Plato#
Revised
12 Apr 2023
Notes#
Plato
dualism of what changes and what stays the same
distillation of his predecessors
epistemic distinction, dualism: mind grasping forms vs body perceiving changeable things
Plato is critical and self-aware of this epistemic dualism
natural science is unstable, unreliable due to the distinction between mind/knowing and body/sensing
relation to things in the world via trust
Timaeus
our understanding of the natural world are limited
structures in the world that are mathematically analyzable
the elements have a geometric structure
unintelligible, underlying chora vs rational, intelligible structure of the elements
for Heisenberg, these views are in Plato’s physics
the belief of the atomists that matter is composed of very small particles
the belief of the Pythagoreans in the mathematical structure of the universe
20th century
positivism
anti teleologicism
for Abel Rey
Plato’s dialectic is the basis of natural science
Plato’s physics is mythico-mathematical: la grande mathématisation du concret et du sensible in cosmology and the physics of the elements
for Whitehead
Plato’s Timaeus and Newton’s Scholium are the two great cosmological documents governing western thought
example in Plato
the appetitive/digestive parts of the body/soul are stationed below the diaphragm in order to be as remote as possible from the seat of counsel; the length/windings of the intestinal canal were provided by the makers of mankind in order to lessen our appetites for food and drink and incline us to philosophy
Plato’s objectives
true teleology
mockery of the kind of teleology that reduces nature to human measure
moral imperative, clothed with the irony of myth in teleological language
Why when speaking on nature does Timaeus the Pythagorean tell Socrates a myth? Why does the Timaeus have the form not of scientific treatise but of myth?
a botanist delights in the beauty of flowers, but their delight has nothing to do with their scientific search; for Plato, there is no such distinction
for Plato, the cosmos as the object of his scientific inquiry was also the object of his aesthetic admiration and religious awe
the cosmos is a perceptible god, supreme in beauty/excellence/greatness/perfection
Plato’s epistemology, ontology
we cannot speak with exactness about the world of change, but only about the world of being (mathematics and the forms)
wrt becoming (the world of change), we can only give “likely accounts”
How is it possible that we are able to construct in concepts [εν λογοις] becoming (the world of change)?
if the world of change were nothing but change, we could not speak about it; it would have complete instability
the world of change is not nothing but change; it has a great deal of stability; we can speak about it
nature is constituted of two blended principles
NOUS mind, accounting for law, order, stability, that which makes sense
ANANKE necessity, blind force, the futile folly of the infinite
both are causes, though mind prevails over necessity
we could not live if order did not get the better of brute force
human life must turn to nature as its model
Plato’s cosmology is not simply Pythagorean
the Timaeus must be understood as concentrating the whole of pre Platonic thought, and a struggle against each one of them
Anaximander
Pythagoras
Empedocles
Anaxagoras
Leucippus
Democritus
Plato blends their fundamental views into his own cosmological myth and outdistances each of their particular systems
Matter
Whitehead: “The history of the doctrine of matter has yet to be written. It is the history of the influence of Greek philosophy on science.”
non technical “wood, timber”; for Aristotle, technical: that from which bodies are formed, upon which form is imprinted
Plato originated the concept
Plutarch: They are correct who say that Plato discovered the elementary principle underlying qualitative process, that which is now called ‘matter’ or ‘substance’ [ο νυν υλην και φυσιν καλουσιν] and thus freed the philosophers of many diffculties.
Aristotle’s “wood” corresponds to–though not the same as–Plato’s “receptacle of all becoming [δεξαμενη, υποδοχη] shaken and shaking like an instrument producing shocks”
“space” [χωρα]: not empty space or space “more geometrico”, but space in which something is going on
Plato’s metaphor, poetic imagery VS Aristotle’s rather rational metaphor
a lumpish something on which and in which impressions are molded [εκμαγειον]
nurse of all becoming
that nature which receives all bodies
to be compared to a mother
the all-embracing, all-producing, all-receiving is inscrutable
shapeless
apprehended only by a sort of bastard reasoning [λογισμω τινι νοθω]
partaking of the intelligible in an extremely bewildering way [μεταλαμβανον απορωτατα τη του νοητου]
something we look upon as in a dream
graspable only in its suchnesses or qualities, as when it becomes stone or air or cloud
the third in addition to being and becoming
Plato continues the hylozoistic line of the Greek cosmologists, but more radical
the air or water of the Milesians
Anaxagoras’ initial mixture of infinitesimals
Anaximander’s Infinite-Indeterminate
Plato’s principle is something like “space” and something like “stuff”
filled with powers unevenly balanced [δια το μητε ομοιων δυναμεων μητε ισορροπων εμπιμπλασθαι]
affordances, Aristotle’s
What is it that material adds to our account of the cosmos?
