What is a ' substance ? '

[Blue_Horizon]

If you don’t like the way I express myself…
Linus2nd

Lius what are you even on about.

Have you forgotten you are the one that got indignant and said I was attacking you personally .

You can express yourself any way you like.
I am simply advising you that your arguments, from the point of view of your opponents,
seem to look more like pop-guns rather than shot-guns.

If you are here to influence sincere enquirers who disagree with some points of Aristotle or Aquinas…then I believe you need to try a significantly new tack.

What you are doing here does not seem the best of apologetic approaches.
You will just turn people off by saying they are ad hominem attacking you when they are totally unconvinced by your reasoning and arguments from authority poorly applied.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Lius what are you even on about.

Have you forgotten you are the one that got indignant and said I was attacking you personally .

You can express yourself any way you like.
I am simply advising you that your arguments, from the point of view of your opponents,
seem to look more like pop-guns rather than shot-guns.

If you are here to influence sincere enquirers who disagree with some points of Aristotle or Aquinas…then I believe you need to try a significantly new tack.

What you are doing here does not seem the best of apologetic approaches.
You will just turn people off by saying they are ad hominem attacking you when they are totally unconvinced by your reasoning and arguments from authority poorly applied.

If people don’t want to be accused of violating the rules of rational debate they they should obey those rules. And really, I understand that not everyone is convinced by my poor arguments. Nevertheless I offer them for those interested in learning the truths to be had in the study of Aristotelian and Thomistic philsosophy. So, I am not " counting numbers, " I am interested in truth.

Linus2nd’

 

[blase6]

If people don’t want to be accused of violating the rules of rational debate they they should obey those rules. And really, I understand that not everyone is convinced by my poor arguments. Nevertheless I offer them for those interested in learning the truths to be had in the study of Aristotelian and Thomistic philsosophy. So, I am not " counting numbers, " I am interested in truth.

Linus2nd’

Even highly intelligent people like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas were still fallible human beings who knew the truth not much better than you. They could not rightly say that their ideology is the “true” one, when the most they could produce was an understanding of the world, not the definitive understanding. So proclaiming these fallible people as the “truth” turns many people off.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And what did Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of modern physics say about atoms, protons, etc?

" There should be a rule that the first person to raise quantum theory (or rather, the Copenhagen Interpretation of the mechanics) loses the debate immediately. It’s not as if everything’s all settled for good. (See Popper for details.) Even in quantum mechanics, things don’t move themselves, parts move wholes, and so on. In this context, and especially for those who object to the whole potency-act thingie or the idea of formal causation, two quotes of Werner Heisenberg, whom we might call “Mr. Quantum Theory” himself, are apropos:

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
and

“[T]he smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
(Heisenberg belonged to the last generation of physicists to move comfortably in philosophy.¹ It was also the last generation to make breakthrough discoveries in physics. No doubt a coincidence.)

An objector once cited protons as an example of things that assembled themselves, that they did so back in the Long Ago times of physics legend. Of course, self-assembly is what nature does.² But it is the quarks (assuming they exist) that assemble into protons (assuming they exist). The proton is the final cause of the quark. (Yes, and so is the neutron.) And the gauge bosons would seem to be the efficient causes. But the proton hardly poofs itself into being all by itself.

Clarifications:

1. Heisenberg’s insights. See also the precis of the Heisenberg-Lukacs discussions (1968) in Ch.3 “History and Physics,” in Lukacs, Remembered Past: a Reader (ISI Books, 2005) Lukacs’ greatest surprise was that none of the other physicists with whom he discussed the matter seemed interested in the implications of the Uncertainty Principle. They acknowledged it was true, but were not inclined to follow Heisenberg’s lead. The flight from philosophy had already begun.
2. self-assembly is what nature does. Recall Aquinas:

“[N]ature seems to differ from art only because nature is an intrinsic principle and art is an extrinsic principle. For if the art of ship building were intrinsic to wood, a ship would have been made by nature in the same way as it is made by art. … Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move towards a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.”

– Commentary on Physics II.8, lecture 14, no. 268

tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/10/…ig-kahuna.html

So what we are trying to determine on this thread, for which there are wide opinions, is exactly what can we identify, or what should we identify as substances? And as a corollary, how does or can philosophy help us? Does philosophy have something to offer or should it be relagated to the ash bin of history?

