In Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, angels are conceived as pure forms without any matter, like God, but contrary to God they still possess potentiality.

Although there is no composition of matter and form in an angel, yet there is act and potentiality.

 

(Summa Theologiae - First Part: Question 50, article 2, reply to objection 3)

I already asked (in the context of human souls) how forms can exist or subsist by themselves and how forms can be understood not to be forms of matter. In the case of angels this may be even more mysterious, because existing as a pure form is the “natural” state of an angel. But the situation is still probably sufficiently similar enough to not warrant repeating those questions.

If we put this aside, it still leaves us with the question how we can understand the potentiality of forms. What does this mean? I read Aquinas' own words but didn't understand them.

For potentiality to exist, doesn't there have to be a possibility of change – how can immaterial forms change? Of humans we could say that the immaterial part of the form does not change, it's only the material part that changes – the brain changes every second, for example when acquiring new memories. [NB: this is probably an incorrect interpretation, so please correct me]. But in the case of angels this option does not exist.

Or is the assumption “potentiality = possibility of change” wrong? Then I misunderstood a lot. What then would the potentiality of a form imply instead?

In Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, angels are conceived as pure forms without any matter, like God, but contrary to God they still possess potentiality.

Although there is no composition of matter and form in an angel, yet there is act and potentiality.

(Summa Theologiae - First Part: Question 50, article 2, reply to objection 3)

I already asked (in the context of human souls) how forms can exist or subsist by themselves and how forms can be understood not to be forms of matter. In the case of angels this may be even more mysterious, because existing as a pure form is the “natural” state of an angel. But the situation is still probably sufficiently similar enough to not warrant repeating those questions.

If we put this aside, it still leaves us with the question how we can understand the potentiality of forms. What does this mean? I read Aquinas' own words but didn't understand them.

For potentiality to exist, doesn't there have to be a possibility of change – how can immaterial forms change? Of humans we could say that the immaterial part of the form does not change, it's only the material part that changes – the brain changes every second, for example when acquiring new memories. [NB: this is probably an incorrect interpretation, so please correct me]. But in the case of angels this option does not exist.

Or is the assumption “potentiality = possibility of change” wrong? Then I misunderstood a lot. What then would the potentiality of a form imply instead?

In Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, angels are conceived as pure forms without any matter, like God, but contrary to God they still possess potentiality.

Although there is no composition of matter and form in an angel, yet there is act and potentiality.

(Summa Theologiae - First Part: Question 50, article 2, reply to objection 3)

I already asked (in the context of human souls) how forms can exist or subsist by themselves and how forms can be understood not to be forms of matter. In the case of angels this may be even more mysterious, because existing as a pure form is the “natural” state of an angel. But the situation is still probably sufficiently similar enough to not warrant repeating those questions.

If we put this aside, it still leaves us with the question how we can understand the potentiality of forms. What does this mean? I read Aquinas' own words but didn't understand them.

For potentiality to exist, doesn't there have to be a possibility of change – how can immaterial forms change? Of humans we could say that the immaterial part of the form does not change, it's only the material part that changes – the brain changes every second, for example when acquiring new memories. [NB: this is probably an incorrect interpretation, so please correct me]. But in the case of angels this option does not exist.

Or is the assumption “potentiality = possibility of change” wrong? Then I misunderstood a lot. What then would the potentiality of a form imply instead?

In Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, angels are conceived as pure forms without any matter, like God, but contrary to God they still possess potentiality.

Although there is no composition of matter and form in an angel, yet there is act and potentiality.

(Summa Theologiae - First Part: Question 50, article 2, reply to objection 3)

I already asked (in the context of human souls) how forms can exist or subsist by themselves and how forms can be understood not to be forms of matter. In the case of angels this may be even more mysterious, because existing as a pure form is the “natural” state of an angel. But the situation is still probably sufficiently similar enough to not warrant repeating those questions.

If we put this aside, it still leaves us with the question how we can understand the potentiality of forms. What does this mean? I read Aquinas' own words but didn't understand them.

For potentiality to exist, doesn't there have to be a possibility of change – how can immaterial forms change? Of humans we could say that the immaterial part of the form does not change, it's only the material part that changes – the brain changes every second, for example when acquiring new memories. [NB: this is probably an incorrect interpretation, so please correct me]. But in the case of angels this option does not exist.

Or is the assumption “potentiality = possibility of change” wrong? Then I misunderstood a lot. What then would the potentiality of a form imply instead?