Primary and Secondary Matter

[lmelahn]

Very interesting analysis. Sounds like the beginning of an absorbing book, or at least good paper . I have thought of a thread on " act and potency " but then realized that it would be impossible to do it in the space of a single post. Henri Renard S.J. has an excellent discussion in his Philosophy of Being, popular in the 50’s.

I’m not sure we can equate " second substance " and " secondary matter. " I think one would need to inquire about the source of the term " secondary matter " ( and " first matter " as well). Ut didn’t say whether this was his own term or whether he found it used somewhere else. If somewhere else, it would be interesting to know where.
Pax Christi
Linus2nd

Definitely not second substance and secondary matter. (Did I say that by accident?) For Aristotle, “second substance” means substance taken in general, like when we say “mankind.” I think you can find that in Metaphysics book 7 (maybe in book 5, too, which is sort of his philosophical dictionary).

First substance is concrete substance, like you and me. And it can function as a secondary matter (he calls it “matter,” because it is like the underlying foundation where the accidents reside, so to speak).

The distinction between first and second matter are found in the Physics. I don’t remember exactly where, off the top of my head. St. Thomas makes a good summary in De principiis naturae.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Definitely not second substance and secondary matter. (Did I say that by accident?) For Aristotle, “second substance” means substance taken in general, like when we say “mankind.” I think you can find that in Metaphysics book 7 (maybe in book 5, too, which is sort of his philosophical dictionary).

First substance is concrete substance, like you and me. And it can function as a secondary matter (he calls it “matter,” because it is like the underlying foundation where the accidents reside, so to speak).

The distinction between first and second matter are found in the Physics. I don’t remember exactly where, off the top of my head. St. Thomas makes a good summary in De principiis naturae.

Thanks, I just didn’t remember those terms being used.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

Here is a nice discussion on Thomistic terms.

" Prime Matter and Substantial Form

Now that we understand the difference between a substance and an accident as well as the ten categories of being, we can attempt to further understand what exactly a substance really is. Aristotle believed that a substance is composed of prime matter and form. Prime matter is not the same thing as physical matter (the kind we usually think of as composed of atoms). Instead, prime matter should be thought of in terms of potency and actuality. Prime matter is nothing more than pure potency. It is the substantial underlying reality of all things, and as such, has the potential to become anything. Prime matter (since it is substantial) has no physical appearance, quality or quantity. Prime matter cannot even be thought of separate from form. Form is what allows prime matter to become substance. For instance, all of the elements on the Periodic Table (such as iron, gold, silver, mercury, etc.) can be thought of as comprised of prime matter. The thing that differentiates the elements from each other is their form. Silver and gold are composed of the same prime matter but have different form. Form and prime matter constitute the substance of any object, and the substance of that object is inhered with accidents that give the substance a physical character. "

saintaquinas.com/primer.html

Aquinas makes no mention of " secondary matter " that I know of. He does distinguisn between " prime matter " and " designate matter " and " non-designate matter. ’

See his Being and Essence here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm I’m sure you have read it before but one has to keep reading it.

Prime matter should be understood as the underlying " stuff " of all material substances. It is basically the capacity of matter to have a potency to any form ( except the angelic or the Divine ). It is often pictured as the residual " stuff " left over after a change of some kind. I think this is incorrect. I think this " potential capacity " is present in every example of a truly material substance. And when any matter ( Thomas would say primary matter ) receives a form of a definite genus, species, and difference it is or becomes " designate " matter. That is, it becomes quantified and has " parts outside of parts " joined to a definite form. It becomes an individual man, dog, a single photon, whatever. It is designate matter which individuates any particular thing, it makes a man a particualr man, a Utunumsint or a Linus.

P.S. Aristotle and Thomas both speak about First and Second Substance. First substance being what you see and sense or detect ( all the accidents except ), and second substance being the underlying essence, matter and form you do not see.

