António de Castro Caeiro

This seemingly simple question, "What is hylomorphism?", is not so straightforward to answer. We shall attempt to address this question by presenting and interpreting "On The History of Hylomorphism". We shall, therefore, examine closely the link between matter and form, body and soul, primarily in Aristotle's work. We then move on to Descartes, who goes to the extreme of radically separating soul (form) from body (matter). I shall read David Charles's detailed and insightful introduction, as well as Lilli Alanen's chapter on Descartes. We shall consider Descartes' perception of a burning wax candle. Subsequently, I shall venture a glimpse into the future of the narrative. We shall examine Kant's plate circularity and geometric circles in the "Doctrine of Schematism" (resembling David Charles's Sigma-Structure) and attempt to engage with the phenomenological stance, analysing Husserl's "brown bottle of beer", where the morphē-hylē relationship undergoes a transformation in his analyses of time consciousness.

In his lectures on the philosophy of nature, Maurice Merleau-Ponty interprets Jakob von Uexküll’s notion of Umwelt as akin to a melody. This essay outlines von Uexküll’s perspective on the feasibility of translating non-acoustic elements (optical: colours, shapes, and figures; haptic: tactile textures, flavours, tastes, and scents) into sounds or musical notes to compose a melody. It poses several inquiries: Does the link between melody and nature render natural entities as musical notes? Do the components of an entity constitute anatomical notes in the melody that defines the entity itself? Is it conceivable to distil every moment in life into a “note” symbol on a musical scale, characterised by specific duration, pitch, and volume? Melody, rhythm, and harmony are considered sophisticated “structures” that articulate and convey the essence of nature’s existence. Moreover, every human, every living creature, be it animal or plant, possesses a subjective “biological” interiority. The inner realm of each living subject, along with the objects in the external world, are enveloped within an atmosphere—a musical Umwelt. Humans exist within this musical milieu or atmosphere.

This paper is conceived in the footsteps of The Undivided Self: Aristotle and the ‘Mind-Body Problem’ by David Charles, OUP 2021. It examines the intricate relationship between mind and body through the lens of Aristotle’s ‘Snubness-structure’ (‘S-structure’) according to David Charles’s interpretation in The Undivided Self. I explore how this conceptual framework, exemplified by the distinction between nasal concavity and geometric concavity, provides a comprehensive approach to understanding the inseparability of form and matter in natural phenomena. The study extends this analysis to various psychological faculties, including perception (aisthēsis), desire (epithymia), thought (nous) and emotions (pathē). By investigating the application of the S-structure across these domains, I aim to elucidate Aristotle’s nuanced view of the mind-body relationship, challenging both reductionist and dualist interpretations. This research contributes to ongoing debates in philosophy of mind, offering insights into how ancient philosophical concepts can inform contemporary discussions on the nature of consciousness and embodied cognition.

Aristotle’s analysis of action as choice is discussed in this chapter. Choice implies the correct assessment of one’s own situation and of the means (deliberation). We are what we choose: to choose is to act. To know and to think are intentional and practical oriented. The ultimate end is the object of truth and a lifelong project in the light of which the choice is made. Choices have consequences for ourselves. Even if we do nothing about it. Most of the time we act in the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The truth of acting lies beyond and out of reach of these immediate indications. How can we become transparent about what is going on in our lives? How can we refrain from pleasing and welcome pain? Struggling for truth means: “opening up” to what is good and bad for us and acting accordingly.

Heidegger tries to explain our emotional life applying three schemes: causal explanation, mental internalisation of emotions and metaphorical expression. None of the three schemes explains emotion though. Either because the causal nexus does not always occur or because objects and people in the external world are carriers of emotional agents or because language is already on a metaphorical level. Moreover, how is it possible that there are presently emotions constituting our life without our being aware of their existence? From the analysis of boredom in its three varieties (“bored by X”, “get oneself bored”, and “it is boring”) we will get to the depth where emotions lie, trying to rouse them and to keep them awake. Although it surfaces with the force and energy of the present, every emotion has its past and future constitution. How can we understand the future of a present emotion along with its past?