Objective substance of macroscopic physical objects does not exist

[Aloysium]

I think that objective substance exists only on the spiritual level. I exist. So do you. We are objectively different because we do not have spiritual parts which could be exchanged. . . .

As persons we are a unity - no separation of body and spirit.
One being.
It is not good to be a disembodied spirit - death is a bad thing.
We will be resurrected.

 

[blase6]

As long as you keep on this track you will have no credibility. God created things with natures. The nature of substances control the activity of all of which they are composed. The nature of the Cat controls all the electrons, atoms, cells of which its physicality is composed.

Please forgive me, I forget that all the writ of Aquinas is the definitive dogma of the Church and he has explanations and understanding of Church doctrines which are certain truth, and all philosophers and theologians who would question his conclusions are malicious fiends who would obscure the truth, or madmen. I will try to remember better.

After receiving a vision he stated that all his works were “straw”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please forgive me, I forget that all the writ of Aquinas is the definitive dogma of the Church and he has explanations and understanding of Church doctrines which are certain truth, and all philosophers and theologians who would question his conclusions are malicious fiends who would obscure the truth, or madmen. I will try to remember better.

After receiving a vision he stated that all his works were “straw”.

That is incorrect. If you ever get around to reading the Catechism you will find that the teaching of the Church is based solely on the Word revealed by God in the time of the ancient Israelites and then of his Son, Jesus Christ. The Church uses the teaching of various philosophers, theologians, Saints, and the Fathers of the Chruch to help explain the Doctrine revealed by the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. The enemies of the Church are those who reject its Doctrine, thereby rejecting the Revelation of the Trinity. And, as a matter of fact, the Catechism refers more often to St. Augustine than to Thomas.

Linus2nd.

 

[blase6]

That is incorrect. If you ever get around to reading the Catechism you will find that the teaching of the Church is based solely on the Word revealed by God in the time of the ancient Israelites and then of his Son, Jesus Christ. The Church uses the teaching of various philosophers, theologians, Saints, and the Fathers of the Chruch to help explain the Doctrine revealed by the Father, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ. The enemies of the Church are those who reject its Doctrine, thereby rejecting the Revelation of the Trinity. And, as a matter of fact, the Catechism refers more often to St. Augustine than to Thomas.

Linus2nd.

You are constantly presenting Aquinas as certain doctrine when it is not. I don’t see why since I find some ideas and explanations by Aquinas to be unacceptable, then suddenly I am a material heretic. I haven’t rejected any Church doctrine. I have only presented logical problems with them or a different understanding of them.

 

[davidv]

You are constantly presenting Aquinas as certain doctrine when it is not. I don’t see why since I find some ideas and explanations by Aquinas to be unacceptable, then suddenly I am a material heretic. I haven’t rejected any Church doctrine. I have only presented logical problems with them or a different understanding of them.

The Church doctrines are taught because they are true. Aquinas is presented as a philosophical explanation of those truths. Since Church doctrines are protected by the Holy Spirit from error, the supposed problems you present are manufactured by you and cannot be real problems.

 

[blase6]

The Church doctrines are taught because they are true. Aquinas is presented as a philosophical explanation of those truths. Since Church doctrines are protected by the Holy Spirit from error, the supposed problems you present are manufactured by you and cannot be real problems.

But Aquinas’ thought in and of itself is not Catholic doctrine.

 

[davidv]

But Aquinas’ thought in and of itself is not Catholic doctrine.

Who has claimed it is Catholic doctrine?

 

[blase6]

Who has claimed it is Catholic doctrine?

LinusThe2nd constantly implies it in his posts.

 

[davidv]

LinusThe2nd constantly implies it in his posts.

Actually it is you who has been doing the implying.

 

[blase6]

Actually it is you who has been doing the implying.

No, I have defended myself by explaining that Aquinas’ explanations of Church doctrine are not in themselves doctrine.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

LinusThe2nd constantly implies it in his posts.

No Blase, I never have implied that. I have always said the the Church useses some of his doctrine to help explain some of the Church’s teaching. But the Church also uses the work of other philosophers and theologians as well. It relies heavily on the work of St. Augustine as well.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are constantly presenting Aquinas as certain doctrine when it is not. I don’t see why since I find some ideas and explanations by Aquinas to be unacceptable, then suddenly I am a material heretic. I haven’t rejected any Church doctrine. I have only presented logical problems with them or a different understanding of them.