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Is God the form-exemplar of creation, or are Plato’s forms real? Or are Plato’s form’s creations of God? The Gospel of John chapter 6 teaches us that there is something other than what we see that makes up what a thing is. There is no way to prove this other, attached, existing thing exists. But its no big deal to believe it when God tells us.

Same with prime matter. Its a principle of matter, although I don’t see why that’s necessary.

We couldn’t even prove that color was an accident until science plunged into the issue of what is color…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is God the form-exemplar of creation, or are Plato’s forms real? Or are Plato’s form’s creations of God? The Gospel of John chapter 6 teaches us that there is something other than what we see that makes up what a thing is. There is no way to prove this other, attached, existing thing exists. But its no big deal to believe it when God tells us.

Same with prime matter. Its a principle of matter, although I don’t see why that’s necessary.

We couldn’t even prove that color was an accident until science plunged into the issue of what is color…

I don’t know what John 6 has anything to do with this. You are wrong, Aristotle and Aquinas used color as examples of accidental forms.

Now what do you mean by " there is something other than what we see that makes up what a thing is…?." If you are saying it is the essence, substance, or nature, the composite of matter and form I agree. You cannot see the essence, nature, substance, we only see the accidents.

Linus2nd

 

[Nixbits]

Linusthe2nd:

You cannot see the essence, nature, substance, we only see the accidents.

Just to clarify: By your use of the word ‘see’ here, do you refer only to vision, or do you mean, in the wider sense, that the only things that we can directly detect by any means are the accidents?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just to clarify: By your use of the word ‘see’ here, do you refer only to vision, or do you mean, in the wider sense, that the only things that we can directly detect by any means are the accidents?

The latter but I think Imelahn disagrees. But I use the example of Transubstantiation to support my reasoning. The substance of the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Christ, leaving the accidents withour a subject in which to inhere. Consequently, I reason that all we ever detect are accidents, which we detect through the senses and by extension through the tools of science. So substance for me, properly is that essence/nature/substance, the underlying matter-from structure from which the essential accidents necessarily flow. I exclude accidents caused by external causes. We know the substance then through the accidents of the substance. And of course I may be wrong. That is why we play the game, to find out.

Linus2nd

 

[lmelahn]

The latter but I think Imelahn disagrees. But I use the example of Transubstantiation to support my reasoning. The substance of the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Christ, leaving the accidents withour a subject in which to inhere. Consequently, I reason that all we ever detect are accidents, which we detect through the senses and by extension through the tools of science. So substance for me, properly is that essence/nature/substance, the underlying matter-from structure from which the essential accidents necessarily flow. I exclude accidents caused by external causes. We know the substance then through the accidents of the substance. And of course I may be wrong. That is why we play the game, to find out.

Linus2nd

What I say is that we can know substances (and see them, if that is how we came to know them). However, we come to know substance by means of accidents. Have a look at Linus’ other thread on knowledge, which is developing into an interesting conversation….

Also, as I mentioned earlier, “substance” can mean a whole, concrete individual (including all its accidents and everything—sometimes called a “supposit”), or the hidden “substrate” in which the accidents reside, or inhere.

The two meanings are obviously related, but not perfectly identical. You can’t have one without the other.

We can’t “see” the substance, taken in the second sense, directly, but we can come to know it by analysis, as we are doing. (In the Eucharist, when we say that “substance” is “converted,” leaving the same accidents behind, we means “substance” in this second sense. But of course the whole substance—the supposit—also changes: the bread stops being bread and becomes Jesus, and similarly with the wine.)

On the other hand, we see and know whole individuals immediately; they are the easiest things for us to know and understand. We know them, however, by means of their accidents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I say is that we can know substances (and see them, if that is how we came to know them). However, we come to know substance by means of accidents. Have a look at Linus’ other thread on knowledge, which is developing into an interesting conversation….

Also, as I mentioned earlier, “substance” can mean a whole, concrete individual (including all its accidents and everything—sometimes called a “supposit”), or the hidden “substrate” in which the accidents reside, or inhere.

