similar question that I had is that um, and and this might force us to define the formal clause slightly differently, but like if you had a padded sock, we we don't call that a shoe, right? Like if you have like a sock with like padding on the bottom, we call it a sock. And so that's why I maybe receptacle is like a uh it needs to be made more specific. And then certainly if you had a thing that you just like add, you know, adhesive stick to the bottom of your foot. I don't think we would call that a shoe, right? But again, this is where we get into debate. This is where the formal cause is very difficult to define. Um, and when you're talking about man-made objects, there is an element of convention in it where like because we all call this a shoe, then it's a shoe. Uh so I'll give you another example of this. Okay, we'll we'll return to this in a second. Let's go with the chair, okay? So um let's say with the chair, okay, the uh the chair I'm sitting on is made out of plastic, um, synthetic, uh synthetic fabric, uh metal. I think that's it. Okay. Uh the efficient cause is a uh probably presumably a chair making uh machine. Okay. The final cause. Is for sitting. Okay, but what would you say is the definition? Uh what what is chairness? What is uh uh the the the essence of a chair? What makes a chair a chair? Classic philosophical question. And I'll say I did have debates with my students about this. Uh yeah, hoodie. So something that supports you when you're in a sitting position? Okay, so let's start with that. Okay, so a um a a I'm gonna say I'm gonna use the word furniture, okay, that supports you in a sitting position. Okay, anyone have a different definition of chair? I just want to get uh yeah, uh Ella.

SPEAKER_02 22:52

I think I would add like elevated platform.

SPEAKER_04 22:55

Okay. I was thinking the same thing, okay, right? Um, so an uh uh an elevated platform that supports you in a sitting position. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 23:08

No, I didn't realize you're gonna finish that supports you in a sitting position because I was just gonna say then how does that differentiate from like a bed or a table?

SPEAKER_04 23:15

Yeah, yeah, right, right. So an elevated platform that that that support that provides, let's say, that provides that provides support for the human body in a sitting position. We had some debate with my students about whether um uh chair, whether the back of a chair is part of the definition. I think you can have a chair without a back. Okay, like they have those kitchen chairs that I find sometimes annoying where it's just like like I feel like I like a back, but it like it, you know, like you ever seen those ones with like the little slope that like, you know, now you could say, well, that's a stool, that's not a chair, you know, or we had another debate about um about whether a beanbake chair is a bear, uh is a chair. So someone said, just because you call it a chair doesn't mean it's a uh uh a chair, really is a bean maker is a form of of bed, you know. Um, but I I think uh Ayala's point about it has to be elevated. I feel like if you had a chair on the ground, I don't know if you call it a chair. I think you call it a seat, maybe, but it's not really a chair. There is some sense of elevation for a chair. And you see that's kind of reflected in halakha about like, you know, not sitting in a chair. I don't know what the actual halakhas are, but not sitting in a chair, and you have people who sit in the low to the ground chairs, there's a certain like lowness where like you could say it's not really a chair, you know, it's just like an uh an elevated seat, you know. Yeah, okay. So again, I'm my goal is not the details to you. My goal is for you to think about what makes the thing the thing. Okay, now we're gonna jump to a very complicated example. Oh, yeah, yeah, okay. A spider. Okay. Now, when I teach this concept of uh of hylomorphism, um, I'm always torn between whether to go, whether to start with examples that are man-made objects or whether to go with like natural objects. Okay. Uh, and Aristotle did talk about both. Um, the thing that's easier about man-made objects is it is uh for some reason it's just easier to answer these questions. But the difficulty in man-made objects is that the form and the final cause are very closely related. But in natural objects, it's a little harder to think about. Um, so much so that I actually had to come up with a definition of the formal cause earlier uh because I was not able to come up with it on my own. But okay, let's go through what would you say the material cause is of a spider?

SPEAKER_03 25:41

Yeah, uh hoodie. Having eight legs.

SPEAKER_04 25:45

Okay, so eight legs is an interesting thing because I'd say that that's part of the formal cause, okay, about what a spider is, but what is it made of? You know, yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_01 25:56

Yeah, I I realize I don't know exactly what it's made of, but like organic material.

SPEAKER_04 26:01

Okay, good. Let's start with that, okay. Organic matter, okay. Uh um, so you could say, like, you know, and again, I you could put you could see we'll we'll go into this in a second, but with you could always also with material, you could go um deeper and deeper and deeper into dividing it up. So organic matter is the general category, but you could divide that into like um tissue. Um uh I don't know what spiders exoskeleton uh exoskeleton stuff is made of. I don't I don't know what I don't think it's cartilage or whatever, you know. Um okay, what I I don't know enough about spiders. Okay, anyway. Now, what is the efficient cause of a spider? Now again, efficient cause is what makes the stuff into the thing. Okay. Uh so what would you say makes organic matter into a spider? Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_03 26:59

Maybe the laws of things.

