Substance vs. Accidents Example

[Just_Lurking]

I am constantly amazed that the philosophy of Aristotele is held in such a high regard.

I’m having a hard time understanding this as well. If someone came to me and said they wanted to learn classical mechanics, about the last thing I would suggest to them is to “read Isaac Newton”. If someone wanted to learn evolution, reading Darwin isn’t quite as ridiculous, but it still wouldn’t be my first suggestion. However, when someone comes to this website seeking to learn philosophy, the most common suggestion is to read Plato or Aristotle first. I can’t quite wrap my head around it yet.

 

[R_Daneel]

Succinctly but not succulently!

Are you talking about succulent plants, like cacti?

Never! His mind remains intact…

Cheers! But in human transplant story his brain is replaced by someone else’s brain, and the new persona is markedly different (his navigator). And in the mechanical prothesis scenario, his mind is “uploaded” into a computer brain, which works precisely as the original… as I said, well worth to contemplate. If you can put your hand of the stories, they are very good reading. Originally they appeared in the book “The Star Diaries”, though I don’t know if they were included in the English translation. The stories are much more fun and complicated compared to my very short summary of them.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m having a hard time understanding this as well. If someone came to me and said they wanted to learn classical mechanics, about the last thing I would suggest to them is to “read Isaac Newton”. If someone wanted to learn evolution, reading Darwin isn’t quite as ridiculous, but it still wouldn’t be my first suggestion. However, when someone comes to this website seeking to learn philosophy, the most common suggestion is to read Plato or Aristotle first. I can’t quite wrap my head around it yet.

They would be worth to read to learn about the development of philosophy, no question about that. But if someone wanted to learn about the circulatory system, you would not recommed the writings of ancient Greeks who thought that the brain is just a cooling device for the blood.

On the other hand giving someone the writings of Pythagoras with his beautifully constructed proof of the Pythagoras theorem, which will stay correct forever, would be a great way to teach mathematics. We cannot place the writings of the ancient Greeks into the same basket. Some of their insight was awesome, some were only so-so, some were far out.

 

[runningdude]

When it comes to the Eucharist, for this bowl metaphor, I would prefer to think of the material the bowl is made of (such as metal, glass ) as being the “substance”, and the shape of the metal (the shape of a bowl) as the accidents.

When the Priest consecrates the “bowl”, the “metal” stops being metal, and becomes the Body of Christ, though retaining the appearance and properties of the metallic bowl. It is a true transformation, beyond the normal processes of our natural environment.

To stretch this metaphor way beyond its natural conclusion, science would be right in a limited sense that the change of “substance” would be bogus, because Jesus here would still be metallic, and have the physical properties of metal - Jesus would be able to conduct electricity!

Furthermore, the Jesus in the form of the metallic bowl would even retain the chemical properties of the metal. Jesus’ metallic form could rust away, just as our bodies digest Jesus in the form of bread. Once every molecule of the original metal bowl reacted to become rust, Christ would no longer be Bodily present.

This of course is a silly little metaphor. Christ does not assume the form of a metal bowl in the sacrament of the Eucharist. But during this most Holy Communion, Christ does truly offer Himself in the form and accidents of bread and wine to nourish us spiritually, in a manner totally beyond the scope of what science can study physically.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

The reason “substance” is of interest in this day and age is because the Church defined transubstantiation in terms of the most advanced science of the time, which was Aristotelian. My motive isn’t to prove that substances are real, but rather to understand what was meant by it so it can be expressed in modern terms.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you talking about succulent plants, like cacti?

Well, there are prickly persons…

Cheers! But in human transplant story his brain is replaced by someone else’s brain, and the new persona is markedly different (his navigator). And in the mechanical prothesis scenario, his mind is “uploaded” into a computer brain, which works precisely as the original… as I said, well worth to contemplate. If you can put your hand of the stories, they are very good reading. Originally they appeared in the book “The Star Diaries”, though I don’t know if they were included in the English translation. The stories are much more fun and complicated compared to my very short summary of them.

Good fun no doubt but not enlightening…

 

[tonyrey]

The reason “substance” is of interest in this day and age is because the Church defined transubstantiation in terms of the most advanced science of the time, which was Aristotelian. My motive isn’t to prove that substances are real, but rather to understand what was meant by it so it can be expressed in modern terms.

1. What makes a person a person?
2. Why does anything exist?
3. Does science disprove the belief that God is present in everything?
4. Does science enlighten us in those respects?

 

[tonyrey]

The word “substance” is derived from “sub” and stare", i.e. that which stands underneath. In other words there must be an entity to which the attributes are related. We don’t eat the attributes of a banana! We eat the banana itself! To reject substance is to adopt an atomistic concept of existence which deprives it of meaning, value and purpose. The holistic view of reality is far more substantial, fertile and nourishing…

 

[Betterave]

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.

Don’t make assumptions about what the ancients did and didn’t think of. They were not as naive as you probably imagine. I certainly don’t see your point.

How is “being the same kind of thing” an improvement on “having the same essence”? The problem you have ignored here is that of grounding the relation “being the same kind of thing” - is this just arbitrary? What makes it the case that A belongs to the same equivalence class (i.e., has the same essence) as B, and C does not?

 

[Just_Lurking]

My motive isn’t to prove that substances are real, but rather to understand what was meant by it so it can be expressed in modern terms.

There are some Catholics who don’t look kindly upon this approach. For example, see here.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Don’t make assumptions about what the ancients did and didn’t think of. They were not as naive as you probably imagine. I certainly don’t see your point.

