Of substance and accidents: when H20 isn't water

[balto]

I see nothing illogical in your observations, and it is generally where I am at.

Maybe we can get to the bottom of this conundrum then , because I am having similar questions.

The unfortunate conclusion then is that “substance” (actually the real topic is probably a definition of “substantial change”) is really more a subjective and convenient “make believe” based on “common sense” notions of macro levels of change that don’t really have any consistently “objective” or unified criteria operating behind those judgements when applied to the real world.
It all depends on what level or depth of enquiry one is prepared to drill down to (ie state, crystal structure, molecular composition, atomic composition, sub-atomic composition etc).
Hence the substance/accident distinction looks to be relative (like genus/species) rather than absolute when speaking of minerals.

Yes, that’s the issue I am having but I do think that forms and universals are objectively true. For instance, there is no subjectivity involved in saying that both water and gold inherit the nature of chemicals. That is objectively true, but if we are talking about substantial change it seems you have to qualify that with what level of abstraction you are talking about. And that seems to define what the essential and accidental properties are, since the essential properties would belong to the current level of abstraction and all its parents while the accidents would refer to everything underneath it.

With a gold statue we know the form is really just an accidental modification of the gold “matter”. A change of statue shape is not a change of the underlying “matter.” Of course we can keep dividing the gold statue into smaller bits until we finally come down to a bit (a single gold atom) that can no longer be divided and still entitle us to call the substance gold (most would agree that dividing the gold atom would be a substantial change).

Again it seems like it has to do with what we are talking about. If we have a gold statue of Socrates and a gold statue of Plato then these statues qua sculpted material are not substantially different but the statues qua person represented are? Either way it seems objectively true that they both inherit from the specific chemical gold.

But with living beings (in most cases - though fungal colonies may be different) you are already at the point of where you would be with a gold atom. To further divide is to lose the form (soul) implying death (a substantial change).

For this reason Aristotle would say, I believe, that matter/form in a live creature is not a relative distinction but an absolute one. That is, a creaturely substantial form is putting irreducible “prime matter” into act.

Yet even this assertion by Aristotle is challenged by modern science. The other day I heard a professor saying that a significant proportion of human weight belongs to organic entities that are in fact parasitic (or at least symbiotic) with the human organism.

That does not sound like “prime matter” to me. While we can still accept that the “organic community” that goes into the make-up of a living human body only has its single teleology/unity and self maintenance because of the over-riding human form (soul) which coordinates all…I think it is foolish to keep pretending that relatively self-subsisting, intermediary sub-organising units do not go into our human make-up. Even at the purely inorganic level our bones still seem to exhibit all the usual properties of the minerals of which they are made and which they allegedly “turn back into” when we die. Obviously minerals and chemicals and inorganic molecules are transformed into complex organic chemicals and organs and different types of cells are taken up into an overall purpose and function they would never “activate” if left on the beach. But that is not the point. The point is that the body cannot really be said to be a direct activation of prime matter as if intermediary forms and levels of material organisation
no longer exists or play a subservient part.

Well I don’t think that a parasite would belong to the human substance, but the question of whether mutualistic bacteria are part of the human substance is a relevant one. It’s well known that the human small intestine contains a lot of microbial flora that help breakdown certain compounds, which is beneficial to the human and the bacterium. I don’t know enough human anatomy to know the answer to this question, but if the human and/or the bacteria cannot survive without the other, then they would seem to be part of the human substance. It seems like it is difficult to draw a distinct line, but we can clearly understand the difference between humanness and bacteria-ness.

As to your example with human bones, I would think that considering a bone in isolation, though useful for ascertaining the specific nature of the bone itself (i.e. boneness), would still be part of the human substance. The reason I think is that you cannot make reference of the bone as being human unless it is related to the whole. A bone in a living human has specific final ends that a bone in a dead human or in isolation does not have.