Pax
Linus2nd

Thanks for this Linus. I’m sorry I haven’t responded until now. I think one of my tendencies, and probably one I share with many others, is to view substantial form as a composite or aggregate of many substantial forms, where in reality, there is only one substantial form of a human being that contains many elements virtually. But they are all part of the same substantial form. So when we talk about prime matter, we are talking about any substantial form’s potentiality to take on another substantial form. As lmelahn says, primary matter explains how substantial forms (secondary matter) undergo generation and corruption. Or as you put it, “Prime matter should be understood as the underlying " stuff " of all material substances. It is basically the capacity of matter to have a potency to any form”.

God Bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

First some background that might be useful for this discussion:…
I consider this hylomorphism (from hylé, matter, and morphé, form) to be fundamentally correct, so let’s apply that to fundamental particles.

Thank you for this clarification. My mistake was to see primary matter only as the underlying substrate of the smallest possible level of substance/accident composites in fundamental particles. Where in reality, primary matter explains the generation and corruption of an entire substantial form into another substantial form, as in the generation of a tree from seed to full growth, or the corruption from living tree to dead tree.

Just one clarification: physicists also use the term “matter,” but it means something different: it basically means material substances or their aggregate, the sum total of things that have mass, more or less. In philosophy, it means something rather different, as we saw above.

Agreed. However, the philosophical distinction would also apply to a quark or fermion, if found in isolation, I suppose.

So, what is a fundamental particle, if we apply hylomorphism? According to Aristotle (and Thomas), a substance has only one substantial form. A tree is a tree; its leaves and branches are not substances, and so neither are its cells, its atoms, or its electrons. Rather, all of these things are parts of a unique substance, with a unique substantial form, that unifies all of these parts.

And yet these parts have a certain amount of independence. If I pluck off a leaf, clearly, it becomes a different substance from the tree. (I have just effected a “generation.”) Supposed I could I graft it back in again, it would get “corrupted” and become part of the tree. Similarly with the molecules, atoms, electrons, and so on that constitute the tree.

Right. The scientific way of describing this in terms misses the key changes that are happening in the unified substance as it becomes another substance.

These things are what Thomas calls “incomplete substances.” Right now, they are part of a substance and are informed by the substantial form of that substance. If they were to be physically removed, or if the substantial form to which it belongs were to be corrupted (e.g., if the tree dies), then it is ready to form an independent substance. But it isn’t one here and now, however.

And I think that is how fundamental particles work. If they are part of a tree (or of you and me), then they are not strictly speaking substances. Rather, they are informed by the unique substantial form of that substance. But they are “incomplete substances” that could have an independent existence if the right conditions were met. Basically, there is only substance (and substantial form) where there is sufficient unity.

Thomas would say that an incomplete substance has a substantial form virtually: it doesn’t have one yet, but it has the power (virtus) to obtain one, as soon as the substance it belongs to disintegrates.

So, fundamental particles have at least a virtual substantial form; an actual one, if they are independent. In that regard, they behave like normal substances: they have accidents (mass, energy, etc.), and they have the ability to change. If they are transformed into a different kind of particle or are annihilated or created (in in the physical sense), they basically undergo a substantial change; if they change energy or what have you, they undergo an accidental change.

So an independent actual fermion, for example, would have substantial form. OK. So any talk of a philosophically identifiable matter form composite that explains the change from fermion A to fermion B, say in a mass accelerator, would still be valid. But sort of misses the point in that this distinction applies at the macro level just as well. Only at this level, there is no scientifically detectable virtual particles that exist in the substantial form of the fermion. But doesn’t this layer highlight the need for prime matter? What persists between the change from fermion A to fermion B, if there is no prime matter? And doesn’t the substantial form of the fermion require primary matter to explain what it is that has the substantial form?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Also, to answer your question Linus, I am getting this from Ed Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics. Here is the quote from page 171 which I misunderstood, but aligns well with what you and lmelahn have presented (I have added bulleted lists that do not appear in the original for clarity):

Hylomorphism, Scholastics argue, is necessary if we are to account for the reality of change. The distinction between substantial form and accidental form entails a distinction between two kinds of change.

