What is a ' substance ? '

[Linusthe2nd]

What does the term ’ substance ’ mean to you? How would you apply and use it?

How have you used it in the past?

When did you first become aware of its meaning or meanings?

Can you give some examples of how you use the term?

Is there one meaning that you think especially apt?

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

A substance is what something can be basically reduced to as a simplest description of what that thing must be. For example, my substance is a person/spirit. You can remove my body and that will not affect my substance. I must be a person, so that is my substance.

Substances are more readily apparent in the spiritual world, where creatures cannot be reduced to parts. But things in the physical world can be broken down, proving that their form is not a basic substance.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A substance is what something can be basically reduced to as a simplest description of what that thing must be. For example, my substance is a person/spirit. You can remove my body and that will not affect my substance. I must be a person, so that is my substance.

Substances are more readily apparent in the spiritual world, where creatures cannot be reduced to parts. But things in the physical world can be broken down, proving that their form is not a basic substance.

But are we not a part of the " physical world? "

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

But are we not a part of the " physical world? "

Linus2nd

Yes, our spirit possesses a collection of matter with which to experience the physical world. It is generally said that our body is a part of our being, but I disagree with a lot of assumptions related to this made by Catholic theologians.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

A collection of fermions, or is that too much of a stretch for people not familiar with the term fermion?

Fermions don’t like to occupy the same space, so they repel each other and tend to take up a certain amount of volume. Simple fermions are electrons, protons, and neutrons. They all have a spin of 1/2, and combine to make up the atoms in the world around us. The electrons locate themselves in mostly non-overlapping locations called orbitals and provide the electromagnetically based repulsion between atoms. When a given electron is allowed to occupy two different orbits at the same time, and those orbits overlap, there is either an emission or absorption of light energy.

Light, or collections of photons, are an example of the other big category of particles known as bosons. These cannot be regarded as a substance in the way that fermions can because they do not mind overlapping with each other. The photons in a laser beam can easily be brought to an intense focus with no mutual repulsion whatsoever, i.e. they don’t mind taking up little or no volume. The only problem with boxing up an infinite number of photons is that they always move at the speed of light, thus if they interact and get absorbed during, say, a reflection off of a mirror, they quickly disappear after not too many reflections.

Fermions have fractional spins that are always an odd number of halves, while bosons have spins that are always an integer number.

Elementary particles always have one of these spins: 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2.

These are the bosons: 0, 1, 2.

These are the fermions: 1/2, 3/2.

I could say more (like mentioning that particles with spin 3/2, axions, may be examples of dark matter) but I think I’ve probably provided more than enough material for confusion and argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, our spirit possesses a collection of matter with which to experience the physical world. It is generally said that our body is a part of our being, but I disagree with a lot of assumptions related to this made by Catholic theologians.

But God created man and breathed life into him. He didn’t create a body and add a soul, he breathed life into his body. And the Church teaches that man is a unit, a single being composed of body and soul. So it is not just a matter of what theologians think. It is a matter of what God revealed and what the Church teaches.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A collection of fermions, or is that too much of a stretch for people not familiar with the term fermion?

Fermions don’t like to occupy the same space, so they repel each other and tend to take up a certain amount of volume. Simple fermions are electrons, protons, and neutrons. They all have a spin of 1/2, and combine to make up the atoms in the world around us. The electrons locate themselves in mostly non-overlapping locations called orbitals and provide the electromagnetically based repulsion between atoms. When a given electron is allowed to occupy two different orbits at the same time, and those orbits overlap, there is either an emission or absorption of light energy.

Light, or collections of photons, are an example of the other big category of particles known as bosons. These cannot be regarded as a substance in the way that fermions can because they do not mind overlapping with each other. The photons in a laser beam can easily be brought to an intense focus with no mutual repulsion whatsoever, i.e. they don’t mind taking up little or no volume. The only problem with boxing up an infinite number of photons is that they always move at the speed of light, thus if they interact and get absorbed during, say, a reflection off of a mirror, they quickly disappear after not too many reflections.

