38. Causes in Becoming and Prime Matter

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Two Causes Among Three Components #

• Reading 13 makes a critical distinction: of the three things found in becoming (what comes to be, the underlying subject, and the contrary), only two are true causes
• The underlying subject (matter) remains and is a cause
• The form acquired is a cause
• The contrary (what is lost) is not a cause in any sense—neither intrinsic nor extrinsic
• Example: In hard butter, we find butter (matter) and hardness (form), but not softness. Softness neither enters the product nor causes the butter to become hard.

Contraries vs. Privation (Lack of Form) #

• Contraries: two forms furthest apart in the same genus (e.g., virtue and vice in the genus of habit)
• Privation/Lack: mere absence of a form, not necessarily its contrary
• Critical insight: change does not always require contraries—only lack of form before acquiring it
• Example: A newborn baby lacks virtue but is not necessarily vicious. One can acquire virtue without first possessing vice.
• This represents a move from probability (Readings 10-11) to necessity (Readings 12-13)
• Counter-example: A criminal with vice must overcome that vice to acquire virtue; this is harder than teaching an innocent child virtue from scratch

Prime Matter and Substantial Change #

• Prime matter is the underlying subject of substantial change (change of substance itself)
• Distinction: accidental change (soft to hard butter) vs. substantial change (man to dog through eating)
• Prime matter is not knowable by itself—it is pure potency/ability with no actuality
• Therefore, prime matter cannot be understood directly: it must be known by proportion

The Proportion of Prime Matter #

• Proportion: “As clay is to sphere and cube, so prime matter is to man and dog”
• What the proportion means: Just as clay can potentially be shaped into either a sphere or cube (but not both simultaneously), prime matter can potentially become either man or dog (but not both at once)
• Critical caution: The terms are not identical in character:
  • Clay is an actual substance; prime matter is substance-in-ability only
  • Sphere and cube are accidents; man and dog are actual substances
  • Do not exaggerate the likeness—only the structural relation between potency and act is analogous
• Like saying “four is to six as two is to three”—the proportion consists in the ratio, not in extraneous properties

Potency (Ability) as Fundamentally Intelligible Only Through Act #

• Ability is not knowable by sensation or imagination—only by reason
• Ability is known only through the act for which it is an ability
• Examples: We know a pianist’s ability only by hearing them play; we know my ability to walk only by seeing me walk; we cannot directly sense ability—only its exercise
• Even reason knows itself only as the ability for discourse (looking before and after)

Why Ancient Greeks Failed to Understand Prime Matter #

• Early philosophers could not grasp potency (pure ability)
• They attempted to make prime matter an actual substance (water, air, fire, earth, etc.)
• This led to insuperable difficulties—Anaxagoras exemplifies this problem
• The Greek error: trying to get all things actually present in the underlying matter

Modern Physics and the Parallel Difficulty #

• Modern quantum physics (Heisenberg) discovered elementary particles show “complete mutability”—no elementary particle is eternal
• Therefore, something must underlie these transformations: prime matter
• Yet physicists repeat the ancient error: Heisenberg’s formula states “every elementary particle is composed of all the rest”
• This echoes Anaxagoras and represents the same conceptual failure
• Weizsäcker’s insight (Heisenberg’s student): “When we imagine something, we make it actual in our imagination. Therefore, when we try to imagine prime matter, we necessarily falsify it by making actual what exists only in potency.”

The Problem of Making Potency Actual #

• The fundamental error: imagination falsifies potency by converting it to actuality
• This occurs in multiple domains:
  • Logic: Making a universal into a class (mankind as actual collection vs. man as universal in potency)
  • Mathematics: Resolving to imagination rather than reasoning
  • Metaphysics: Trying to understand prime matter through sensible examples
• Example from Locke and Berkeley: Neither could understand the general idea of triangle (equilateral, isosceles, or scalene) because they tried to imagine it rather than reason about it. The definition “a plane figure contained by three straight lines” reveals that in the definition, the three straight lines are able to be equal or unequal, not actually so.

Key Arguments #

Why Only Two of Three Things Are Causes #

1. What comes to be is composed only of matter and form
2. Examination of the product reveals only matter and form
3. The contrary is absent from the product
4. What is absent cannot be either intrinsic or extrinsic cause
5. Conclusion: Only matter and form are causes; the contrary is not

Change Does Not Require Contraries #

1. For substantial change, something must underlie it
2. For accidental change, contraries can suffice
3. But more fundamentally, only lack of form is necessary
4. Privation (lack) and form are sufficient; contraries are not necessary
5. Conclusion: What necessarily precedes acquiring a form is lack of that form, not its contrary

Prime Matter Is Knowable Only by Proportion #

1. Prime matter cannot be an actual substance (this would make substantial change impossible)
2. Prime matter cannot be an actual accident (accidents cannot underlie substance)
3. Therefore, prime matter is substance-in-ability only
4. Pure potency/ability is intrinsically unknowable (known only through its act)
5. Conclusion: Prime matter must be known through proportion to sensible examples

Important Definitions #

Cause (αἰτία / aítia) #

• In becoming, a cause is something that enters into the product and remains, or is necessary for the thing’s coming to be
• The contrary plays no causal role because it neither enters the product nor makes it actual

Matter (ὕλη / hylē) #

• The underlying subject that remains throughout becoming
• The passive principle in substantial and accidental change

