What is a ' substance ? '

[Aloysium]

But do these natures exist independently of language?

If we got rid of language would we perceive only individual, particular things, without types.

Is the emergence of ‘types’ concurrent with the emergence of concepts/names?

Do these ‘types’/concepts exist independently of the mind(s) creating them?

It’s the whole nominalist/realist problem again…

You exist independent of whether I think of you or not, whether I know your name, whether I have the neurological capacity to form words and symbols, whether or not I exist as a rational mind.
You are whole and in relation to the world and myself, as part of that world, in a different time and space. You are not a bird or gorilla.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But do these natures exist independently of language?

If we got rid of language would we perceive only individual, particular things, without types.

Is the emergence of ‘types’ concurrent with the emergence of concepts/names?

Do these ‘types’/concepts exist independently of the mind(s) creating them?

It’s the whole nominalist/realist problem again…

Of course these substances/natures would exist whether man existed or not. According to archeologists they existed billions of years before man existed - perhaps not the same species we have today but others, the point is the same. Their existence does not depend on our language or even of man.

There is no nominalist/realist problem. If these natures didn’t exist in fact, we could hardly give them names, could we. Now if I see something I want to talk about, I have to give it a name. It exists and the name I give it is a sign for that nature. I really don’t see any problem.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

I think we can avoid worrying about solipsism or whatever by taking a more direct route.

Some people abstract substances in a different way to me, and have different principles about what makes the thing what it is, about what is common sensible, and what can be readily seen from things themselves outside the intellect. Some of them say that people of a different skin are not truly human, that their nature is inferior. Not to put too fine a point on it, a certain medieval philosopher maintained that women have an inferior nature to men.

There is a moral issue in reifying categories. People come to believe that their ideas dictate reality, and often it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Yes, the human intellect can error which I’m sure we are all aware of which makes divine revelation all the more important. Typically, the human intellect errors when its ideas, concepts, or judgements are not in conformity with external reality. When our judgements and ideas are in conformity with reality then we have truth, knowledge, and science. The tendency of modern philosophy is to divorce knowledge from reality, which external reality is the source of our knowledge, and to say that knowledge and ideas are purely subjective. This is a metaphysical error. Our knowledge is founded upon being and not the other way around.

 

[inocente]

What I am saying, what Aristotle and Aquinas do say is that it is the behavior, characteristics, actions, physical formation of a substance which tell us what a thing is, what a substance/nature is. A dog barks because this characteristic flows from its nature, its dogness, which is the inner reality we come to know through the external accidents.. That is not circular reasoning, that is simple logic.

Almost. I agree they’re talking about “what tells us” and “the inner reality we come to know”. But you want to reify it. If you wish to claim that nature-of-dog and nature-of-Ebola are real in themselves then you need to explain how nature-of-dog changed exactly in line with how dogs have evolved over the millennia and has dictated their developing dogginess, and how nature-of-Ebola lay dormant for 13.7 billion years. Whereas if you don’t reify these things then there’s no problem.

inocente;12859716:

Nope. A planet is not one substance. Consider how it was formed.

Never said it was a single substance. Certainly it is a combination of hundreds, maybe thousands or millions of individual substances. But it is a single thing, it is this particular conglomerate traveling through space.

You sprung my cunning trap. Yes, in chemistry a planet may consist of many substances, for the world consists of atoms, and atoms are the fundamental building blocks. But Aristotle is analyzing language and knowledge, and his fundamental building blocks are the subjects of sentences, and so a planet is a single substance. In our heads, Saturn is substance-of-planet with certain accidents (such as the rings). If we could only conceive of atoms, we could not conceive of dog, and when we think of a dog, we think of one subject, one substance, substance-of-animal with doggy accidents. It’s how we categorize our world.

First of all Aristotle writes about categories in several places. But whaterver, the categories reflect reality as he and others of his day and earlier found, and as most since have found very useful. I have made not conclusions that Aristotle himself did not make, at least in principle. If you think I am making things up, just let me know where.

Sure, Aristotle is useful if we take his categories to be about how we think of the world, since then there is no conflict with chemistry’s claim that objective reality is formed of atoms. But you are claiming that objective reality is dictated by how you think of the world, which is just confusing.

The author of Genesis was comparing the litght the moon reflected from the sun upon the earth to the light the stars shed upon the earth. By comparison, the light of the moon was the great light which ruled the night. In any case it was the night light, it was not the light which ruled the day, and it was lesser than the great light which ruled the day.

Well, you’ve proven you can differentiate between objective reality and the author’s conceptions, so now apply that same rule to yourself.

I never said that words dictate reality. That would be irrational, as you intimate. It is you who have assumed that is what Aristotle was doing. We have to have a language to communicate with one another. Words are merely signs standing for the realities we see in daily life. And if we cannot categorize these realities it is difficult to see how we can communicate effectively - let alone do science, and that is what Aristotle all about. He was about science, as various systems of intellectual endeavor.

