ORDER IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE 273 



human soul must not be treated metaphysically in natural 

 philosophy; the proof, in order to be physical, must rest on the 

 intrinsic incorruptibility of the soul. The de facto question of 

 the immortality of the soul, proved from the wisdom and 

 goodness of God, must be saved for metaphysics, or at most 

 must be presented in natural philosophy in dialectical status. 

 The origin of the soul and its status after death are questions 

 raised in natural philosophy, but which are unable to be settled 

 by the principles of natural philosophy; the metaphysical light 

 is necessary .^^ Natural philosophy must always present its 

 proofs on the basis of its own principles. Positions should not 

 be held because of metaphysical repercussions, but proofs 

 should be constructed by the intellectual processing of sensory 

 data in the light of properly physical principles. Metaphysical 

 proofs can be accepted only as dialectical in the lower science. 

 It is true that metaphysics casts a fuller light over the world 

 of nature; it gives the ultimate reasons for the truths discovered 

 by the physicist. But the distinction necessary for highlighting 

 the true nature and order of natural philosophy demands that 

 metaphysical insights be presented in the status of footnotes 

 or appendices, which are accepted, not as apodictic, but as 

 dialectical, until they can be seen in their proper perspective 

 within the science of metaphysics. 



Even more important, it is necessary that teachers effectively 

 shake off the Wolff-Leibnizian influence and discontinue pre- 

 senting natural philosophy as an application of metaphysics. 



^* " Sed quomodo se habeant formae totaliter a materiae separatae, et quid sint, 

 vel etiam quomodo se habeat haec forma, idest aniina rationalis, secundum quod est 

 separabilis et sine corpore existere potens, et quid sit secundum suam essentiam 

 separabile, hoc determinare pertinet ad philosophum primum " (In II Phys., 4, 

 n. 10. Cf. In De Sensu et Senato, 1, n. 4; 2, n. 317; In III De Anima, 12, n. 785). 

 Just as the above-mentioned questions should be removed from natural philosophy, 

 so it would seem that the discussion of the final natural end of man belongs to 

 natural philosophy. Every science treats the principles, causes, and properties of its 

 subject (In Meta., Proem) . The final end of man is determined by nature (In III 

 Ethic., 13, n. 524; VI, 2, n. 1131). It is the ultimate term of the natural motion of 

 desire (Ibid., I, 9, n. 197). Ethics borrows from natural philosophy the doctrines 

 of man's nature and end; it is, therefore, subalternated to natural philosophy. 



