What do you think?
Rate this book
Material Objects in Confucian and Aristotelian Metaphysics: The Inevitability of Hylomorphism
Hylomorphism is a metaphysical theory that explains the unity of material objects through a special immaterial part, a 'form'. While contemporary accounts of hylomorphism appeal to structure, and advocate that material substances can have other substances as parts, James Dominic Rooney highlights the flaws in this Neo-Aristotelian way of thinking. Instead, he draws on medieval European and Chinese traditions to put forward that the classical approach to the unity of material objects in terms of 'form' remains theoretically superior.
Rooney shows how Thomas Aquinas' account of form gives a more coherent version of hylomorphism, eliminating the need for substance parts. He also studies the Song dynasty Confucian thinker Zhu Xi's hylomorphic intuition that whatever accounts for the composition of some parts into a material whole is a metaphysical part of that object. By appealing to the same non-Aristotelian considerations as Zhu Xi, Rooney explains why all those who believe in the unity of material objects will appeal to a form, enabling hylomorphism to remain a plausible framework. In doing so, this book shines new light on a classic philosophical problem in contemporary metaphysics and demonstrates the far-reaching points of theoretical contact between Western and Confucian thought.
Rooney shows how Thomas Aquinas' account of form gives a more coherent version of hylomorphism, eliminating the need for substance parts. He also studies the Song dynasty Confucian thinker Zhu Xi's hylomorphic intuition that whatever accounts for the composition of some parts into a material whole is a metaphysical part of that object. By appealing to the same non-Aristotelian considerations as Zhu Xi, Rooney explains why all those who believe in the unity of material objects will appeal to a form, enabling hylomorphism to remain a plausible framework. In doing so, this book shines new light on a classic philosophical problem in contemporary metaphysics and demonstrates the far-reaching points of theoretical contact between Western and Confucian thought.
- GenresPhilosophy
218 pages, Hardcover
Published April 21, 2022
1 person is currently reading
29 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 11, 2024
This book is so chaotic that I don't even know where to begin, but a good place to start is a caveat that the title and the cover picture are somewhat misleading since this book is not really a comparative analysis of Confucian and Aristotelian metaphysics. Rather, it mainly addresses van Inwagen's Special Composition Question (SCQ) in contemporary mereology, and the central thesis is that 'hylomorphism is the necessary framework for constructing any consistent, restrictive theory of material composition' (p. 5).
Although the overall structure makes sense, in each section there are so many tangents and random thoughts roaming around that the work as a whole resembles a child's room after a so-called tidying - things are not in fact where they are supposed to be, but simply shovelled under the bed to give the appearance of order. The poor structure thus makes reading this book a particularly tedious process.
Further, the whole section on Confucian metaphysics and the lengthy discussion around the correct exegesis of 朱熹's works seem superfluous. The main thesis could have been proven without invoking 朱熹 at all - most of the book have nothing to do with him anyway. But now he is cited, Fr. Rooney's book then appears too short and narrow to do justice to the vast scholarship in ancient Asian philosophy. Where's 王陽明？Where's 船山？Where are other branches of Buddhist philosophy？Signing up to unnecessary works without finishing them is never a good strategy.
Despite everything I've written above, the things Fr. Rooney has achieved, namely, showing the necessity of hylomorphism in solving SCQ, may prove significant. But for it to come to fruition, it seems that this book must become influential first. And before this can happen, much structural tidying-up remains to be done.
Although the overall structure makes sense, in each section there are so many tangents and random thoughts roaming around that the work as a whole resembles a child's room after a so-called tidying - things are not in fact where they are supposed to be, but simply shovelled under the bed to give the appearance of order. The poor structure thus makes reading this book a particularly tedious process.
Further, the whole section on Confucian metaphysics and the lengthy discussion around the correct exegesis of 朱熹's works seem superfluous. The main thesis could have been proven without invoking 朱熹 at all - most of the book have nothing to do with him anyway. But now he is cited, Fr. Rooney's book then appears too short and narrow to do justice to the vast scholarship in ancient Asian philosophy. Where's 王陽明？Where's 船山？Where are other branches of Buddhist philosophy？Signing up to unnecessary works without finishing them is never a good strategy.
Despite everything I've written above, the things Fr. Rooney has achieved, namely, showing the necessity of hylomorphism in solving SCQ, may prove significant. But for it to come to fruition, it seems that this book must become influential first. And before this can happen, much structural tidying-up remains to be done.
Displaying 1 of 1 review