No, Aristotle does not say that words dictate reality. It is you who reify his natures and substances. Not Aristotle. You.

*I am always mystified by your consistent objection to concepts such as " the nature of things, " " substances, " and any reference to " categories? " So far you have never explained why you object to these concepts? *

On the Per se VS. accidental thread I’ve had to repeat over and over and over and over that I am not objecting to Aristotle but to your personal interpretation, and you’ve completely ignored me and, just as you’re doing here, keep saying I’m objecting to Aristotle when I’m not. It’s crazy. I’m objecting to Linus.

PS: Apologies for delay in replying.

 

[inocente]

And that does not disprove it had a definite nature. It was a bird, not a gorilla, and it was a specifice kind of bird, as each language correctly identified. So the great Feynman missed the whole point .

And in the end we certainly know what this bird is, any bird having the same characteristics, nest building, collering, call, etc. has the same nature in every country in which it is found. The name each language attaches to that identical nature or being is not important, except to the people who speak that language.

I’m not surprised you can’t see the difference between learning what people call a thing and learning about the thing, since you apparently can’t see the difference between objective reality and your thoughts, or the difference between Aristotle and your take on Aristotle. So the great Linus missed the whole point .

 

[inocente]

Nihilist;12860982:

But do these natures exist independently of language?

You exist independent of whether I think of you or not, whether I know your name, whether I have the neurological capacity to form words and symbols, whether or not I exist as a rational mind.

I think Nihilist is not asking whether he exists objectively but whether natures exist objectively.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Almost. I agree they’re talking about “what tells us” and “the inner reality we come to know”. But you want to reify it. If you wish to claim that nature-of-dog and nature-of-Ebola are real in themselves then you need to explain how nature-of-dog changed exactly in line with how dogs have evolved over the millennia and has dictated their developing dogginess, and how nature-of-Ebola lay dormant for 13.7 billion years. Whereas if you don’t reify these things then there’s no problem.

I think that would be impossible, since we have no way of " watching " a substance evolve. Aristotle was talking about substances as he found them.

You sprung my cunning trap. Yes, in chemistry a planet may consist of many substances, for the world consists of atoms, and atoms are the fundamental building blocks. But Aristotle is analyzing language and knowledge, and his fundamental building blocks are the subjects of sentences, and so a planet is a single substance. In our heads, Saturn is substance-of-planet with certain accidents (such as the rings). If we could only conceive of atoms, we could not conceive of dog, and when we think of a dog, we think of one subject, one substance, substance-of-animal with doggy accidents. It’s how we categorize our world

There is no conflict between the substances/natures ( i.e. dogness in dog ) and their material constituents - atoms, molecules,’ etc. As component parts, the atoms are governed by the dog’s nature for the well being of the dog. They are not free actors. You would have to agree that however one views the atoms, the dog has a very definite nature, it does not behave like an atom, or any one of the four forces of the atom. It always acts like a dog…

Sure, Aristotle is useful if we take his categories to be about how we think of the world, since then there is no conflict with chemistry’s claim that objective reality is formed of atoms. But you are claiming that objective reality is dictated by how you think of the world, which is just confusing.

I never excluded atoms and other nano elements from reality. And I don’t think a scientist worth his salt would deny that a dog is something very different from the physical elements of which it is composed. And I never claimed that objective reality is dictated by how we think about it. I have always insisted that it is the physical reality, the nature of things, which determine how we think of them. We put them in categories, which we name, because they obviously have different natures. If they didn’t we couldn’t even talk about them.

Well, you’ve proven you can differentiate between objective reality and the author’s conceptions, so now apply that same rule to yourself.

Not sure what you mean.

No, Aristotle does not say that words dictate reality. It is you who reify his natures and substances. Not Aristotle. You.

It is Aristotle who spoke of the nature of things. He famously taught that " …nature is the principle of motion and rest in those things which have a nature…" And then he went about categorising these natures, which he called substances. I am not saying anything Aristotle did not say, except when it is necessary to bring in the things we know about the physicality of these substances, which modern science has taught us.

On the Per se VS. accidental thread I’ve had to repeat over and over and over and over that I am not objecting to Aristotle but to your personal interpretation, and you’ve completely ignored me and, just as you’re doing here, keep saying I’m objecting to Aristotle when I’m not. It’s crazy. I’m objecting to Linus.

You haven’t shown me where I have misinterpreted Aristotle. You claim it but you haven’t given me a specific instance. Mind you I do not say that I could not misinterpret him, but I just don’t see where I did.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

I think that would be impossible, since we have no way of " watching " a substance evolve. Aristotle was talking about substances as he found them.

If substance-of-dog is real, as you say, then changes in substance-of-dog must drive the evolution of dogs. Please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, on how this happens.

There is no conflict between the substances/natures ( i.e. dogness in dog ) and their material constituents - atoms, molecules,’ etc. As component parts, the atoms are governed by the dog’s nature for the well being of the dog. They are not free actors. You would have to agree that however one views the atoms, the dog has a very definite nature, it does not behave like an atom, or any one of the four forces of the atom. It always acts like a dog.