SPEAKER_04 27:01

Okay, okay, good. So here too, you can go at different levels of efficient causality. Okay, so you can say, for example, what what what is the ultimate official cause uh efficient cause is God, okay? But then you could say, like, you know, laws of nature, but you could also go more specific and say um uh DNA, right? Uh DNA is the instructions that that will determine what becomes you know the spider's eyes and what becomes the spider's legs and all this other stuff. You know, you could also just say, you know, uh mommy and daddy spider. Okay. Um, so again, different levels of um, you go at different levels of uh specificity. Okay, now this one is a little controversial because this is something that we do not think of in modern science. Modern science, so one of the areas that modern science differs from Aristotelian science is Aristotelian science was teleological, that it was all based on the assumption that that natural existences had purposes they were trying to achieve. We modern scientists don't think of things in terms of purpose, okay, except in very limited ways. But if you had to say what is the purpose of a spider, what would you say it is? Like if you were like, look at what spiders do and say what their purpose is. Yeah, hoodie?

SPEAKER_02 28:17

Um for like population control, other bugs.

SPEAKER_04 28:21

Okay, so for us, maybe population control, right? Of like bugs and stuff, but let's say, like in in nature, let's say like not from the standpoint of man. Like if you were an alien, let's do the Richard Feynman alien test. You're an alien and you come down to Earth and you study these spiders, and you're like, what are they for? What would you what would you say just based on observing their function? Yeah, Tamara.

SPEAKER_01 28:48

I think this is probably broader than what you're saying, but they they like live and support their own life and they continue their species.

SPEAKER_04 28:55

Okay, good. That's what I say as well. Okay, right. So so um survival and and uh reproduction. Okay. Um, okay, so and you know, they they do other stuff in particular, but like that seems to be the chief like what is what do we see all spiders doing in all eras at all times is surviving and reproducing. Okay, that's like uh and everything that they're doing is like geared towards that end, right? Like, like everything, you know, every a spider's capacity to like spin webs and catch flies is geared towards its survival, you know, its ability to lay eggs is geared towards its reproduction. So I think everything that the spider does could be fit into that category. Now, this is the hard one. I mean, we want to try to define what makes a spider a spider. So the eight legs, I think, is a good start, right? Because I think all spiders have eight legs, and that's why a daddy long legs apparently is not a real spider. It's an insect. Yeah, hoodie. Also, the ability to produce like webbing, like to web. Ability to produce webs. Okay, good. Again, I'm not I'm not an arachn uh uh arachnol arachnithologist. I don't know if that's how you say, yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 30:01

I mean, to me it's funny because I would think actually, like, because of science, that really does not necessarily I don't know, maybe there are people who sit there categorizing what a chair is, but there's definitely like loads of people are sitting there specifically defining what physical characteristics and or abilities make a spider a spider. Correct. So it actually should be easier to find the formal. Yeah, right, right. There's also like how many eyes it has and where that's placed, and like the inter like everything is.

SPEAKER_04 30:23

So this is something that is that reveals a limitation. Oh, sorry, a feature or a bug of Aristotelian um uh thinking, which is that you know, Aristotle thought that he was when he was you know defining the formal cause of something, he thought he was like getting at the true essence. But like, since Aristotle, we've come up with different uh taxology schemes or taxonomy schemes of like different ways to define things, you know, and the way we define things nowadays, I think, is based on DNA. Um, also, the more species we discover, the more we like create different like you know, kingdoms and phyla and all this other stuff. So I I I cheated. I did ask Claude how would Aristotle or how would we define a spider based on what we know about spiders now, but in Aristotelian terms. So again, I don't know if this is true. An eight-legged arthropod, don't know what that is, whose form is constituted by the capacity to produce silk and to perceive and capture prey through a body organized around that capacity. Okay. Um, and it's interesting what details it chooses, right? So eight-legged we recognize intuitively. Producing silk is like what Hodi was saying with um webs. And I think the reason why it doesn't say spinning webs is I don't think all spiders spin webs, but they all produce silk. So for example, um, I might be wrong here, but I thought a trapdoor spider does not trap its prey with a web, but it does line its burrow with silk. Okay. Uh and then perceiving and capturing prey is interesting because not all things that capture prey perceive it, right? So again, don't jump on me if I'm not a botanist, but like I don't think that a that um, oh actually maybe this is wrong. I guess it depends on how you define perceive. But let's say like I was gonna say a Venus flytrap does not see its prey. There's just a a reaction that comes from the contact. So I don't think we would say that it perceives stuff unless you define that contact as perception. Okay, so anyway, but again, the goal is not the particulars here. The goal is is uh is understanding um what the um uh uh you know just how to think about the these concepts here. Um I I want to do one more example, uh, and we don't even need to do all of this, which is an acorn. Okay, so let's just say um, you know, let's just do the same things for everything else. Okay, organic matter is the material cause, efficient cause DNA, survival and reproduction. But what is the form of an acorn? What makes an acorn an acorn? And this is a uh this is a nuance in the definition. And I'll give you a hint, okay? It's not it's acorness. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 33:12

Isn't it what tree comes from?