Fermions have fractional spins that are always an odd number of halves, while bosons have spins that are always an integer number.

Elementary particles always have one of these spins: 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2.

These are the bosons: 0, 1, 2.

These are the fermions: 1/2, 3/2.

I could say more (like mentioning that particles with spin 3/2, axions, may be examples of dark matter) but I think I’ve probably provided more than enough material for confusion and argument.

In your opinion are these substances? That is, do they exist on their own.? Is there anything else you regard as substances?

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

But God created man and breathed life into him. He didn’t create a body and add a soul, he breathed life into his body. And the Church teaches that man is a unit, a single being composed of body and soul. So it is not just a matter of what theologians think. It is a matter of what God revealed and what the Church teaches.

Linus2nd

To take “he breathed life into his body” literally is to believe in a materialistic view of human beings. My soul is not my body. I am tired of hearing theologians talk about human beings as if this is the case. Except for my soul’s nature of being connected to a physical body, my soul has nothing else in common with my body. Physical and spiritual qualities cannot coexist, because they exclude each other logically. The spiritual is by definition, that which is not physical, and vice versa.

If a human being was to have their soul annihilated, there would no longer be a person, just a body. But if the body is destroyed, the soul will still exist and be a person. So my basic substance is a person.

I do believe that it is my nature to have a collection of matter associated with my person. But I do not believe that my soul is connected by nature to specific particles, like some believe. That comes to the logically absurd when you consider how the body replaces its matter constantly, and in all likelihood, you have some atoms in your body which were once part of another’s body.

 

[davidv]

To take “he breathed life into his body” literally is to believe in a materialistic view of human beings.

How can this be? What material is God’s breath made of?

My soul is not my body. I am tired of hearing theologians talk about human beings as if this is the case.

Why are tired of hearing the truth. The Church teaches that the soul and body are one.

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Except for my soul’s nature of being connected to a physical body, my soul has nothing else in common with my body. Physical and spiritual qualities cannot coexist, because they exclude each other logically. The spiritual is by definition, that which is not physical, and vice versa.

So you say. Can you prove it?

If a human being was to have their soul annihilated, there would no longer be a person, just a body. But if the body is destroyed, the soul will still exist and be a person. So my basic substance is a person.

I do believe that it is my nature to have a collection of matter associated with my person. But I do not believe that my soul is connected by nature to specific particles, like some believe. That comes to the logically absurd when you consider how the body replaces its matter constantly, and in all likelihood, you have some atoms in your body which were once part of another’s body.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

In your opinion are these substances?

They are everything around us, they are stuff or matter, so I guess I would call them substances.

That is, do they exist on their own.?

That is a loaded question. It depends on whether or not God made the world in such a way that it can exist without His aid or if it is dependent upon His continuing exercise of will to exist. I do not know that answer to that one.

Is there anything else you regard as substances?

Linus2nd

No. What I have stated is matter in a nutshell. Certainly there are other things, bosons, that exist without being something like a spoon or my finger, but I doubt that that is what you are getting at. Spirit is something else entirely. I don’t know what it is other than that I have heard churchmen call it subtle matter.

Fermions and bosons both have a more or less mathematically rigorous mathematical physics associated with them.

What are the rules for the elementary parts (that is if spirit can even be subdivided up into parts . . . ) of spirit? I have no earthly idea. I doubt that such things will be covered in any textbook on mathematical physics any time soon, if ever . . .

I think I remember from a few years back, maybe it was in association with one of those Raiders of the Lost Ark movies, that trying to do science on spirit is sort of like putting God in a box. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to work.

 

[blase6]

How can this be? What material is God’s breath made of?

Why are tired of hearing the truth. The Church teaches that the soul and body are one.

So you say. Can you prove it?

“One has to consider”, not “It is that”. Obviously this is just a better albeit imperfect understanding of human nature presented by the CCC.

 

[Ignatius]

What does the term ’ substance ’ mean? How would you apply and use it?

It’s not what it means ‘to me’, it’s what it properly means.