If “the atoms are governed by the dog’s nature” as you say then please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, on how this happens.

*I never excluded atoms and other nano elements from reality. And I don’t think a scientist worth his salt would deny that a dog is something very different from the physical elements of which it is composed. And I never claimed that objective reality is dictated by how we think about it. I have always insisted that it is the physical reality, the nature of things, which determine how we think of them. We put them in categories, which we name, because they obviously have different natures. If they didn’t we couldn’t even talk about them. *

Agreed that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, a saying credited to Aristotle, but that leads to the notion of emergence, also perhaps first thought of by Aristotle. According to this view, a dog is not different “from the physical elements of which it is composed”, it is something more than them. Please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, which denies that is Aristotle’s view.

*It is Aristotle who spoke of the nature of things. He famously taught that " …nature is the principle of motion and rest in those things which have a nature…" And then he went about categorising these natures, which he called substances. I am not saying anything Aristotle did not say, except when it is necessary to bring in the things we know about the physicality of these substances, which modern science has taught us.
*

You are reifying natures, and you’ve not yet demonstrated that Aristotle did,.

*You haven’t shown me where I have misinterpreted Aristotle. You claim it but you haven’t given me a specific instance. Mind you I do not say that I could not misinterpret him, but I just don’t see where I did. *

This is why I’ve asked you to cite papers above. It shouldn’t be any trouble for you to find lots of papers on points where you’ve interpreted Aristotle correctly.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If substance-of-dog is real, as you say, then changes in substance-of-dog must drive the evolution of dogs. Please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, on how this happens.

I don’t read papers on evolution. I said that Aristotle was dealing with the natures that existed before his very eyes and that is what the A/T philosophers I am acquainted with do as well. This is not to say that some of them have not speculated on this point.i

If “the atoms are governed by the dog’s nature” as you say then please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, on how this happens.

I really don’t think this is necessary. It is a perfectly logical statement. It should be self-evident that the nature of a dog is not that of an atom or of a mass of atoms. I have seen discussions touching on this topic but I can’t cite them.

Agreed that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, a saying credited to Aristotle, but that leads to the notion of emergence, also perhaps first thought of by Aristotle. According to this view, a dog is not different “from the physical elements of which it is composed”, it is something more than them.

I said the nature of the dog, not the physical object we call a dog, is different than the atoms, etc. of which its physicality is composed. I am not aware of how Aristotle was interpreting ’ dog,. ’ whether as an object or as a particular nature. But Aristotle had definite views about natures as opposed to objects or subjects. Obviously Aristotle had no notion of atoms, etc. of which modern science treats. So one cannot fault him as to his specific applications. But he was definite about " nature, " and, in his view, nature was the spontaneous source of all the actions of a specific object or subject which had a specific nature. And it is this notion that A/T philosophers of nature and science have carried forward. I can’t cite any specific one dealing specifically with your objection. But it should be obvious that substances, living or non-living, which have a specific nature are governed by that nature. I am confident enough of that statement that I don’t feel compelled to make a long search in support of it. Even my faith, based on Revelation, tells me it is true. God spoke of natures, he didn’t speak of atoms, etc.

You are reifying natures, and you’ve not yet demonstrated that Aristotle did,

I disagree, how can you object to the progress of philosophy ( i.e. the philosophy of nature and of science ) while championing the progress of science? I never said Aristotle did, I said his principles of nature are still applicable.

This is why I’ve asked you to cite papers above. It shouldn’t be any trouble for you to find lots of papers on points where you’ve interpreted Aristotle correctly.

I am not going to spend any time searching. I don’t feel the need to do so. But if I run across something now and then I will post it . But nothing is stopping you from searching .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If substance-of-dog is real, as you say, then changes in substance-of-dog must drive the evolution of dogs. Please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, on how this happens…[snip]…

As I promised , from an online course in the Philosophy of Nature by my old friend Fr. William A. Wallace ( R.I.P., age 96, died with his " boots on " ).

" 1. Plant Natures
Plant natures – as studied, for example, in botany – are obviously more complex than inorganic natures. Apart from their atomic and molecular parts they are organisms with their own systems and functions to account for. Aristotle was aware that plant organs exercise three basic powers that are required for life processes. These he enumerated as nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Modern biologists would add to these homeostasis, the power whereby an organism maintains its stability while adjusting to the environment in ways that are best for its survival. With this addition we have the four powers required for plant life. Adapting to modern usage, we shall change their names slightly from those used by Aristotle.

I am using graphical aids throughout these lectures that are available to those taking the course for credit. Some of the figures are found in my The Modeling of Nature, published by The Catholic University of America Press in 1996. We enumerate these four powers, with their symbols, as shown in Fig. 4.1 (p. 95 in Modeling of Nature): the homeostasis control (HC), the metabolism control (MC), the developmental power (DP), and the reproductive power (RP). These, then, are the four basic vegetative powers. They must be added to the four inorganic powers we have already enumerated to provide a total of eight powers to account for all the activities of a plant form.