SPEAKER_04 33:13

Yes. Uh ah, so it's interesting. It is, yeah, what were we gonna say tomorrow? Yes, okay, good. So it's it's oakness, okay. Uh meaning, meaning its potentiality to become a tree. Okay. So this is introducing another note to formal cause, which is if you're talking about a static um uh object or an object at a certain stage, so then you could define its formal cause based on just what the thing is right now. But if you're talking about something that is is undergoing changes, so then its form is the the potential the potential to become what the fully actualized uh specimen is. Yeah, hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 33:58

So then would you say that a counterpillar its form is that it becomes a butterfly?

SPEAKER_04 34:02

Correct. Yeah. Okay. And this is something else also that I don't know what modern science would say about this, because I think modern science would say, well, it's arbitrary. It kind of like what comes first the chicken or the egg, you know. Like, well, you know, it are you, you know, would you say that the the oak, you know, the the purpose of acorns uh is to produce trees, and therefore the acorn is the potential tree, but trees also produce acorns. So maybe the tree exists to produce acorns, you know. I do think though, if we're honest with ourselves, then we would, in common sense, think of it as that the when the tree has uh, you know, is is like producing acorns, the purpose of the acorns is to produce other trees. Like that somehow the tree is the fully formed acorn. Uh, where we get that from and how that is uh objective is uh is a matter of debate. Okay. So let's just clarify a couple more things, and then I want to read an excerpt from another book. Um, so in what sense are all these causes? Okay, and uh and one of my students, uh Alessia put it well that she said, when you think of cause, you usually think of that which triggers an effect. Okay. And that's true within the efficient cause, because the efficient cause is like cause and effect. But these other things are not like you wouldn't say that that you know an eight-legged arthropod triggers an effect. So it's not a cause like that. So in what sense are these causes?

SPEAKER_03 35:30

Yeah, Tamar?

SPEAKER_04 35:33

Um this might just be circular, I'm not sure, but they're like logically prior. Okay, that's that is true. They are logically prior. Um uh that is true. I also don't know if that I don't know if that's circular either, but I I I I I like that answer. No one no one has said that yet. Yeah, Ayala.

SPEAKER_03 35:50

Maybe they like contribute to it. I don't know at the end of that sentence, but like they can contribute to it.

SPEAKER_04 35:56

So I was thinking uh I was thinking about this also. The way I would put it is like this is is without all four, the thing wouldn't exist. Okay, so if you go back to the shoe, uh, which is the easiest example, so the shoe again, the the shoe that I have could not exist without its material. Now, again, yeah, you could have a uh you could have a glass shoe or plastic shoe, but like in any shoe, in any given shoe, it can't exist without its material. Okay, so too, you cannot have a shoe if without someone or something to take that leather and make it into a shoe. Similarly, you would not have shoes would not come into existence if people did not have the need for shoes. So in an alien civilization where people don't have feet, or in a civilization of, you know, golems that are made out of stone, you don't need to protect the feet, okay? So you wouldn't have shoes. And then you would this is the hardest one, you would not have a shoe without the without the concept or form of showness. And maybe the example, the better example of this is if you picture a uh book, okay. Um the the formal cause of a book, I would say, just to hazard uh a theory here, formal cause of a book, what makes a book a book, is a compendium of uh of uh uh uh pages uh uh that uh uh contain uh meaningful symbols. Okay. Um so that's why I was gonna say writing, but then I realized there's picture books also, right? So in a society, let's say you had a society or an alien civilization where there was no such thing as language, or where the um the creatures could not see. So there would be no concept of books. And to them, there'd be no difference between a book that has intelligible writing on it and a book that has a gobbledygook on it. It would just be like, whereas we would say that one is a book and the other one's just like, you know, something that is like uh the form of a book or whatever, but it doesn't actually have it. So without the concept, then the thing couldn't exist. Okay, so that's that is the uh um causes. And then one more question just to clarify the final cause, okay, meaning uh the purpose, okay. There's something weird about final cause that, like, I don't know, I can't express what makes that sound weird, but like, why do we call the purpose the final cause? In what sense is it final?

SPEAKER_03 38:26

And again, you could have different answers. I'm just curious what you guys say.

SPEAKER_04 38:59

Okay, good, good. Yeah, okay, good. So um so the way uh and I'm just gonna put it in terms that are more synonymous, which is that that um we speak of means and end, okay. And all like other causes are means to this end, which is the purpose, okay. Um yeah, okay.

SPEAKER_03 39:25

So that is, yeah, I'll even the final cause that can be spoken about on many different levels, right?

SPEAKER_04 39:32

Yes, correct. So you can speak right. So for example, um, let's just go through one one more example just for um for for fun here. So you can have um uh a knife. Okay, so the material cause of a knife, let's say, is metal and wood. Um the formal cause uh what would you say the formal cause of a knife is?

