The difference between scholasticism and orthodoxy is that scholastics are convinced about the existence of God and try to prove that God exists, while the ortodox know God exist and try to know him even more.

So it's a Disqus problem. Thanks.

I thought they were deleting my posts (for some reason I always assume the worst).

Have you had a look at your account on Disqus ? If they have been deleted they will still be there but marked Deleted in red or something similar.

Our world is not populated by heaps of matter but rather matter as informed and as organized wholes. These matter-form composites, existing as intelligible wholes, are potentially knowable to man for he is an intellectual being capable of coming to know things by virtue of his intellectual soul. Moreover, through the brain—not by the brain but rather through it—the meaning, or the intelligibility, of things is conveyed.
Sokolowksi illustrates this idea further utilizing an innovative analogy. The brain and nervous system function, he maintains, much like a transparent lens. When a lens works properly, it refracts and presents that which is beyond it, whether that is a newspaper or the Andromeda galaxy light years away. Unlike a television screen that creates that which is seen, a lens serves as the physical medium through which what is seen is conveyed.

The analogy doesn't work, because both the lens and whatever is seen through that lens are material in nature, not supernatural. The same goes for T.V. sets and signals, computers and software, and any other such comparisons that one can come up with.

When I hold up a magnifying glass at arm’s length, and gaze into it looking at the wall opposite me through the lens, the image that seems to appear in the glass is not actually in the glass like the image on a TV screen, but rather is actually out there, beyond the glass. With the TV screen, I behold a representation, an image of the real thing, but not the thing itself. But with a lens, what I see in the glass is not something representing the wall, but rather the wall as wall, but in a specifically non-physical way. The lens, then, serves as a physical medium through which the external world of matter-form composites is conveyed and known.

Any image that one sees through a lens is also physical, whether it be a real or virtual image. The nature of the light that is illuminating the object in question is physical, the eye that sees the image is physical, the lens is, the nature of the lens (i.e. convex, concave, planoconvex, planoconcave et cetera) is, the conditions under which the image in question will appear inverted (or not) is as well... I could go on, but at no point in any of this are there what could be described as being spiritual phenomena. The mind of the person in question may not be directly observable, but we know what it is and how it works by 1). studying the effect that it has upon its - purely physical - surroundings, and 2). performing experiments upon it, and observing and cataloging the results (for example, a mind that is intoxicated will display certain characteristics - ex. boorish behaviour, an increased propensity to violence, an inability to safely drive a car). If the mind isn't physical, if only the brain is, then why is it so easily affected by (for example) alcohol?

The mind needs the brain for it is in accordance with human nature that we come to knowledge and understanding of the world through our physicality and the corporeality of things.

A point of agreement. Finally :)

The intellect and the brain are wedded together, with the brain and nervous system acting like transparent lenses, not giving themselves, but rather giving that which is beyond them and other.

The lens, however, can be seen. It's dimensions can be measured, it can be weighed. We know how it works, why it works; in fact, we completely understand it. Can the same thing be said of the mind?

It is only by being interwoven in the body that the mind, the I, can come to know anything, and, furthermore, it is only by encountering corporeal things, through the senses, that we are ever able to attain knowledge of the incorporeal. Therefore, to posit any separation between the mind and the brain, or, to posit any theory that considers the two identical, is incorrect. We conclude that the brain, though an absolutely necessary cause, is not a sufficient cause for the human mind.

The first sentence, to me, sounds like Cartesian dualism. However, you then say that "to posit any separation between the mind and the brain, or, to posit any theory that considers the two identical, is incorrect". Well, yes, the mind is not the brain, but who has ever argued otherwise? We know that the two are not the same thing, but that is not the same as saying that the mind cannot emerge from the brain. We may not fully understand how the mind works, but just because this is the case we should not therefore simply give up, and say, "It cannot be accounted for, therefore it must be an example of something that is beyond nature, something given to us by God". Come on, that's just being lazy.

