quote:
There's something that your mind abstracts when looking at a tree that it can tell it's a tree. This is the mind's ability to recognize immaterial forms.
I go along with the broad concept of a "form" (not an ideal term) so long as it stays within the realms of attempting to explain the manner in which humans digest and store the information that they receive. In other words, each human mind will create its own set of references for the world it observes. As for there being some kind of eternal "form" that is somehow passed across the universe from one soul to another - I just can't see the need for it, let alone any evidence. If someone had never seen a tree before, they wouldn't recogonize an "immaterial tree-form", they'd see a new combination of shape and colour and store that information.
Think of the first time you saw an Ipod. Did it convey its "form" to you, or were you told what it was and subsequently created your own idea of it (form, if you prefer) based on that information?
quote:
Therefore, the breath of life described in Genesis could be the infusion of an immortal human form - that immaterial principle which makes us human and not an ape or some other animal (id est the soul).
Can't agree with this either. I have little time for this kind of Anthropocentrism. Humans respond to environmental stimuli just like other animals, but with a greater degree of self-awareness.
Anyway, one philosopher who might be worth looking at for a more materialistic point of view would be Wittgenstein, who explores the impact of language on the way in which we communicate and understand concepts. Broadly speaking, for him language is the tool we use to convert environmental stimuli into our own "forms" or ideas.
This message has been edited by rjb, 04-23-2006 07:43 AM