• Accidental change involves a substance losing or gaining an accidental form.
• Substantial change involves the loss of a substantial form and the appearance of a new one, and thus the corruption of one substance and the generation for another.

But as we have seen, what loses or takes on a form when a change occurs is matter. Corresponding to the distinction between substantial and accidental form and substantial and accidental change, then, is a distinction between two kinds of matter:

• prime matter: Prime matter is matter lacking any substantial form. It is matter that is not yet any particular thing or other. It is indeterminate, the pure potency of form. It is the subject of substantial change.
• secondary matter:Secondary matter is matter having some substantial form or other. It is matter that is already water, or… a human being. Its status as a substance is already determined and what it awaits, as it were, is the reception of various accidental forms. Secondary matter is thus the subject of substantial change.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for this Linus. I’m sorry I haven’t responded until now. I think one of my tendencies, and probably one I share with many others, is to view substantial form as a composite or aggregate of many substantial forms, where in reality, there is only one substantial form of a human being that contains many elements virtually. But they are all part of the same substantial form. So when we talk about prime matter, we are talking about any substantial form’s potentiality to take on another substantial form. As lmelahn says, primary matter explains how substantial forms (secondary matter) undergo generation and corruption. Or as you put it, “Prime matter should be understood as the underlying " stuff " of all material substances. It is basically the capacity of matter to have a potency to any form”.

God Bless,
Ut

Good. I think we are on the same page with A & T.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Also, to answer your question Linus, I am getting this from Ed Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics. Here is the quote from page 171 which I misunderstood, but aligns well with what you and lmelahn have presented (I have added bulleted lists that do not appear in the original for clarity):

God bless,
Ut

So when you said " first matter " you must have been thinking of " prime matter. " And I admit that " secondary matter " threw me. But Imelahn tells us that The Philosopher used the phrase in Physics. Well, his Physics was a kind of blurr to me, not the easiest thing to read - to put it mildly. So that reference just didn’t stick. So, like you, I assume that it is " formed " or " designate " matter, " matter that we can sense.

Potency has to be handled carefully. It is not a composing principle of essence as some claim. It is nothing but the capacity or tendency of an essence to acquire or loose forms. In material essences it is always associated with matter because it is from matter that new forms are educed and into which old forms receed. I’m sure Imelahn will comment on that. But it is true that " matter and form " are the constituent principles ( intrinsic causes ) of material being.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[lmelahn]

…]

So an independent actual fermion, for example, would have substantial form. OK. So any talk of a philosophically identifiable matter form composite that explains the change from fermion A to fermion B, say in a mass accelerator, would still be valid. But sort of misses the point in that this distinction applies at the macro level just as well. Only at this level, there is no scientifically detectable virtual particles that exist in the substantial form of the fermion. But doesn’t this layer highlight the need for prime matter? What persists between the change from fermion A to fermion B, if there is no prime matter? And doesn’t the substantial form of the fermion require primary matter to explain what it is that has the substantial form?

God bless,
Ut

I agree. The substantial form is composed directly with prime matter, so if there is a substantial change, there must be prime matter.

I don’t know enough particle physics to know if the change from fermion A to fermion B would be a substantial change (i.e., fermion B is an entirely new particle) or an accidental change (i.e., the same particle with different properties).

(I think the term “virtual particle” has a specific meaning in particle physics, so we have to be careful not to confuse the philosophical “virtus” with the physicists’. In hylomorphism, we could say, a photon is virtually an electron/positron pair–electrons and positrons can spontaneously be generated from photons–but I don’t think a physicist would say that.)