Because we live in a positivistic society that is more apt to follow the decrees of scientism, we almost unconsciously equate the true with the provable, or scientifically demonstrable.

What's wrong with that? Why should I accept ideas for which there is neither evidence nor reason? Would that be a smart thing to do? I don't think so. One would think that, for example if God were real, that we would find abundant evidence for the existence of that god within our physical realm. Agree? Don't you think it would be safe to assume that our world would reflect, in some meaningful sense, the character of the creator?

What is the world really like? It is full of violence, corruption, death, decay, dishonesty, injustice, capriciousness, and it lacks meaning, purpose and design. Alvin Plantinga's free will defence doesn't work, if only because it cannot account for natural disasters. We are born, we live, we die. That's it. Why should we deserve more? Isn't that rather selfish? Eternal life. What an abhorrent concept. No thanks, but I would much rather vanish into oblivion than spend even one second in "heaven".

Well anyway, I think I've said enough now for one day. I could go on here, but I've got other things to do unfortunately.

Hylomorphism also sufficiently guards against materialism. The hylomorphic alternative does grant materialists that matter is eminently important, concurring with them that the matter of the body is essential—especially so when concerning the matter of the brain. However hylomorphism maintains, in contrast to materialism, the real presence of personal subjectivity experienced by each person by insisting that the substantial form of man is the intellectual soul. There is something about man (human nature) that is properly transcendent, non-reducible, and subjective.

You keep mentioning hylomorphism, but my understanding of this idea is as indicated by this link:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/hylomorphism

My take on it is that it is a purely materialistic, naturalistic philosophical view. Spirits don't come into it.

"There is something about man (human nature) that is properly transcendent, non-reducible, and subjective".

Such as... ? I will not deny that we can, and do, experience life from a first-person perspective, which is indeed entirely subjective, but that, in and of itself, does not constitute evidence for God (however you define that concept), the "soul", or an afterlife.

Because of this, we are able to reach beyond the material constituency of our corporeality in a non-physical, spiritual way, especially when we come to know anything. This must be granted if one honestly assesses one’s life-as-lived experiences. “We go beyond the restrictions of space and time and the kind of causality that is proper to material things,” writes Sokolowski,5 when we make vows,6 use language, utilize words and symbols, create art, share ideas and thoughts, perform works of Shakespeare, propose mathematical formulas, debate and discuss, engage in politics, and much, much more.

"...perform works of Shakespeare..." I've noticed that theists just love to harp on about how the creations of Shakespeare and Bach are somehow evidence for their particular brand of theism, but what about Dan Brown and Britney Spears?

Seriously though, I really don't quite understand what you are going on about here. When we "come to know anything" we are acquiring an understanding of it, but how this somehow connects with what you describe as being the "spiritual way" I have no idea. It looks to me like the old, proverbial 'Leap of Faith' is being indulged here.

This is especially the case when we invoke the personal pronoun, I, and act as responsible subjects and agents of truth—there is truly an “I” to speak of, present in every human person, that serves as the center of all personal activity. This spiritual modality of man is his intellective soul. But all of these activities, powers, and capabilities which are spiritual in character, require, at least in part, that we be embodied as well. One cannot bring to life Shakespeare’s Hamlet—a spiritual activity transcending space and time—without having actors with bodies. Though this may seem obvious, it is important for this position.

The invocation of the personal pronoun is simply one of those aspects of language and communication that we have come to adopt over the years in order to clarify meaning. What, exactly, does a person mean when they use the word "I"? What are they referring to? If you were to ask them to explain this, the vast majority of people would have a great deal of difficulty in doing so.

"There is truly an 'I' to speak of, present in every human person, that serves as the centre of all personal activity."