SPEAKER_03 39:57

Yeah, Cody. No, I have something to do. Oh, okay. Anyone want to venture what a formal cause of a knife is?

SPEAKER_02 40:10

I guess it's ability to cut things.

SPEAKER_04 40:12

Okay, so I think so so two questions on that, okay. That's how I would have also initially gone. I think though that a let's say a uh a sword is also a blade that cuts things, but is not a knife. And I also think that not all knives cut. So for example, a I mean arguably a butter knife. I guess you could say it cuts butter. But yeah, okay, so cut cut is fine. Yeah. Um so let's let's say a a flat edge uh attached to a uh a handle that can be held in one hand, something like that. Okay. Uh and then efficient cause is to sorry, is um the the knife maker or machine. Um and then final cause is cutting. Now, reason why I want to go to this example is Ayala said, you know, you can have a uh a hierarchy of final causes. So here's the thing is the final cause of the knife is cutting, okay? But the thing is is that the cutting it could be for another purpose. So the cutting could be to facilitate eating or could be to to carve wood, you know, uh, and the carving of wood could be to produce art, and the production of art could be for money. But we still speak of it in terms of cutting because the local final cause of the thing still has meaning. And then also not all knives, all knives are for cutting, but not all knives are for cutting for the same reason. So if all knives were for cutting food, then what we would say is the final cause of a knife is cutting food. But since it's not, we just say it's it's uh it's cutting. Yeah, hoodie, did you still have a question?

SPEAKER_02 42:03

I kind of still want to say it, but I'm honestly not sure if it means anything at this point. But um, my thoughts just in in addition to final being final because everything leads up to it. Yeah. Also, like you said earlier, if we didn't have this final need, like the the purpose of it didn't exist, there would be no point in it coming into being. So it's like the final determination, the final determiner of the thing.