The two meanings are obviously related, but not perfectly identical. You can’t have one without the other.

We can’t “see” the substance, taken in the second sense, directly, but we can come to know it by analysis, as we are doing. (In the Eucharist, when we say that “substance” is “converted,” leaving the same accidents behind, we means “substance” in this second sense. But of course the whole substance—the supposit—also changes: the bread stops being bread and becomes Jesus, and similarly with the wine.)

On the other hand, we see and know whole individuals immediately; they are the easiest things for us to know and understand. We know them, however, by means of their accidents.

Thank you again for your valuable explanations. Yes, I had forgotten the distinction between substance and supposit, I need to review this again. And I think it is good to recall that accidents get their existence through their participation in the existence of the underlying substance and therefor become a part of the substance. So ’ substance ’ can properly be expressed of the whole, the underlying substance and its accidents.

I think we are asking questions students may typically ask. And, in that sense, we are contributing to your personal philosophical development. And maybe we are giving you some ideas that might be included a future paper or book or at least some things you might want to cover in a course syllabus .

Linus2nd

 

[lmelahn]

Thank you again for your valuable explanations. Yes, I had forgotten the distinction between substance and supposit, I need to review this again. And I think it is good to recall that accidents get their existence through their participation in the existence of the underlying substance and therefor become a part of the substance. So ’ substance ’ can properly be expressed of the whole, the underlying substance and its accidents.

I think we are asking questions students may typically ask. And, in that sense, we are contributing to your personal philosophical development. And maybe we are giving you some ideas that might be included a future paper or book or at least some things you might want to cover in a course syllabus .

Linus2nd

Not just students. These are very common problems that are not easy to answer. It is a pleasure to be able to hone my proposed solutions!

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t know what John 6 has anything to do with this. You are wrong, Aristotle and Aquinas used color as examples of accidental forms.

Now what do you mean by " there is something other than what we see that makes up what a thing is…?." If you are saying it is the essence, substance, or nature, the composite of matter and form I agree. You cannot see the essence, nature, substance, we only see the accidents.

Linus2nd

Just because they used color as an example of an accident doesn’t mean they proved it was an accident apart from latter science. So do you agree that matter on its own is an accident? That color is an accident of an accident when only matter is considered?

 

[thinkandmull]

The latter but I think Imelahn disagrees. But I use the example of Transubstantiation to support my reasoning. The substance of the bread and wine are changed in to the body and blood of Christ, leaving the accidents withour a subject in which to inhere. Consequently, I reason that all we ever detect are accidents, which we detect through the senses and by extension through the tools of science. So substance for me, properly is that essence/nature/substance, the underlying matter-from structure from which the essential accidents necessarily flow. I exclude accidents caused by external causes. We know the substance then through the accidents of the substance. And of course I may be wrong. That is why we play the game, to find out.

Linus2nd

What “**matter **structure” under the matter perceived by the senses are you speaking of?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I say is that we can know substances (and see them, if that is how we came to know them). However, we come to know substance by means of accidents. Have a look at Linus’ other thread on knowledge, which is developing into an interesting conversation….

Also, as I mentioned earlier, “substance” can mean a whole, concrete individual (including all its accidents and everything—sometimes called a “supposit”), or the hidden “substrate” in which the accidents reside, or inhere.

The two meanings are obviously related, but not perfectly identical. You can’t have one without the other.

We can’t “see” the substance, taken in the second sense, directly, but we can come to know it by analysis, as we are doing. (In the Eucharist, when we say that “substance” is “converted,” leaving the same accidents behind, we means “substance” in this second sense. But of course the whole substance—the supposit—also changes: the bread stops being bread and becomes Jesus, and similarly with the wine.)

On the other hand, we see and know whole individuals immediately; they are the easiest things for us to know and understand. We know them, however, by means of their accidents.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…[snip]…We can’t “see” the substance, taken in the second sense, directly, but we can come to know it by analysis, as we are doing. (In the Eucharist, when we say that “substance” is “converted,” leaving the same accidents behind, we means “substance” in this second sense. But of course the whole substance—the supposit—also changes: the bread stops being bread and becomes Jesus, and similarly with the wine.)