 

[balto]

The Aristotelian “soul” certainly has much going for it still, but some of the attendant substance/accidents concepts attending with it need to be better updated as Scotus attempted (perhaps unsuccessfully) when he opined that Man is composed of a hierarchy of forms not just a single one (Aquinas’s position).

The hierarchy of forms that you brought up is true I would think. I’m not sure that Aquinas would disagree with it though, although he might add a qualifier that the superforms, if you will, only exist virtually in the actual substance. That makes sense to me. I’m not sure if you are familiar with computer programming, but it would be like having a hierarchy of class definitions. You could have something like:

Sphere → Circle → Shape → Mathematical Object → Object

where “->” points to the superclass. So if I have a sphere, it inherits all the properties of everything above it such that you could say that the form of circle exists virtually in the sphere object. The problem is how to objectively demarcate the substantial form as Sphere and not something more specific. I can easily see though how you would objectively compare two objects because you’d just work your way up until they converge on a single superclass and then the relevant difference is the level just below that. Back to reality, something like this seems to hold true of humans as well:

Rational Animal (Human) → Appetitive Animal → Sensitive Animal → Vegetative Life → Living Object → Chemical Object → Physical Object → Quantifiable Object → Existing Object

or something like that .

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
The Aristotelian “soul” certainly has much going for it still, but some of the attendant substance/accidents concepts attending with it need to be better updated as Scotus attempted (perhaps unsuccessfully) when he opined that Man is composed of a hierarchy of forms not just a single one (Aquinas’s position).

The hierarchy of forms that you brought up is true I would think. I’m not sure that Aquinas would disagree with it though, although he might add a qualifier that the superforms, if you will, only exist virtually in the actual substance.

The question here and which was debated among the medieval theologians was whether a substance is composed of more than one substantial form or only one substantial form. The Franciscans argued for more than one substantial form in substances while Aquinas argued that a substance contains one substantial form though it may have many accidental forms. Aquinas argued that the elements are in the human body with their active and passive qualities virtually but not substantially. For the soul is the one substantial form of the human body. The substantial form is what makes a thing be what it is, for example, the human soul united to matter or a body makes one human being. Aquinas argued that if a human being or whatever consisted of more than one substantial form, then that thing would have an accidental unity which is against the very notion that a substance is one substantial thing.

 

[balto]

The question here and which was debated among the medieval theologians was whether a substance is composed of more than one substantial form or only one substantial form. The Franciscans argued for more than one substantial form in substances while Aquinas argued that a substance contains one substantial form though it may have many accidental forms. Aquinas argued that the elements are in the human body with their active and passive qualities virtually but not substantially. For the soul is the one substantial form of the human body. The substantial form is what makes a thing be what it is, for example, the human soul united to matter or a body makes one human being. Aquinas argued that if a human being or whatever consisted of more than one substantial form, then that thing would have an accidental unity which is against the very notion that a substance is one substantial thing.

That’s interesting, thank you for explaining it. I would think that Aquinas would be right about everything having only one substantial form. The only question I have is what makes something a substantial form? In my previous post, why is “rational animal” the substantial form of a human and not “Caucasian rational animal” or “Caucasian male rational animal with blonde hair” or something like that. Yes, it is probably a silly question but I don’t know where the line is objectively supposed to be drawn, unless it is purely circumstantial and depends on what you are comparing the human to in any given mental act of comparison. I can however see that a substantial form exists and that all the superforms virtually exist objectively in any given substance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The simple point is this L2. If an allegedly “unifying theory” (eg of substantial change versus accidental change) abstracted from sensible experience no longer seems to be unified due to better science (with its extra sensible experience derived from tools that “extend the senses”) then it needs to be improved or discarded.

