Substance and transubstantiation

[jfoges]

Ive been thinking lately about whether substance exists. I am leaning towards believing that it doesn’t. If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing, why should i assume that there is a substance which posseses these properties. Substance is really just an imaginary philosophical construct which was created to explain why properties are bound together. Substance and matter are no more real then ether. That being said, where does that leave me in regards to the real presence. I still believe in the real presence, but I cannot believe in transubstantiation if I don’t believe in substance.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing…

False premise.

Why do you think the above statement is true? Have you proven it to be true?

If I’m color blind, does my lack of or diminished “sensory perception” of a thing actually change the properties of that thing? For instance, when I close my eyes, does the wavelength of light which was previously reflecting off of the objects in the room immediately cease to reflect simply based upon “ME”, based upon my own limitations?

Seems that such a thesis relies upon ME (and my limitations) as the standard for which all things have their being, no? That seems absurd, no? When I die, does everything cease to have any “properties?”

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Ive been thinking lately about whether substance exists. I am leaning towards believing that it doesn’t. If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing, why should i assume that there is a substance which posseses these properties. Substance is really just an imaginary philosophical construct which was created to explain why properties are bound together. Substance and matter are no more real then ether. That being said,** where does that leave me in regards to the real presence**. I still believe in the real presence, but I cannot believe in transubstantiation if I don’t believe in substance.

Where does that leave you in regards to yourself? After all, all you can see are your accidents, which are visible due to matter. Is that all you are? Just accidents? Or is there also a substance to you?

If there is a substance to you, what about other people who you can only experience due to their accidents? Do they lack a substance?

If you admit that you, and other people, have a substance, why not other things, such as animals or plants?

If you can affirm substance in yourself, it proves that substance exists.

 

[RobbyS]

Ive been thinking lately about whether substance exists. I am leaning towards believing that it doesn’t. If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing, why should i assume that there is a substance which posseses these properties. Substance is really just an imaginary philosophical construct which was created to explain why properties are bound together. Substance and matter are no more real then ether. That being said, where does that leave me in regards to the real presence. I still believe in the real presence, but I cannot believe in transubstantiation if I don’t believe in substance.

Substance may be a “construct” but why “imaginary.” Simplistically, substance is that which in a thing is constant “beneath” the change we perceive.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Where does that leave you in regards to yourself?

That’s an outstanding perspective. I have to admit, that as a man in my 40’s, I spend a lot of time looking back, contemplating where I’ve come and what I used to be. In the final analysis, no matter how many gray hairs (or lack of hair) I have today, there’s something about me that has never changed. Ever since I can remember, I’ve been the same person, essentially. I may have changed in my appearance, and even in my thinking. However, my earliest memory of me is 1968, and I am that same kid at the core, in essence, in “substance.” There’s still something very compelling about the “idea” of me that does not ever change, no matter the accidents. My parents see it too. I see it in my kids.

That’s probably why the ancient philosophy regarding “idea (Gk logos)” continues to be persistent in philosophical thought (albeit in modified forms) despite various unsuccessful attempts to discard it from the modern mind of man. In other words, the idea (logos) of the idea (logos) has persisted since well before the advent of Christ, the consummate Logos.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Ive been thinking lately about whether substance exists. I am leaning towards believing that it doesn’t. If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing, why should i assume that there is a substance which posseses these properties. Substance is really just an imaginary philosophical construct which was created to explain why properties are bound together. Substance and matter are no more real then ether. That being said, where does that leave me in regards to the real presence. I still believe in the real presence, but I cannot believe in transubstantiation if I don’t believe in substance.

jfoges,
Don’t worry too much about the ancient greek philosophical term ‘substance’. The real presence means that there is something beyond the physical appearances of the bread and wine that becomes the Body of Christ. You just have to accept that in some way more truly real than the physical properties, it becomes the body of Christ. We don’t understand in what way, we just have to accept that there is some way that we don’t understand yet.

 

[jfoges]

False premise.

Why do you think the above statement is true? Have you proven it to be true?

If I’m color blind, does my lack of or diminished “sensory perception” of a thing actually change the properties of that thing? For instance, when I close my eyes, does the wavelength of light which was previously reflecting off of the objects in the room immediately cease to reflect simply based upon “ME”, based upon my own limitations?

Seems that such a thesis relies upon ME (and my limitations) as the standard for which all things have their being, no? That seems absurd, no? When I die, does everything cease to have any “properties?”

all of your language in this post is laced with the assumption that matter exists and that there are “things” which posses properties. Yet, all we know of the universe are the sensory perceptions that we experience. It is true that different people experience the same sensory perception and that if you close your eyes, others will still experience the perception that something is there. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is some primal reality that is more real then perceptions we experience. What is real are the perceptions, what is unreal is the “primal reality” which people call matter.