SPEAKER_04 42:25

Okay, that's good, also, right. That's true. That's true. And that is the thing that that yeah, that determines everything, uh, everything else. Okay, so what we're gonna do now is for the last part of the uh the second half of this uh shear, again, I also want to stop at 1215 if possible. Um, is uh there is a the the best. So uh the Adler book that I showed you earlier is the simplest book on uh that goes through this concept. The most thorough book, which I still have not finished, is this book called The Hungry Soul. The Hungry Soul and the uh Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature by Leon Cass. Uh so Leon Cass is a uh a doctor and a bioethicist who's also a philosopher. He's actually written uh commentaries on the Torah, which are very good. Uh, this book I have that I recommend called The Beginning of Wisdom, uh Reading Genesis, and then he wrote one on Shamos called uh Found uh Founding God's Nation. Um in this book, though, he is trying to show that Aristotelian thinking is not outdated and that it's actually still very useful for thinking about stuff. And today, and he chooses to write about food as the example. Okay. So I'm gonna we're gonna read through um some excerpts, and this is difficult reading. I did not assign this to my students, but it's the kind of difficult reading where it's very dense, but also very clear. So, what I want to do is I want to read through this and then just get additional notes on material and form. And then when we're done with this, we'll have enough to then lay the groundwork for the Rambom, and then we'll conclude by going back to the original Rambom. Okay, and again, interrupt me with questions if you have it. Okay, so some of this we'll cover, um, we'll cover uh ground that we've already covered just now. So he says like this, and the paragraphs are long. Okay. Every tangible object or being, this is on page 34, 35, I mean. Tangible object or being, whether of natural origin or made by human beings, both is something and is made out of something. Provisionally, let us call the latter its material and the former its form. Now he uses the term material instead of matter because he's going to reserve matter for a very specific kind of material. But for our purposes, I don't use it interchangeably, material and matter and material cause, and then form, formal cause, and you know, okay. Provisionally, let us call the latter its material and the former its form. Form and material are, in the first instance, relative and correlative terms. Form is the something made of certain materials. Materials are, as materials, materials of and for the thing as formed. In fact, to be material means to be potential, to be able to receive a certain form or forms, to be capable of being worked on by some process or operation that would transform it. And again, we don't think about these um these words very much, but transform means to take material and change its form. So that's what it means to transform something. Uh that is form it into something whose material it then becomes. Wood is by itself just wood. Marble is marble. Cholesterol is cholesterol, but marble becomes also material for Michelangelo only because and when its capacity to be the marble David or Moses is realized through the workings of a sculptor's hand. And cholesterol becomes material for a cholesterol-requiring organism when its capacity to interact intimately with other membrane materials is realized as it is incorporated by the organism as a component of its living cell membrane. Without ceasing altogether to be or to manifest properties of marble or cholesterol, these things are transformed and altered by their subordination to the activity of information. The materials, though following their own nature, are at the same time constrained by their new arrangements, which constitute a nature of a higher order. Okay, so I'm going to break this down into additional points here, just for discussion. And if you have either questions on these points or if you see other points that I'm not covering that are worth bringing out, then let's do that. To me, the major point here is that there is a relationship between material slash potentiality and form slash actuality. Okay, and I'll I'll say the more material something is, the more potential it has and the and the less actual form it has. Okay. Conversely, the more formed something is, the less potential it has, and the uh the more actualized uh it is. And I'll give you two examples. Example number one is a lump of clay can be made into many different shapes, okay. Um sorry, I should say has the potential to be made into many different shapes, okay? Um, but once you start forming it in a specific way, it loses that potential. Okay. Um and when I say loses, it does not, you know, if clay is hard is uh still malleable, it doesn't lose it permanently. But insofar as you have clay that is shaped as a bust of George Washington, it cannot also be a bird, you know, so it's lost that potential. Okay. Example two. Actually, I'll do three examples. Okay, uh example two is a blank canvas and paints can be uh you know have have the potential to um be made into many different uh paintings. Um but sorry, paintings, but but the more you paint on that canvas, the the more actual it becomes the painting uh and the less potential the canvas has. And then example three is a pile of scrabble tiles, okay, has the potential to be formed uh into you know uh let's say near infinite words, okay. But but once you start forming words, um you reduce the put the that that potentiality. Okay, so that that's the idea of potential and actual is that the more actual something is, the more uh you know, the the less potential it has and vice versa. Okay, that's one point. Um another point is an interesting one, which is that when when material is serving um as the uh or I guess when material is is is in a particular form, a particular form, okay, it still has its qualities, but those qualities become uh subordinated to a higher order. Okay, so for example, um a you know uh pieces of wood that form a table still retain their their wood qualities, but now they the the uh the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, uh, and that wood now has the quality to support you know objects, okay, um, you know, uh on a flat level. Okay, um so so it is so it's interesting, like the material does not change in terms of what it's constituted of in terms of its properties, but it does change because now it's part of a greater whole. Okay. Okay, let's go on. Again, stop me if you have any other um uh uh if you see any other points or if you have questions. Okay, uh, so now we get into the very complicated uh topic of living things, okay? And this is gonna be very, very important for our for the Ramban. Okay, so he says like this form and material are interdependent, not only in definition, but also, but usually also in fact. Though distinct as ideas and separable in speech, they are, especially in living things, grown together in the inmattered form or the informed matter that is the given thing. The dog and its flesh, the oak and its roots, no less than it's the desk and its wood, are as inseparable, related, and mutually interdependent as the concave and the convex. Um, so this is actually the Brahmams point that we started off with, which is you never see matter without form or form without matter. Rather, it is the human mind that divides the existing body and its thought and understands that it is composed of form and matter. Okay, so um, so just to put this in in my own English English words, okay, um, in any given object, um the form and matter, uh sorry, its form and matter, its form and matter are only analytically distinct, um, but not necessarily physically. Okay, so for example, if I want to, if you want to give a uh a gruesomely amusing example of this, he says, you know, um uh form and material are are especially uh together uh in living things in the in matter and form or the informed matter, there's a given thing with the dog and his flesh. So if you try to separate dog matter from dog form, it it's impossible and it gets very messy. Okay, like you cannot isolate the dog form from the dog matter physically, but in your mind, you can ask yourself, well, what makes what is the common thing between this chihuahua and this poodle and this you know shihtzu? Like it's not physical. The form is a concept that my mind sees that all of these things have in common. Or let's go with another example. You know, again, form is not physical because you can't draw it or represent it. So if I ask you, for example, you know, what do plants, fungi, and animals have in common? And they're all organisms. But if I ask you, so they all partake of the form of organism. But if I ask you to draw organism, you can't because it's a concept. It, you know, it there's no visual similarity between an amoeba and a mushroom, but it's a conceptual, um, uh a conceptual um uh uh uh affinity. Okay. So that is uh what he's saying here, okay, that they're interdependent in this way, uh, but they're not separable physically. Okay, going on. The reality and interdependence of material and form persist also in multiple levels of organization. The oak wood that is material for the table itself is a special form, say, of xylem and phloem, which apparently, correct me if I'm wrong if anyone knows the science, are the um the like, I guess the it's either the tubes or the tissue that allows the plant to transport liquid and nutrients, something like that. Um, I don't know. Um and the xylem and phloem are in turn special formations of cells, which are special formations of carbohydrates, uh, lipids and proteins and so on. All right, so at the lowest level, some least or ultimate material would be reached, if any such there be, that could not be analyzed further into its form and material, and whose parts, if it had parts, would be homogenous with the whole. Such an ultimate material would be more than material relative to some other form. It would be matter. That's where he uses the word matter. It is, of course, one of the aspirations of a corporealist science to explain the formation, organization, and workings of all complex holes in terms of the dispositions, motions, and interactions of their parts or materials, and ultimately of such ultimate matter. Form on such an account would be at all levels but an accident, or at most a result of the necessitated bumpings and joinings in stages of the ultimate matter. It is this view which we are here challenging. Okay, so a couple of points here. One point is that form and matter can exist in hierarchies, okay. You know, each substance, you know, that is a combination of form and matter, okay, can itself serve as matter to a higher form, okay? Um, and so on up and down the hierarchy. Okay, and I think that example with the wood is is is good. So just to talk it out again, you have a wooden table. So the table is the form and the wood it's made up of is the matter. But then the wood is form that is made up of xylem and phloem, of uh xylem and phloem. And the xylem and phloem is a certain form that is made of the matter of cells, and the cells are certain matter that is made up of carbohydrate, lipids, and proteins, which themselves are are the form of like, you know, uh uh particles, etc. Um, and then going up also, the table is matter or material in that is part of the form of your kitchen furnishings. And your kitchen furnishings are a material that's part of the form of your of your kitchen, and your kitchen is material that's part of the form of your house, and your house uh is part of the uh neighborhood and neighbor is part of the city, etc. Okay. Uh I don't get Rika's uh uh reference in the chat. I'm sorry. Yeah, uh hoodie.

