Need help on Aristotle- Please

[jgrdaniel]

My thanks in advance.
At my Ancient Philosophy class, we are reviewing the Metaphysics, Book VII. I have an Analysis due next week on a fragment of chapter 3. We previously reviewed the Categories, followed by Physics.

I am confused on Aristotle’s definition of Substance, and even more on Subject which he says is “that of which the other things are said, but which is not itself in turn said of any other thing”. This is the first time I read Aristotle’s works, and I find it very difficult. Explain to me as if I was 7 years old

Thank you and God bless.

 

[Areopagite]

My thanks in advance.
At my Ancient Philosophy class, we are reviewing the Metaphysics, Book VII. I have an Analysis due next week on a fragment of chapter 3. We previously reviewed the Categories, followed by Physics.

I am confused on Aristotle’s definition of Substance, and even more on Subject which he says is “that of which the other things are said, but which is not itself in turn said of any other thing”. This is the first time I read Aristotle’s works, and I find it very difficult. Explain to me as if I was 7 years old

Thank you and God bless.

Substance is that which exists in itself (or by itself). This is in contrast to Accident, which means that which exists in another (i.e. in a substance). Examples of substances: rock, tree, computer, human, chair, etc. Example of accidents: color, height, round, soft, three, running, etc. Substances stand alone and do not have to exist in any other thing except themselves. Accidents, on the other hand, need to exist in something (as color exists in … a rock for example). Accidents can either exist in other accidents, but ultimately they must exist in a substance. Does that make sense?

I’m not 100% confident on how Aristotle is using the word “subject” here (because it can be used in various ways, I believe), but I think he may primarily be using it in the grammatical sense, contrasting it to Predicate. I hope this is correct:

For example, let’s take the sentence:
A dog is an animal.

“A dog” is the subject. And “an animal” is the predicate. This is basic grammar.

Since this is so, we say that “an animal” could be said of “a dog.” That is, “an animal” can be predicated of “a dog” … in other words, “an animal” can be made into a predicate of the subject “a dog.” And another way to phrase that is, “an animal” could be said of “a dog.”

Likewise, you could say “soft” can be said of “a pillow” (a pillow is soft). Or, “blue” can be said of “the sky” (the sky is blue). Or, “fast” could be said of “my car” (my car is fast).

So, a predicate is (by definition) something said of something else (and that something else, by definition, is called a subject). Likewise, you could say that a subject (by definition) is something of which something else is said (and that something else, by definition, is called a predicate).

“An animal” can be said of “a dog.” And likewise, “a dog” is something of which “an animal” is said. “Blue” can be said of “the sky.” Likewise, “the sky” is something of which “blue” is said.

“A dog” and “the sky” in these cases are subjects because they are things “that of which the other things are said” and are not things (in this case) that are “not themselves in turn said of any other thing” because a subject, by definition, is “that of which the other things are said, but which is not itself in turn said of any other thing.”

That might be really confusing. And I hope I didn’t have any glaring mistakes here. I admit, I was a bit overwhelmed with the confusing language. But I hope that helps. I hope your analysis goes well.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I am confused on Aristotle’s definition of Substance, and even more on Subject which he says is “that of which the other things are said, but which is not itself in turn said of any other thing”. This is the first time I read Aristotle’s works, and I find it very difficult.

He is trying to distinguish between a “thing” and any properties of that thing. The “Substance” is not its properties, but is categorized or defined by its unique properties. If you take away the properties, what are you left with? - Only the “substance”, void of description. Try to describe a ball without mentioning any of its properties.

You can say that you throw a ball. You run. You walk. You have hair. You breath.

In all of those the **subject **is “You”. Throwing, the ball, walking, hair, and breathing are “said about” You. But what is said about throwing, or running, or walking,…? - nothing.

 

[JDaniel]

My thanks in advance.
At my Ancient Philosophy class, we are reviewing the Metaphysics, Book VII. I have an Analysis due next week on a fragment of chapter 3. We previously reviewed the Categories, followed by Physics.

I am confused on Aristotle’s definition of Substance, and even more on Subject which he says is “that of which the other things are said, but which is not itself in turn said of any other thing”. This is the first time I read Aristotle’s works, and I find it very difficult. Explain to me as if I was 7 years old

Thank you and God bless.

jgrdaniel:

Welcome to CAF.

Ari is no doubt tough to not confuse. But, let’s give it a try: Aristotle defined substance as the fundamental “material,” or better, mobile being of our world. Substance, therefore, is fundamental because accidents depend on it and substantial change depends on it as well. The contraries, possession and privation, are the fundamental principles of matter in the order of change. They are possessed by substance at their requisite times.

Substance is the matter of change or mobile being. It is what changes completely from one type of matter to another, during substantial change, or what remains behind as the being that which changes accidentally. For example, when wood turns to ash upon burning, the wood becomes a different substance at the end of the burning. This is the substantial changing of substance. However, when an apple turns from green to red, the change is accidental and the substance remains the same apple we started with.

So, substance is matter but it is matter that exists in either a primary way, or a secondary way, for it changes either fundamentally or superficially during change. And since the vast majority of change we see, in this world, is of the superficial kind, it is easy to perceive the differences.

Likewise, substance is that which we are able to make predications about. The wood burned up. The horse died. The boy came to be. Typically, a substance is what we commonly refer to in the subject of a sentence. So, in this way substance and subject are referentially the same thing. Except, substance is our universal name for “matter,” while subject has more of a grammatical significance. It is the name for the particular substance under discussion.

Substance is more in the order of the ontological. Subject is more in the order of the grammatical. One does not use a subject to predicate of any other thing, except when playing semantic games with the language.

jd

 

[jgrdaniel]

Thanks Areopagite. James S Saint and JDaniel for your insight. It really helps. I wish that Aristotle’s polished prose survived to this day, it probably would be much easier to understand him than his condensed work and lectures notes! Thanks again for clearing things out.