Form (μορφή / morphé) #

• What is acquired in becoming
• The active principle; called the form in act

Contrary (ἐναντίον / enantíon) #

• Two forms furthest apart in the same genus
• Distinguished from privation (στέρησις / stérēsis): mere lack of a form

Prime Matter (πρώτη ὕλη / prṓtē hylē) #

• The ultimate subject underlying all substantial change
• Substance-in-ability only; substance without any determinate form
• Knowable only by reason, through proportion

Potency / Ability (δύναμις / dýnamis) #

• The capacity to be otherwise
• Not knowable by itself; known only through the act to which it is ordered

Act / Actuality (ἐνέργεια / enérgeia) #

• The realization of potency
• The form actually present

Examples & Illustrations #

Accidental Change Examples #

• Butter: soft butter → hard butter (butter remains; softness is lost; hardness acquired)
• Cloth: dry cloth → wet cloth (cloth remains; dryness is lost; wetness acquired)
• In both cases, the contrary (softness, dryness) is absent from the final product and causes nothing

Substantial Change Example #

• Man becomes dog (through eating): Something must underlie this change—not man, not dog (both substantial forms), but prime matter itself
• This is why substantial change is the hardest to understand

Contraries vs. Privation #

• Virtue and vice: These are contraries (two species in the genus of habit, furthest apart)
• Virtue and lack of virtue: These are related as form to privation
• A newborn: lacks virtue but is not vicious
• A criminal: possesses vice, and must overcome it to acquire virtue
• The newborn’s path is easier because mere privation must be overcome; the criminal’s path is harder because an active contrary must be displaced

Potency Known Through Act #

• Pianist’s ability: known only by hearing the piano played
• My ability to walk: known only by observing me walk
• Ball player’s ability to pitch: known only by seeing the pitch thrown
• No direct sensation or imagination of ability itself—only of its exercise

The Proportion Example #

• Clay and shaped objects: clay is an actual substance able to be shaped into sphere or cube (not both at once)
• Prime matter and substances: prime matter is substance-in-ability, able to become man or dog (not both at once)
• Caution: Clay is actual; sphere and cube are accidents. Prime matter is substance-in-ability; man and dog are actual substances. The likeness is only in the structural relation, not in the nature of the terms.

The Triangle Definition #

• Locke’s problem: Is the general idea of triangle equilateral, isosceles, or scalene? If equilateral, it doesn’t fit isosceles, etc.
• Berkeley’s rejection: It can’t be all and none of these at once; therefore there are no general ideas
• Berquist’s solution: In the definition “a plane figure contained by three straight lines,” the three lines are not actually equal or unequal—they are able to be either. This is not imagination but reason.

Modern Physics Example #

• Elementary particles: No eternal form of matter found in experiments
• Heisenberg’s insight: Matter is known only through forms of matter
• Paradox: “Every elementary particle is composed of all the rest”—echoing Anaxagoras’s false attempt to make all potentialities actually present

Notable Quotes #

“So it’s not a cause, it’s such a hard butter. Nor is it even an extrinsic cause, huh? Of the butter becoming hard, huh?” — Berquist, explaining why the contrary plays no causal role

“We know matter only through the forms of matter. We don’t know matter by itself.” — Heisenberg (cited by Berquist)

“When we imagine something, we make it actual in our imagination… The fundamental cause of deception on the side of our knowing powers is especially active here.” — Weizsäcker (cited by Berquist), on the error of imagining potency

“The three lines have to be either equal or unequal, right? So which are they in that definition? Right? Which are they? Actually. They’re not actually equal or unequal. They’re able to be equal.” — Berquist, solving Locke’s and Berkeley’s problem with universals

Questions Addressed #

Why Is the Contrary Not a Cause? #

• Because it does not enter into the product (hard butter contains no softness)
• Because it does not make the product actual (dryness does not make cloth wet)
• It is neither an intrinsic nor extrinsic cause

Must Change Always Involve Contraries? #

• No. What is necessary for change is only that something be lacking before it is acquired
• Contraries are one form of opposition, but not the only form
• Privation (mere lack) is sufficient
• Change always requires potency; it does not always require contrary forms

Why Is Acquiring Virtue Easier for an Innocent Child Than for a Criminal? #

• The child possesses only privation (lack of virtue)
• The criminal possesses active vice (a real contrary disposition)
• Acquiring virtue from privation requires only adding goodness
• Acquiring virtue from vice requires removing the opposed habit—the criminal will resist

How Can We Understand Prime Matter If It Is Not Actual? #

• Not by direct knowledge, but by proportion to sensible examples
• As clay relates to sphere and cube, prime matter relates to man and dog
• But we must be careful not to exaggerate the likeness between the terms

Why Did Anaxagoras Fail? #

• He tried to make all things actually present in prime matter
• He could not understand how something could be in matter only in potency
• This led to his theory of infinite divisibility and the paradox of mixture

Why Do Modern Physicists Struggle With Elementary Particles? #

• They repeat Anaxagoras’s error: trying to understand matter as if all potentialities were actual
• They cannot grasp that something can come from matter without being actually present in it
• Imagination falsifies potency by making it actual

Theological Connection #

God’s Immutability #

• What changes is always composed (matter and form)
• What is composed has potency (ability to be otherwise)
• God is altogether simple, without composition
• Therefore, God can never change or become
• This is one reason why God is unchanging: God is not composed, and only composed things change