What is a ' substance ? '

[Richca]

Proving there’s a God is one thing. Proving their is substance is another. Many just believe it simply matter

That many believe, even in the scientific world of today, that matter is the only reality is nothing new. This is materialism and we can go back to at least Democritus 2500 years ago among the greek ancients for this theory. It was Plato or possibly Socrates who advanced to the distinction between sense and intellect, the material and the immaterial. Plato and Aristotle disagreed with the materialistic or atomistic conception of reality and they would disagree with modern scientists who have resurrected Democritus’ atomistic-materialistic conception of reality.

 

[inocente]

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?

In its broadest sense, I think the notion of substances is just one of the ways by which we make sense of the world. Some philosophers say that’s as far as it goes, that substances as such are no more than models inside our heads, relevant to theories of knowledge but not actually necessary to explain the world as it really is.

For non-Catholics there doesn’t seem to be any reason to hang our hat on anything beyond that general idea, as it wouldn’t appear to get us anywhere. Though I suppose Catholics must go further to be consistent with the concept of transubstantiation - is that the case?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In its broadest sense, I think the notion of substances is just one of the ways by which we make sense of the world. Some philosophers say that’s as far as it goes, that substances as such are no more than models inside our heads, relevant to theories of knowledge but not actually necessary to explain the world as it really is.

For non-Catholics there doesn’t seem to be any reason to hang our hat on anything beyond that general idea, as it wouldn’t appear to get us anywhere. Though I suppose Catholics must go further to be consistent with the concept of transubstantiation - is that the case?

I understand that the Eastern Churches explained Transubstantiation as a total chang in the being of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. But since the West was used to Aristotle and Aquinas they hung their hat on " change of substance. " Both concepts are very useful in Scholastic Philosophy.

As far as science and every day living are concerned, I suppose we can get along without the notion. But really, the notion is pretty much synonymous with ’ thing. ’ And we wouldn’t deny ’ things ’ exist would we? And since ’ substance ’ has been in daily use since forever, why not use it? Things exist, substances exist.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . As far as science and every day living are concerned, I suppose we can get along without the notion. But really, the notion is pretty much synonymous with ’ thing. ’ And we wouldn’t deny ’ things ’ exist would we? . . .

Science is based on what is perceived by the senses (predominantly sight and somewhat hearing) and their extensions through technology.
In most everything we encounter on a day-to-day basis, we have no use for those concepts that science holds as the fundamental properties of nature; we just use the technology for work, fun, communication, survival, etc.
What is a thing such as a person, a shovel, a cat, the Eucharist but what it is in itself.
It most certainly is not merely a collection of material processes which are confluent with the totality of events that is the universe.

 

[inocente]

I understand that the Eastern Churches explained Transubstantiation as a total chang in the being of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. But since the West was used to Aristotle and Aquinas they hung their hat on " change of substance. " Both concepts are very useful in Scholastic Philosophy.

As far as science and every day living are concerned, I suppose we can get along without the notion. But really, the notion is pretty much synonymous with ’ thing. ’ And we wouldn’t deny ’ things ’ exist would we? And since ’ substance ’ has been in daily use since forever, why not use it? Things exist, substances exist.

In everyday speech, yes, we all have an intuitive idea of substances.

But that only says that we humans sometimes use ideas such as substances, natures and things to divide up and make sense of our world, it doesn’t claim they are anything more than ideas.

 

[thinkandmull]

People get really confused between two concepts of substance.

Take wax (like Descartes said). Its hard, has a scent, ect. Melt it. If it the same wax? Yes. But that is material substance. If the Eucharest was like wax, you could do the same experiment but there would still just be just accidents

 

[Richca]

In everyday speech, yes, we all have an intuitive idea of substances.

But that only says that we humans sometimes use ideas such as substances, natures and things to divide up and make sense of our world, it doesn’t claim they are anything more than ideas.

We humans are not sometimes using ideas such as substances, natures and things; we are using them all the time every day, most people probably not even aware of it. Ideas are how we communicate with each other and understand the world around us as well as gain scientific knowledge of things. For example, individual trees, dogs, cats, horses, people are all paradigm examples of substances. If one asks oneself if oak trees are real, I suppose he/she would have to ask themselves if they encounter an oak tree in a park, whether that oak tree exists or not outside their minds. Aquinas would argue that ideas must conform to external reality to be true. We don’t invent ideas but we gather knowledge of external things outside our intellects through our senses and through the external things themselves. This teaching is in accord with sound reasoning and experience, it is undeniable. For example, how would you describe colors to a person blind from birth?

