Synthese 198 (Suppl 11):2691-2716 (2019)

Jeremy Skrzypek
University of Mary
Many contemporary proponents of hylomorphism endorse a version of hylomorphism according to which the form of a material object is a certain kind of complex relation or structure. Structural approaches to form, however, seem not to capture form’s traditional role as the guarantor of diachronic identity, since more “dynamically complex” material objects, such as living organisms, seem to undergo, and survive, various structural changes over the course of their existence. As a result, some contemporary hylomorphists have looked to alternative, non-structural approaches to form. One of the leading non-structural approaches is the powers approach, according to which the form of a material object is a certain kind of power continuously activated in the object or in its material parts. In this paper, I begin by offering an overview and assessment of this powers approach to form. I argue that while the powers approach captures some crucial elements for understanding the nature of more dynamically complex material objects, when we press on the details of the view we find that it actually points to a related, but importantly distinct, third approach to understanding form, according to which the form of a material object is a certain kind of activity or process in which the material object or its parts are continuously engaged. I call this third approach “Hyloenergeism”. In the second half of the paper, I consider what such a view of material objects might look like and what its principal virtues might be.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-019-02089-w
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,178
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Material Beings.Peter Van Inwagen - 1990 - Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Action, Emotion And Will.A. Kenny - 1963 - Ny: Humanities Press.
The Structure of Objects.Kathrin Koslicki - 2008 - Oxford University Press.
Real Essentialism.David Oderberg - 2007 - New York: Routledge.

View all 69 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Hylomorphism and Complex Properties.Graham Renz - 2020 - Metaphysica 21 (2):179-197.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On Some Ontological and Linguistic Aspects of the Matter-Form Distinction.Michael Joseph Kowalewski - 1985 - Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
A Paradox of Matter and Form.Maegan Fairchild - 2017 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):33-42.
Form, Matter, Substance.Kathrin Koslicki - 2018 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hylomorphism: A Critical Analysis.Antonella Corradini - 2019 - Acta Analytica 34 (3):345-361.
Qualitative Unity and the Bundle Theory.David Robb - 2005 - The Monist 88 (4):466-92.
On the Sensible Epistemology of Scholasticism.Cheng-ta Lee - 2004 - Philosophy and Culture 31 (7):19-36.
The Hard Question for Hylomorphism.Dana Goswick - 2018 - Metaphysics 1 (1):52-62.
The Place of Things in Contemporary History.Tim Cole - 2013 - In Paul Graves-Brown, Rodney Harrison & Angela Piccini (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World. Oxford University Press. pp. 66.


Added to PP index

Total views
37 ( #293,932 of 2,455,093 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #225,792 of 2,455,093 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes