[lit-ideas] Hylomorphism -- A Dogma?
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:03:28 EDT
In "Form in literature"
Eric Yost writes -- in the course of the dialogue with M. Chase on the
balancing form/content in literature and art:
To render form and content as x and y is to posit discrete entities that can
be separated, or exist separately and can be combined, as is the case with
oil
and vinegar in salad dressing.
----
Problem with 'form' is that it is one of the most elusive concepts in
aesthetics (and theory of literature). Consider Hosper's passage below where he
considers how a piece of reasoning can be vitiated by the arguer _equivocating_
on the 'sense' of "form".
Of course, being a monoguist (at heart), I don't think (as Hospers) does,
that 'form' has different _senses_; 'uses' at most -- and it's up to each
discourser to make it more or less explicit which one she means...
I think the philosophical distinction here is Aristotelian, hylomorphistic
(hylemorphistic), and the _dogma_ (shall we say) that there is a thing as
matter and a different thing as _form_. The Platonic amongst us would oppose
that...
Cheers,
JL
Hospers writes:
"Consider, for example, the term 'form'. people say, "I don't care about the
form, I only care about what it says," "if the subject-matter of a poem is
not what makes it a good poem, it must be the form," and so on. But the term
'form' is an elusive one. Sometimes by 'form' we mean shape: we say tht two
pennies have the same form although they have different 'matter'. Sometimes we
mean a species or class: thus, we speak of two compositions as both being of
the sonata _form_. Sometimes we have reference to a mode of arrangement of
things as opposed to the things that are so arranged: thus, three rhyming
lines
of poetry could be put in the orders AB, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, or CBA, though
the lines thus ordered are the same in each case. Sometimes we refer to the
'how' as opposed to the 'what': we take the underlying idea or theme of a work
of art to be the content (the what), and the way in which it is expressed by
the artist (the how) is called the form. Here is an example of how confusions
can arise: a person is convinced that it is not the theme which an artist
selects for treatment, but rather how he treats this theme, that determines
the
merit of a work of art: the how and not the what, the form and not the
matter. He then feels himself committed to the view that only the form (in
_another_ *sense* of the word, though he is unaware of this) of a work of art
is
important (primarily the arragement of its lines and colors) and that the
other
elements such as we have called the 'associative' are of no relevance at all.
This conclusion, of course, is unwarranted: the mood the artist has created
in his painting are just as much to do with his treatment of the theme as
does the formal arrangement of its elements. But, through confusion in the
*viciously ambiguous term 'form'*, he may not know this.", John Hospers,
'Problems
of art', in _Philosophical Analysis_, p. 121
OED quotes for hylomorphism:
1881 Dublin Rev. Ser. III. V. 236
He..establishes the hylomorphical system held by St. Thomas.
1888 J MARTINEAU Study Relig. I. II. i. 324
No hylomorphic doctrine can raise its head against the decree of Kant. Ibid.
337
To mark the differentia of these three theories we may call them
respectively Anthropomorphism, Biomorphism, and Hylomorphism.
1897 Month Sept. 332 The scholastic doctrine of hylomorphism.
1888 J. MARTINEAU Study Relig. II. III. i. 142
â??Matterâ??, construed by the hylomorphists, declares itself competent to
all.
1895 F. HALL Two Trifles 27
Solidiform spirits, whether hylomorphous or otherwise, are an object of
rational curiosity.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