Material is needed to impose, impress form onto it.
Thales and Anaximander, there’s a kind of plasticity to things in the world
something that genuinely underlies all form, the xora
matter depends on the ability to fabricate things
john sallis of the chora
the chora has non rational effects, affects?
sallis
the chora shows up by withdrawing from intelligibility
that is just what nature is
R J Collingwood
matter is passive, energy comes externally
motion is applied to it, there is no source of motion within matter
Newton, it carries on (in a straight line)
Plato
material has energy in it
contemporary
empty space is not empty, bubbling with energy
matter has a source of energy in it
geometrical account of the elements
underneath the elements, there is the indeterminateness of the chora
plato uses perception to describe the elements
fundamental inteligibility of the world is not continuous with our lived experience
BEING: always (is), never (comes to be); always in the same condition
grasped by intellection + rational account
BECOMING: always (comes to be), never (is); not always in the same condition
opined by opinion + irrational sensation
CAUSE: to come-to-be is to come-to-be by means of a cause; without causation, there is no becoming
the demiurge continues to look to the form and power of being as a model to craft a beautiful becoming
the all; heaven; the cosmos
intelligible nature
how is nature structured according to what is best, good, knowable
how it is that the world of becoming is not quite the same as the model
the intelligible model that the demiurge looks at is not the same as the world that the demiurge makes
something about the world that makes it different from the model
how does the world fall short of the perfect model
why is it that physics is not an exact science, why is it an approximate science
physics, knowing something that is different than the perfectly knowable
why is the world not quite perfectly intelligible?
are we the same as the world?
radical assumption that goes all the way down: we are not the same as the world
how do we end up with the assumption that we are brain in the vats
separateness from the world is motivated by a positive desire to be special
separating the world from the intelligible in plato, and we incline toward the intelligible
descartes, bacon, etc.
the world is a system of forces, mechanical relations
the world is governed by laws of force
descartes posits mind as something separate, leibniz’ mechanical description of the mind
mechanism reduces the world, living things, bodies to mere mechanical relations, parts outside of parts, the parts are indifferent to each other
there is a tension between the natural world as mere mechanism and the mind, consciousness, understanding, meaning, freedom
started by degrading nature
cosmos and the body were constructed through
intellect of the demiurge ruled, persuaded, forced body to take on these structures
there is a kind of force involved in material being
why does material require violence? it must be different than the intelligence
we have to approach the world from the point of view of the difference
what is the wandering cause? what’s the reason for the planets’ retrograde motion?
the combination of materials of sameness and difference prior to putting soul into it
second discourse, timaeus starts with an account of materiality
two bases for understanding the world
intelligibility, mathematics, harmonic composition, soul, intelligibility of becoming
necessity, materiality, material processes, classical mechanics
necessity is not the same as order
necessity is behind what is random, what wanders; necessity depends on random cause, variation
randomness is what intrudes on a goal; random does not mean uncaused
material helps set things in motion; the material world is in part what moves things
classical mechanical view: things don’t move themselves, force gets applied externally to move things
how is it that things that are made of elements
how can elements be combined to make something that is greater than the original parts
fundamental question of materiality in general: how is it possible from wholes to emerge from underlying parts
the reductivist view of humans is that we are electrochemical interactions, love isn’t real
continuous cycling of the elements
apophatic
Democritus’ void vs Timaeus’ receptacle
the capacity to become different things
a gap between the thingliness of something and the underlying capacity to be that thing
receptacle, [χορα] open land, countryside (translated as space, spaciousness)
but featureless
the perfect material is going to be like this
primary feature is that it is featureless
parmenides, non being
we know xora, the receptacle, through a sort of reasoning
trying to give an account of how the world is ordered, but there are gaps; there must be something responsible for them; i’m precisely not thinking about what is intelligible
why is materiality required, why do we have to have a principle of
the concept of a maker, the stuff that they use to make stuff with
the demiurge requires the
the platonic ideal of what
without the builder, you don’t need the concept of stuff
the unintelligibility of shear materiality exists because of the framework of the builder
the structure of materiality, the structure of the cosmos
what are the basic assumptions
the demiurge
the pure stuffness of things has an influence on things
how is it that the xora is a source of motion
has a chaotic causal power
the all
in what way was it born; whether it was without birth
[27D]
What is it that always is and has no becoming; and what is it that comes to be and never is?
