Of course I posted the O.P. with a definite purpose in mind and that was, hopefully, to clear away the confusion over what a ’ substance ’ was.in philosophical terms as opposed to what the general popular notion or the scientific notion might be. And of course the philosophical definition does not exclude other understanings. Rather it soars beyond them as the metaphysical definitions are always about being simply as existing, not as existing in a special way. Another purpose was to illustrate what a philosophical accident was.
Thomas Aquinas would say that a substance was an actually exiting being to which it belonged to exist in itself, as one uniform thing, and not to exist in another thing, not to exist as a part of another being.
The point to be made here is that we cannot actually see, measure, or detect a substance. We can only know it through the things that exisit in it or through the operations which are characteristic of it. Thus substance, nature, and essence are all synonyms for the same really existing thing. Now what we actually see, detect, or measure are the accidents of a substance, essence, or nature. That is we see its quantity, its qualities, its actions, its behavior, its location, its relationships.
We can detect its atomic, celleular, molecular structure, its functional parts, its size, weight, its color, smell, hardness, sounds, taste, etc., but.we cannot see its substance, essence or nature. Why not? Because all these things flow naturally from the substance, the nature, or the essence. It is the nature of a substance which gives rise to the observable. ( notice that I just used ’ substance ’ in two ways, and both properly )
For example. The nature of man is that he is a rational animal. When you see a man. do you see " animal, " do you see " rational? " No. What you see are all the properties, actions, characteristics which all men share ( participate in ) in comman - but in different ways according to each individual man.
I have a concept of the nature of a bird. When I see a bird what do I see? I see the characteristic structure and operations of the nature or essence common to the substances/things we call birds. I do not see the underlying nature, essence, or substance from which all these structures and operations flow.
Notice that in the last paragraph I used substance in two ways. In the first instance I used it as a synonym for " an existing thing " as seen. This would be the popular or scientific usage. Nothing wrong with that. But in the second instance, I used it in the metaphysical way to denote the nature which gives rise to the observable structure, functionality, and operations of that nature or essence., Aristotle and Aquinas called the first example First Substance and the second example Second Substance. Don’t ask me why, one would think it should be visa-versa.
Now you see why in the Miracle of Transubstantion, the Church says only the accidents of bread and wine remain. But they remain in an improper way because their proper substance no longer exists. And they do not exist in the Substance of Christ. We can sense and detect all the properties common to the substances of bread and wine but these are present only by Divine sufferance, for they are present without any substance at all!!! A second Miracle.
Linus2nd
