Aquinas's First Way

[thinkandmull]

I have a thread refuting your bizarre ideas.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…But I am just not understanding why the fact that people in the past may have classified things wrongfully is evidence that it is impossible to classify things according to natural kinds. …

I was trying to say much more than this. I am suggesting that the ancients classify wrongly because the very principles by which Aristotle classifies are now known not to be comprehensive enough. And the reason his principles are not comprehensive enough is because he did not have the tools and experimental knowledge legacy of modern chemistry. I am sure that if he had such “extended senses” he would have come up with more comprehnsive principles.
Though I do wonder if both Chemistry and sub-atomic physics is telling us that nature even at the inorganic level may be too complicated to classify tidily in a universal manner.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Linus seems to deny that the substances hydrogen (H+) and oxygen (O–) exist in the glass filled with the substance water.

Well again this is a technical nitpicking point about what the word “substance” refers to. Technically there is no substantial oxygen or hydrogen in a glass of water (assuming no free ions) since the oxygen and hydrogen have been assumed into the water. Are hydrogen and oxygen atoms present? Yes. Do they behave as hydrogen and oxygen? Yes, but these powers are specifically directed towards waterness (that’s what being virtually present means). It’s like object oriented programming: water inherits from hydrogen and oxygen but the water molecules are of type water.

"Technically there is no substantial oxygen or hydrogen in a glass of water"
Not quite sure what this sentence means…
This to me is prob the most important point in this discussion. In my opinion hydrogen is most certainly present in water under its own substantial form. Sure, it isn’t there as the molecule H2 (that would just be hydrogen disspolved in water). Nor is it there as the even more energetic nascent atom H (which would quickly grab another H atom and form H2).
But it is most certainly is in the glass of water in large quantities in its ionic form as H+.

Sure, water is not very conductive so the amount of H+ at any given time is not as large as it could be (though adding a little salt acts as a catalyst (not entering into any chemical reaction) and releases huger amounts of H+).

But the simple fact is…a glass of water is not 100%pure H20 molecules. There is all sorts of things going on. It is the nature of the substance H20 (like most compounds) to be constantly, dynamically and homeostatically decomposing into the ionic form of its constituent elements and recomposing again.
(In fact there is clumpy stuff going on even between molecules of water I have recently read).
It seems water simply is NOT 100% H20 (ie a huge collocation of single H20 molecules) and never has been.

Linus says a substance has to be stable. I don’t really agree. Different things are going on at macro and micro level.
Yes, at the macro level its a stable, constant percentage game.
At the micro level there is abolutely no guarantee that any particular H20 molecule will survive for more than a few seconds, if that. It constantly ionises and recombines again (with another oxygen atom in all liklihood).

So the question as to whether or not this ever present percentage of aggregated H+ and OH- ions (and maybe a few O-- ions) is to be called “ionic water” or “mixed hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions” is very important.

In essence these are the “virtual elements” of Aristotle. Chemists have good reason to say they are an aggregation of hydrogen and oxygen ions rather than “ionic water”.

What say you?

Yes, a formal cause is the definition but you were referring to the process of oxygen and hydrogen chemically reacting to bring a new instance of water into being. That’s the efficient cause.

Yes I can see that the way I constructed my sentence is ambiguous and your interpretation is valid. However if I constructed that sentence more carefully you would have been in no doubt I was speaking formal cause (i.e. I was simply defining the static structure of water).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
…However that raises more problems… Powers flow from form don’t they?
So this suggests there are sub-forms in a macro form…which is exactly my point. But Aristotle says there is only one substantial form. So what’s left… Accidental forms.
OK. But I have never seen any Aristotelian talk much at all about accidental (elemental) forms subsisting in the single substantial form.

I think I was just saying that its easy to ionise H2 into sustainable amounts of H+ by adding only energy. Therefore this change is accidental and H+ is still the substance hydrogen.

H+ has certain experimentally recognisable characteristics and properties.
These same properties are observable in that substance produced by burning H2 and O2.

Conclusion: The substance hydrogen (not H2) is present in all water…though obviously only in ionic form.

You conceded that the overarching form of water constrains hydrogen from acting in all its potential ways, so it does not act the same way in all molecules.

I think you mean “in all compounds”?

In which case I am simply saying that: hydrogen ions (not H2) are discoverable in all compounds formed from hydrogen…and those ions all act in the same way despite being in a coomposing/decomposing dynamic equilibrium with different compound molecules.

The percentage of free hydrogen ions in any given compound at a given temperature/pressure will vary according to the properties/constraints of the compound from which the ions are disassociated - but they are assuredly the same hydrogen ions with the same characteristics as ionised hydrogen gas despite the fact they may disassociate from a wide variety of different compounds.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

He does not speak of " elemental potentialities. " And I’m not sure what you mean by the term.