Now the one is grasped by intellection accompanied by a rational account, since it’s always in the same condition; but the other in its turn is opined by opinion accompanied by irrational sensation, since it comes to be and perishes and never genuinely is.
Again, everything that comes to be NECESSARILY comes to be by some cause; for apart from cause, it’s impossible for anything to have a coming to be.
Now so long as the craftsman continues to look to [what is in a self-same condition], using some such thing as a model, and reproduces its look and power, then NECESSARILY everything [brought to a finish] [in this way] is beautiful; but if he should look to what has come to be, using a begotten model, the thing isn’t beautiful.
wrt ουρανος/κοσμος/το παν
it is BECOMING, bc it is of opinion + sensation
it is caused by the craftsman who modeled it on BEING, bc ουρανος/κοσμος/το παν is the most beautiful
[29B]
It is necessary [αναγκη] that κοσμος be a likeness [εικων] of something
[29C]
Timaeus’ proportion: The very thing that Being is to Becoming, truth is to trust
[29E]
Through what cause δημιουργος crafted γενεσις/ουρανος/κοσμος/το παν ?
δημιουργος is good and without ill will [αφθονως]: δημιουργος willed that all things should come to resemble himself as much as possible
the most authoritative principle of γενεσις/ουρανος/κοσμος/το παν
δημιουργος desired goodness to the best of his ability, δημιουργος took up “all that which is sensible”
without his intervention, “the sensible” moved out of tune, without order
δημιουργος in all ways regards order as better than disorder
it is not permitted for δημιουργος to do anything except that which is most beautiful
after some calculations, δημιουργος determines that that which has intellect is more beautiful than anything without intellect
δημιουργος determines that it’s impossible for intellect apart from soul to become
δημιουργος constructs intellect within soul, soul within body
cosmos is born as living, where intellect is in soul and soul is in body
[48A]
The cosmos comes to be when necessity yields to thoughtful persuasion
[51B]
Timaeus asks, are there purely eidetic counterparts for the four elements of body?
[52B]
Third Kind, χωρα
always in motion (not a place)
full of powers, the four elements (not empty space)
indeterminate
indigenous account of goodness: the land shapes the people, makes for better political structures, better people
PRE SOCRATICS
there is a plasticity to things in the world for Thales, Anaximander
Plato continues the hylozoistic line of the Greek cosmologists, but more radical
the air or water of the Milesians
Anaxagoras’ initial mixture of infinitesimals
Anaximander’s Infinite-Indeterminate
PLATO
Plato and Timaeus
epistemic distinction, dualism: mind grasping the unchanging forms and body,sensation perceiving changeable things; Plato is critical and self-aware of this epistemic dualism
natural science is unstable, unreliable due to the distinction between mind/knowing and body/sensing
our relation to things in the world via trust: Timaeus’ proportion: The very thing that Being is to Becoming, truth is to trust
our understanding of the natural world is limited: we cannot speak with exactness about the world of change, but only about the world of being (mathematics and the forms); wrt becoming (the world of change), we can only give “likely accounts”
there are structures in the world that are mathematically analyzable
the elements have a geometric structure
dual-channel access to the world
unintelligible, underlying chora vs rational, intelligible structure of the elements
Now the one is grasped by intellection accompanied by a rational account, since it’s always in the same condition; but the other in its turn is opined by opinion accompanied by irrational sensation, since it comes to be and perishes and never genuinely is.
wrt ουρανος/κοσμος/το παν
it is BECOMING, bc it is of opinion + sensation
it is caused by the craftsman who modeled it on BEING, bc ουρανος/κοσμος/το παν is the most beautiful
It is necessary [αναγκη] that κοσμος be a likeness [εικων] of something
Why when speaking on nature does Timaeus the Pythagorean tell Socrates a myth? Why does the Timaeus have the form not of scientific treatise but of myth?