 

[thinkandmull]

The universal idea of bread is a concept, not a substance. Who denies that two oak trees act and look in very similar ways?

 

[Richca]

The universal idea of bread is a concept, not a substance. Who denies that two oak trees act and look in very similar ways?

Bread is not just a concept, we eat bread and you can go to the store and find all kinds of bread on the shelves. Bread has real being, it exists outside our minds. In Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism, the universal idea of bread is the form of individual substances of bread; the other substantial part of bread being the matter. The same goes for oak trees, individual oak trees have the form of an oak tree, and matter as their substantial parts.

 

[thinkandmull]

The form is in our heads and God’s (as a type). Science shows similarity because trees, some with greater similarity than others Nothing further can be proved

 

[Richca]

The form is in our heads and God’s (as a type). Science shows similarity because trees, some with greater similarity than others Nothing further can be proved

Well, is your head real? Is your intellect or are your thoughts real? You can’t prove with the physical sciences the immaterial. The immaterial is outside the scope of the physical sciences. Immaterial ideas and concepts do exist though, we are all famaliar with them and they come from somewhere. Knowledge of universal ideas are what made Plato posit the immateriality of the intellect. Most of us don’t have the intellect of a Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas. God gifted men such as these with keen intellects and they understood things much better than most of us. We shouldn’t readily dismiss what they learned because we either don’t understand or can’t place it under a microscope.

Further, if a person only believes what he/she can observe with the senses or prove under a microscope, then that person will probably be an atheist because God, as St Paul says, dwells in inaccessible light. To believe in God here on earth requires faith because we walk by faith and not by sight.

Is the immaterial real? It is as real as God is real. Plato and Aristotle came to a knowledge of the immaterial by the natural light of reason. Now, not everything they taught is correct, they made some serious philosophical errors because they did not have the light of revealed truth to guide them. However, through the guidance of revealed truth, we know that at least some of what they learned through the natural light of reason is true as it is in conformity with the catholic faith and Holy Scripture which is the word of God. Thus, the fathers of the Church took from greek philosophy what was in conformity to the faith in explaining the faith. This reached as we know the climatic synthesis of Aquinas who synthesized the best of Platonism and Aristotelianism and the teaching of the church fathers which were in conformity to the catholic faith and Holy Scripture.

 

[inocente]

We humans are not sometimes using ideas such as substances, natures and things; we are using them all the time every day, most people probably not even aware of it.

By “sometimes”, I mean that we don’t, for instance, say that Android is a different substance to Windows, or, except perhaps when trying to be poetic, Neptune has a different nature to Uranus. The substances/natures model doesn’t apply universally.

Ideas are how we communicate with each other and understand the world around us as well as gain scientific knowledge of things. For example, individual trees, dogs, cats, horses, people are all paradigm examples of substances. If one asks oneself if oak trees are real, I suppose he/she would have to ask themselves if they encounter an oak tree in a park, whether that oak tree exists or not outside their minds.

I don’t mean anything soliphistic. Oak trees and cats exist alright, the issue is whether they are different substances.

Inside our heads, we recall one set of memories if we think of oak trees, and another set if we think of cats, and we may also, inside our thoughts, make a distinction between cats in general or one particular cat we have known.

That much is agreed, and if Aristotle wants to label those different bundles of impressions inside his head “substances” and “natures”, fine. The issue is the claim that because the ideas of “substances” and “natures” exist inside his head, they must necessarily exist outside his head.

Aquinas would argue that ideas must conform to external reality to be true. We don’t invent ideas but we gather knowledge of external things outside our intellects through our senses and through the external things themselves. This teaching is in accord with sound reasoning and experience, it is undeniable. For example, how would you describe colors to a person blind from birth?

But clearly that’s not true. Having the idea of Harry Potter doesn’t make Harry Potter real. And many cultures make no distinction between what we call blue and green, or instead make distinctions by saturation or brightness, so their idea of what colors conform to reality differs from ours.

On theological grounds alone, I’d argue that the idea of plural natures is a pagan hangover and plain wrong. God created one single nature, not many. Science confirms that both oak trees and cats are made of cells, and the cells are made of the same chemicals - their substance is much the same and they both come out of the same nature, the one nature created by the one God.