Simply a paraphrase of Aristotles “virtual substances” (the 4 elements).
This is what the discussion is about.
If all pure substances are somehow derived from combinations of the elements (which do not exist in themselves)…how are they present in pure substances. They either are there or they are not. If the single form explains everything why not completely discard all talk of the elements?

The reason seems to be that Aristotle wants the best of both worlds.
He accepts the presence of simpler elements can be inferred from comparing different substances…yet cannot seem to find a place for them in his singular forms hylemorphic principles.

He recognises they exert a “power” in substances ( “virtus” in virtual as Balto pointed out earlier) yet will allow them no form (from which “powers” come) either substantial or accidential in any coherent explanation).

 

[balto]

Why did you list H+ twice? If we are talking about gasses, H+, H2, O2 are substances in their own right if they are relatively stable. If such is the case, then the substantial form for each substance calls for designate mattef in the form of H+, H2, and O2. But the substantial form of water calls for designate matter in the form of bonded H20. So you have four different substances, existing essences or natures, and four different substantial forms - in my opinion.
But it depends on whether science considers them as having distinctive natures, do they exhibit different, unique characteristics?. In the case of water, it has a definite nature. I think that is beyond dispute.

I listed H+ twice to point out that if you have two instances of H+ those are really two substances with the same substantial form. Yes, I think it is beyond dispute that water has a definite nature but what is not beyond dispute is whether something like H2 and H+, both hydrogen according to modern chemistry, have two different substantial forms. Blue Horizon is arguing that they don’t because what makes hydrogen, hydrogen is the fact that it has one proton in its nucleus, so the fact that H+ is missing its electron is only an accidental property. My own thinking is that he is correct in thinking this.

But we should not consider water as having the substances of H2 and O virtually, in the substance of water. Water, in all its forms, has definite, unique characteristics. Philosophically, we would say the the substantial form of water calls for designate matter in the form of H2 and 0, bonded as water molecules. In this case I think it would be wrong, philosophically, to say that water contained two virtual gaseous substances It would be more proper to say the substantial form of water required this kind of matter. Electrolysis would cause a substantial change. The water would disappear and we get several gasses, each of which appears to be its own substance. In my opinion.

Linus2nd

I think we do need to say that H and O are present virtually in water. To say that is not to say that the fullness of H and O are present in water, but some of it is. To illustrate this point it may be helpful to think of a Venn diagram where the left circle is the essence of H, the right circle is the essence of O, and the overlap is the essence of water. H and O properties are present in water, but only some of them are present because they are being constrained towards sustaining water. Of course the analogy isn’t quite apt because there are some properties of water that are new to water and not present in either H or O individually, but it should only be taken to show that some of the properties of H and O are present in H2O.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think he would say that if science agreed that if each of these existed independently for a sufficient time that each would be a substance but representing variations of the same type. Just as all dogs have dogness in common but each possesses it as a variation within the species.

Linus I am very wary of the usefulness of using Aristotles understanding of substance/accident wrt organics when discussing inorganics or pure substances.

As suggested below I believe Aristotles principles in each sphere are perhaps incompatible and might even ultimately be contradictory.

The relationship between hydrogen and its accidental forms is not at all the same as that of “doginess” and its variety of 1st substance examples thereof.

One obvious difference is that “doginess” does not have any particular 1st substance example that is any more exemplorary than any other (eg this alsation is not better an example of “dogginess” than this chewawa).

Hydrogen on the other hand is best typified by a complete hydrogen atom not only with one proton but also retaining its orbiting electron. A hydrogen ion is still hydrogen yet somehow incomplete. Natural hydrogen (H2) is still hydrogen but it is lightly bonded with another hydrogen atom and is in a sense in surfeit.

So in my opinion the situation is not like “dogginess” at all.

(Neither is “hydrogen” a universal … while “dogginess” seems like it is.)

“Second substance” means the “species”: angel-kind, mankind, dog-kind, tree-kind, stone-kind, and so on—in other words, what sort of thing something is, taken in the abstract. “Second substance” in Aristotle and Aquinas is roughly equivalent to the “universals” of medieval Scholasticism and Plato’s “ideas.”

This seems somewhat ambiguously put.
Its not helped by the fact that “angel kind” is not a species absolutely. Angel-kind is really a genus as each indibidual angel is in fact a singular species.

( I think that we also need to distinguish between substance as an ontological principle (which in this case is the “potential” principle that is perfected or actuated by the accidents), and substance taken to mean the whole individual.