SPEAKER_02 55:54

But um in the case of the dog, what could it be used as a material for? Like what could it be?

SPEAKER_04 56:00

So if you take a husky, you can take one husky and two huskies and three huskies and then team them up as a as a sled team, you know, or in the in nature, you can have uh, you know, wolves that are part of a pack. Uh, and then the pack itself could be part of the ecosystem, you know, um, and so on. Yeah. Um, okay. The other point he's making here is the lowest level of material we we might call matter, which can't be broken down into further form and matter. Okay, and the Ram had this category also. The Ram called it um the elements. Okay. Um, we uh hold that elements could be broken down into further further parts. So last I checked, uh, I don't know if this is true, is uh nowadays, uh this is either okay. I again I'm not a physicist, I don't know if this is true. This is either string for string theory or quantum foam, or uh according to um quantum foam theory, or uh according to Tamar's grandfather, waves, I think, right? Um, so so we don't really know what those are, but you could not break that down into further form and material, because then you could break that down. So there's gonna be a certain underlying the underlying stuff that physicality is made out of. Okay. Okay, uh going on. Okay, now comes my favorite part. Okay, this is his definition of form, which I love. I can't explain why I love it, but I I bolted it. That's how much I love it. If material is material relative to a form, then what then is a form? Form is often connected with shape and figure, but when we think of form with regards to living beings, we mean more than shape or figure and more than an aggregate of corporeal parts. A pile of rocks has shape but not form. It is a heap, not a whole. Form, now here's the the definition. Form is what makes a being a unity and a whole in the world and through time. Form is that order or ordering that makes a one of the many components, giving it an integrity which the components by themselves do not have. It is, I confess, extremely difficult to say just what this unifier is, if it is a distinct what. It cannot be the outside surface or skin, although the boundary defines the limits of the organism against everything is not, it is not, it does not define what it is. Um, the boundary is not the cause of unity, but rather one of its manifestations. We begin to suspect that form is not primarily something visible or tangible. In short, that there is, in this sense, some immaterial thing that unites and informs the absolutely corporealized organism, but what it is, we cannot define. Yet we may continue to discern its meaning and its work. Okay, so this is, let's just get this in our notes here. So Cass's clearest definition or description of form is uh form is what makes a being a unity and a whole in the world and through time. Form is that order or ordering that makes a one of the many components, giving an integrity that the components by themselves do not have. Uh, I'm not gonna make this into a separate point, but when he says here that what is the form of an organism, it's interesting. It cannot be the outside surface or skin, although the boundary defines the limits of the organism against everything it is not, it does not define what it is. So let's take the dog, okay? So the dog's skin is not what defines it. So for example, if I again another gruesome example, if I skin a dog and then wear it, I don't become a dog. So it's not the skin, okay? And when I said that in one of my classes, I was my heart was warm because one of my 12th grade girls said, Oh, like Silence of the Lambs. And I was like, I was so happy that students still watch movies that are good movies. But anyway, so um, so it's not the skin, but and the thing is, if you have a dog and you put a pen on top of it, you don't think that the pen becomes the dog. Okay. Even if you inject uh a metal chip, a tracking device into it, you know that putting it into the dog does not become part of the dog. So so the skin is like a it it is a manifestation of the dog's form, but it it it doesn't constitute it. Um okay, thanks for clarifying. Okay. Um okay, so so now here's my question for you, okay. Is form physical or non-physical? And I don't think it's an easy answer. How would you um how would you answer the question? I'll I'll say just to make it easier. Is an object's or organisms form? Yeah, Tamar.

SPEAKER_00 1:00:34

Yeah, sorry, I'm just I'm driving, but um, yeah, I was thinking that maybe it it's not physical, but it's um it's related to the physical.