Link to diagram 4.1 home.comcast.net/~icuweb/WAW0018.GIF

Figure 4.1 diagrams the powers model of a plant nature. Like that for an inorganic nature, it starts with a point source, labeled PM for protomatter, as heretofore. This is surrounded by an energizing field that radiates from it and constitutes the plant organism – now labeled NFp, for natural form, with the subscript “p” designating plant. Within that field, as before, the eight powers are arranged symmetrically, but also hierarchically, with the inorganic powers in the lower hemisphere, the organic powers in the upper.

Notice the up and down arrows on either side of the letters PM, connecting the two sets of powers and showing the interchanges between them. These have a slightly different function from the arrows we have used previously in the inorganic model. Our earlier use of arrows represented activities that originate or terminate outside the substance being modeled and on this account are called transient actions. As opposed to them, the up and down arrows on either side of the PM designate immanent actions, those that remain within the plant and are perfective of it. Plants also initiate a few transient activities, as can be seen from the single arrow emerging from the reproductive power, when it produces seeds and brings into being a new organism of its own species. Also the two reciprocating arrows attached to the box for homeostasis show that it controls environmental reactions with substances that exist outside the plant.

The function of the plant form NFp with respect to the inorganic powers in the lower part of the model is obviously different from that of the inorganic form NFi in the non-living. The atomic and molecular structures these powers control are now part of the plant, and they are regulated by the form (mainly through its metabolism power, MC) to meet the energy requirements of the plant’s life. The natural form NFp further determines the way in which this nutritive energy is used, through its developmental power DP, controling the distinctive patterns in which the plant grows and stops growing. And finally, the natural form channels energies of the adult form, over and above those required to sustain its own life, through its reproductive power (RP), for the generation of new organisms.

As in the case of inorganic natures, the generic power form is not sufficient of itself to model a specific plant nature. To this has to be added iconic models that portray in detail plant structure and functioning. These are different, for example, in algae, fungi, mosses, and vascular plants. Each of these phyla has its characteristic root, stem, and leaf systems, and uses them in various ways for transpiration and reproduction. These have been understood and sketched by botanists for centuries, but with the development of biochemistry in recent decades, much more is known about metabolism and replication. Graphic modeling techniques make these life processes interesting and intelligible even to those who have little formal education in the sciences that specialize in them. "

home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02000.htm

As you can see, the physical constituents ( i.e. the atoms, etc. ) are govenned by the nature of the plant. I recommend that you study this course, it is quite simple, by comparison to reading A or T. and some of their modern descendents.

Happy reading.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If substance-of-dog is real, as you say, then changes in substance-of-dog must drive the evolution of dogs. Please cite any paper, from philosophy or science, on how this happens…[snip]…

Here is another source but it can only be read at a local library. Use WorldCat.org to find one near you.
The Philosophical Nature of Physical Bodies : pts. 1 and 2 from book 4 of the Cosmologia by Peter Hoenen S.J. a noted A/T philosopher of the early 20th century. Still highly regarded. I happen to have a copy which is included in Readings in the Philosophy of Naure by Peter J Koren S.SSp. This book is the topic of an upcoming Philosophical Seminar at the Dominican Institute at Mount St. Mary College in Newberg, New York.

The burden of this work is to show that Aristotle and Thomas held that the constituent elements of animate and inanimate bodies and compounds are " virtually " present in these bodies. This is proven when the dissolution of these bodies result in the actual presence of these constituent elements. But as a part of the compound substances, the nature of the compound governs all internal and external activities of the compound. So it doesn’t matter whether we speak of man, dog, water, gold etc., the same principle applies.

Thus water contains " virtually " the elements of oxygen and hydrogen. But it is the nature of water which controls the actions of the elements, not totally, for there are interior actions going on in the elements which are specific to them. But it is the overall good of the compound to which the actions of the elements are directed.

And of course, when water is resolved into its constituent elements, then they act according to their own proper natures, and not according to the nature of water.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I should add, and this should be obvious, that no one can show me an atom of water or an atom of hydrogen in water. We only learn of their :" virtual " existence in the water after finding oxygen and hydrogen after applying electrolysis to the water. It should also be pointed out the there must also be other " virtual " elements in water because a great deal of energy has been applied in electrolysis so a great deal of energy has been expended or given off. Is all this energy retained in the resulting oxygen and hydrogen? Seems doubtful to me.

Linus2nd

 

[Richca]

You are reifying natures, and you’ve not yet demonstrated that Aristotle did,.

That Aristotle thought that natures are real, concrete, objective realities existing outside our minds is pretty basic Aristotelianism. Natures are synonymous with Plato’s ideas or forms. Plato certainly thought that the ideas or forms have separate objective existence outside our intellects, indeed, even outside the very things that participate in those ideas. For Plato, there is a world of separate immaterial forms of which the material beings of the material world participate in. For example, there exists a separate immaterial form of oak tree which individual material oak trees in this world participate in.