But let’s take a clearer example: when a positron and an electron annihilate one another and produce a photon (a very high-energy one), that is clearly a substantial change, and so yes, that is evidence of prime matter. As long as we have it clear that philosophical hylé is not the same thing as physicists’ matter, then the fact that the mass of the two original particles is entirely converted to energy should not give us any trouble.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that the very fact that there are many individuals of the same kind (or species) of particle (or of any substance, for that matter) is evidence of prime matter. The fact that there are many fermions, or electrons, or what have you, means that there must be a potential principle (prime matter) ready to receive the active principle (substantial form). (It’s kind of like making cupcakes: you can make many cupcakes of the same shape precisely because you can re-use the same mold with different bits of dough.)

 

[utunumsint]

I agree. The substantial form is composed directly with prime matter, so if there is a substantial change, there must be prime matter.

I don’t know enough particle physics to know if the change from fermion A to fermion B would be a substantial change (i.e., fermion B is an entirely new particle) or an accidental change (i.e., the same particle with different properties).

Right. I know that it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what constitutes a substantial form at the atomic level. For all we know, (and the physicist could probably help us here), the change from fermion A to fermion B is just an instance of accidental change as you say. Perhaps there is one overarching substantial form of fermion which can accept accidental changes which constitute all the different versions of fermions we know of right now.

(I think the term “virtual particle” has a specific meaning in particle physics, so we have to be careful not to confuse the philosophical “virtus” with the physicists’. In hylomorphism, we could say, a photon is virtually an electron/positron pair–electrons and positrons can spontaneously be generated from photons–but I don’t think a physicist would say that.)

But let’s take a clearer example: when a positron and an electron annihilate one another and produce a photon (a very high-energy one), that is clearly a substantial change, and so yes, that is evidence of prime matter. As long as we have it clear that philosophical hylé is not the same thing as physicists’ matter, then the fact that the mass of the two original particles is entirely converted to energy should not give us any trouble.

It is this very close descriptive dividing line between the physicist’s account and the philosopher’s account that I’m very interested in. The tendency of some physicists when they encounter this kind of philosophical thinking is that it is illusory and/or offering a competing scientific description of the event. That the only real things going on here are what can be described by the physics. Positron A crashes into electron B producing photon C. No need to posit prime matter here to account for the change in the positron and electron into the photon. I would very much like to talk to a physicist who understands Aristotle who can explain to me how he or she might reconcile these two different levels of description.

Another thing I forgot to mention is that the very fact that there are many individuals of the same kind (or species) of particle (or of any substance, for that matter) is evidence of prime matter. The fact that there are many fermions, or electrons, or what have you, means that there must be a potential principle (prime matter) ready to receive the active principle (substantial form). (It’s kind of like making cupcakes: you can make many cupcakes of the same shape precisely because you can re-use the same mold with different bits of dough.)

Agreed - but why is this not self evident to the physicist? It seems common sense to me. But it also seems to go beyond philosophy to making a scientific claim about the nature of fundamental particles.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

Thanks for this Linus. I’m sorry I haven’t responded until now. I think one of my tendencies, and probably one I share with many others, is to view substantial form as a composite or aggregate of many substantial forms, where in reality, there is only one substantial form of a human being that contains many elements virtually. But they are all part of the same substantial form. So when we talk about prime matter, we are talking about any substantial form’s potentiality to take on another substantial form. As lmelahn says, primary matter explains how substantial forms (secondary matter) undergo generation and corruption. Or as you put it, “Prime matter should be understood as the underlying " stuff " of all material substances. It is basically the capacity of matter to have a potency to any form”.

God Bless,
Ut

Primary matter as you introduced it is also subject of corruption and change. There are physical evidences for this.

 

[utunumsint]

Primary matter as you introduced it is also subject of corruption and change. There are physical evidences for this.

Hi Bahman,

I will only respond to posts where you provide complete statements and arguments. This is just a declaration without any evidence to substantiate it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

Hi Bahman,

I will only respond to posts where you provide complete statements and arguments. This is just a declaration without any evidence to substantiate it.

God bless,
Ut

Thanks. Here is an example.

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks. Here is an example.

There is no argument here.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

There is no argument here.