a botanist delights in the beauty of flowers, but their delight has nothing to do with their scientific search; for Plato, there is no such distinction
for Plato, the cosmos as the object of his scientific inquiry was also the object of his aesthetic admiration and religious awe
the cosmos is a perceptible god, supreme in beauty/excellence/greatness/perfection
How is it possible that we are able to construct in concepts [εν λογοις] becoming (the world of change)?
if the world of change were nothing but change, we could not speak about it; it would have complete instability
the world of change is not nothing but change; it has a great deal of stability; we can speak about it
nature is constituted of two blended principles
NOUS mind, accounting for law, order, stability, that which makes sense
ANANKE necessity, blind force, the futile folly of the infinite
both are causes, though mind prevails over necessity
we could not live if order did not get the better of brute force
human life must turn to nature as its model
THE MATERIAL, ΧΟΡΑ
the third in addition to being and becoming; always in motion (not a place); full of powers, the four elements (not empty space); “space” [χωρα]: not empty space or space “more geometrico”, but space in which something is going on; indeterminate
for the purposes of receiving, being impressed/imprinted; that which underlies form, the ΧΟΡΑ; matter depends on the capacity to fabricate things
Plato’s metaphor, poetic imagery VS Aristotle’s rather rational metaphor
a lumpish something on which and in which impressions are molded [εκμαγειον]
nurse of all becoming
that nature which receives all bodies
to be compared to a mother
the all-embracing, all-producing, all-receiving is inscrutable
shapeless
apprehended only by a sort of bastard reasoning [λογισμω τινι νοθω]
partaking of the intelligible in an extremely bewildering way [μεταλαμβανον απορωτατα τη του νοητου]
something we look upon as in a dream
graspable only in its suchnesses or qualities, as when it becomes stone or air or cloud
Plato: matter underlies the geoemtrically perceived elements; matter has (a source of) energy within it (contrast with: ΧΟΡΑ appears when rationality recedes; it is just what nature is; it is a passive receptacle for receiving energy from elsewhere)
indigenous account of goodness: the land shapes the people, makes for better political structures, better people
Timaeus
the structure of the natural world is ethical
this is what the kosmos looks like to the extent that it is structured around the good
two underlying tensions
why do you think it is important to understand nature to understand human civilization, human goodness?
is such an understanding of nature ever going to be exact, scientifically precise?
ideology
not “the belief system that you have”
takes a set of concepts that we are enacting in society and posits that they are natural
we are raised in such a way that the societal structures around us are given to us, presented to as the way things are
the demiurge is just there, but there’s no discussion around the demiurge; utterly taken for granted by Timaeus; why?
you can tell what artificial objects are good for; artefacts are dominated by their purposes in a way that natural things are not
there is a plasticity to natural things that makes it harder to discern purposes in them
the whole of the natural world is constructed by an artificer: epistemic advantages
Aristotle
there is no demiurge
the first mover is different
a single organizing power is better
the natural world is structured by causes, and the ultimate cause is the good
modern physics: amoral/aethical causation
for plato: things are cause because they are good
Democritus
things are random, there is no good
is it true that the world is structured this way? is it better that the world has an ethical structure, structured by the good?
the world is structured on an intelligible paradigm
the demiurge creates the cosmic animal, a living thing with a soul and a body
the soul is stirred into movement, the animal is responsible for its own motion
because there is motion, there is time; the cosmos is a moving image of eternity
how is the universe changing and staying the same at the same time
the demiurge creates the gods, the gods create the animals which are infused with intelligence/souls
what is thinking like for animals? animal thinking completes the world
how does this improve the unity of the cosmos?
what is the structure of the human body? how is it ethically ordered?
