Substance vs. Accidents Example

[Neil_Anthony]

Since modern physics pretty much disregards the notion of “substance” and focuses only on physical properties (accidents). In fact many people would deny that substance is real.

Consider a metal bowl. Its accidents include its diameter, its mass, its color, shape etc. Its substance is “bowl”. Now, imaging a craftsperson who uses a hammer to flatten the bowl into a plate. Now the metal has a different shape (one of the accidents), and a different substance. It’s new substance is “plate”.

When the craftsperson was hammering on the bowl to make it into a plate, what was the process by which the “bowl” substance went away, and the “plate” substance came into being? Did the bowl-ness slowly fade away as the height of the rim was reduced? Was there possibly an overlap time where two substances existed, bowl and plate, when it could have been used as either a shallow bowl or a deep plate? Is “bowlness” really something real, or is it just a description of what the metal object is most likely to be used as?

 

[R_Daneel]

Very good example to show that the concept of “substance” is a bogus concept.

 

[tonyrey]

Very good example to show that the concept of “substance” is a bogus concept.

If an object has no substance it is no more than a** collection** of attributes or - as David Hume remarked - “a bundle of perceptions”. If a person has no substance he or she is not an indivisible entity. What precisely do you think **you ** are?

 

[inocente]

There was me thinking that physics is all about substance (although physicists tend to call it “stuff”). Topologically, “bowl” and “plate” are the same. We have some deep-rimmed plates that my wife insists are bowls, but who am I to argue?

 

[Just_Lurking]

How about this: The instant the craftsman decided that the bowl should be a plate, the substance changed from bowl to plate, however, the accidents remained as a bowl-shaped piece of metal that slowly changed to a plate-shaped piece of metal as the craftsman refashioned it.

 

[R_Daneel]

If an object has no substance it is no more than a** collection** of attributes or - as David Hume remarked - “a bundle of perceptions”. If a person has no substance he or she is not an indivisible entity. What precisely do you think **you ** are?

I yam what I yam, and that’s what I yam - as Popeye so succinctly put it.

Stanislaw Lem (the greatest thinker of the recent years in my opinion) has written two great science fiction stories, whith two similar titles. One was “Do you exist Mr. Jones?”. And the other one was “Does Mr. Jones exist?”. In both stories he posits a rally-car driver, who suffers a series of accidents. After each accident his lost body parts are replaced by either a human transplant (story #1) or a mechanical prothesis (story #2). The question is: “when, if at all does Mr. Jones lose his identity due to the transplants”? Worth to contemplate.

 

[R_Daneel]

How about this: The instant the craftsman decided that the bowl should be a plate, the substance changed from bowl to plate, however, the accidents remained as a bowl-shaped piece of metal that slowly changed to a plate-shaped piece of metal as the craftsman refashioned it.

Interesting line of thought. What you say is that the “bowl” had no “substance” of its own, it was the craftsman’s idea that “made it” actually a bowl. Which is just a different way to say that the “substance” is bogus, since it hinges upon the mind (and decision) of the craftsman (or observer).

 

[tee_eff_em]

There was me thinking that physics is all about substance (although physicists tend to call it “stuff”). Topologically, “bowl” and “plate” are the same. We have some deep-rimmed plates that my wife insists are bowls, but who am I to argue?

Yeah – I do not think *bowl *and *plate *are substances – I think they are accidents. They are forms (as the transformation described might indicate).

:twocents:
tee

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Interesting line of thought. What you say is that the “bowl” had no “substance” of its own, it was the craftsman’s idea that “made it” actually a bowl. Which is just a different way to say that the “substance” is bogus, since it hinges upon the mind (and decision) of the craftsman (or observer).

Instead of “bogus”, it would be more correct to say that it falls within the realm of psychology rather than physics.

I’m pointing this out because I’ve noticed a tendency of scientists to disregard anything that doesn’t fall within their sphere of study. So if something can’t be studied by their version of science (or by science at all), then they call it bogus. When actually, some things just don’t fall into the realm of science. ( e.g. spirits. )

 

[R_Daneel]

Yeah – I do not think *bowl *and *plate *are substances – I think they are accidents. They are forms (as the transformation described might indicate).

Another interesting observation, which indicates the lack of “substance”. What if that bowl is not made of metal, rather a thin glass, which would shatter if anything is placed into it? Or if it were made of very thin rubber, so it would immediately change its form if something is placed into it?

 

[Betterave]

Is “bowlness” really something real, or is it just a description of what the metal object is most likely to be used as?

Options:

1. ‘bowlness’ is something real
2. ‘bowlness’ is a description of what the metal object is most likely to be used as

Why not say 1 is true, and 2 explicates 1? Why pose a dichotomy?

Let’s analyze 2, however:
‘bowlness’ is a description of what the metal object is most likely to be used as…
That’s obviously not right, since ‘bowlness’ is not a description of anything; it’s an abstract noun that refers to the essence (i.e., substance?) of bowls.

So: ‘bowlness’ is real and it refers to the essence of bowls (i.e., it refers to that which makes each bowl to be a bowl). ‘Bowlness’ does not really exist ONLY IF bowls do not really exist. That is, IF ‘bowlness’ does not really exist THEN bowls do not really exist.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yeah – I do not think *bowl *and *plate *are substances – I think they are accidents. They are forms (as the transformation described might indicate).