I’m not sure what you mean by " unifying theory." For Thomas an accidental change would be some change in the categories of quantity, quality, or place. It would be a change which did not alter the essence or nature of the substance or subject under discussion. Of course there are many instances of special cases where there is a question of what is essential and what is accidental. This problem however does not justifying jettesing the essence/nature of real substances or subjects. Science can indeed provide guidence and understanding of what is essential and what is accidental. What has to be maintained is that every really existing substance or subject has a genuine essence or nature from which all its accidents or properties flow. This essence is the source of all essential properties. Whereas the properties of the essence or nature are its specific matter and its specific form and its act of existence…

You are still working within the “Venn Diagram” of the ancients as if its business as usual and there is nothing new under the sun. There are times when the “Venn Diagram” box is itself too small or is proven inadequate as a frame of reference.

The " Venn Diagram " was not used by the " ancients, " it was invented in the 19th century. What I have been saying has nothing to do with it.

There seems every reason to believe that Aristotle himself would have radically upgraded much of his philosophy were he alive today. Principles that are derived from sensible experience, on principle, potentially can be overthrown by better understanding of sensible experience. It is impossible to hold that principles inducted empirically can always and everywhere be non-falsifiable at the same time.

Thomas did indeed make corrections to Aristotle - where he thought it necessary. I base my statements on Thomas’ interpretation of Aristotle. Of course we must allow that there are certain things, even in Thomas, which cannot be maintained. But these things do not involve his basic philosophical theses, they involve certain aspects of his " science, " as per the Celestial Spheres ( and even here one must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, the underlying principles still hold… .

And in some of your discussion, it seems you have indeed " thrown the baby out with the bath water. "

Your statement of what is " fallsifiable " and not " fallsifiable, " would only apply to the " properties " of a substance or subject. It would not apply to the underlying metaphysics of reality. All of reality is one in regard to the underlying metaphysical principles. For example, even God is a Being and everything that exists is a being, but our being and God’s are essentially different because He is Being Itself and Subsistant. We however are being by participation, our being is a caused being and limited, His Being is uncaused. His Essence is His Existence, Angels are Essences which have existence which is caused, their Essences are pure forms. Our essences are forms united with matter. And in each case above, essence and nature are the same.

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m not sure what you mean by " unifying theory."

Same as I stated further below.
If no single principle can be provided to explain how we “intuitively” call some of the examples I provided below accidental change and others substantial…then maybe there is something wrong with the thesis? Sure we can indulge in rationalism and say the thesis is still “true” (whatever that means) even if we cannot apply it in practice…but that seems no more than the case of the Emporers Clothes.

Your yourself seemed to intellectually abdicate on the matter by “leaving it to the Chemists.” Yet this is surely within the borders of Philosophy of Science if not Philosophy itself?

The " Venn Diagram " was not used by the " ancients, " it was invented in the 19th century.

I cannot believe you needed to state this obvious fact and this did not lead you to conclude trees have got in the way of the forest. Maybe you have to want to see the forest, in which case I cannot assist further on your understanding this one.

Of course we must allow that there are certain things, even in Thomas, which cannot be maintained. But these things do not involve his basic philosophical theses, they involve certain aspects of his " science, " as per the Celestial Spheres ( and even here one must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water, the underlying principles still hold… .

Yes I understand your approach on this sort of issue (rationalism) but without justifying its assumptions in some way then mere assertion won’t help convince anyone of the approach.

Your statement of what is " falsifiable " and not " falsifiable, " would only apply to the " properties " of a substance or subject. It would not apply to the underlying metaphysics of reality…

Perhaps I have missed something L2 but this all this seems no more than assertion/description that you haven’t really proven/justified.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Perhaps I have missed something L2 but this all this seems no more than assertion/description that you haven’t really proven/justified.

You will have to excuse me for not responding to derogatory remarks. But I would say you have missed quite a bit. The following was written for someone else but it would fit your case as well.

"
You are tilting at windmills. Scientists, whoever they are, in whatever field, all assume the basic underlying structure of material substances. Placing them in various categories of animate and inanimate classifications testifies to this fact. Every science does it. Now whether you or any scientist adverts to the fact that the name of a substance in its particular genera, species, difference location actually indicates a substance with a particular nature or essence, from which all its properties flow is immaterial.