the demiurge has to create the material of the cosmos
a pile of the same, a pile of the other/different
hammers out sameness and difference into strips, divides the strips down the middle
mixes sameness and difference together
the planets have irregularity built into them, planeta
how does sameness and otherness correspond to being and becoming
sameness, otherness are materials, so they can’t be being
the mixture of sameness and difference is a real hybrid/blend
because otherness/difference doesn’t mix well (it’s nonhomogenous), sameness is homogeneity
the demiurge has to combine them using force
the kosmos
movement of the world soul is thought
this is what thinking it
in encountering itself, it distinguishes sameness and otherness
the kosmos is becoming aware of itself by encountering itself
the fundamental assumption is that the kosmos becomes aware of itself because it is made up of the same stuff
when we understand things, it is because there is something that is the same in me as there is in that thing that we understand
we understand things because we are made of the same stuff
modern account
I am so different from things that I have to make assumptions
the underlying assumption is that we are fundamentally separated from the external world
thinking is depersonalized
the world soul understanding itself
enacting the self-understanding o fthe cosmos
it’s not really me who is understanding, it’s the whole kosmos that’s understanding
perspectival/subjectie experience of individual animals vs the kind of thinking that the world soul is doing
parmenides: thinking and being is the same
thinking has to be the same as the thing for me to know
this means necessarily that it is not personal
if it were perspectival, then it wouldn’t be understanding
all of science has a different structure when…
the unity of motion, become aware of its likeness to eternity
recognition of the cycle, recognition of eternity
enumeration, number, marking off, integrity, unity, eternity
number is its own things, time runs independently of the kosmos
on the other hand, they are one and the same, the enumeration is the the continuity/unity of the motion
impossible to find in either pure being or pure becoming
pure being, pure unity: there is no distribution, difference; motion is distributed
the unity of motion, aware by marked off in time
unity of things is immanent in the kosmos, a proper unity of the kosmos that belongs to it, not of pure being
time depends on the unity of a motion, when the motion resembles a circle, you can identify its eternity
an account that includes the phenomena
four kinds of animals
heavenly gods (immortal): fire
winged creatures (mortal): air
water creatures (mortal): water
land creatures (mortal): earth
if there are living things in all elemental regions, there is something living in those regions that is understanding itself
ecological view: animals are not self sufficient, self complete like the gods are
mutual dependence, relationship adds up to something more complete than any one individual
the creation of the animals and the souls by the gods: the soul and the body are riveted together
the individual soul riveted to an individual body is buffeted by the turbulence of the senses, acts eratically; foreign to the world soul
beset by subjective phenomena; we have to clear away that perspectival experience
beauty helps us remember to become philosophical
intelligiblility of the natural world, what does the intelligible structure look like
how it is that we know what we say about the order of the universe
plato’s republic the most prominent of plato’s dialogues? the timaues was for a long time the most important platonic dialogue
parmenides dialogue, important for the foundation of logic, aristotle takes it over
logic and ontology
republic, its discourse on immportality
changeability/intelligibility of nature
timaeus structure
socrates republic (17c)
critias and the story of solon, indigineity of athenian excellence (20e)
timaeus discourse on nature
lays out the method and why we’re going to see the weird, wonderful things we’re going to see (7c)
universe organized by reason, how is the natural world shaped by reason (29d)
work of necessity, how is the natural world shaped by necessity (47e)
the synthesis of reason and necessity (69a)
the all
invite the gods to participate, elevating our perspective above the human perspective; there’s something about theorizing that’s speculative
relying on our own knowledge; flawed, incomplete, finite understanding of things
extend beyond what we can literally grasp; my perspective on those things will be incomplete and finite
don’t be surprised if my argument changes; we have to start with ideas that we can understand; we will have to supplement/alter things as we go along
timaeus narrates things out of order, describes body before soul
indicates the instability of the account
how do you natural science
how do you refer to the all when you apart of the natural world
have to displace yourself, 3rd person observer
we elevate ourselves above the human, but we can never fully occupy that
the perspective on nature floats above human, between human and divine
28a
what always is and has no becoming and never comes to be in contrast with what comes to be and never is; being vs becoming
fundamental dichotomy taht determines the rest of the diaogue
this distinction causes a problem, has to synthesize these two things for the rest of the dialogue
synthesis between being and becoming
the order of the changingness of things
the order has to be in the realm of being, not in the realm of becoming
how to synthesize the realm of the natural world with the realm of being
straight from parmenides dialogue, doxa “opinion”
what is included in the all; is nature? is being?
heraclitus: they’re not mutually exclusive
a hybrid?
