Great reads! I like your way of thinking about classical elements vs modern. I do wonder how necessary it is for Aristotelianism that we even have “elements”? As long as we have form, matter, & essences that is probably enough?
I have a kindergarten-level understanding of this, although in my vocabulary, instead of using the (scientific) word 'bond', I tend to settle for the (metaphysical) term 'subsumed'. As in... when a seed falls to the ground and dies, it is subsumed into a plant. When, in turn, the plant is eaten by an animal or mammal, it is subsumed into the animal/mammal. When the animal/mammal is consumed by a human, it is subsumed into the human. Finally, when a human receives the Eucharist, he/she is subsumed into Christ. It's my simple, mostly observable, literal mode of understanding how "all things have come from God, and all things are inexorably returning to Him...."
Great reads! I like your way of thinking about classical elements vs modern. I do wonder how necessary it is for Aristotelianism that we even have “elements”? As long as we have form, matter, & essences that is probably enough?
I have a kindergarten-level understanding of this, although in my vocabulary, instead of using the (scientific) word 'bond', I tend to settle for the (metaphysical) term 'subsumed'. As in... when a seed falls to the ground and dies, it is subsumed into a plant. When, in turn, the plant is eaten by an animal or mammal, it is subsumed into the animal/mammal. When the animal/mammal is consumed by a human, it is subsumed into the human. Finally, when a human receives the Eucharist, he/she is subsumed into Christ. It's my simple, mostly observable, literal mode of understanding how "all things have come from God, and all things are inexorably returning to Him...."