Certainly a scientist can do science without reflecting on that. That does not change the truth of the fact that if the particular essence did not exist, the scientist would not only not know what he was dealing with, but he would not be dealing with anything at all - because absolutely everything that exists has a particular essence or nature, specific to itself and to the other individuals which are instantiations of that particular nature or essence.

And of course, when you get down to molecules, atoms, and other ultimate particules, there will be disagreement as to what a substance actually is or , as Aristotle would say, what exactly its " whatness " actually is. That does not alter the fact that it is an actually existing " what " of some sort - that it has a particular nature or essence, from which all its properties flow…"

Linus2nd

…

 

[Richca]

That’s interesting, thank you for explaining it. I would think that Aquinas would be right about everything having only one substantial form. The only question I have is what makes something a substantial form? In my previous post, why is “rational animal” the substantial form of a human and not “Caucasian rational animal” or “Caucasian male rational animal with blonde hair” or something like that. Yes, it is probably a silly question but I don’t know where the line is objectively supposed to be drawn, unless it is purely circumstantial and depends on what you are comparing the human to in any given mental act of comparison. I can however see that a substantial form exists and that all the superforms virtually exist objectively in any given substance.

The substantial form gives a thing a specific nature and puts it into a class of things. For example, the substantial form of a human being is the intellectual soul. Our intellectual soul is what makes us different from all other animals and makes us human beings.
Whether a person is caucasian, black, philipino or whatever is an accident of a human being. All are still human beings. Whether a person has blonde, black or brown hair is also an accident. Substantially, they are human beings.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You will have to excuse me for not responding to derogatory remarks

Linus2nd to love you does not mean loving your dog (your views).
If you think that my philosophic assessment of your “truths” (ie “all this seems no more than assertion/description that you haven’t really proven/justified”) is an insult then you must get hurt a lot by the world .
I am simply encouraging you to argue from reason/logic rather than mere “authority.”

Maybe you are a professor or a doctor or a priest for all I know.
But here you, like me, are a nobody and have no more gravitas or authority than the depth/cogency of your views and your skill in communicating them.

90% of readers here will appreciate a summarising/explaining the well-known positions of the ancients and that will be enough for them. Ocassionally you source something or explain something I had not understood before and that is great.
But to be honest I am looking for more.

The Summa is “for beginners”. While I am certainly a student I don’t plan to remain a “beginner” who is well nourished simply by parroting of the same old unchanging “truths” of the past. I am looking for a bit of Aquinas’s genius - not his authoritatively regurgited words as if that alone settles the matter and there is nothing new under the sun because its all been solved. Modern science raises serious problems that make these past “truths” problematic. To pretend this is not so is the way of the dodo bird I fear. Noone with an intelligent modern mind is going to be influenced by authority/tradition alone in the longer term.

As Rickaby SJ stated many years ago:
“If theology has gained nothing by the advance of ’science,’ either ’science’ or theology must be condemned…Theologians have repeated what other theologians have said before them, not considering the advance of physical science, or of history, since the authors whom they follow lived and wrote… Starting with implicit confidence in the dicta of Aristotle, and lightly landing in conclusions by a priori methods, mediaeval philosophers generally had no idea of the vast complexity of nature and of their own ignorance of physics. We know more physics than they did, and we know our own ignorance better.”

So I am concerned when scientists/science get put in boxes holus bolus and are treated like the rabble who know not the law as it were. Its all too easy for theologians to denigrate Physics instead of looking in the mirror. In doing so we are no better than Scientists who denigrate Metaphysics/Theology - but they are not challenged to Christian generosity of spirit as we are.

Or as the old adage goes, “Nemo metaphysicus quin idem physicus.” One can be
no great master of the higher (Metaphysics) if one is a novice in the lower Physics).

