Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Postdoctoral researcher at Isfahan University

Abstract

Relying on the teachings of Aquinas, Oderberg as one of the analytic hylomorphists ascribes the unity of an object to form. His view is that if form is responcible for unity, it should be a simple entity not a composite one. In this article, we have shown that although one can find this view tenable, but his own specific metaphysics cannot support it. In doing so, we first focus on his explanation of form and analyze his argument for form. We argue that his view suffers from many weaknesses. In the sequel, we explained our own argument for unity of form, which is taken from Aristotle. At the end, we showed that even if we ignore the weaknesses of Oderberg’s argument and accept his claim to the unity of form, his metaphysics cannot support this theory.

Keywords

امیریان، م؛ کرباسی زاده، ا؛ مروارید، م. (1397). «رابطۀ اجزاء اشیاء از جمله انسان در پرتو مسئلۀ وحدت با اتکاء بر نظریه ساختارگرایی». تازه­های علوم شناختی، شمارۀ دوم (پیاپی 78)، 69-83.
Aquinas, S. (1981). Summa Theologica., F. o. Province, New York: Christian Classics.
Aristotle. (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. (J. Barnes, Ed.) princeton: Princeton University Press.
Callus, D. A. (1961). The Origins of the Problem of the Unity of Form. In J. Weisheipl, The Dignity of Science: Studies in the Philosophy of Science Presented to William Humbert Kane (pp. 121-149). Washington: The Thomist Press.
Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1-16.
Koslicki, K. (2006). "Aristotle's mereology and the status of form". Journal of Philosophy 103 (12): 715-736.
Oderberg, D. S. (2007). Real essentialism. New York and London: Routledge.