Jaron Neufeld

Terence Nichols recently pointed to three examples from modern science that seem to refute Aquinas’ doctrine of the unicity of substantial form: water in man, organ transplants, and the genetic material received from one’s parents. These examples are intended to demonstrate the quasi-independent existence of parts from the substantial form of the whole. Nichols proposes modifying Aquinas’s hylomorphism by adding a third category of form, which can be called subsidiary forms, subsidiary wholes, or holons. In simpler terms, a holon is a semi-autonomous whole within a larger whole. Nichols’ overall argument suggests that we revise Thomistic metaphysics to account for these scientific findings. I argue that Nichols’ suggestion is unwarranted for two reasons. First, Aquinas argues that holons are a logical impossibility within his metaphysical framework. Second, while Nichols rejects the virtual presence of forms, this does not demonstrate a failure of the Thomistic account of substances within larger wholes.