Leiden University Scholarly Publications

Persistent URL of this record https://hdl.handle.net/1887/4292367

Documents

In Collections

This item can be found in the following collections:

Pantoja Quiroz, D.R. (2026)

Categorial hylomorphism: an inquiry into the significance of categories for the doctrine of hylomorphism through a confrontation of the ideas of Aristotle and Kant

Doctoral Thesis
Categories—the most general kinds that structure reality—and hylomorphism—the doctrine that objects are composed of form and matter—are two pivotal subjects in contemporary ontology. However, their systematic connection remains under-explored. This dissertation argues that the categorial architecture of a given ontology is fundamental to any well-formed hylomorphic system. Rather than approaching this abstractly, I employ Aristotle and Kant as methodological touchstones because their theories embody two fundamentally different yet structurally complete ways in which categories organize hylomorphic principles. Aristotle’s formulation is indispensable as it establishes the original categorial framework that still implicitly governs contemporary debates, while Kant’s revision demonstrates how modifying these categorial foundations can overcome systematic limitations. This approach which I call a categorial approach to hylomorphism—analyzing how the categories operative within a...Show moreCategories—the most general kinds that structure reality—and hylomorphism—the doctrine that objects are composed of form and matter—are two pivotal subjects in contemporary ontology. However, their systematic connection remains under-explored. This dissertation argues that the categorial architecture of a given ontology is fundamental to any well-formed hylomorphic system. Rather than approaching this abstractly, I employ Aristotle and Kant as methodological touchstones because their theories embody two fundamentally different yet structurally complete ways in which categories organize hylomorphic principles. Aristotle’s formulation is indispensable as it establishes the original categorial framework that still implicitly governs contemporary debates, while Kant’s revision demonstrates how modifying these categorial foundations can overcome systematic limitations. This approach which I call a categorial approach to hylomorphism—analyzing how the categories operative within a given ontology determine and demarcate hylomorphic composition—finds in these two philosophers not mere historical positions, but exemplars of how categorial structures shape ontological possibilities. Through this methodological engagement with their systems, this work demonstrates that categories constitutively determine the range of admissible hylomorphic compounds. Consequently, Kant’s categorial innovations provide the conceptual means to ontologically enrich hylomorphism—that is, to systematically expand its explanatory capacity to encompass hylomorphic structures that exceed classical form-matter paradigms while preserving rigorous compositional analysis in the Aristotelian sense. Thus, by using Aristotle and Kant as methodological guides, this categorial approach reveals how hylomorphism’s very possibility as an ontological doctrine depends on its underlying categorial architecture.
Show less
Metaphysics
Ontology
Aristotle
Kant
Categories
Hylomorphism
Composition
Forms
Hierarchy
Constitution
All authors
Pantoja Quiroz, D.R.
Supervisor
McAllister, J.; Pringe, H.
Co-supervisor
Schaar, M. van der
Committee
Ainbinder, B.; Haas, F. de; Tahko, T.; Vujosevic, M.
Qualification
Doctor (dr.)
Awarding Institution
Institute for Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Leiden University
Date
2026-02-19
DOI
doi:10.60602/1887-4292367

Funding

Sponsorship
This research was supported by the Chilean Research Council (CONICYT-ANID) via a National PhD Grant (No. 21171891).