Have I not shown you in the Church’s own documents where these teachings are Defined Dogma? I showed you these documents. Then I supported these teachings with arguments of St. Thomas. You know, it isn’t very nice to misrepresent what I have said. Please refrain from doing that.

Linus2nd

 

[TarkanAttila]

However, Aquinas’s explanations, while not doctrine, are themselves usually good explanations. And the Church recognises transubstantiation as one of those, as per the Council of Trent. See this passage in the Catechism:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine *there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. *This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

I myself found this section of the Internet Encyclopaedia of philosophy to be particularly enlightening: iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#H4

…[N]ow we must consider whether or not the parts of a substance can exist without the substance of which they are parts, that is, after the dissolution of the substance of which they are parts do the parts become substances in themselves? The parts of a substance receive their identity through being the parts of the substance whose parts they are. Thus, the flesh and bone of a human are flesh and bone precisely because they are parts of a human. When the human dies, the flesh and bone are no longer flesh and bone (except equivocally speaking) because they are no longer parts of a human substance; rather, the flesh and bone cease to function as flesh and bone and begin to decompose, in which case they are not themselves substances. However, on Aquinas’s view, the elements out of which a substance is made can indeed subsist beyond the dissolution of the substance. Thus, whilst the elements are parts of the substance, they are not, as parts of a substance, substances in themselves, but when the substance dissolves, the elements will remain as independent substances in their own right. Thus, in the case of the dissolution of the human being, whilst the flesh and bone no longer remain but decompose, the elements that played a role in the formation of the substance remain.

*In more contemporary terms we could say that before they go to make up the bodily substances we see in the world, **atoms are substances in themselves, but when united in a certain form they go to make cats, dogs, humans, and cease to be independent substances in themselves. ***When the cat or dog or human perishes, its flesh and bones perish with it, but its atoms regain their substantial nature and they remain as substances in themselves. So, a substance can have its parts, and for as long as those parts are parts of a substance, those parts are not substances in themselves, but when the substance decomposes, those parts can be considered as substances in themselves so long as they are capable of subsisting in themselves.

In other words, Aquinas’s answer would largely be that of modern chemical science:

If a cat eats food, the food remains food for as long as it is not broken down and integrated into the body. It is certain that when the food enters the cells and feeds them and causes them to regenerate, it is no longer food, but a part of the body. It is also probably not food when stomach acid breaks down the food’s parts into their own specific substances - proteins, fats, etc.

 

[MPat]

The only understanding I could have of objective physical substance would be a kind of “soul” that that object has.

Could it be that it is this understanding that is wrong?

After all, a substance is an object (cat, mouse, human), while a soul is the form of that substance and not the substance itself…

But that raises a bunch of problems, such as, if a manmade figurine has objective substance, it has a sort of “soul”, but did God make the soul or the craftsman?

I think that, as an artifact, it wouldn’t be considered a substance, but an aggregate of substances. That avoids the problem you noted.

But even if that is a substance, what problems do you see with the answer “God made it.”?

 

[blase6]

Could it be that it is this understanding that is wrong?

After all, a substance is an object (cat, mouse, human), while a soul is the form of that substance and not the substance itself…

I think that, as an artifact, it wouldn’t be considered a substance, but an aggregate of substances. That avoids the problem you noted.

But even if that is a substance, what problems do you see with the answer “God made it.”?

More gibberish about form, substance and accident. I simply don’t see that objective substance exists in purely physical objects. In your understanding, where does a substance become an artifact? It is a bizarre understanding of the world.

There is objectively no figurine. That is just a label your mind assigns to the mass of matter it perceives which has collective properties somewhat different from surrounding matter. God did not make the “figurine”, God made the matter. A person arranged the matter into a configuration which seems to him like what he would call a “figurine”.

 

[blase6]

However, Aquinas’s explanations, while not doctrine, are themselves usually good explanations. And the Church recognises transubstantiation as one of those, as per the Council of Trent. See this passage in the Catechism:

In other words, Aquinas’s answer would largely be that of modern chemical science:

If a cat eats food, the food remains food for as long as it is not broken down and integrated into the body. It is certain that when the food enters the cells and feeds them and causes them to regenerate, it is no longer food, but a part of the body. It is also probably not food when stomach acid breaks down the food’s parts into their own specific substances - proteins, fats, etc.