 

[jfoges]

jfoges,
Don’t worry too much about the ancient greek philosophical term ‘substance’. The real presence means that there is something beyond the physical appearances of the bread and wine that becomes the Body of Christ. You just have to accept that in some way more truly real than the physical properties, it becomes the body of Christ. We don’t understand in what way, we just have to accept that there is some way that we don’t understand yet.

So i can accept the real presence without accepting the philosophy that is traditionally used to explain it. Well that clears things up if thats the case.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

So i can accept the real presence without accepting the philosophy that is traditionally used to explain it. Well that clears things up if thats the case.

Well I hope I’m not leading you astray. But I’ve never heard anyone actually explain what a ‘substance’ is, other than “something more important than the accidents” of an object. In other words, no one knows what it is, at least that’s how I take it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Yet, all we know of the universe are the sensory perceptions that we experience.

I disagree. In addition to experience, we also know of the universe based upon the testimony of others, and based upon reason.

I never saw Jesus rise from the dead. I know this based upon the trustworthy testimony of others. I’ve never seen the Holy Spirit. I know of the Holy Spirit based upon the testimony of others.

I’ve never experienced “black holes.” Yet, through reason, we come to know many things through deductive or inductive reasoning.

Your epistimology is flawed if you claim that knowledge can only be base upon “sensory perceptions that we experience.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

all of your language in this post is laced with the assumption that matter exists and that there are “things” which posses properties.

If what you mean by “matter” is what science means by “matter” (that which has “mass” and “volume”, and takes up “space”), then I don’t have to assume matter exists, I can see matter. What I can’t see is anti-matter. Yet, I’ve come to know about anti-matter, not through experience, but through the testimony of others and through reason.

And, by inductive and deductive reasoning, experience, and mostly the testimony of others, I can know certain things (i.e. properties) about matter, the natural universe, God and that which is supernatural. For instance, light has “wave-like” properties as well as properties of a “particle.” Also, through testimony I know that Son is eternally begotten of the Father. So, I can and do come to knowledge of God, man, and the universe through not just through experience. Some of the most important things I have come to know about God, man, and the universe is based upon trustworthy testimony of others.

…what is unreal is the “primal reality” which people call matter.

Is that your testimony? Why should it be considered more trustworthy than the testimony of others?

If I understand correctly, you are claiming that “ideas” have no objective reality. Is that correct?

What you seem to be arguing for is a philosophical “idea” called “nominalism.” If I understand correctly, nominialism is an “idea” which cannot be known by “sensory perception” alone, right? So, is this idea “real” or “unreal?”

See here: Nominalism, Realism, Conceptualism

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

all of your language in this post is laced with the assumption that matter exists and that there are “things” which posses properties. Yet, all we know of the universe are the sensory perceptions that we experience. It is true that different people experience the same sensory perception and that if you close your eyes, others will still experience the perception that something is there. However, this does not necessarily mean that there is some primal reality that is more real then perceptions we experience. What is real are the perceptions, what is unreal is the “primal reality” which people call matter.

Well, if you deny “substance” how would you accept life after death? Does existence end when the person dies and their body deteriorates?

If you believe that, after death, the soul continues to exist, then you believe in substance.

Based on your last sentence, unless I misunderstood you, you may be confusing substance with matter. These are two different things. An angel is a substance, yet has no matter.

Substance is the “whatness” of a thing. In body form compisites (such as humans), there is a combination of substance and matter. The form has 10 parts, or qualities. There is the “substantial form” (which is the invisible soul), and nine “accidental forms”, which are visible to the senses because of matter.

The substance is the invisible “whatness” of a thing. The substance of a human is the soul. Thus, if you deny that substance exists, you would have to simultaneously deny that life after death exists.

In fact, if you continue with the same line of reasoning you would also have to deny the existence of angels, and even God Himself, since, for you, “what is real are the perceptions” (accidents), which neither God nor the angels possess.

 

[jfoges]

I disagree. In addition to experience, we also know of the universe based upon the testimony of others, and based upon reason.

I never saw Jesus rise from the dead. I know this based upon the trustworthy testimony of others. I’ve never seen the Holy Spirit. I know of the Holy Spirit based upon the testimony of others.

I’ve never experienced “black holes.” Yet, through reason, we come to know many things through deductive or inductive reasoning.

Your epistimology is flawed if you claim that knowledge can only be base upon “sensory perceptions that we experience.”

