On Hylemorphism and Personal Identity

Abstract

There is no such thing as 'the' hylemorphic account of personal identity. There are several views that count as hylemorphic, and these views can be grouped into two main familiesthe corruptionist view, and the survivalist view. The differentiating factor is that the corruptionist view holds that the persistence of the soul is not sufficient for the persistence of the person, while the survivalist view holds that the persistence of the soul is sufficient for the persistence of the person. In this paper, I argue that hylemorphists should prefer the corruptionist view. This project ought to be of interest to anyone working on issues of personal identity, not only because hylemorphic views are historically important, but also because they are currently receiving significant attention in the personal identity literature.Hylemorphism-roughly, the view that material substances are composites of form and matter-is starting to get some serious attention. 1 As the recent literature makes clear, there are a number of quite different philosophical views that can sensibly be called 'hylemorphic'. In this paper, I will narrow the term in two ways. First, I will be speaking of hylemorphism only as it applies to human beings, not as a general theory of material objects. Hylemorphism as an anthropological position, like the more general ontological theory into which it fits, has received significant consideration recently. 2 But in anthropology as in ontology generally, there are various ways to be a hylemorphist. So the second way in which I focus my discussion here is by considering only those views that are influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas. When I use the term 'hylemorphism', then, it must be understood as so limited.Hylemorphists believe that human beings are composites of body and soul. 3 It is widely thought that hylemorphism also entails that once the body and soul separate at death, the human being they once composed no longer exists. The latter claim, however, has recently come under withering fire. Several philosophers argue that St. Thomas himself believed that human beings continue to exist after their deaths. 4 Alternatively, it has been argued that although St. Thomas himself denied that human beings exist after their deaths, contemporary hylemorphists should not follow him on that point. 5 There are a number of ways to explain the mechanism by which we supposedly survive our death. Eleonore Stump, for example, argues that living human beings are constituted by both body and soul, while human beings after

St. Thomas Aquinas on Death and the Separated Soul

“…I cannot treat all of their arguments here. 2 But if my arguments here are correct, then one can conclude either that St. Thomas was hopelessly muddled on the issue -holding both the view that I attribute to him, and the alternative -or, much more likely, that there must be something wrong with arguments in favor of this alternative, which I will call the 'survivalist view. '…”

“…He makes a two-fold division in the sense of the term 'body.' It either (1) signifies under the genus of substance or (2) under the genus of quantity. Sense (2) is irrelevant to us.…”

Survivalism, Corruptionism, and Mereology

“…'] 30 Toner (2009b): 458. 31 He also makes a third in a note: Toner (2009b): 470, n.21. It is that even if we allow that a whole could be composed of a single part with which it was not numerically we find it so obvious that a whole composed of just one element must be the same kind of thing as the element is that we find it obvious that a whole composed of just one part is identical with that part' .…”

“…A defensive reading of Aquinas that is both plausible and allows space for a view of mereology consistent with survivalism is all that the survivalist should ask from the Angelic Doctor. 34 33 Toner (2009b): 458-9. 34 I also would like to note the following interesting passage, brought to my attention by Gyula Klima.…”

“…Corruptionists make a very strong case that Aquinas believed as they do, but my view is that although a compelling case for Aquinas's survivalism is hard to make, he can and should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with survivalism. 3 Another is whether corruptionism is as 1 See Toner 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2012. brown 2005 coined the term 'corruptionist' .…”