God bless,
Ut

I read particle physics to the very depth. We don’t have any primary matter. Thing just unfold as you focus on subject matter until you reach a state of information that you cannot analyze subject matter any better. That is because you don’t know what you see or you have to wait for it.

 

[utunumsint]

I read particle physics to the very depth. We don’t have any primary matter. Thing just unfold as you focus on subject matter until you reach a state of information that you cannot analyze subject matter any better. That is because you don’t know what you see or you have to wait for it.

Still no argument. Just more declarations.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

I think it is pretty clear that Aristotle’s understanding of the world is very different from that of modern science.
The two models appear to have no point of contact although they are referring to the same physical universe.
I suppose there is interest in what physicists think because they study the basics of the behavior and interactions of matter and energy in space and time.
There is a default assumption that other sciences such as chemistry, biology, even psychology (currently in the gaps) are founded on physics - the four forces of nature.

From what little I understand of this discussion, primary matter explains how it is that substantial change can occur.
I don’t think science would be interested in it since it cannot be manipulated, measured, etc.
It may be seen as illusory, a solution to a problem that does not exist.

I believe that under the Aristotelian system, a living entity is different from a dead one.
The scientific view would hold that a living person and a corpse do not differ much other than - in a living biological system, processes are taking place that in the dead body cannot because of a lack of energy from oxygen and glucose interaction, a breakdown in the structures keeping specific chemicals in close proximity, and the presence of toxins interfering with chemical events.

I don’t know if this adds anything to the discussion.
I too would be interested in a physicist’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[lmelahn]

Right. I know that it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what constitutes a substantial form at the atomic level. For all we know, (and the physicist could probably help us here), the change from fermion A to fermion B is just an instance of accidental change as you say. Perhaps there is one overarching substantial form of fermion which can accept accidental changes which constitute all the different versions of fermions we know of right now.

It is this very close descriptive dividing line between the physicist’s account and the philosopher’s account that I’m very interested in. The tendency of some physicists when they encounter this kind of philosophical thinking is that it is illusory and/or offering a competing scientific description of the event. That the only real things going on here are what can be described by the physics. Positron A crashes into electron B producing photon C. No need to posit prime matter here to account for the change in the positron and electron into the photon. I would very much like to talk to a physicist who understands Aristotle who can explain to me how he or she might reconcile these two different levels of description.

Agreed - but why is this not self evident to the physicist? It seems common sense to me. But it also seems to go beyond philosophy to making a scientific claim about the nature of fundamental particles.

God bless,
Ut

Well, I don’t think it is self-evident to anyone. It took a genius like Aristotle to see it. His predecessors certainly did not.

What hinders scientists, I think, is that they are generally trained in a philosophy that can be traced by to Rene Descartes. I have some training as a scientist (biochemistry), and I can confirm this. Descartes really turns things on their head (much as he is worth learning about), and tends to make this kind of Aristotelian reasoning difficult to understand.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Aristotle and Thomas both agreed that prime matter was the basic physical " stuff " underlying all physical reality, it is what survivies through all the physical changes that have taken place from the beginning of time until now and which will take place in the future. Another way to put it is that it is the basic physical constituent present in all the material subjects in the history of the universe. Has science found what it is? Who can say. Personally, I don’t think science will be able to say - and I don’t think many scientists care much, since they are not usually interested in philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . and I don’t think many scientists care much, since they are not usually interested in philosophy. . .

If to a physicist there is no difference between the fundamental reality of a cadaver and that of a living person, can any importance be given to their philosophical opinions?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If to a physicist there is no difference between the fundamental reality of a cadaver and that of a living person, can any importance be given to their philosophical opinions?

I think the physicist would soon notice that a cadaver was resolving itself into its constituent physical elements - or at least he would in a week or so, depending on how hot and humid it was .

But what has that got to do with primary and secondary matter? All I see is that primary is still present, it never changes. But the secondary matter of a cadaver has changed or soon will. Of course the body has undergone a substantial change. But that was not the question of the O.P.

Linus2nd