For Aristotle, substance and essence are exactly synonymous (it is even the same word: ousía), and it can take on either meaning.

For Aquinas, in the term “substance,” the notion of “whole individual” prevails; in “essence,” the notion of “ontological principle” prevails. However, in neither case is the other meaning excluded.

So when we say, “the substance cannot be seen,” we mean substance as “ontological principle that underlies the accidents.”

If, however, we take “substance” to mean “whole concrete individual,” then substance is very much visible. (I can see my neighbor, the dog next door, the tree next to me, and everything, without any trouble. post 43)

Thanks, I learnt something here.

 

[balto]

I was trying to say much more than this. I am suggesting that the ancients classify wrongly because the very principles by which Aristotle classifies are now known not to be comprehensive enough. And the reason his principles are not comprehensive enough is because he did not have the tools and experimental knowledge legacy of modern chemistry. I am sure that if he had such “extended senses” he would have come up with more comprehnsive principles.
Though I do wonder if both Chemistry and sub-atomic physics is telling us that nature even at the inorganic level may be too complicated to classify tidily in a universal manner.

Well maybe they weren’t comprehensive enough, but what I think cannot be disputed is the fact that things are evidently objectively classifiable. That we may not know exactly what these classifications are, or maybe cannot know how absolutely everything is classified, does not shed doubt on the metaphysical point that things are classifiable according to types. Denying this seems to lead into many logical absurdities that have already been brought to light by some of the other posters.

That said, I still don’t know why modern chemistry is such a problem for hylemorphism. We seemed to have classified the elements quite nicely.

"Technically there is no substantial oxygen or hydrogen in a glass of water"
Not quite sure what this sentence means…
This to me is prob the most important point in this discussion. In my opinion hydrogen is most certainly present in water under its own substantial form. Sure, it isn’t there as the molecule H2 (that would just be hydrogen disspolved in water). Nor is it there as the even more energetic nascent atom H (which would quickly grab another H atom and form H2).
But it is most certainly is in the glass of water in large quantities in its ionic form as H+.

Okay, I am seeing another distinction that needs to be drawn to clear up the confusion. It regards this statement:

It seems water simply is NOT 100% H20 (ie a huge collocation of single H20 molecules) and never has been.

You seem to be defining “water” as a collection of H2O molecules and I am saying that water “just is” an H2O molecule. Yes, if you have a glass of water then you are correct that you have at least the substances of H2O, H+, and OH-, plus whatever happens to be dissolved in the water. But concerning a single H2O molecule, the substantial form of hydrogen is not present, the substantial form of water/H2O is, although the form of hydrogen is present virtually.

Linus says a substance has to be stable. I don’t really agree. Different things are going on at macro and micro level.
Yes, at the macro level its a stable, constant percentage game.
At the micro level there is abolutely no guarantee that any particular H20 molecule will survive for more than a few seconds, if that. It constantly ionises and recombines again (with another oxygen atom in all liklihood).

It doesn’t matter “how long” an H2O molecule exists, just that it does objectively exist. This is probably Aristotle’s rebuttal of Heraclitus’ view that everything is constantly changing. But changing to what? That “what” is the stable substantial form. H2 and O2 reacting to form water is changing to water, which is a stable substance. How long H2O happens to hang around after that is not important.

So the question as to whether or not this ever present percentage of aggregated H+ and OH- ions (and maybe a few O-- ions) is to be called “ionic water” or “mixed hydrogen ions and hydroxide ions” is very important.

Now that I have clarified my position it should make sense when I say that a collection of water molecules is an accidental form and not a substantial one, since it refers to quantity. The substantial form would apply to the individual H2O molecule I would think.

 

[balto]

I think I was just saying that its easy to ionise H2 into sustainable amounts of H+ by adding only energy. Therefore this change is accidental and H+ is still the substance hydrogen.

H+ has certain experimentally recognisable characteristics and properties.
These same properties are observable in that substance produced by burning H2 and O2.

Conclusion: The substance hydrogen (not H2) is present in all water…though obviously only in ionic form.

If you are taking “water” to mean a collection of H2O molecules, then yes there is some substantial H2 in there for the reasons you have indicated.

In which case I am simply saying that: hydrogen ions (not H2) are discoverable in all compounds formed from hydrogen…and those ions all act in the same way despite being in a coomposing/decomposing dynamic equilibrium with different compound molecules.

The percentage of free hydrogen ions in any given compound at a given temperature/pressure will vary according to the properties/constraints of the compound from which the ions are disassociated - but they are assuredly the same hydrogen ions with the same characteristics as ionised hydrogen gas despite the fact they may disassociate from a wide variety of different compounds.

