Adrián Solís
Universitat de Barcelona, LOGOS, BIAP
Contemporary hylomorphism is usually applied to material objects, considering they are compounds of two different entities: form and matter. Nonetheless, some contemporary hylomorphists consider their doctrine could be extended to actions (Evnine (2016) and Fine (1982; 2023)) they consider the actions are a sort of events that are hylomorphically structured; when an agent intentionally does X by Y-ing, the Y-ing’s action constitute the X’s action. They consider actions as being in a constitution relation, when an agent intentionally raises her arm, that action is constituted by the bodily movement –that makes the role of matter– and the intentionality of the agent of raising her arm –that makes the role of form– that determines the identity of the action. However, they are focused only on positive actions such as raising my arm. I aim to expand this Action-Hylomorphism to the case of negative actions as omissions. First, I will introduce a similar and competitive view: the Standard Constitutive View of Omissions (SCVO) (Palmer 2020). Next, I will explain three different criticisms tot SCVO, two did it by Payton (2022) –focused on (i) the ontological category of omissions and (ii) the problematic case of omissions through time – and a new one proposed by me (iii) based on the unresolved Grounding Problem of collocated actions. In the last part, I will explain what the Action-Hylomorphism of Evnine (2016) and Fine (1982; 2023) is, and I will make the expansion to the case of negative actions as omission – the Hylomorphic Constitutive Omissions (HCO) –, and to conclude I will show why the HCO is a better constitution view of omission in virtue of resolving the three previous problems – (i)-(iii).
References
Evnine, S. (2016). Making Objects and Events: A Hylomorphic Theory of Artifacts, Actions, and Organisms, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fine, K. (1982). “Acts, Events and Things.” Language and Ontology. Proceedings of the 6th International Wittgenstein Symposium (Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky), 97–105.
– (2023). “Acts and Embodiment”, Metaphysics 5(1): 14-28.
Palmer, D. (2020). “Omissions: The Constitution View Defended”, Erkenntnis 85: 739-756.
Payton, J. (2022). “Two Problems for the Constitution View of Omissions: A Reply to Palmer”, Erkenntnis 87: 1447-1455.
Chair: Elena Garadja
Time: September 6th, 15:20-15:50
Location: HS E.002
SOPhiA 2026 