If my views are insipid, the same objections/misunderstandings as of old or poorly thought out why get personally offended by them? By all means either make a cogent challenge against them or just disregard them. Surely our dignity comes from something deeper than agreement with our views/reason/authority . In short I intended no insults to you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus2nd to love you does not mean loving your dog (your views).
If you think that my philosophic assessment of your “truths” (ie “all this seems no more than assertion/description that you haven’t really proven/justified”) is an insult then you must get hurt a lot by the world .
I am simply encouraging you to argue from reason/logic rather than mere “authority.”

Maybe you are a professor or a doctor or a priest for all I know.
But here you, like me, are a nobody and have no more gravitas or authority than the depth/cogency of your views and your skill in communicating them.

90% of readers here will appreciate a summarising/explaining the well-known positions of the ancients and that will be enough for them. Ocassionally you source something or explain something I had not understood before and that is great.
But to be honest I am looking for more.

The Summa is “for beginners”. While I am certainly a student I don’t plan to remain a “beginner” who is well nourished simply by parroting of the same old unchanging “truths” of the past. I am looking for a bit of Aquinas’s genius - not his authoritatively regurgited words as if that alone settles the matter and there is nothing new under the sun because its all been solved. Modern science raises serious problems that make these past “truths” problematic. To pretend this is not so is the way of the dodo bird I fear. Noone with an intelligent modern mind is going to be influenced by authority/tradition alone in the longer term.

As Rickaby SJ stated many years ago:
“If theology has gained nothing by the advance of ’science,’ either ’science’ or theology must be condemned…Theologians have repeated what other theologians have said before them, not considering the advance of physical science, or of history, since the authors whom they follow lived and wrote… Starting with implicit confidence in the dicta of Aristotle, and lightly landing in conclusions by a priori methods, mediaeval philosophers generally had no idea of the vast complexity of nature and of their own ignorance of physics. We know more physics than they did, and we know our own ignorance better.”

So I am concerned when scientists/science get put in boxes holus bolus and are treated like the rabble who know not the law as it were. Its all too easy for theologians to denigrate Physics instead of looking in the mirror. In doing so we are no better than Scientists who denigrate Metaphysics/Theology - but they are not challenged to Christian generosity of spirit as we are.

Or as the old adage goes, “Nemo metaphysicus quin idem physicus.” One can be
no great master of the higher (Metaphysics) if one is a novice in the lower Physics).

If my views are insipid, the same objections/misunderstandings as of old or poorly thought out why get personally offended by them? By all means either make a cogent challenge against them or just disregard them. Surely our dignity comes from something deeper than agreement with our views/reason/authority . In short I intended no insults to you.

I’m just an ordinary guy, with a bachelors in Thomistic Philosophy ( 45 years ago ), with a life time interest. I think Edward Fesser is the most easily ( and economically ) available author on genuine Thomism. I respond to the truth. I have purchased ( at great coast ), Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl and both editions of From A Realist Point of View by William A. Wallace. My philosophy library runs to a hundred books, including the Blackfriars Translation of the S.T. ( whose translation is too loose from time to time, but whose Indexes are very helpful).

Linus2nd

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m just an ordinary guy, with a bachelors in Thomistic Philosophy ( 45 years ago ), with a life time interest. I think Edward Fesser is the most easily ( and economically ) available author on genuine Thomism. I respond to the truth. I have purchased ( at great coast ), Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl and both editions of From A Realist Point of View by William A. Wallace. My philosophy library runs to a hundred books, including the Blackfriars Translation of the S.T. ( whose translation is too loose from time to time, but whose Indexes are very helpful).

Linus2nd

Thanks L2. I am much the same as yourself with the equiv of a Masters 30 years ago.
(I lodged at the priory with my Dominican Professors while studying).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks L2. I am much the same as yourself with the equiv of a Masters 30 years ago.
(I lodged at the priory with my Dominican Professors while studying).

You seem not to have read Thomas’ Commentary on A’s Metaphysics, start with Book lV.

Linus2nd