The substance is what a thing is.To use a ball as an example: it doesn’t matter if it’s white or black or green, if it’s made of hard substance like wood as a croquet ball, or soft like a Knucklebones or in between like a baseball. It doesn’t matter if it’s smooth or dimpled like a golf ball. We know it’s a ball because it’s substance makes it a ball.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They are everything around us, they are stuff or matter, so I guess I would call them substances.That is a loaded question. It depends on whether or not God made the world in such a way that it can exist without His aid or if it is dependent upon His continuing exercise of will to exist. I do not know that answer to that one.No. What I have stated is matter in a nutshell. Certainly there are other things, bosons, that exist without being something like a spoon or my finger, but I doubt that that is what you are getting at. Spirit is something else entirely. I don’t know what it is other than that I have heard churchmen call it subtle matter.

Fermions and bosons both have a more or less mathematically rigorous mathematical physics associated with them.

What are the rules for the elementary parts (that is if spirit can even be subdivided up into parts . . . ) of spirit? I have no earthly idea. I doubt that such things will be covered in any textbook on mathematical physics any time soon, if ever . . .

I think I remember from a few years back, maybe it was in association with one of those Raiders of the Lost Ark movies, that trying to do science on spirit is sort of like putting God in a box. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to work.

On this thread I am merely trying to see how our participants and viewers understand the term ’ substance. ’ I may or may not comment on a particular view. Aristotle proceeded to gather the opinions of the men of his time and of the ancients before he attempted to give a more scientific opinion.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

What does the term ’ substance ’ mean to you? How would you apply and use it?

How have you used it in the past?

When did you first become aware of its meaning or meanings?

Can you give some examples of how you use the term?

Is there one meaning that you think especially apt?

Linus2nd

We are consciousness and can experience and affect mental state. Our body does not define the real us but what we are capable to experience. Aristotle was very confused with the notion of substance, nature, forms… hence you.

 

[Nixbits]

To me ‘substance’ has several meanings.

1. More or less synonymous with ‘matter’. Often used as a general term qualified by reference to one of its properties, e.g. “the crystalline substance in the test tube”, or as a general term for the grouped components of a defined thing, e.g. “the substance of the egg is formed inside the hen’s body”. This meaning was known to me from around the age of five, I think.
2. Meaning the important content of something, e.g. “there was not much substance in your letter”. By extension, something can be said to be have substance or lack it, e.g. “His claim that he has a degree in medicine is without substance” meaning it has no basis in fact. Understanding of these meanings came a bit later, probably in my early teens.
3. I’ve only recently encountered the use of the word in the sense used in philosophy, at the age of forty-seven. I could not claim to properly understand its philosophical meaning and would never choose to use this word in such a context.

No one meaning is more or less apt than another as long as the meaning is understood by the listener or reader. What matters is clarity. Context matters, and so does shared vocabulary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We are consciousness and can experience and affect mental state. Our body does not define the real us but what we are capable to experience. Aristotle was very confused with the notion of substance, nature, forms… hence you.

Ok, but if we are consciousness than we are unconsciousness and subconsciousness and all interact. You recall information. The unconscious interaction can’t be recalled in the manner of the subconscious. So theres a difference in choosing to remember. But unconscious may be recalled by some special interaction be it God, hypnosis etc. So I have to think our unconscious can define our experience and mental state.

 

[Bahman]

Ok, but if we are consciousness than we are unconsciousness and subconsciousness and all interact. You recall information. The unconscious interaction can’t be recalled in the manner of the subconscious. So theres a difference in choosing to remember. But unconscious may be recalled by some special interaction be it God, hypnosis etc. So I have to think our unconscious can define our experience and mental state.

 

[GaryTaylor]

 

[Bahman]

The rest of puzzle can be solved easily when you get the key idea otherwise we keep chasing our own tails. :bounce:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We are consciousness and can experience and affect mental state. Our body does not define the real us but what we are capable to experience. Aristotle was very confused with the notion of substance, nature, forms… hence you.

Would you mind sticking to the O.P.?

Linus2nd