Again, the same distinction needs to be applied between the substantial form of the molecule and the accidental form of the collection of molecules.

 

[balto]

Simply a paraphrase of Aristotles “virtual substances” (the 4 elements).
This is what the discussion is about.
If all pure substances are somehow derived from combinations of the elements (which do not exist in themselves)…how are they present in pure substances. They either are there or they are not. If the single form explains everything why not completely discard all talk of the elements?

Well I don’t know what Aristotle said on the matter of the four elements, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with saying that the four elements do not have independent existence yet compose pure substances. Sure, it is contingently wrong since that isn’t the way things work, but there’s nothing logically contradictory about supposing it does. Let’s say quarks do not exist outside of atoms (ignoring whether or not this is actually true). There would be no “quark substance” because quarks are always part of something else. Yet we could still understand that there’s some real aspect that’s common to all atoms, i.e. the aspects that are due to the quarks. I’m not sure, but couldn’t we say that we do something like this with the notion of energy (not sure if it is to be interpreted as similar to Aristotle’s notion of an element or his notion of prime matter)? It is not really a thing in its own right yet is a real aspect of real things.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well maybe they weren’t comprehensive enough, but what I think cannot be disputed is the fact that things are evidently objectively classifiable.

If we accept that the insights and principles of molecular and atomic Chemistry give us a more comprehensive toolbox for distinguishing accidental and substantial change as well as classifying different kinds of “stuff” … then we are agreed.

But the reverse of saying this is that Aristotle’s system leads to provably less consistent
answers…thereby bringing his founding principles in this area under some suspicion.

In this discussion I am really more interested in exploring what is experimentally inescapable to me…that plurality of forms is not a logically inconsistant model of reality.
Aristotle disagrees - but if we can accept that some of his starting points are in fact mistaken…his objections may collapse. Afterall, his system is so tightly integrated that if one basic principle can fairly be shown to be mistaken…it will affect the whole.

I have no axe to grind re sensible reality being objectively classifiable.
Unfortunately we can see that Aristotles principles lead to less consistency…and hence less objectivity in this regard.

See below re how his principle of the infinite divisibility of pure substances leads to contradictions with modern chemistry when we look at your issue of one water atom versus a glass of water.

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
It seems water simply is NOT 100% H20 (ie a huge collocation of single H20 molecules) and never has been.

You seem to be defining “water” as a collection of H2O molecules and I am saying that water “just is” an H2O molecule. Yes, if you have a glass of water then you are correct that you have at least the substances of H2O, H+, and OH-, plus whatever happens to be dissolved in the water. But concerning a single H2O molecule, the substantial form of hydrogen is not present, the substantial form of water/H2O is, although the form of hydrogen is present virtually.

I am trying to do fair justice to the apparant macro/micro “inconsistencies” of the sensible world…which after all is where philosophy starts and ultimately returns.

Aristotle ruled out the sort of considerations we are considering here because of his simplifying (and for him, logical, given the rest of his system) principle that a pure sustance is always the same every time you cut it in half…on to infinity.

But he is wrong isn’t he? Chemists would agree that carbon is a pure substance, but they would not agree that, in the real world, it manifests the same at macro and micro levels. This is because of molecular bonding. One atom of graphite is exactly the same as one atom of diamond. But that is not true at the macro level. Indeed carbon is so different in characteristics at the macro level in graphite and diamond that the ancients considered them different substances. The fault is in principles, not simply in mistaken classification.

Even if we say that water is just a single H2O molecule…this does lead to difficulties.
The word comes from daily life at the macro level. I would say it is intrinsic to the definition of “water” that it comes in bulk. So my opinion that water is not 100% H2O is prob the more correct statement.
On another tack H20 is in fact never found by itself as single atom in space but always dealt to and understood in quantity. We have no reason to believe a single atom of water is stable, it probably ionises and reforms as it gets heated or hit by photons in any case.
It seems impossible to do a theoretical study of the properties of a single H20 atom because atoms are never alone, even in a vacuum.
There are some philosophic theses available on the Net on this very topic…is water H20!

Are chemists wrong in saying that graphite and diamond and many other allotropes are the same substance?

Yes and no. They seem to work from the principle that “substance” is to be defined at the atomic level (by the number of protons in the nucleus). Perfectly consistent - though isotopes give rise to significant philosophic debate among Chemists on this point.

I am suggesting, as way below, that reality is better understood philosophically as multi-layered (sub atomic particles, atomic/ionic particles, molecular/crystaline particles etc). It seems to me that Aristotle would observe, if he knew these things, that each layer is related to the one below it as form to matter. We can then view “substance” from different perspectives…depending on which layer we call “matter”.