The Catechism like any other text, is subject to fallible interpretation, and so I will never be sure what it exactly means.

The encyclopedia quote just shows me the logical absurdity which results from believing that physical objects have substance apart from mere matter. I am trying to point out that substance of physical objects is based in one’s perception of the world. There are objectively no planets, no stars, no rocks, no water, etc. All that is purely physical is just matter, and any substance we perceive is subjective.

 

[blase6]

Have I not shown you in the Church’s own documents where these teachings are Defined Dogma? I showed you these documents. Then I supported these teachings with arguments of St. Thomas. You know, it isn’t very nice to misrepresent what I have said. Please refrain from doing that.

Linus2nd

What is certainly defined Catholic Dogma, and where it can be found? The Church is in such a mess of what is dogma, and what is not, that I don’t know if I will ever know for sure.

 

[MPat]

More gibberish about form, substance and accident. I simply don’t see that objective substance exists in purely physical objects. In your understanding, where does a substance become an artifact? It is a bizarre understanding of the world.

There is objectively no figurine. That is just a label your mind assigns to the mass of matter it perceives which has collective properties somewhat different from surrounding matter. God did not make the “figurine”, God made the matter. A person arranged the matter into a configuration which seems to him like what he would call a “figurine”.

“Gibberish”, “bizarre” - and that’s it? Are you also willing to dismiss quantum mechanics or theory of relativity, as that is just “more gibberish about Hamilton operators and probabilities” and because “It is a bizarre understanding of the world”…?

Anyway, I am pointing out that you do not seem to understand those things correctly (which might be why you think you are dealing with “gibberish”). You say “I simply don’t see that objective substance exists in purely physical objects.” - but no one claims that substance exists “in” objects. Substances are supposed to be objects, not some “soulish” parts of objects. Is that clear? After all, if you participate in this discussion, you probably do want to learn something, right?

Finally, if you think that “gibberish” and “bizarre” are good reasons to dismiss something, “There is objectively no figurine.” seems to be pretty “bizarre” to me…

 

[blase6]

“Gibberish”, “bizarre” - and that’s it? Are you also willing to dismiss quantum mechanics or theory of relativity, as that is just “more gibberish about Hamilton operators and probabilities” and because “It is a bizarre understanding of the world”…?

Anyway, I am pointing out that you do not seem to understand those things correctly (which might be why you think you are dealing with “gibberish”). You say “I simply don’t see that objective substance exists in purely physical objects.” - but no one claims that substance exists “in” objects. Substances are supposed to be objects, not some “soulish” parts of objects. Is that clear? After all, if you participate in this discussion, you probably do want to learn something, right?

Finally, if you think that “gibberish” and “bizarre” are good reasons to dismiss something, “There is objectively no figurine.” seems to be pretty “bizarre” to me…

Yes, I will dismiss the “quantum mechanics” if that involves the explanation that subatomic particles “decide where they want to go”. That is nonsense. Scientists cannot accept that they don’t have the faculty to find the cause/pattern of subatomic particle movement.

An substance is an idea. An idea is spiritual. We impose ideas upon ourselves of what we perceive in the physical world. For example:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
You could see a substance in this which is different from what another person would see. But objectively you are just seeing light which reflects from matter.

I hold that substance is imposed on physical matter by persons to make sense of it. There is no objective substance, because that would be a spiritual reality, which purely physical matter does not have except at the basic level of “matter”, which may never be found.

 

[MPat]

I hold that substance is imposed on physical matter by persons to make sense of it. There is no objective substance, because that would be a spiritual reality, which purely physical matter does not have except at the basic level of “matter”, which may never be found.

“I hold that”? So, just a group of assertions without any actual argument…?

For example, “that would be a spiritual reality” - why do you think so?

Or “a spiritual reality, which purely physical matter does not have except at the basic level of ‘matter’” - again, why do you think so?

Yes, I will dismiss the “quantum mechanics” if that involves the explanation that subatomic particles “decide where they want to go”. That is nonsense. Scientists cannot accept that they don’t have the faculty to find the cause/pattern of subatomic particle movement.

I see… Well, at least that’s consistent… Not very reasonable, but consistent.