SPEAKER_04 1:00:41

It's exactly how I was gonna answer it. Exact words, okay? It's not physical, uh, but it is related to the physical. Okay, and I'm gonna give an example to illustrate this. Uh is is um if you take a pile of Legos in a Lego set, okay, um uh and then you assemble it according to the instructions, okay. How would you characterize you know the nature of the change that you've made? Okay, so on the one hand the change is not physical in the sense that all the bricks remained the same, okay? Same mass, weight, you know, shapes, uh uh etc. Okay, so uh and you didn't add or take away from them. Okay. So so on the other hand, you did do something physical with them by by configuring them into a particular arrangement, okay? Um, and that arrangement is what makes them um you know built, right? So uh whereas other arrangements uh arrangements wouldn't. So in other words, again, we're we're using the example here where you're trying to assemble this in a you know according to the manufacturer's uh specifications. So like if I'm missing a piece, so it's not fully formed, or if I put it together in my own creative way, I'm not forming the thing. But like once I get the material into that form, so then this this quality of form uh has fully emerged, you know. So I think like what Tamar said is perfect, is form is expressed through the physical or related to the physical or manifests in the physical, but it itself is not physical because you didn't actually change anything physical about the the bricks, it's not material, let's put it that way, you know. So that's the uh that's the tricky thing about form. Okay, and then similarly, okay, is another example is I said before, the form of a shoe is not um synonymous with its shape or appearance, okay? Uh it's conceptual, all right. Uh ditto for organism for shape, uh, you know, I guess the uh the you know the concept of shape, uh, etc. Okay, so these things are all these are not physical attributes. They're non-physical, but they're they're non-physical attributes of the physical. Okay. Okay. Uh okay, he goes on. We here's here's our I think we have a few more paragraphs here. Um, I want to get this as clear as possible. Uh, this next part I actually did not have my students read, but I want to read it here because uh uh it might add clarity for us. Form provides not only unity, but also specificity and identity. Each being is both a particular one, that is a singular whole being distinct from all others, and also a particular one of a particular species or kind. Although form is more than its visible aspect, these unifying and specifying properties of form are immediately evident in an organism's surface appearance or gestalt. Gestalt's like the unified uh you know impression you get of the whole thing. Both the hidden ground of its unity and the distinctive character of its being are attested to by its visible looks. Indeed, the word looks has been suggested by the late Jacob Klein as the best translation of the Greek word eidos, central to the thought of Plato and Aristotle, which is usually translated as form, idea, or species. Eidos is derived from a root meaning to see. Looks preserves the etymological insight that both the fact of a thing's wholeness and more importantly the distinctive kind of whole that it is are generally evident in its visible appearance. The invisible looks or form or nature of an organism is announced identically in the language of visibility. Indeed, our word species from the Latin species, again, literally looks, also carries this double sense of form. Form as contrasted with its own material, form as a distinctive kind contrasted with other kinds. So his point here being that even though form is not synonymous with appearance, uh we do discern that unity on some level via its appearance. Okay, uh like we see it as a as a one thing distinct from others. Okay, so it is again, it's weird. It's it's the its looks are a symptom of its form, but they don't constitute the form. Um, and again, you could take uh a person and change their physical uh visible appearance, but it still is then. Um okay. Going on. Oh, yeah, hold on, just one second here. Okay. Yeah. Uh this way of approaching animal forms accords well with our ordinary, that is, pre-scientific experience of the world. It also fits with human speech, which acknowledges the manifest species character of animal form by the use of general nouns as lion, tiger, cardinal, or eagle. Despite what some critics may say, this recognition of species does not commit us to so called typological thinking, to a belief in the permanence of species, or to any particular ontological teaching regarding form. In such ordinary speech, we do not we do no more than acknowledge what any healthy rabbit recognizes. Recognizes without metaphysical prejudice and without deception, attributable to language and its reliance on general nouns, when it flees from all hounds, finds all carrots to its taste, and mates only with other rabbits. Not philosophers, but living nature is responsible for the existence of natural kinds, distinctively and recognizably formed after their kind. Okay, so that I think that's a beautiful example here. He's saying that um that uh do not think that talking about natural forms commits us to believing in the you know ontologically sorry, ontol ontologically separate uh uh immaterial existence of forms or the permanence of species uh or anything like that. Okay. Um those who know Plato um will recognize that he held that there was such a thing as like the world of forms, that forms have an independent existence from the actual things, whereas Aristotle held that forms exist in physical things. Um, and also, you know, uh when I've brought this up to students who are like biologically knowledgeable, they'll say, like, well, doesn't evolution prove that there's no such thing as a species, you know, as the form of uh of a dog? Because dogs are gradually evolving over, you know, you know, millions of years. So what he's saying, again, is like you can say all that, but like every rabbit flees from every hound and eats every carrot. So you see that there is some level where where even non-thinking animals recognize, you know, a hound as distinct from a cat or a carrot as distinct from a plastic carrot, you know, and maybe it needs to like chew on it to realize it's not a carrot, but like there is a uh, you know, these things do exist in in nature. And so our everyday experience of with these things is is you know, does relate to a certain reality, even