The centre of such activity is, not coincidentally, our physical bodies, and you acknowledge as much, but why bring the "spiritual" into this? Is it actually required, or do you just think it is? You then go on to base a conclusion (i.e. "This spiritual modality of man is his intellective soul") upon a premise that is debatable to say the least. I don't accept the original premise, therefore I cannot accept your conclusion. To me it represents an unjustified "multiplication of entities", thus violating the Ockham's Razor principle. Earlier on you seemed to equate the soul with the mind, so if you are being consistent here and still believe the two to be equivalent, then we simply have no reason to indulge in speculation about things that are "spiritual", because we have no good reason to believe that anything more than material reality actually exists.

When it comes to the brain and the mind, it is not a case of either/or, but rather both/and. The brain and nervous system, being informed by the downward causality of man's intellectual soul and thus existing in a properly intellectual way, have a critical role to play when it comes to consciousness and perception. This, however, does not prove that the brain is the seat of intellection, but on the contrary, simply reinforces the hylomorphic position. The brain and the mind are wedded together, or, as Kass says, “grown-together.” Therefore, the mind working in, with, and through the brain exists and operates in a truly spiritual and transcendent way, allowing for world-access.

If the brain and the mind are "wedded together", and the mind is the soul, then absent the existence of the brain the "soul" also ceases to exist. The "hylomorphic position", at least in its original form, isn't what you describe here. Perhaps Aquinas added some modifications to it, but all of this discussion about spirituality is utterly irrelevant to it.

And just as hylomorphism maintains that persons are concretizations of matter and form grown together...

Yes, this is what hylomorphism means. Matter and form are both... can you guess? Material. Spirituality never comes into it. It is redundant. As a hypothesis, it isn't required, violates the principle of Ockham's (or "Occam's") Razor, and explains precisely nothing.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, man’s soul comprises all those powers proper to lower organisms, namely metabolism, sensation, and locomotion; however, a still higher power remains that is non-existent in all other soul-possessors—intellection. “We must conclude that the nutritive soul, the sensitive soul, and the intellectual soul are in man numerically one and the same."

The belief that life itself represents something inexplicable that cannot be accounted for via the usual method of enquiry (i.e. the scientific method), and that it is an example of something above and beyond the purely physical, may be an old idea (vitalism), but it is also an erroneous one. The characteristics mentioned within the quote above - i.e. metabolism, sensation and locomotion - can also be attributed to something that no sane person believes to be alive: fire. Fire, in order to exist, requires oxygen which it "metabolises", needs fuel (i.e. food - ex. wood, petrol) to grow, can move from place to place (locomotion), and will halt when it encounters a substance (ex. a body of water) that it cannot assimilate.

Therefore, according to Thomas, the substantial form of the human body is the intellective soul, which, in the larger context of this question, is interchangeable with mind.

So the soul is the mind then. Why not just use the word 'mind'?

It is by means of the intellective (or intellectual) soul/mind that man experiences an intellectual mode of existence in the world as an embodied creature, an existence entirely different than that experienced by plants, amoebas, frogs, or dogs.

How do you know that our existence is qualitatively different from that of the higher organisms (ex. dogs, dolphins, apes)? I get the very strong impression that the author of this article has never been a dog owner, for if he were he would understand that they are much smarter, and more aware of their surroundings, than many people realise. For example, the dog that we have can actually (and unlike most humans in these illiterate days) spell words. Using any tone of voice, or even no tone, the dog in question can fully comprehend not only the meaning of certain words (admittedly, mainly related to food), but when we began to adopt the practice of spelling out those words in order to discuss the items in question without getting the dog all excited about being fed, it didn't take long for him to comprehend that we were actually discussing the same thing that we had prior to this simply said. Now we have to write those items down on a piece of paper (he can't read - yet).

There is something it is like to be a knowing, human person, and this something is markedly different from what it is like to be a bat, for example.

Again, how do you know this?

Intellectual existence shapes every facet of our lives and inherently defines what it means to be human.

This is debatable. If intelligent aliens exist somewhere out in space, then this claim will be falsified the moment they are found. You're assuming that us humans are not only special, but special because there is no one else like us in this big, wide universe. This is extremely unlikely.

