Editing Hylomorphism (section)

===Universal hylomorphism===
The [[neoplatonism|Neoplatonic]] philosopher [[Solomon ibn Gabirol|Avicebron (Solomon ibn Gabirol)]] proposed a Neoplatonic version of this Aristotelian concept, according to which all things, including soul and intellect, are composed of matter and form.<ref name=stanford>{{cite encyclopedia
 | last1 = Pessin
 | first1 = Sarah
 | editor-last = Zalta
 | editor-first = Edward N.
 | title = Solomon Ibn Gabirol [Avicebron]
 | encyclopedia = The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 | edition = Summer 2014
 | date = April 18, 2014
 | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-gabirol/
 | access-date = October 13, 2015}}</ref>

{{Quote|With respect to Averroes’s view, what, if only I knew, could necessitate that we not say this very thing in the case of bodies that come to be and pass away, namely, that the matter they contain is their corporeality, and their form the form that is specific to each one and serves each one as the perfection of its corporeality? Corporeality, which he calls “corporeal form,” would then function as matter with respect to its specific form. If so, the matter, even without its specific form, would be in need of a place and would exist in actuality. Behold, my witness is in heaven, since the celestial body, which is a body without matter, is one that exists in actuality. In this way, many difficult and perplexing questions regarding hylic nature as it is generally understood will be resolved. It is open, therefore, to an objector to say that it is not a specific form through which a body exists, but that the corporeal form, which is the substratum in actuality, is that which sustains the specific form|[[Hasdai Crescas]]}}

Hasdai Crescas imagines that celestial-body is like Hylé but as matter in actuality, sure over the opposition about this, i.e. in potential existence. Matter and form is always presents in all but celestial-bodies are without form because of their nature; so Hasdai Crescas finds the solution also about this paradox.<ref>Hasdai Crescas teaches that the proof of Existence of God and the Creation of World by [[Maimonides]] could be explained with parallel-exegesis about the elements of the same proof: Hasdai Crescas and Maimonides teach with words of philosophy but logical-reasons can explain only first view. The second view, that is esoteric-exegesis (the [[Kabbalah]]) could be understood with [[Torah]]: ''This is the totality of what we saw fit to say in our concise manner by way of response to the Rabbi’s proofs. It is evident that the number of responses from the first perspective parallels the number of propositions that we mentioned that the Rabbi used. These are in addition to the responses from the second perspective in which we granted the truth of those propositions. What this condition of confusion teaches is that that which provides the truth with respect to these theses has not to this day been fully grasped by recourse to the philosophers. Indeed, the only thing that illuminates all of these deep difficulties is the Torah.''</ref>