I have a question regarding a property of artifacts.
I was pondering this evening about one of the artifacts touched on in Physics II.1, vis. Antiphon's bed. While it is obviously true to say that it has its form qua artifact extrinsically, that is, from the artist, could it also further be said that if there was no one to use a bed, it would merely be shaped wood? In what way does the artificial form exist if the intention of the artist/users of the artifact is lost or absent? I am inclined to say the artificial form no longer exist, or only in a sort of potency, as 'shaped wood.' But I am not sure. How are we to name the 'bed' shape of the bed apart from the artist intention?
Labels: Aristotle, physics, quodlibetal question
7 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I am convinced that the formal cause of the articfact as artifact, lies in the mind of the user of the artifact, if not wholly, then at least predominantly. These reason I make this qualification is that the object must have some proportionality to form imposed by the user, i.e. something that might work well as a bed would act poorly as a toothpick. This proportionality lies mainly on the part of the matter, (as Aristotle says the matter must be proportioned to the form) but, one can deny that the artifact does have some form inherent to it.
Such are my thoughts.
Let us take as an example some clay and a potter. Now the clay, as matter towards some artifact is proportional to being shaped in any way whatsoever. However, the pitcher does not exist until the clay is properly shaped and fired. The imposition of the artistic form upon the matter properly disposed results in the artifact, in this case, the pitcher.
Now if the pitcher was never 'used' to hold and pour fluid, but rather placed on a shelf, it is still called a pitcher in virtue of the artistic form imposed. I offer as the reason for this being that it is specifically the artifact which can hold and pour fluid. And when we speak of the one in use and the one on the shelf, using the same name, we are not speaking equivocally. Since the form looks to the end, it seems that one can properly and univocally name the artifact in virtue of its artistic form whether it be in use or not.
Finally, with respect to the example of the felled log which someone might sleep on, I don't know of anyone who would honestly call the naturally fallen log a bed in the univocal sense. Rather, it seems like one might speak about lieing on a log, reclining on a log, napping on a tree, etc. Nobody ever says that they went to bed. This I attribute to the absence of the artistic form.
(ST,I.I. Q.16, a.1)
That is to say that an artifact is what it is, that is the form of the artifact depends on the understanding of the artist essentially, and upon anyone else accidentally. My using the thing with the same intention as the artist only coincides with the causative power of the that prime agent. If I use the hammer as a shovel, I am merely imposing some new form on the thing, and to this extent I am acting, however poorly, as an artist. However, if the object in question is a mere stone, and I call it a shovel and Socrates calls it a hammer. This does not entail any material change on the part of the stone in anyway.
Therefore, we can see in more complex cases that no matter how fine or sophisticated the art, it comes down to some form being imposed on some natural material by an artist, and no matter how much effort he puts in to sculpting a marble statuette. If some buffoon uses it to put nails in the wall, it has become a hammer, despite all one's protestations. This is precisely because insofar as it has the form of hammer it essentially relies on the intellect of the buffoon, our present artist, and only accidentally on anyone else, as was said.
NI, I disagree also with your last comment about the log, but I wish to avoid semantics. I will only briefly point out a famous adage to cement my point. "One man's trash is another man's treasure." The same thing under two distinct rationes. So also, what to you is merely a log in the woods, can be to another a bed or even a house. Crazier things have happened.