You’re misunderstanding me. I am not saying that all of my knowledge has to be based on the sensory perceptions that I personally experience. I am saying that human knowledge as a whole is limited to those things which can be experienced by a human being. Even the black hole theory is based on empirical evidence, as are all scientific theories.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You’re misunderstanding me. I am not saying that all of my knowledge has to be based on the sensory perceptions that I personally experience. I am saying that human knowledge as a whole is limited to those things which can be experienced by a human being. Even the black hole theory is based on empirical evidence, as are all scientific theories.

It sounds as if you are limiting knowledge to what can be verified via the senses. In other words, there is only “material knowledge”.

But what about the existence or God or the angels? Do they exist? If so, how can we know? And if these immaterial being exists, can they communicate with one another? If you answer is yes, it mean that knowledge is not dependent upon matter.

Therefore, God can reveal to us that He is a Trinity of Persons. Just because we ar unable to scientifically verify this, does it make it less true? No. God, Who exists and who can do all things, can even reveal to us truths that are above the material level. These truths, such as the existence of immaterial beings known as angels, are no less true simply because we are unable to verify it.

If you follow your reasoning to its conclusion, you will end as an Athiest. Stick with the philosophy of St Thomas, It is tried and true.

As one philosophy professer likes to say (and he got it from one of his old professors): “There are two kinds of philosopy. There is Thomism, and then there is ********ism”.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You’re misunderstanding me. I am not saying that all of my knowledge has to be based on the sensory perceptions that I personally experience. I am saying that human knowledge as a whole is limited to those things which can be experienced by a human being.

What about principles of reason? For example, the principle of non-contradiction. Is that knowledge based on experience, or something higher?

And what about dogmas of the faith, such as the Trinity of Persons in one God. This is indeed real knowledge, even though it did not come from any experience of a human being. The knowledge was given directly by God.

And if human knowledge was limited to that which is perceived by the senses, or experience, why would we believe in angels, or in God for that matter.

If you take your reasoning to its conclusions you will end at Athiesm. Philosophy can be very helpful, or extremely dangerous. Good philosophy helps us think correctly, while bad philosophy destroys. Stick with Thomistic philosphy.

That reminds me of a saying of an old philosophy professor (who got the saying from one of his old professors): “There are only two kinds of philosophy: There is Thomism and then there is Bulshitism”.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist

 

[jfoges]

What about principles of reason? For example, the principle of non-contradiction. Is that knowledge based on experience, or something higher?

And what about dogmas of the faith, such as the Trinity of Persons in one God. This is indeed real knowledge, even though it did not come from any experience of a human being. The knowledge was given directly by God.

And if human knowledge was limited to that which is perceived by the senses, or experience, why would we believe in angels, or in God for that matter.

If you take your reasoning to its conclusions you will end at Athiesm. Philosophy can be very helpful, or extremely dangerous. Good philosophy helps us think correctly, while bad philosophy destroys. Stick with Thomistic philosphy.

That reminds me of a saying of an old philosophy professor (who got the saying from one of his old professors): “There are only two kinds of philosophy: There is Thomism and then there is Bulshitism”.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist

logical principles like the principle of non-contradiction are just common sense rules of thumb that allow us to reason about the world. But without the information gathered through the senses such principles would be useless and could never have been arrived upon in the first place.

What you said about my reasoning leading to atheism is interesting, because you are the one who is suggesting that matter exists and that the world as we percieve it is an illusion. This materialism seems to me to be the basis for much of atheism today. If everything we know is but an interpretation of “reality”, a “reality” we can never actually experience, then bascially human beings are incapable of grasping real truths.

If, on the other hand, you subscribe to idealism, as I have been suggesting, then you actually have to believe in a God who binds all the features of the world together into their apparent forms and makes this world possible.

 

[Henning]

Ive been thinking lately about whether substance exists. I am leaning towards believing that it doesn’t. If all I can experience through sensory perception are the properties of a thing, why should i assume that there is a substance which posseses these properties. Substance is really just an imaginary philosophical construct which was created to explain why properties are bound together. Substance and matter are no more real then ether.

I thought this was interesting with respect to matter and substance from, ‘It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations’ thread:

“Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently **substantial stuff **is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum….” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=289264

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

What you said about my reasoning leading to atheism is interesting, because you are the one who is suggesting that matter exists and that the world as we percieve it is an illusion.

Do you deny that matter exists? If so, what do you mean by “matter”? Surely you don’t deny what you can actually touch, do you?

Now, I’m not sure why you think I believe that the world as we perceive it is an illusion. Not at all. The world as we perceive it is reality, as long as our subjective perception corresponds to the objective reality. Truth is when the intellect corresponds with reality. Most of our knowledge comes from perception. We see a car driving down the road, and know that a car is driving down the road.

