{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.008944543828264758, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.714285714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Disputes over the Material Contribution of Semen

Critics argue that the formal work of semen cannot be done through material because material cannot do the work of form. This chapter examines the restricted material view and the robust material view in the literature as it coalesces around the role of what Aristotle calls vital heat in semen. The second part of the chapter examines Aristotle’s account of form in conversation with Plato and Neoplatonic views of form. It makes a case for individual form in Aristotle that can work through matter in semen.