What is a ' substance ? '

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
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”?
Click to expand...
Because it’s true. Even if you talk about atoms, quarks, etc, you are talking about accidents of substance. That doesn’t mean they are not real, they are real. But they always exist in something else. They aren’t substances in their own right. An exception might be made for some atoms. Can you find me a single atom of anything that exists all by itself. Mostly they exist as part of some substance.

If you are going to discuss Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy, which is what we mostly do here, you have to get the terminology down correctly.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd
 
Do you accept that as true because of faith, or do you have some logical deduction for it?
 
thinkandmull said:
Do you accept that as true because of faith, or do you have some logical deduction for it?
Click to expand...
It would be helpful if you explained " what " you want an opinion about. You didn’t make a specific reference here, so I can’t answer.

Linus2nd
 
One can know by reason that there is a God, but I don’t see how one can know from reason that matter is an accident
 
thinkandmull said:
One can know by reason that there is a God, but I don’t see how one can know from reason that matter is an accident
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that matter was an accident. I said that matter in its extended, dimensional aspect was an accident. Prime matter, itself is not an accident. Prime matter and form constitute the underlying substance. Form brings to prime matter the demand for a particular kind of matter. It reconstitutes prime matter to the exigencies of its form. For example, the forms of a horse, a man, and a bar of gold demand a specific kind of matter. So in each of these examples we have a specific kind of matter, each is different from the others. Yet, deep within, each is formed from the same prime matter. It is this specific formulation which is called an accident.

That does not mean they are not matter, it only means that their specific formulations exist only because of the existence of the underlying substance. In other words they do not exist on their own, but in something else.

Linus2nd.
 
Well now you are positing TWO things apart from the matter we sense, based on Revelation. I don’t see the need to believe in prime matter
 
thinkandmull said:
Well now you are positing TWO things apart from the matter we sense, based on Revelation. I don’t see the need to believe in prime matter
Click to expand...
I am saying it based on Aristotle’s explanation of the matter-form structure of material reality. You may not believe it, but it is nevertheless true.

Linus2nd
 
It seems that Aristotle made a guess which turned out to be true
 
I have read him. If he has proof for the substance-accident distinction, I assume you would have provided it
 
thinkandmull said:
I have read him. If he has proof for the substance-accident distinction, I assume you would have provided it
Click to expand...
I have explained them, you weren’t paying attention.

Substance: newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

Accident: newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm

Act and Potency or the matter-form composit of material things called the theory of hylomorphism: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/05/act-and-potency.html and be sure to follow his like to (For those readers interested in a refresher on act and potency, you can’t beat this chapter from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange’s Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought.

Linus2nd
 
Sighting links shows you don’t know the demonstration. This is not about act and potency, but substance vs accidents. One can write volumes about it but when you get down to it it is accepted on faith, not reason
 
thinkandmull said:
Sighting links shows you don’t know the demonstration. This is not about act and potency, but substance vs accidents. One can write volumes about it but when you get down to it it is accepted on faith, not reason
Click to expand...
If you expect someone to hold your hand, forget it. I gave you good sources, don’t be so lazy.

Will be gone a few weeks.😃

Linus2nd .
 
I’m not lazy. I’ve read Aristotle and your sources. They don’t provide a demonstration that there is something other than the matter you sense. Take a stick: you know that there is wood inside. You can’t prove there is more than that.

Faith
 
thinkandmull said:
. . . Take a stick: you know that there is wood inside. You can’t prove there is more than that. . .
Click to expand...
There’s obviously more since you identified it as a stick. Lots of wood in the world, not all of it sticks. The proof lies in the criteria. One defines what is molecular in nature as the only reality, that will be one’s only reality. At least intellectually. Real life is a lot simpler and amazingly more awesome.
 
Philosophy mulls on substance vs accidents, and leads the mind to think of the world that way. But that is not an actually demonstration
 
thinkandmull said:
Philosophy mulls on substance vs accidents, and leads the mind to think of the world that way. But that is not an actually demonstration
Click to expand...
The demonstration is a priori, from what is seen to what is not seen. Science does not have a cornor on the notion of demonstration.

Linus2nd
 
Proving there’s a God is one thing. Proving their is substance is another. Many just believe it simply matter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top