if it's not like the way that biologists uh categorize things. Um okay, a few more points and then we'll wrap it up for today. Living things are not only visibly ordered, they are also internally organized. Organization, literally the division of the whole into instrumentally active parts. The word organ means instrument or tool, and organization means the coordination of systematic or sorry, the condition of systematic coordination of distinct instrumental parts or organs, is in a sense the distinctive form of an organ of organism. Organs, so in other words, what makes an organism an organism? It's organization. Okay, it's internal organization. Organs are genuine and heterogeneous parts, each with useful activities crucial to the life of the organism as a whole. One organ breaks up food, another pumps nutrient-carrying blood throughout the body, a third filters the blood of toxic wastes. Some organs of sense help locate the food, other organs of motion help capture it. Each organ in its own way contributes something to useful to the whole. Indeed, the very being and meaning of an organ is always given by its relation to the whole of which it is useful part. To be useful is necessarily to be useful to something or someone, in this case, to the whole organism. Utility, like the things that are useful, is a subordinate and subservient matter, always pointing to something that is being served. Yeah. Um so the main point here uh being that that the form of an organism is its internal organization, um, the fact that it has multiple parts, each with a different function, um, that harmoniously serve the whole. Okay. So that is what makes an organism an organism. Um, okay, going on. To be complex, sorry, to be sure, complex machines also have organization and comprise organs. But one of the chief differences between an organism and a machine is that organisms are self-organizing. This is a sharp point here. They're organized, that is, they acquire their organs developmentally and from within, realizing an innate plan or program. There's a second chief difference. The organized machine serves its owner, the organized animal to begin with, serves itself. Okay, so so the organization, the organization, sorry, machines and organisms both have organization, but there's a difference. Um there's a difference, which uh uh sorry, two differences. There are are are two differences. Okay, A, the um the organisms organization uh comes innately from within. And then B, um the organism's organization serves itself. Okay, it doesn't exist for something else's utility. Okay, last point here. Oh, yeah, almost the last one. Some animals are, of course, more highly formed, that is, intricately organized than others. It is sometimes difficult, all the more so in lower organisms, to discern the boundary between one organ and another, and organs often have or can acquire more than one useful function. Yet organization, the special and coordinated arrangements of the necessary material with the coincident emergence of new powers or capacities and new activities or functions is an indisputable fact. And it is also a fact that many, if not all, of the interesting vital powers and activities of any organism depend absolutely on the arrangement of the suitable materials rather than on the materials alone. Okay, fine, skip that point. Okay, last point. Our frequent references to animal activity remind us that in living things, form is not static, no a static notion. The looks of animals are often mobile, like the mobile animals that bear them, and the motions of the looks are generally recognizable and true to form. Most fundamentally, living form is generally functioning form or organization, that is, form in its work or activity. To be a something, to be a particular animal in the full sense, is to be that animal at work. Really, to be a squirrel means to be actively engaged in the constellation of activities we can call squirreling. The true squirrel is a bushy-tailed fellow who not only looks but also acts like a squirrel, who leaps through trees with a great daring, who gathers, buries, covers, but later uncovers and recovers his acorns, who perches out on a limb, cracking his nuts, sniffing the air for smells of danger, alert, cautious, with his tail beating rhythmically, who chatters and plays in courts and mates and rears his young in large, improbable looking homes at the tops of trees, who fights with vigor and forges with cunning, who shows spiritedness, even anger, and more prudence than many human beings. The dead squirrel or the sleeping squirrel or the squirrel in utero do not fully manifest the squirrel form. So that's his last point, which is which is um uh the forms of of living creatures are not static but dynamic and manifest themselves, um themselves in a number, uh I like the constellation, in in a constellation of characteristic um uh behaviors and qualities. Okay. So um what remains to think about, we're not gonna do this at the beginning of next time, is the form of a human being. Okay. Um and uh and how that relates to uh to our development and such. But to return, as I promised, to the very beginning, we now know what the Rama means when he says you never see matter without form or form without matter. Rather, it is the human mind that divides the existing body in its thought and understands that it is composed of matter and form and forms that uh okay, fine. So, in other words, everything we see is form and matter, but it's not a real, it's not a physical distinction. It's something that exists in the mind. And now we have the groundwork for the next chapter, not sorry, next chapter, next part, which is to understand the Ram's theory of Ra and what the Satan is. Okay, so again, I uh I don't apologize that this was not so Torah-heavy. This is what the Ramam is presupposing that his readers of the Moore Navukim are already familiar with, because the reason why they're Navukim is because they were immersed in Aristotle and we don't have that, so we had to artificially uh immerse ourselves in Aristotle to get to this point. Okay, that is the preparate preparation for next time. Thanks for coming. And uh, if you have further questions, feel free to ask them in the chat uh so that I can either address them at the beginning of uh the next class or uh or address them in the chat. Um and next week should be on, and uh the agenda is going to be to understand Ra according to the Ramam or to start. Okay, have a good chap us. Thanks for coming.

SPEAKER_03 1:14:35

Thank you for coming.