Yes, Pax, i understand that some (perhaps more than you or i imagine) spiritual truths are beyond our comprehension. I also think that some (perhaps more than you or i imagine) spiritual truths are not beyond our misconception.
My concern, here, is that we are either misunderstanding what Aristotle meant when he used the words
substance and
accidents, or misapplying what he meant, by using the words in ways he never intended. I also think it might possibly be a mistake to put as much stock in what Aristotle taught as we put in what Jesus, Peter, Paul and John taught in the Bible.
For example, i have a great deal of respect for Socrates’ method and opinions about some things. However, i would never follow everything he taught about morality, for he seems to have no problems with homosexuality. Rather than believe there is no sin in practicing homosexuality, i’d have to follow Paul’s advice to avoid such, as it grieves God. Socrates also taught, at the hour of his death, that it is probable that we were all animals or fish or birds at one time and have been reincarnated in human form. Again, i’d have to believe Paul, rather than the well-meaning Socrates.
Plato, of course, was Socrates’ student, and Aristotle, history tells us, was the student of Plato. Aristotle was a fallible man just as they were, and susceptible to deception or misunderstanding. It seems to me, then, that the only way to know for certain whether what Aristotle taught about the substance and accidents is true, is to do this:
*]Do our homework. Study what Aristotle taught to make sure that we have a correct understanding and not in incorrect one.
*]Ask tough questions. Put our ideas to the test to make sure we are not misunderstanding or misapplying Aristotle’s theories on substance and accidents.
*]Ask more tough questions. Once we arrive at a correct understanding of what Aristotle meant, we put his ideas to the test to see if they really stand up to objections or are found lacking.
*]Make comparisons. Compare what Aristotle said to what Jesus and the biblical writers said to see if anything Aristotle tells us about substance and accidents contradicts what we know is true in the Scriptures.
Right now, i’m following step # 2, as i’m not certain we really have a correct understanding or application of Aristotle’s theory of substance. It seems to me that substance should be defined this way:
**Substance is what a thing or living being is.**and accidents should be defined this way:
**Accidents are the qualities of a thing or living being that is.**We might even make the definitions more exact by saying:
**Substance is what a thing or living being is. It is what is essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if this substance is removed or altered the thing or living being ceases to be what it is, and becomes something or someone else.**and
**Accidents are the qualities of a thing or living being that is. They are what is not essential for a thing or living being to remain what it is, so that if any of these accidents are removed or altered, the thing or living being still remains what it is.**One might say, then, that Michael Jackson has at least two substances: His physical body and his soul. One might reason that even though one of the accidents of Michael Jackson has changed (that being the color of his skin) he is still Michael Jackson, in soul and body. Now, if we were able to remove all water from Michael Jackson’s body, he would cease to be Michael Jackson in body, for water makes up at least 60% of his body. He would no longer be a human body, but, instead, he would be just a pile of ashes made of chemicals other than H2O.
Removing all the water from his body by cremation or some other method would certainly cause Michael Jackson to die. One might be able to reason, then, that what used to be the body of Michael Jackson is no longer Michael Jackson, for not only does it not have the form of a human body (as it would be just a pile of ashes) it would also be separated from its soul, and no longer alive.
Changing the color of his skin does not change who Michael Jackson is, as this is only a change of accidents and not a change of substance. Cremating his body does change who the body of Michael Jackson is, for a change of the chemical composition of his body does change the physical substance of his body, though not the spiritual substance of his soul.
Hence, i think the definitions of substance and accidents i have proposed are closer to reality, as they do not have the weaknesses that other definitions we have considered have. Aristotle was far more intelligent than ignorant old me. I do not think that he would propose a theory that i could, with so little effort, knock down. We have constructed a scarecrow of his theory of substances. The theory i propose, i think, must be closer to the real deal.