Aristotle objected to the separate existence of the forms from individual material things. For him, the form of oak tree, for example, exists in individual oak trees, not separate from them. Indeed, in Aristotle’s hylomorphism, the form along with matter are the two substantial principles or parts of which material substances are composed. The form is that principle, reality, or part by which some particular material thing is of some nature or other, for example, an oak tree, dog, horse, human, etc.

 

[inocente]

I don’t read papers on evolution. I said that Aristotle was dealing with the natures that existed before his very eyes and that is what the A/T philosophers I am acquainted with do as well. This is not to say that some of them have not speculated on this point.

The point here was that natures of species are logically only possible as human inventions.

For instance (without wanting to discuss evolution due to the ban), take a population of rabbits. There are small differences between each of the rabbits, they are not clones. Those which are more suited to the habitat (“the fittest”) are likely to have more offspring than the others, and so will pass on more of their traits to the next generation. Over many generations the population therefore changes. “Nature-of-rabbit” can only possibly exist as an average of the traits of the population at any one time, while “nature-of-Flopsy” can only exist as a collective noun for the bundle of traits of a particular member of the population at one time.

I really don’t think this is necessary. It is a perfectly logical statement. It should be self-evident that the nature of a dog is not that of an atom or of a mass of atoms. I have seen discussions touching on this topic but I can’t cite them.

You said “As component parts, the atoms are governed by the dog’s nature for the well being of the dog”. If nature-of-Fido is just a shorthand for all the various systems which make up Fido, fine, but if it’s supposed to be objectively real then where is it and how does it govern the atoms for Fido’s well-being?

*I said the nature of the dog, not the physical object we call a dog, is different than the atoms, etc. of which its physicality is composed. I am not aware of how Aristotle was interpreting ’ dog,. ’ whether as an object or as a particular nature. But Aristotle had definite views about natures as opposed to objects or subjects. Obviously Aristotle had no notion of atoms, etc. of which modern science treats. So one cannot fault him as to his specific applications. But he was definite about " nature, " and, in his view, nature was the spontaneous source of all the actions of a specific object or subject which had a specific nature. And it is this notion that A/T philosophers of nature and science have carried forward. I can’t cite any specific one dealing specifically with your objection. But it should be obvious that substances, living or non-living, which have a specific nature are governed by that nature. I am confident enough of that statement that I don’t feel compelled to make a long search in support of it. Even my faith, based on Revelation, tells me it is true. God spoke of natures, he didn’t speak of atoms, etc. *

You had said that “a dog is something very different from the physical elements of which it is composed”, and I replied that Aristotle would not agree, since he did not say "“the whole is different than the sum of its parts”, he said instead “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

I disagree, how can you object to the progress of philosophy ( i.e. the philosophy of nature and of science ) while championing the progress of science? I never said Aristotle did, I said his principles of nature are still applicable.

If you agree that Aristotle did not reify natures then we’re agreed on that.

Any of his principles which remain valid and are useful will be used by scientists or by philosophers of science, why wouldn’t they be?

I am not going to spend any time searching. I don’t feel the need to do so. But if I run across something now and then I will post it . But nothing is stopping you from searching .

That wasn’t why I asked though.

As I promised , from an online course in the Philosophy of Nature by my old friend Fr. William A. Wallace ( R.I.P., age 96, died with his " boots on " ).

Thanks but that analysis wasn’t really relevant to the question. It appears to undermine your position though, as Wallace repeatedly refers to modelling (and he obviously designed the neatly symmetrical categories in the diagram himself), in line with me saying that the categories are about knowledge rather than objectively real.

The burden of this work is to show that Aristotle and Thomas held that the constituent elements of animate and inanimate bodies and compounds are " virtually " present in these bodies.

Given that he thought all non-celestial things are made of only four elements, he would have had to come up with some scheme to explain diversity.

I should add, and this should be obvious, that no one can show me an atom of water or an atom of hydrogen in water. We only learn of their :" virtual " existence in the water after finding oxygen and hydrogen after applying electrolysis to the water. It should also be pointed out the there must also be other " virtual " elements in water because a great deal of energy has been applied in electrolysis so a great deal of energy has been expended or given off. Is all this energy retained in the resulting oxygen and hydrogen? Seems doubtful to me.

There are no virtual elements. If you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, you get energy (light and heat) plus water. If you want to break up the water again, you have to put all that energy back. No such thing as a free lunch.

Here’s some photos of the atoms in an organic compound and graphine.

 

[inocente]

That Aristotle thought that natures are real, concrete, objective realities existing outside our minds is pretty basic Aristotelianism. Natures are synonymous with Plato’s ideas or forms. Plato certainly thought that the ideas or forms have separate objective existence outside our intellects, indeed, even outside the very things that participate in those ideas. For Plato, there is a world of separate immaterial forms of which the material beings of the material world participate in. For example, there exists a separate immaterial form of oak tree which individual material oak trees in this world participate in.