Imelahn, I think you misspoke here. The bread and wine are not Jesus. He is not a part of the accidents and they do not exist in him. He accompanies the accidents, he is in them, he permeates their physicality, but he is not them.

From the Council of Trent. history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

CHAPTER III.
On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments.

"…[snip]… And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

CHAPTER IV.
On Transubstantiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. "

Two things are to be noted here. The whole substance of the bread has been changed into Christ’s body and the whole substance of the wine has been changed into his blood. Thus the accidents of the bread and wine are left without a subject in which to inhere for, as Thomas Aquinas says, it would be unseemly if the accidents were thought to inhere in Christ. By the same reasoning, it would not only be unseemly think that Christ inhered in mere accidents, but metaphysically impossible. In chapter 3 above I have underlined the word under to indicate the manner in which Christ is present in the species. He is present in them according to the manner of the sacrament, but he is not part of them, nor they part of him. Where the bread is Christ is, where the wine is Christ is, they act as a veil to his presence in them.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Just because they used color as an example of an accident doesn’t mean they proved it was an accident apart from latter science. So do you agree that matter on its own is an accident? That color is an accident of an accident when only matter is considered?

They didn’t have to satisfy the definitions of later science, they were establishing principles which are always true, even for science.

Color is always an accident of some substance. But actually color exists only in the mind and by convention because it is the effect of the different length of light rays on the retina and the chemical composition of the material on which the light strikes.

Dimensive quanty is an accident of prime matter.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What “**matter **structure” under the matter perceived by the senses are you speaking of?

Aristotle’s theory of potency and act, as applied to material substances, means that every material substance is composed of a matter-form composit. Substiantial form is conjoined to a designated matter to form a composit such as man, beast, or some mineral.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

They didn’t have to satisfy the definitions of later science, they were establishing principles which are always true, even for science.

Color is always an accident of some substance. But actually color exists only in the mind and by convention because it is the effect of the different length of light rays on the retina and the chemical composition of the material on which the light strikes.

Dimensive quanty is an accident of prime matter.

Linus2nd

So the accidents have prime matter, which is just a principle. That definitely weakens the strength of matter to our minds. So what did you mean when you said substance “is that essence/nature/substance, the underlying matter-form structure from which the essential accidents necessarily flow.” Are you saying substance is the prime matter, or what we discussed as the world of quantum atoms in the other thread.?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So the accidents have prime matter, which is just a principle. That definitely weakens the strength of matter to our minds. So what did you mean when you said substance “is that essence/nature/substance, the underlying matter-form structure from which the essential accidents necessarily flow.” Are you saying substance is the prime matter, or what we discussed as the world of quantum atoms in the other thread.?

You must remember in the substances we encounter each day are not subject the miracles like the bread and wine which are changed in the the body and blood of Christ. That is a special case and it is a miracle.

In the substances we deal with daily, the substances exist with their accidents. But underlying these accidents is matter ( unformed prime matter) and form.). The extended and dimensive accidents of matter is what we see and sense. They are accidents, we do not see the prime matter, nor do we see the form. But they are both there because we can sense their accidents.

There are two levels of a substance, the underlying matter-form composite or sturcture and the accidents. But we call what we see " substances. " And they are substances, but they are substances with their accidents, and what we see or touch or sense are the accidents. They really exist, but they exist as " definitions " of or as physical expressions of the underlying substance. So when we hold a gold coin in our hand, we are holding more than so many grams of a soft, shiny, metal, which we sense, we are holding a substance called gold. Substance, essence and nature are more or less synomynous. Nature we associate more with the dynamic outflow characteristis of a substance. While essence is most often associated with the underlying " whatness " of a thing, the " What is this ? " While substance is most often associated with the concrete thing we have in our hand, or which we sense. But these terms are often interchanged. You just have to be aware of the context in which they are used.

Linus2nd

 

[thinkandmull]

Nature: what a thing is abstractly

Essence: nature

Form: the spiritual counterpart of a material thing

Substance: the material thing (accidents) combined with the Form

That’s how I see it. Its much clearer than what you are espousing. You seem to think that substance is under what we see. Yes, we see the surface, but we know the matter underneath as well. Science goes deeper and there are atoms, quarks, ect. Why go with Kant and say there is something material further “back in there”?