If you have any evidence of the ancients being able to form equivalence classes in the absence of canonical representatives, I would be glad to read it.

How is “being the same kind of thing” an improvement on “having the same essence”?

It isn’t. It’s exactly the same. That isn’t my point.

My point is that once you the concept of “having the essence of a dog”, modern mathematics can directly form the equivalence class of all dogs, whereas the ancients could not, and thus had to postulate the existence of a “canonical dog”, i.e., the Platonic ideal of “dog-ness”. Thus, the limited nature of ancient mathematical set theory led to the unnecessary creation of ontological entities.

 

[R_Daneel]

Good fun no doubt but not enlightening…

How do you know that without even reading them?

 

[R_Daneel]

My point is that once you the concept of “having the essence of a dog”, modern mathematics can directly form the equivalence class of all dogs, whereas the ancients could not, and thus had to postulate the existence of a “canonical dog”, i.e., the Platonic ideal of “dog-ness”. Thus, the limited nature of ancient mathematical set theory led to the unnecessary creation of ontological entities.

Oh, it is fun to be a mathematician, but rather futile to state mathematical concepts when the other parties are not able to comprehend them.

 

[Betterave]

If you have any evidence of the ancients being able to form equivalence classes in the absence of canonical representatives, I would be glad to read it.

If you have any evidence of anyone being able to do so non-arbitrarily, please let me know!

It isn’t. It’s exactly the same. That isn’t my point.

My point is that once you the concept of “having the essence of a dog”, modern mathematics can directly form the equivalence class of all dogs, whereas the ancients could not, and thus had to postulate the existence of a “canonical dog”, i.e., the Platonic ideal of “dog-ness”. Thus, the limited nature of ancient mathematical set theory led to the unnecessary creation of ontological entities.

So you’re under the impression that all the ancients were Platonists? Uh, yeah, that’s actually the kind of radically naive assumption I was trying to warn you against. (I would say the same to RD too, of course, whom I’ve had to school on nonsensical pseudo-mathematical claims in the past.) The other issue is that I’m guessing you’re pretty ignorant of Plato/Platonism too. If you try reading the Parmenides you’ll realize that not even Plato was a Platonist (at least in the naive sense you’re imagining).

 

[tonyrey]

How do you know that without even reading them?

Because they reflect your point of view and you cannot even answer the questions I have asked!

 

[Just_Lurking]

If you have any evidence of anyone being able to do so non-arbitrarily, please let me know!

It is standard modern mathematics, for example, see here. Back when I was a kid, they taught it in middle school as part of the “New Math”.

Irrational numbers were also puzzling to the ancient Greeks. I don’t understand what the big deal is about them not having the fullness of modern mathematical knowledge.

So you’re under the impression that all the ancients were Platonists? Uh, yeah, that’s actually the kind of radically naive assumption I was trying to warn you against. (I would say the same to RD too, of course, whom I’ve had to school on nonsensical pseudo-mathematical claims in the past.) The other issue is that I’m guessing you’re pretty ignorant of Plato/Platonism too. If you try reading the Parmenides you’ll realize that not even Plato was a Platonist (at least in the naive sense you’re imagining).

I’m criticizing a philosophical concept as being engendered from a lack of mathematical knowledge. Everything you talk about in this paragraph seems to be about who held to that philosophical concept, which would seem to be a different matter altogether.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

There are some Catholics who don’t look kindly upon this approach. For example, see here.

I think Fr. Hardon is objecting to certain specific attempts to re-phrase what transubstantiation means, because they actually change the original meaning. I’m trying to express the original meaning in modern terms, so that I can understand what it really means. So far I don’t really get it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The word “substance” is derived from “sub” and stare", i.e. that which stands underneath. In other words there must be an entity to which the attributes are related. We don’t eat the attributes of a banana! We eat the banana itself! To reject substance is to adopt an atomistic concept of existence which deprives it of meaning, value and purpose. The holistic view of reality is far more substantial, fertile and nourishing…

So… in this example does the substance of the banana disappear when it is eaten?

And if you used the banana to make two banana splits, what happens to the substances? Does the substance of the banana disappaer, and two new banana split substances appear? Can substances appear and disappear like that? Or do you still have the substance banana, but it now has the accident of being “cut into two” and “chewed up”?

I’m asking these questions because I hope to come up with an example of transubstantiation using more familiar things like bananas or plates or bowls.

 

[Betterave]

It is standard modern mathematics, for example, see here. Back when I was a kid, they taught it in middle school as part of the “New Math”.

Huh…? Here was my challenge:
*If you have any evidence of anyone being able to form equivalence classes in the absence of canonical representatives, I would be glad to read it. *

Now I’m pretty sure the article you referred me to does not address this question. If it does please show me where.

I’m criticizing a philosophical concept as being engendered from a lack of mathematical knowledge. Everything you talk about in this paragraph seems to be about who held to that philosophical concept, which would seem to be a different matter altogether.

I’m criticizing your claim that the philosophical issue here is in any way furthered by your reference to modern mathematical theory. The mention of who held the concept is a response to the naive claim that the ancients would have seen the light, everything would have been clear, if only they had had modern mathematical theories available to them.

 

[Betterave]

So… in this example does the substance of the banana disappear when it is eaten?

And if you used the banana to make two banana splits, what happens to the substances? Does the substance of the banana disappaer, and two new banana split substances appear? Can substances appear and disappear like that? Or do you still have the substance banana, but it now has the accident of being “cut into two” and “chewed up”?

I’m asking these questions because I hope to come up with an example of transubstantiation using more familiar things like bananas or plates or bowls.

lol! What’s wrong with good old bread and wine?