Aristotle objected to the separate existence of the forms from individual material things. For him, the form of oak tree, for example, exists in individual oak trees, not separate from them. Indeed, in Aristotle’s hylomorphism, the form along with matter are the two substantial principles or parts of which material substances are composed. The form is that principle, reality, or part by which some particular material thing is of some nature or other, for example, an oak tree, dog, horse, human, etc.

I think this is always only an assumption though - he analyses language constructs on the assumption that how he thinks about the world is how it really is.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The point here was that natures of species are logically only possible as human inventions.

For instance (without wanting to discuss evolution due to the ban), take a population of rabbits. There are small differences between each of the rabbits, they are not clones. Those which are more suited to the habitat (“the fittest”) are likely to have more offspring than the others, and so will pass on more of their traits to the next generation. Over many generations the population therefore changes. “Nature-of-rabbit” can only possibly exist as an average of the traits of the population at any one time, while “nature-of-Flopsy” can only exist as a collective noun for the bundle of traits of a particular member of the population at one time.

It is still a rabbit, it has a rabbit’s nature. The nature can obvioulsly be modified, that is what Aristotle means by moving from potency to act.

You said “As component parts, the atoms are governed by the dog’s nature for the well being of the dog”. If nature-of-Fido is just a shorthand for all the various systems which make up Fido, fine, but if it’s supposed to be objectively real then where is it and how does it govern the atoms for Fido’s well-being?

Do you believe you have a spiritual soul? Can you point it out to me? The soul a part of my human nature. And no one can point to either. That does not mean they do not exsist. In the same way, we cannot point to Fido’s nature, we can only observe what flows from that nature. Why are you so afraid of the concept of really existing natures. You know God exists and he has a Divine Nature. Can you point to either?

You had said that “a dog is something very different from the physical elements of which it is composed”, and I replied that Aristotle would not agree, since he did not say "“the whole is different than the sum of its parts”, he said instead “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”.

I’m sure Aristotle would agree because Thomas Aquinas agrees and he gets most of his philosophy from Aristotle. And indeed the nature of any substance is greater that the sum of its parts. I, my human nature, is more that the sum of its parts because it governs the action of those parts. It is one thing, but all the parts are just parts. You cannot add them up and get a man.

If you agree that Aristotle did not reify natures then we’re agreed on that.

I disagree absolutely. Aristotle was not attributing a " supposed " reality to a hypothesis.
Natures were concrete substances to him, but they existed in many modified ( accidental - nine - ways ) ways.

Any of his principles which remain valid and are useful will be used by scientists or by philosophers of science, why wouldn’t they be?

It would require that they knew what these principles first.

That wasn’t why I asked though.

Thanks but that analysis wasn’t really relevant to the question. It appears to undermine your position though, as Wallace repeatedly refers to modelling (and he obviously designed the neatly symmetrical categories in the diagram himself), in line with me saying that the categories are about knowledge rather than objectively real.

You need to go back and read it again. That is not what he did or said.

Given that he thought all non-celestial things are made of only four elements, he would have had to come up with some scheme to explain diversity.

I never said we had to stick to his four-elements. Philosophy can certainly learn and has learned from science. But in this instance Aristotle would have accounted for diversity by different proportions of his four elements.

There are no virtual elements. If you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen, you get energy (light and heat) plus water. If you want to break up the water again, you have to put all that energy back. No such thing as a free lunch.

I meant virtual in the sense of not being free and independent. They are not acting as gasses in the water. It is the nature of the water which governs the activity of its components for its own perfection, not for theirs. And if you, or anyone, instist that they are present as substances in the water, Proof of this is that there are two hydrogen atoms to one of oxygen. It is obvious that the nature of water requires this combination.

Here’s some photos of the atoms in an organic compound and graphine.

Same comment as above.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think this is always only an assumption though - he analyses language constructs on the assumption that how he thinks about the world is how it really is.

True, but now we are getting into his ( and Aquinas’ ) theory of knowlede. And there is a very interesting conversation going on on that topic under the thread " How do we come to know things? "

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

It is still a rabbit, it has a rabbit’s nature. The nature can obvioulsly be modified, that is what Aristotle means by moving from potency to act.

Your argument here seems to be that it has a nature because you say so. I gave an argument that nature-of-rabbit cannot possibly be anything more than shorthand for an average across a population at a given time, and therefore no more than an abstract idea. If you can’t provide a logical counter-argument then why should anyone believe you?

Do you believe you have a spiritual soul? Can you point it out to me? The soul a part of my human nature. And no one can point to either. That does not mean they do not exsist. In the same way, we cannot point to Fido’s nature, we can only observe what flows from that nature. Why are you so afraid of the concept of really existing natures. You know God exists and he has a Divine Nature. Can you point to either?