:twocents:
tee

Oh… thank you for your help… I think you’re right, they are forms, so my example doesn’t really help

How about a similar example:

The craftsman cuts the plate in half and uses the two parts to make two small bowls. Now are there two substances when there was one before? If so, where did it come from?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Interesting line of thought. What you say is that the “bowl” had no “substance” of its own, it was the craftsman’s idea that “made it” actually a bowl. Which is just a different way to say that the “substance” is bogus, since it hinges upon the mind (and decision) of the craftsman (or observer).

I’m just throwing it out as an idea. I’m here to learn philosophy–I’m not claiming I understand anything about it!

My personal perspective is that the ancient Greek philosophers lacked the modern mathematical concept of an equivalence class, so in order to talk about, say, the equivalence class of all dogs, they had to posit the existence of an archetype perfect dog, which became the ideal representative of all real-world dogs. And as far as I can tell, substance refers to membership in a particular equivalence class. But I’m just trying to figure it out myself!

 

[R_Daneel]

Instead of “bogus”, it would be more correct to say that it falls within the realm of psychology rather than physics.

I’m pointing this out because I’ve noticed a tendency of scientists to disregard anything that doesn’t fall within their sphere of study. So if something can’t be studied by their version of science (or by science at all), then they call it bogus. When actually, some things just don’t fall into the realm of science. ( e.g. spirits. )

As for your example, if the word “spirit” denotes an alcoholic beverage, it would be possible to evaluate it by scientific method. If you use it as a synonym for a “ghost”, then it would also be a proper subject for psychology, which is part of the medical sciences. (Still in its infancy, I know.)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m just throwing it out as an idea. I’m here to learn philosophy–I’m not claiming I understand anything about it!

My personal perspective is that the ancient Greek philosophers lacked the modern mathematical concept of an equivalence class, so in order to talk about, say, the equivalence class of all dogs, they had to posit the existence of an archetype perfect dog, which became the ideal representative of all real-world dogs. And as far as I can tell, substance refers to membership in a particular equivalence class. But I’m just trying to figure it out myself!

Sorry for misleading you… this is actually the “form” not the substance. I found this webpage that explains form vs substance vs accidents:

theoaksofmamre.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/understanding-essence-form-matter-substance-accidents/

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As for your example, if the word “spirit” denotes an alcoholic beverage, it would be possible to evaluate it by scientific method. If you use it as a synonym for a “ghost”, then it would also be a proper subject for psychology, which is part of the medical sciences. (Still in its infancy, I know.)

thats quite funny! I hope I took it the right way.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sorry for misleading you… this is actually the “form” not the substance. I found this webpage that explains form vs substance vs accidents:

theoaksofmamre.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/understanding-essence-form-matter-substance-accidents/

Thanks for the link. It seems to me that I was actually describing the “essence”:

Essence – it is the “whatness” of a thing, or rather the “quiddity” (Latin: Quid – what); answers the question “what is it?”

So consider the equivalence relation of “being the same kind of thing”. A is equivalent to B if A and B are both the same kind of thing, or, to use the terminology of the link, if A and B have the same quiddity. Then essence becomes membership in an equivalence class formed by this relation.

 

[R_Daneel]

My personal perspective is that the ancient Greek philosophers lacked the modern mathematical concept of an equivalence class, so in order to talk about, say, the equivalence class of all dogs, they had to posit the existence of an archetype perfect dog, which became the ideal representative of all real-world dogs. And as far as I can tell, substance refers to membership in a particular equivalence class. But I’m just trying to figure it out myself!

Yes, sir! Indeed you got it. Those wonderful old people were struggling to make sense of the physical world as they saw it. Their understanding was very rudimentary, and they created some notation system to collect “similar” things into a “bigger basket”. Just like in the Old Testament the writer talks about “kinds of animals”, which is so vague that it is useless. (No, it is not incorrect, just useless.)

There is no shame in having a simplistic method to describe reality. Lacking the better methods they did what they could. The irony comes into the picture when some people still “cling” to those categories after many thousands of years. Clearly there is a desire to be so “traditional” and “orthodox” that they refuse to admit that the time has gone by, and the old “boxes” are inapplicable. That is very unfortunate. I am constantly amazed that the philosophy of Aristotele is held in such a high regard.

 

[tonyrey]

I yam what I yam, and that’s what I yam

• as Popeye so succinctly put it.
  Succinctly but not succulently!

Stanislaw Lem (the greatest thinker of the recent years in my opinion) has written two great science fiction stories, whith two similar titles. One was “Do you exist Mr. Jones?”. And the other one was “Does Mr. Jones exist?”. In both stories he posits a rally-car driver, who suffers a series of accidents. After each accident his lost body parts are replaced by either a human transplant (story #1) or a mechanical prothesis (story #2). The question is: “when, if at all does Mr. Jones lose his identity due to the transplants”? Worth to contemplate.

Never! His mind remains intact…

 

[R_Daneel]

thats quite funny! I hope I took it the right way.

I am sure you did. Remember the song (“Christmas Song”) by Jethro Tull, in which they say: “The Christmas spirit is not what you drink”… and at the end of the song they say: “Hey Sumter, pass us that bottle, will you?”