Yes I know. But people should learn that if they really care. Epistemology would be another good way to examine this. Now is it correct that burning wood into ash changes the wood’s substance? It’s still ash of wood. Has there been a change in “essence”? Substance is what changes at transubstansiation. And at Mass what about the “essence” of the host?
I take it you don’t approve of Aristotle’s Metaphysics or metaphysics in general. It’s not theology; but metaphysics. As far as I know they have nothing to do with one another.
I’m not a positivist if that’s what you mean. There are important metaphysical questions out there. I don’t think Aristotle’s metaphysics are correct. It’s an interesting way to talk about things. And there’s clearly a distinction between what makes up an object, and the ‘form’ of an object. But I don’t think what I’m thinking of is the same sense as what Aristotle meant.
The older metaphysics is indeed hard to understand. I saw that you say you are “Agnostic” and wouldn’t possibly accept Thomas Aquinas’s theology based on Aristotle. One thing he disagreed with Plato about was Plato’s “World of Forms”. I very much believe in a “World of Forms” that Plato talked about. Of course this is Western philosophy. Buddhist or Eastern philosophy is very good and impressive speaking of not only “existence” but “non-existance” and something else that is neither.
Are you sure that Aristotle’s logic would say that? idk myself. The terms can be pretty tricky I admit. There is no difference in a 500 year oak tree and an acorn as to its’ substance it seems to me. But the accidents? Very different. Does the substance or accidents matter? Accidents are detected by the senses.
They are, but that is what conclusion it leads to in this scenario of abortion. A fetus is considered human because the quality of being human is innate and does not change, therefore to have an abortion is directly equivalent to murder.
Aristotle’s metaphysics aren’t hard to understand. I just don’t buy into it. I don’t buy into Plato’s Forms either. Again though, I don’t want to fight over metaphysics. But the argument posted does take certain metaphysics as granted and that can lead to a problem using it to convince certain people.
When you burn a piece of wood and it changes into a pile of ashes you have a substantial change, from wood to ashes. We no longer have wood but ashes which are elements or compound elements. If there is a change in substance, there is also a change in essence or nature of a thing. The essence or nature of wood is not the same as the essence, nature, or substance of ashes. At Mass, since the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, this also means that the essence of the bread and wine change into the essence of the body and blood of Christ. Substance and essence can be used interchangably, it means the nature of some thing. Substance in this sense, Aristotle called second substance. First substance is the individual existing thing. In transubstantiation, the substance, essence, nature of the bread and wine is changed into the substance, essence, nature of the body and blood of Christ. The accidents of the bread and wine remain miraculously by divine power after transubstantiation; it is the substance of the bread and wine that are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ which is why it is called transubstantiation, that is, a change of substance.
The argument isn’t that by killing a fetus you’re killing an adult. By stepping on an sapling you don’t kill a 500 year old tree. But by killing a sapling you do kill an oak tree. By aborting a fetus you do kill a human being. The stage of development doesn’t change that. The question then in metaphysics is what is a human being, and what is a tree, and what is good for each according to its nature?
Is there any change in intrinsic value of life of a fetus, embryo or “person” ? I would not think so. But what is intrinsic value and does a thing have “intrinsic value”.
Ok so about the Eucharist. Which I took part in tonight at the vigil. I haven’t been to Mass in about a year. I have been weak. Slothful. I confessed and it was good to take part in the body and blood again.
Yes, in the order of the natural substantial changes in nature, the accidents change when there is a change of substance such as when you set fire to a log of wood and it turns into ashes. However, the substantial change that takes place at the consecration of the bread and wine at Mass is of a different order, that is, it is a supernatural, miraculous change of substance performed by the almighty power of God unlike any other change of substance we observe in nature. The accidents of the bread and wine remain in existence without a substance to inhere in by God’s power.
So there’s two ways to look at this. The non-believer would say it’s a fraud. And the faithful have to take it on faith. Tastes like wheat gluten to me
Can this be proven by reason or does it have to be on faith. Faith and reason go hand in hand.Transubstantiation can’t be proven by reason. The fact is that accidents are a reliable guide to the underlying essence of a thing in every case I can imagine except transubstantiation.So there’s two ways to look at this. The non-believer would say it’s a fraud. And the faithful have to take it on faith. Tastes like wheat gluten to me
Bill