I ain’t afraid of no ghosts, I don’t believe in them because you’ve given me no reason to. You want to put substances and natures et al into modern science, yet your answer to my question is if we believe in God then we must also believe in whatever you say we should believe in. Couldn’t someone else use that same line of argument to try to get us to believe in little green men or the astral plane?

I’m sure Aristotle would agree because Thomas Aquinas agrees and he gets most of his philosophy from Aristotle. And indeed the nature of any substance is greater that the sum of its parts. I, my human nature, is more that the sum of its parts because it governs the action of those parts. It is one thing, but all the parts are just parts. You cannot add them up and get a man.

Then we’ll put that point to bed as you now agree that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I disagree absolutely. Aristotle was not attributing a " supposed " reality to a hypothesis.
Natures were concrete substances to him, but they existed in many modified ( accidental - nine - ways ) ways.

If natures et al would be useful to science as you claim, you´ll need to provide empirical evidence that they are concrete.

It would require that they knew what these principles first.

Science professors don’t tend to teach ideas they know are wrong or of little use.

You need to go back and read it again. That is not what he did or said.

In the excerpt you link he uses the word model or modeling nine times.

I never said we had to stick to his four-elements. Philosophy can certainly learn and has learned from science. But in this instance Aristotle would have accounted for diversity by different proportions of his four elements.

Not sure why you categorize Aristotle as only a philosopher, as if he didn’t do any science. After all, he’s often called the father of the science of biology.

*I meant virtual in the sense of not being free and independent. They are not acting as gasses in the water. It is the nature of the water which governs the activity of its components for its own perfection, not for theirs. And if you, or anyone, instist that they are present as substances in the water, Proof of this is that there are two hydrogen atoms to one of oxygen. It is obvious that the nature of water requires this combination. *

I can’t make head or tail of that. In the heat of the flame they combine to form steam, the gaseous phase of H[sub]2[/sub]O, and it’s just as gaseous as the H and O were. Cool down the steam and it condenses to the liquid phase, but cool down H or O sufficiently and you have liquid H or liquid O, just as “virtual” or otherwise as water. When the H and O atoms combine to form H[sub]2[/sub]O, they share bonds which is why energy is given off, and to get back the separate H and O again, energy is needed to break those bonds.

Your virtuals and natures and so on don’t add anything to that explanation, they just make it a lot more complicated. Originally you said ‘there must be " virtual " elements in water because a great deal of energy has been applied in electrolysis’, and I think you would avoid such big mistakes if you kept Aristotle and modern science separate rather than trying to mash them together, which just adds colossal degrees of complication.

Same comment as above.

You said that it should be obvious that no one can show you an atom, so I showed you some.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Your argument here seems to be that it has a nature because you say so. I gave an argument that nature-of-rabbit cannot possibly be anything more than shorthand for an average across a population at a given time, and therefore no more than an abstract idea. If you can’t provide a logical counter-argument then why should anyone believe you?

Sorry, I took a break for Easter. And yesterday I was entertaining the Infernal Revenue Service.

Certainly, the intellect abstracts the concept of a particular nature from all those individuals which exhibit the attributes of those natures. But this nature ( e.g. rabbit ) actually exists in each individual in its particularized manifestation. You don’t have to believe me but I think it would be reasonable to do so. After all I am not the only one who holds this view, I would even venture to say that most scientists would agree.

I ain’t afraid of no ghosts, I don’t believe in them because you’ve given me no reason to.

Your soul is not a ghost, it is a spiritual form. Do you believe in angels? They are also spirits. And God is as well.

You want to put substances and natures et al into modern science,

Whay not? Actually, science assumes it, whether or not it admits it.

yet your answer to my question is if we believe in God then we must also believe in whatever you say we should believe in.

No. I simply pointed out that certain things have a nature which can’t be seen. In the same way, no nature ( e.g. Fido ) can actually be seen. We observe the actions and characteristics of those actually existing natures.

Couldn’t someone else use that same line of argument to try to get us to believe in little green men or the astral plane?

They would have to explain very carefully why they have reached these conclusions. I don’t see how they could come up with any thing credible.

Then we’ll put that point to bed as you now agree that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Only in the sense that a nature is the whole substnace and not a part…

If natures et al would be useful to science as you claim, you´ll need to provide empirical evidence that they are concrete.

I already have. But you do not want to accept it.

Science professors don’t tend to teach ideas they know are wrong or of little use.

Or which have not occured to them. And it is something they assume but upon which they do not reflect. It is a given which few doubt.

This refers to the way science deals with substances. Have you read through the link?

Not sure why you categorize Aristotle as only a philosopher, as if he didn’t do any science. After all, he’s often called the father of the science of biology.

Because I am dealing primarily with his philosophical views.

I can’t make head or tail of that. In the heat of the flame they combine to form steam, the gaseous phase of H[sub]2[/sub]O, and it’s just as gaseous as the H and O were.

That is not true. Steam is still water. It is not the same as H2 and O in gaseous forms.

but cool down H or O sufficiently and you have liquid H or liquid O, just as “virtual” or otherwise as water.