epistemological point: how can we come to know things
opinion and the senses: this gives us the changing
though and reason give us being: a completely separate channel, doesn’t use the senses
two faculties; different modes of epistemological knowing
cause, comes to be
the realm of nature is the realm of causes
the realm of being doesn’t have causes
to understand nature you have to have an account of cause
demiurge, a crafstman
sort of like a god, but sort of greater than a god bc it creates the gods
the whole of the natural world needs a cause to come to be
the universe is a technical artefact
the demiurge artifices nature
we have a clock
natural things grow themselves; artefacts are created by something else
evidence as to why it may’ve been built
the realm of becoming based on the realm of being
bc the realm of becoming is beautiful
being is inextricable from order; inherently ordered beautify is related to orderliness
for something to appear coherent, integral, self-related, ordered in such a way that they are whole things; organism, an integrity; that integrity, the idea that organizes you
the source of our experience of beauty; can’t come from mere becoming
the ability to articulate the orderliness of things; the ability to articulate at all?
14
plato, aristotle vs kant
plato, aristotle: mind comports to objects
kant: objects comport to my mind
the character of the object determines how I can know it
fundamental instability in the natural sciences
intelligible construction of the natural world
concept of nature in the republic
protagoras as a contrast case for the republic
different kinds of text when we’re dealing with a platonic dialogue
texts in the presocratic transition are fragmentary; we have a unique epistemological relationship with the texts
bc they appear as incomplete or synopsized through others, we had to do a lot of ihnterpration; we lack context; how reliable is this; what would the original thinker have said; requires a lot hermeneutic work, careful reading, intellectual imagination, investigative tools
Platonic texts: differet sort of hermeneutic problem
we have a lot of context, but the context itself poses hermeneutic problems for us
not like treatises in which every word reflects Plato’s thinking
Plato does not agree with everything in the dialogues; Plato highlights his absence from the dialogues
the context itself undermines our ability to agree with everything being said in the dialogues
sophist
socrates a sophist or philosopher?
socrates aims at truth
democracy
write the dialogues and study them for the purposes of learning persuasion
poet of the philosophical event
Book2Republic
justice is just the advantage of the strong?
Socrates: justice is anchored in nature, the natural origins of community (protagoras: community is not natural)
people need each other, so we have to be good to each other
distribution of labor + mutual dependence = just to each other
desires beyond those that are necessary lead to injustice
something in desire leads to instability in the city
philosophy is the solution to injustice
everyone wants to know/understand; if this weren’t true, then education of the guardians would be impossible and violence is inevitable
education of the guardians is extremely important
description of the afterlife
the moral machinery of the cosmos
depends on reincarnation
Glaucon to Socrates
the soul itself is responsible for choosing its next life
socrates: the soul is immportal
bad things destroy things that they are the badness of
the vices of the soul don’t kill the soul like a disease kills a body; there is no proper badness of soul that is destructive of the soul
domain of natural world is temporary, impermanent; souls inhabit this world persist
souls are in a cycle; the souls carry their deeds with them; we don’t just affect the world, we affect ourselves
our character is the way we bear our deeds in life
the soul becomes immobilized, becomes defined, in order for justice to apply to it
if you want the world to be cosmically oriented around justice, you need a subject; that is soul
the soul as a stable concept comes into being for the sake of justice
a bunch of souls lying around; only find out about the soul’s context
people who are good are good bc of the context of their lives
a new paradigm for what constitutes a good life
can only discern the context of that soul’s upbringing
the meaning of what is being said in a Platonic dialogue is always bound up with who is saying it
Timaeus, Critias, Hermocrates
Socrates recited the the dialogue of the republic but omits certain things; it appears as a blueprint for a good society
we have to have an account of the moral universe
nature is the thing that is responsible of the excellence of Athens
nature is involved and anchors a good society
so we need to have an account of nature in general, human nature, prior to an account of good society
myths about what the underlying nature is which determines which societal structure is best
how is the good incorporated into nature
Socrates account of the republic is incomplete, important for the details of Timaeus
Critias tells a story about Solon, gave laws to Athens
cycles of natural destruction? Egyptians have long memory, Athenians have short memory
myth of indigineity: the structure of the land affects the virtue of the people their
relationship between maps of glaciation and maps of voting in 2016 for example
nature steers the development of culture
Critias’ point: land has a shaping power on societies, how good they are
myth of indigineity
an account of nature in general, an account of the all
sets up discussion of perfect, orderly city
theory of history
great individualist theory of history
political class conflict
economic drivers
natural “determinism” (the structure of nature)
Timaeus
intelligible world
materiality
moral constitution of bodies