This materialism seems to me to be the basis for much of atheism today.

The problem with materialism is not that it admits to a material realm, but that it denies (or at least ignores), the spiritual realm.

If everything we know is but an interpretation of “reality”, a “reality” we can never actually experience, then bascially human beings are incapable of grasping real truths.

Who says we can NEVER actually experience it. We can and do experience most of reality. For example, if the car driving down the street runs over you, you have just experienced the reality of the car.

If, on the other hand, you subscribe to idealism, as I have been suggesting, then you actually have to believe in a God who binds all the features of the world together into their apparent forms and makes this world possible.

But then you deny matter, which is contrary to your very being.

Like I said earlier, good philosophy can do a lot of good, and bad philosophy can cause a lot of confusion. It can cause someone’s thinking to be completely warped, ending in the loss of common sense. And once someone is lost is bad philosophy, it is very difficult for their mind to be corrected.

The best thing you can do is study the metaphysics of Thomistic philosophy and leave the modern garbage alone. It will warp your mind.

 

[jfoges]

Do you deny that matter exists? If so, what do you mean by “matter”? Surely you don’t deny what you can actually touch, do you?

Now, I’m not sure why you think I believe that the world as we perceive it is an illusion. Not at all. The world as we perceive it is reality, as long as our subjective perception corresponds to the objective reality. Truth is when the intellect corresponds with reality. Most of our knowledge comes from perception. We see a car driving down the road, and know that a car is driving down the road. .

You said that the world is reality as long as our subjective perception corresponds to the objective reality. Now, if our perception is but an interpretation of this objective reality, then our interpretation is not that reality, therefore, we can never percieve the reality. That’s why I’m saying the world as we percieve it is an illusion, according to your reasoning.

Now, I don’t think modern philosophy warps the mind, and I think saying that we should stick to Thomism is being a bit closed minded.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You said that the world is reality as long as our subjective perception corresponds to the objective reality.

No. The reality of the world exists outside of us and is independent of our perception. What I said was that we know reality when our intellect corresponds to the objective reality that exists outside of us.

In other words, we know the truth when our subjective perception is in accord with objective reality.

So, for example, if a car drives past and I recognise that it is a car, my intellect is in agreement with reality. If a car drives by and someone else mistakes it for a train, their subjective perception does not correspond with reality, since what went by was a car, not a train. It’s really simple.

Now, if our perception is but an interpretation of this objective reality, then our interpretation is not that reality, therefore, we can never percieve the reality.

Your jumping to false conclusions. Just because a person can be mistaken, does not mean we are unable to know reality. Just because it is possible for a person to mistake a car for a train does not mean we are unable to see a car drive by and recognize it as such.

That’s why I’m saying the world as we percieve it is an illusion, according to your reasoning.

But you reasoning was off base. You are drawing incorrect conclusions based on exceptions. If it is theoretically possible for a person to mistake a car for a train, you draw the conclusion that we can never know if a car has drive by. Clearly, that is a false conclusion

Now, I don’t think modern philosophy warps the mind, and I think saying that we should stick to Thomism is being a bit closed minded.

Well, let’s find out if modern philosophy warps the mind.

If you ask any normal person if the car that they are diving in exists, they will say “of course it does, as you crazy”. Yet, according to some modern philosophies, the car only exists in the person’s mind. Clearly, anyone who thinks that has a warped mind, yet for them it will not seem so. Why? Because false philosophy has warped their mind.

Just step back for a minute and think about it. How can you deny matter exists when you can actually touch it? If you deny what you can actually touch and see, why would you believe in anything? If the car that you are driving in is merely an “illusion”, why would you think that you yourself are anything more?

Like I said, once someone has bought into bad philosophy, it is difficult for them to be “cured”. Bad philosophy is dangerous. I had no idea how dangerous it was until I started studying philosophy and saw how it effected the mind. Philosophy effects how we think. It goes to the very core of the mind. Good philosophy is in perfect accord with common sense. Bad philosophy is contrary to it and destroys it.

I compare philosophy to the law in this way: The “law” (meaning the precepts of the natural law that are put down in writing) are simply a written concrete explanation of that which we know by nature. In other words, if we do certain things (such as lie), our conscience will alert us to it. What the law does is to show us in concrete terms what out conscience is based on. It tells us that lying, stealing, and killing are wrong. We already know this by an intenernal operation (conscience), but the law adds clarity to it.

Philosophy does for the reasoning power what the law does for the conscience. In a sense, it lays down the principles that our reason uses to reason.

Just as the conscience can be warped, so to can the reason; and it happens through bad philosophy.