This intellectual soul permits us entrance into the sphere of truths where we can apprehend absolute principles and act as responsible agents. It also allows us to encounter a world not populated by brute particulars, but particulars of a universal kind. This allows us to know not simply that things are, but on an even deeper level, what things are. It gives us the ability to paint and build houses, to fall in love, and do science.

Ants can build houses. Chimps can make tools. Dolphins and whales can communicate. Life is a spectrum, a continuous whole that interacts at every conceivable level, the interconnections being beyond our puny ability as humans to unravel. Life on Earth could carry on if we were to disappear overnight: in fact, it would positively thrive. If, on the other hand, insects were to disappear, it would be catastrophic, and we would find ourselves in the midst of a mass extinction from which it would be difficult for life to recover. When, oh when, will people accept the fact that we are NOT the most important thing in the universe?

As we noted earlier, the middle path of hylomorphism must avoid the pitfalls of dualism and its twin, materialism...

Dualism is not the "twin" of materialism. Admittedly I am simply responding to the specific claims you are making here in this piece, and have not read (yet) any of the articles you link to, and it is possible you explain your position elsewhere, but honestly, I don't find any good reason to believe this particular claim of yours. The dualistic worldview recognises the reality of an alternative to the material realm, and argues that the material can, and does, coexist with what we would call the supernatural. The worldview of materialists, on the other hand, specifically rules out the possibility of there being more to reality than what we ourselves can actually account for via our five senses.

...and it must also account for world-access and presence. Where dualism wishes to assert the preeminence of mind/spirit/soul over and against the body and brain, hylomorphism adamantly maintains that they are not separable, except through the event of death.

Why the exception to the rule? What justifies it? If the mind and body are "not separable", then when the body dies so will the mind. Why do so many find it so hard to accept the finality of death? I just don't understand this irrational attitude to the most basic fact of everyday existence.

The body and the soul are “grown-together,”4 forming a concretized whole that has powers and capacities greater than the sum of its parts. While the substantial form of man, his soul, is the principle of actuality and thus possesses a type of freedom from the body as it persists through time, nevertheless the material component of man, his body, is an absolutely essential ingredient to the substance of man, for the very raison d’être of form is to inform some matter.

This is utterly incoherent. First of all, if it is indeed the case that the body and soul "grow together", then it goes without saying that our very existence, as both a soul and body, began when we were born (or shortly before it). That being the case, it cannot be claimed that we are eternal, or an aspect of God, as some do, and the reason why they do this has to do with the fact that nothing within nature can have a beginning in time but no ending (so much for the Christian concept of eternal life). You claim that there is a "principle of actuality" - whatever that is - that "persists through time" independently of the material aspect of man, but if so then you are a dualist, a position you also explicitly reject. If the "soul", for lack of a better term, indeed can exist independently of our material bodies, in any aspect whatsoever, then dualism is true.

Hey Man of the Hour,

I had an awesome teacher who was an idealist (of the Socratic-Platonic variety), but I've never been a fan of idealism or monism as I have never found it ultimately coherent when you follow it to its logical conclusions.

Above:

I think that a world outside of experience is a ludicrous idea, that needs to be abandoned to make genuine scientific progress into studies of mental and physical phenomena.

The biggest issue, I believe, with a philosophy that focuses solely on the subjective mind (like most types of idealism) is that it renders interpersonal experience and communication incoherent and unexplainable. Experience between more than 1 subjective person requires that there is a shared reality independent of our mind in some way. If all we have access to is our own personal subjective view of reality, then coherent interpersonal language/communication is impossible.

You want to hold idealism/monism so as to uphold "genuine scientific progress", but a true idealism or monism destroys the ability to do science in the first place. To do genuine science, one must assume that something outside of our own personal subjective experience actually exists to be understood. Idealism and monism state that this doesn't exist.

The only next logical, and radical, step I've seen taken is to hold solipsism--that even other people have their source in one's own mind. Which in that case everything is destroyed and you are talking to yourself right now!