No, they are simply liquid forms of the gasses. They are not " virtual " ( or potential ) as they are in water. What is " virtual " in the case you describe, is gas.

When the H and O atoms combine to form H[sub]2[/sub]O, they share bonds which is why energy is given off, and to get back the separate H and O again, energy is needed to break those bonds.

You mean to reform those bonds.

Your virtuals and natures and so on don’t add anything to that explanation, they just make it a lot more complicated. Originally you said ‘there must be " virtual " elements in water because a great deal of energy has been applied in electrolysis’, and I think you would avoid such big mistakes if you kept Aristotle and modern science separate rather than trying to mash them together, which just adds colossal degrees of complication.

Actually I said a little more than that. I also said that when the H2 and O are actual constituents of water, it is the nature of the substance of water that is being preserved. The constituents do not function on their own behalf but on behalf of the water. I made no mistake, it is never a mistake to insist on the truth.

Complicated? I’m sure that anyone intelligent enough to earn a degree in a hard science can understand the concepts I have spoken of without much difficulty.

You said that it should be obvious that no one can show you an atom, so I showed you some.

I said, show me atoms of H2 and O functioning as substances in water; that is, show me H2 and O behaving as gases in water. Ditto, the constituent atoms of any other substance.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Sorry, I took a break for Easter. And yesterday I was entertaining the Infernal Revenue Service.

We do our returns in June.

As the conversation is getting so fragmented, I’ll try to draw it back together.

*Certainly, the intellect abstracts the concept of a particular nature from all those individuals which exhibit the attributes of those natures. But this nature ( e.g. rabbit ) actually exists in each individual in its particularized manifestation. You don’t have to believe me but I think it would be reasonable to do so. After all I am not the only one who holds this view, I would even venture to say that most scientists would agree.

[snip] No. I simply pointed out that certain things have a nature which can’t be seen. In the same way, no nature ( e.g. Fido ) can actually be seen. We observe the actions and characteristics of those actually existing natures.*

Everyone since the first caveman has observed that specimens which look similar tend to have similar behavior, and this is one of the standard definitions of the word nature - the collection of inherent/inherited traits of something, it’s innate character. As such the word denotes a category, and we can all agree that it’s a reasonable way to categorize.

Now suppose someone got the wrong end of the stick, and thought that natures are real in themselves. He would argue that even though natures can’t be observed, they must be real because things which look similar have similar behavior!!!

To show that you’re not just someone who got the wrong end of the stick, you need to give evidence or logic as to why. You’ve also given no evidence that Aristotle meant anything more by natures than that first caveman, anymore than a common intuition.

Even if we were to imagine that natures are objectively real, you’ve given no reason to think such Aristotelian notions would be useful to science. Take any research paper you like, rewrite it in your mix of Aristotelian and modern terminology, and I bet it will be twice as long and twice as difficult to understand.

*That is not true. Steam is still water. It is not the same as H2 and O in gaseous forms.

No, they are simply liquid forms of the gasses. They are not " virtual " ( or potential ) as they are in water. What is " virtual " in the case you describe, is gas.

You mean to reform those bonds.

Actually I said a little more than that. I also said that when the H2 and O are actual constituents of water, it is the nature of the substance of water that is being preserved. The constituents do not function on their own behalf but on behalf of the water. I made no mistake, it is never a mistake to insist on the truth.*

Stream can mean a mist or aerosol of liquid H[sub]2[/sub]O, but ask any physicist or chemist what the gaseous phase of H[sub]2[/sub]O is called, and they will tell you it is steam. Look it up - the OED and Wikipedia.

The boiling point of H, when it goes from liquid to gas, is -253 C.
The boiling point of O, when it goes from liquid to gas, is -183 C.
The boiling point of H[sub]2[/sub]O, when it goes from liquid to gas, is 100 C.
Your “virtual” concept tells us nothing except that at room temperature two of them are in the gas phase and the other in the liquid phase. Well, so what? It’s just another unnecessary confusion.

Energy is given out when H and O combine, and has to be put back to split them again - you yourself said energy is required for electrolysis.

Not sure why you keep referring to hydrogen as H2 when its symbol is H.

In the final quote above, the mistake I was referring so was your strange idea from post #191 that “there must also be other " virtual " elements in water because a great deal of energy has been applied in electrolysis so a great deal of energy has been expended or given off. Is all this energy retained in the resulting oxygen and hydrogen? Seems doubtful to me”.

*Complicated? I’m sure that anyone intelligent enough to earn a degree in a hard science can understand the concepts I have spoken of without much difficulty. *

The concepts are dead simple as long as they’re kept separate from modern science. Each of the errors you made above, in what is after all only high school level science is, I think, testimony to the total confusion which reigns when you try to force Aristotelian terminology into modern science.

I said, show me atoms of H2 and O functioning as substances in water; that is, show me H2 and O behaving as gases in water. Ditto, the constituent atoms of any other substance.

I can’t even make a stab at what you might mean here.