Hence my view that plurality of forms is more comprehensive a way of viewing sensible reality than single grand-unifying forms which has no shades of grey between prime-matter and the big-form. Yet we can see many shadowy intermediate and underlying forms in both accidental and substantial changes that Aristotle is at a loss to well represent.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…continued.

It doesn’t matter “how long” an H2O molecule exists, just that it does objectively exist.

I think Linus’s point re stability is a consideration in distinguishing substantial change from accidental change and hence the identification of substances as opposed to accidents.
Unfortunately at the micro level we regulalrly don’t see stable substances … but stable dynamic equilbriums whereby simple substances form, disassociate into simpler substances and reform back again.

This is probably Aristotle’s rebuttal of Heraclitus’ view that everything is constantly changing. But changing to what? That “what” is the stable substantial form. H2 and O2 reacting to form water is changing to water, which is a stable substance. How long H2O happens to hang around after that is not important.

I don’t think so. They were both right (or wrong if you like). At the micro level we see everything is indfeed change - but it is a homeostatic reversible dynamism such that at the macro level things seem stable: so molecules bouncing all over the place at the macro level becomes average temperature in a solid and pressure in a gas. Electrons madly orbiting nuclei take off and leave a hole (- ion)… only to be caught by another atom which is now over-fed (+ ion). Then some atoms share one or two electrons in both their electron clouds forming a covalent bond (H20) only to separate again milliseconds later as ions. Yet water continues to look like stable water.
Concrete at the macro level looks like solid contiguous matter. Yet at the micro level its all emptiness and in fact fields/points of force constantly moving yet, by laws of averages, presenting a constant and stable resistance/solidity on it bodily “surface”.

In the face of these micro realities Aristotles idea of pure substances as stable, single “things” is untenable. But like Newton’s laws of motion, a good approximation at the everyday level.

Now that I have clarified my position it should make sense when I say that a collection of water molecules is an accidental form and not a substantial one, since it refers to quantity. The substantial form would apply to the individual H2O molecule I would think.

Yes it makes sense from a particular perspective (substances are defined by the number of protons in a nucleus not by crystaline structures of those atoms as in diamond/graphite). Though, as above, water is not a good word because people use that word to refer to bulk H2O.

But, as indicated below, there is another problem. H2O is always disassociating into ions and recombining. So I would say we are always dealing with multiples substances (ionic hydrogen as well as H2O) dynamicly combining and recombining in compounds such as water.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If you are taking “water” to mean a collection of H2O molecules, then yes there is some substantial H2 in there for the reasons you have indicated.

I think you mean “hydrogen” NOT H2 don’t you?

Again, the same distinction needs to be applied between the substantial form of the molecule and the accidental form of the collection of molecules.

As below, it depends what layer of sensible reality one considers “matter”.

If matter is the molecule then the different crystalline structures would be substantial changes as the ancients often thought (graphite/diamond) …not because they understood this…but because different molecular structures can sometimes produce stable macro effects (substances) that are very different in character from each other.

However I agree with you and the Chemists that differences in atomic nuclei are a more comprehensive basis for classifying substances and hence diamond/graphite are only allotropes (same substance).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
If all pure substances are somehow derived from combinations of the elements (which do not exist in themselves)…how are they present in pure substances. They either are there or they are not. If the single form explains everything why not completely discard all talk of the elements?

Yes but you are thinking atomism…Aristotle explicitly denies this. Therefore he really has “no room at the inn” for them. Yet he implicitly accepts there is something in the four element tradition of preceding Greek thought. Its a contradiction for him it seems to me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If we accept that the insights and principles of molecular and atomic Chemistry give us a more comprehensive toolbox for distinguishing accidental and substantial change as well as classifying different kinds of “stuff” … then we are agreed.

But the reverse of saying this is that Aristotle’s system leads to provably less consistent
answers…thereby bringing his founding principles in this area under some suspicion.

In this discussion I am really more interested in exploring what is experimentally inescapable to me…that plurality of forms is not a logically inconsistant model of reality.
Aristotle disagrees - but if we can accept that some of his starting points are in fact mistaken…his objections may collapse. Afterall, his system is so tightly integrated that if one basic principle can fairly be shown to be mistaken…it will affect the whole.

See below re how his principle of the infinite divisibility of pure substances leads to contradictions with modern chemistry when we look at your issue of one water atom versus a glass of water.

Aristotle ruled out the sort of considerations we are considering here because of his simplifying (and for him, logical, given the rest of his system) principle that a pure sustance is always the same every time you cut it in half…on to infinity.

