In the last decades, different debates and positions have emerged on the existence and nature of ordinary material objects. In this work I will center on the nature of material artifacts, these objects that usually are characterized as objects produced intentionally to accomplish some aim, putting special attention on the Evnine’s (2016) novel hylomorphic analysis of them: amorphic hylomorphism. This position pretend to accommodate two characteristics of artifacts: (i) preserve the idea that artifacts are causally and constitutively dependent on intentions of makers and (ii) these objects are hylomorphically structured, but with a novel perspective: they are not identical with their matter, but it is unnecessary postulate that they have another entity like forms. The proposal is an amorphic hylomorphism because he uses the framework of hylomorphism but leaves aside the forms.
To discuss this subject, first I will present the debate on the existence of ordinary material objects. Next I will focus on a thesis on the nature of ordinary material objects: hylomorphism, and I will show a little historical controversy about hylomorphism and artifacts. At the next point, I will present the amorphic hylomorphism of Evnine. Finally, I will do some criticisms to his theory and I will show some counterexamples to him.