But he is wrong isn’t he? Chemists would agree that carbon is a pure substance, but they would not agree that, in the real world, it manifests the same at macro and micro levels. This is because of molecular bonding. One atom of graphite is exactly the same as one atom of diamond. But that is not true at the macro level. Indeed carbon is so different in characteristics at the macro level in graphite and diamond that the ancients considered them different substances. The fault is in principles, not simply in mistaken classification.

Even if we say that water is just a single H2O molecule…this does lead to difficulties.
The word comes from daily life at the macro level. I would say it is intrinsic to the definition of “water” that it comes in bulk. So my opinion that water is not 100% H2O is prob the more correct statement.
On another tack H20 is in fact never found by itself as single atom in space but always dealt to and understood in quantity. We have no reason to believe a single atom of water is stable, it probably ionises and reforms as it gets heated or hit by photons in any case.
It seems impossible to do a theoretical study of the properties of a single H20 atom because atoms are never alone, even in a vacuum.
There are some philosophic theses available on the Net on this very topic…is water H20!

Are chemists wrong in saying that graphite and diamond and many other allotropes are the same substance?

Yes and no. They seem to work from the principle that “substance” is to be defined at the atomic level (by the number of protons in the nucleus). Perfectly consistent - though isotopes give rise to significant philosophic debate among Chemists on this point.

I am suggesting, as way below, that reality is better understood philosophically as multi-layered (sub atomic particles, atomic/ionic particles, molecular/crystaline particles etc). It seems to me that Aristotle would observe, if he knew these things, that each layer is related to the one below it as form to matter. We can then view “substance” from different perspectives…depending on which layer we call “matter”.

Hence my view that plurality of forms is more comprehensive a way of viewing sensible reality than single grand-unifying forms which has no shades of grey between prime-matter and the big-form. Yet we can see many shadowy intermediate and underlying forms in both accidental and substantial changes that Aristotle is at a loss to well represent.

I disagree profoundly. You base your objection on what you consider major problelms with Aristotle on the one hand and the productive results of modern science on the other. Aristltle’s theory of substance does not rely on a uniform material content. The thing he is imphasizing here is that we are dealing with one nature, substance, essence which are identifiable by specific actions and behaviors, etc. The actual material content or structure is insignificant, it is the nature that was, and is, important. That is what I have been trying to get accross all along. What difference does it make what structure God gives matter? And what difference does it make if it is a uniform plazma like substance like air, water, earth, or fire and the complex mixture of atoms and energy we know now? Are we saying that God cannot make natures called water, air, gold, lead, man, dog, cat, tree, grass, etc, which are really and substantially different, just because in the last hundred years or so we have discovered atoms?

The Aristotelian theory of act and potency, as expressed by the matter-form structure of substance, demands a certain specific material structure which Aquinas called designate matter. You can view that just as science views the inner structure of any substance, animate on inanimate, animal, vegetable, or mineral. Specifically, it is the " form " of each matter-form composite which calls for a specific designate matter. We could hardly expect the designate matter of water, man, and gold to be identical. And does it really matter that there are ions of hydorgen and oxygen floating around in a glass of water? The point I am making is the we cannot reduce the nature of a substance to its constituent elements.Nor do we need to declare Aristotle dead just because his elements were different than the ones we know.now.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I disagree profoundly. You base your objection on what you consider major problelms with Aristotle on the one hand and the productive results of modern science on the other. Aristltle’s theory of substance does not rely on a uniform material content. The thing he is imphasizing here is that we are dealing with one nature, substance, essence which are identifiable by specific actions and behaviors, etc. The actual material content or structure is insignificant, it is the nature that was, and is, important. That is what I have been trying to get accross all along. What difference does it make what structure God gives matter? And what difference does it make if it is a uniform plazma like substance like air, water, earth, or fire and the complex mixture of atoms and energy we know now? Are we saying that God cannot make natures called water, air, gold, lead, man, dog, cat, tree, grass, etc, which are really and substantially different, just because in the last hundred years or so we have discovered atoms?

The Aristotelian theory of act and potency, as expressed by the matter-form structure of substance, demands a certain specific material structure which Aquinas called designate matter. You can view that just as science views the inner structure of any substance, animate on inanimate, animal, vegetable, or mineral. Specifically, it is the " form " of each matter-form composite which calls for a specific designate matter. We could hardly expect the designate matter of water, man, and gold to be identical. And does it really matter that there are ions of hydorgen and oxygen floating around in a glass of water? The point I am making is the we cannot reduce the nature of a substance to its constituent elements.Nor do we need to declare Aristotle dead just because his elements were different than the ones we know.now.

Linus2nd

There are ample examples below where the principles in Aristotle’s Physics appears inconsistent and unable to align with the more clear cut explanations of the Philosophy of Chemistry (not that the Chemists have by any means answered everything).

Noone here is saying that many of Aristotles basic concepts and principles may not be useful for assisting philosophers of modern Physics make sense of their experimental new findings.

However it seems Aristotle’s system as a whole can no longer be regarded as the tight, integrated and consistent system it was once regarded as.

When you can apply Aristotle in a way that makes more consistent sense of the following changes/substances then I am sure people will listen and dialogue with you:
(a) allotropes (eg diamonds and graphite…are they different kinds of substance or not). Is water and steam the same kind of substance. What single definition of “substance” does Aristotle provide to correctly classify these two cases?
(b) are modern “compounds” (eg water) really pure Arist substances if the constituent elements still retain some independent and externally discoverable activity (eg hydrogen ions).
(c) If water is still to be regarded as substance…what is inconsistent about positing two substantial forms hierachically ordered in order to explain the above observation which appears to deny a single big form informing prime matter directly (as per Arist)?
(d) is gold truly infinitely divisible into the same kind of stuff (modetrn chemistry tells us that if you cut a single atom in half you would in fact get two different elements of lesser atomic number and weight)?

If you can apply Aristoleian thinking to these difficulties…then I am sure you will get more “street-cred” here. Unsubstantiated and unapplied personal professions of faith in Aristotle prob won’t do that on a philosophy forum dedicated to arguments from reason rather than authority or faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There are ample examples below where the principles in Aristotle’s Physics appears inconsistent and unable to align with the more clear cut explanations of the Philosophy of Chemistry (not that the Chemists have by any means answered everything).

I don’t think they are inconsistent at all. The validity or truth value of his teaching on substances does not depend on whether we can reach agreement on every case examined. He agreed that there are cases which are hard to determine. And if science cannot agree with him on whether or not certain elemental " particles " are in fact substances in their own right, means no more than that there is disagreement in these difficult cases. I don’t see how that invalidates the value of his propositions about substances.

I don’t really think that a scientist would disagree if Aristotle would say that each of the elements on the periodic table represented a substance, in that it had a specific nature as evidenced by its characteristics and behavior. And these characteristics are not simply a matter of whether they are composed of the same type of atoms typical of the substance each represents. Ions and other non-standard forms of a particular atom may indeed be present. The important factor is how does it behave? Indeed, I don’t see how science can function at all unless it accepts the fact that the bit of matter under scrutiny at the moment is a substance with a specific nature. I would think this would be crucial in both physics and chemistry. If there were any doubt at all, this would lead to very unfortunate accidents, both in the laboratory and in the field.

Noone here is saying that many of Aristotles basic concepts and principles may not be useful for assisting philosophers of modern Physics make sense of their experimental new findings.

As I just pointed out, they are very useful, they simply are not consciously alluded to. If nature was not consistent, doing science would be at least very dangerous, if not absolutely impossible.

However it seems Aristotle’s system as a whole can no longer be regarded as the tight, integrated and consistent system it was once regarded as.

Only by those who do not understand it. Aristotle’s concept of nature is not in competition with science, never has been.

When you can apply Aristotle in a way that makes more consistent sense of the following changes/substances then I am sure people will listen and dialogue with you:
(a) allotropes (eg diamonds and graphite…are they different kinds of substance or not). Is water and steam the same kind of substance. What single definition of “substance” does Aristotle provide to correctly classify these two cases?
(b) are modern “compounds” (eg water) really pure Arist substances if the constituent elements still retain some independent and externally discoverable activity (eg hydrogen ions).
(c) If water is still to be regarded as substance…what is inconsistent about positing two substantial forms hierachically ordered in order to explain the above observation which appears to deny a single big form informing prime matter directly (as per Arist)?
(d) is gold truly infinitely divisible into the same kind of stuff (modetrn chemistry tells us that if you cut a single atom in half you would in fact get two different elements of lesser atomic number and weight)?

The problem here is not Aristotle, the problem is that some, perhaps most scientists do not universally agree with what their own science tells them and are, at the same time, absolutely ignorant of Aristotle.

If you can apply Aristoleian thinking to these difficulties…then I am sure you will get more “street-cred” here. Unsubstantiated and unapplied personal professions of faith in Aristotle prob won’t do that on a philosophy forum dedicated to arguments from reason rather than authority or faith.

I think I have given enough proof to satisfy an impartial mind. It is not a matter of faith at all, it is a matter of facing the realities of nature. Aristotle was intelligent enough to recognize that if nature did not behave consistently then knowledge was impossible. That is what he was all about.

Now as far as water is concerned I have given my reasons for saying that it is a substance with an identifiable nature, in all its forms. And for this reason it should be regarded as a single substance. The fact that its constituent matter contains elements that can be pulled out or separated into identifiable substances does not change the fact at all. The specific matter of any substance must be made out of something. Isn’t that true? And for each type of substance, that matter is slightly different. To make different substances, God had to make different kinds of matter. What is so strange about that?
The argument that a nature should not be called a substance simply because it can be yanked apart, or that we can identify even sub-elements within those elements, is illogical.

Requiescat in Pace
Linus2nd.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think they are inconsistent at all. The validity or truth value of his teaching on substances does not depend on whether we can reach agreement on every case examined. He agreed that there are cases which are hard to determine. And if science cannot agree with him on whether or not certain elemental " particles " are in fact substances in their own right, means no more than that there is disagreement in these difficult cases. I don’t see how that invalidates the value of his propositions about substances.

I don’t really think that a scientist would disagree if Aristotle would say that each of the elements on the periodic table represented a substance, in that it had a specific nature as evidenced by its characteristics and behavior. And these characteristics are not simply a matter of whether they are composed of the same type of atoms typical of the substance each represents. Ions and other non-standard forms of a particular atom may indeed be present. The important factor is how does it behave? Indeed, I don’t see how science can function at all unless it accepts the fact that the bit of matter under scrutiny at the moment is a substance with a specific nature. I would think this would be crucial in both physics and chemistry. If there were any doubt at all, this would lead to very unfortunate accidents, both in the laboratory and in the field.

As I just pointed out, they are very useful, they simply are not consciously alluded to. If nature was not consistent, doing science would be at least very dangerous, if not absolutely impossible.

Only by those who do not understand it. Aristotle’s concept of nature is not in competition with science, never has been.

The problem here is not Aristotle, the problem is that some, perhaps most scientists do not universally agree with what their own science tells them and are, at the same time, absolutely ignorant of Aristotle.

I think I have given enough proof to satisfy an impartial mind. It is not a matter of faith at all, it is a matter of facing the realities of nature. Aristotle was intelligent enough to recognize that if nature did not behave consistently then knowledge was impossible. That is what he was all about.

Now as far as water is concerned I have given my reasons for saying that it is a substance with an identifiable nature, in all its forms. And for this reason it should be regarded as a single substance. The fact that its constituent matter contains elements that can be pulled out or separated into identifiable substances does not change the fact at all. The specific matter of any substance must be made out of something. Isn’t that true? And for each type of substance, that matter is slightly different. To make different substances, God had to make different kinds of matter. What is so strange about that?
The argument that a nature should not be called a substance simply because it can be yanked apart, or that we can identify even sub-elements within those elements, is illogical.

Requiescat in Pace
Linus2nd.

Fuzzy abstract words, words, words with no application to the problems outlined so no credibility .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Fuzzy abstract words, words, words with no application to the problems outlined so no credibility .

You mean not credible to you. But put the shoe on the other foot. When it comes to describing the inner reality of a substance, the atom on down, what does the physicist or chemist have? Words! So the scientist says, " Yes, but our words mean something and yours don’t. " Now is that objective reasoning?

I think my arguments have been very reasonable. I really don’t care if science wants to deny the substantial reality of its elements, though I think it would be unreasonable for it to do so since the realities of their inner structures are even more nebulous, more open to objection. But I think we must draw the line at living things.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You mean not credible to you. But put the shoe on the other foot. When it comes to describing the inner reality of a substance, the atom on down, what does the physicist or chemist have? Words! So the scientist says, " Yes, but our words mean something and yours don’t. " Now is that objective reasoning?

I think my arguments have been very reasonable. I really don’t care if science wants to deny the substantial reality of its elements, though I think it would be unreasonable for it to do so since the realities of their inner structures are even more nebulous, more open to objection. But I think we must draw the line at living things.

Linus2nd

Linus I communicate in particulars and with particular people … you, me, Balto, specific examples, specific questions… not universals (“the scientist”, “the chemist”) that don’t answer back and only echo one’s own personal parodies of “them” and “their” arguments.

Not at all convincing sorry, and a number of contributors below have indicated as such.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus I communicate in particulars and with particular people … you, me, Balto, specific examples, specific questions… not universals (“the scientist”, “the chemist”) that don’t answer back and only echo one’s own personal parodies of “them” and “their” arguments.

Not at all convincing sorry, and a number of contributors below have indicated as such.

Sorry you feel that way, must be lonely living in your rarefied air. As for the " others, " fortunately they don’t represent the run of humanity. And even if they did, I’m not running in a " beauty " contest. Philosophy is the search for truth, unfortunately some modern philosophers of science think they have a corner on truth.

Linus2nd