Well, is your head real? Is your intellect or are your thoughts real? You can’t prove with the physical sciences the immaterial. The immaterial is outside the scope of the physical sciences. Immaterial ideas and concepts do exist though, we are all famaliar with them and they come from somewhere. Knowledge of universal ideas are what made Plato posit the immateriality of the intellect

Which again argues that the substances/natures model can only possibly exist as ideas inside our heads, as a classification scheme, one amongst many others.

 

[yppop]

Anyone
My knowledge of Aquinas is woefully lacking, so would you please tell me if the following makes any sense or is way off base?

“An apple is a substance comprised of matter and form that acquires accidents.”

Thanks,
Yppop

 

[Richca]

Anyone
My knowledge of Aquinas is woefully lacking, so would you please tell me if the following makes any sense or is way off base?

“An apple is a substance comprised of matter and form that acquires accidents.”

Thanks,
Yppop

This makes sense. Accidents flow from the substance. Some accidents of a substance can be changed by an external source. For example, if you left a green apple out in the sun all day, it may change color.

 

[inocente]

Anyone
My knowledge of Aquinas is woefully lacking, so would you please tell me if the following makes any sense or is way off base?

“An apple is a substance comprised of matter and form that acquires accidents.”

The question is whether he would consider your statement to be a claim about how we classify and categorize knowledge, as Aristotle treats substances in his Categories, or a claim about objective reality, as some are saying on this thread.

 

[yppop]

Richa

“An apple is a substance comprised of matter and form that acquires accidents.”

This makes sense. Accidents flow from the substance. Some accidents of a substance can be changed by an external source. For example, if you left a green apple out in the sun all day, it may change color.

I get the “matter, form and accidents” part. My trouble with the “an apple is a substance”. How can and apple be a substance? I suppose the meaning depends on how Aristotle defined “substance”.

Perhaps Innocente resolves my problem in his response.

Thanks for responding
Yppop

 

[yppop]

Innocente
“An apple is a substance comprised of matter and form that acquires accidents.”

The question is whether he would consider your statement to be a claim about how we classify and categorize knowledge, as Aristotle treats substances in his Categories, or a claim about objective reality, as some are saying on this thread.

Are you implying that Aristotle’s use of “substance/accident” and “matter/form” is merely an exercise in classification and categorization of knowledge and not a metaphysical description of objective reality?

Thanks for your response
Yppop

 

[thinkandmull]

Well, is your head real? Is your intellect or are your thoughts real? You can’t prove with the physical sciences the immaterial. The immaterial is outside the scope of the physical sciences. Immaterial ideas and concepts do exist though, we are all famaliar with them and they come from somewhere. Knowledge of universal ideas are what made Plato posit the immateriality of the intellect. Most of us don’t have the intellect of a Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas. God gifted men such as these with keen intellects and they understood things much better than most of us. We shouldn’t readily dismiss what they learned because we either don’t understand or can’t place it under a microscope.

Further, if a person only believes what he/she can observe with the senses or prove under a microscope, then that person will probably be an atheist because God, as St Paul says, dwells in inaccessible light. To believe in God here on earth requires faith because we walk by faith and not by sight.

Is the immaterial real? It is as real as God is real. Plato and Aristotle came to a knowledge of the immaterial by the natural light of reason. Now, not everything they taught is correct, they made some serious philosophical errors because they did not have the light of revealed truth to guide them. However, through the guidance of revealed truth, we know that at least some of what they learned through the natural light of reason is true as it is in conformity with the catholic faith and Holy Scripture which is the word of God. Thus, the fathers of the Church took from greek philosophy what was in conformity to the faith in explaining the faith. This reached as we know the climatic synthesis of Aquinas who synthesized the best of Platonism and Aristotelianism and the teaching of the church fathers which were in conformity to the catholic faith and Holy Scripture.

My point is just that you can’t prove that these invisible forms exist

 

[thinkandmull]

Catholics mix up the two meanings of substance all the time. There is the substance that the colors are an accident of. That substance is matter. Then there is something beyond this, may physical like Kant implied, or invisible, as Aquinas’s forms. You can prove there is a God, but not these things in between Him and us.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A substance is what exists. Anything that exists is a substance. But substances exist in various ways ( Aristotle’s 9 accidents ). And these " various " ways are largely determined by the nature of the substance, horseness, humaness. goldness, oxygeness, etc. Now substance and nature are synonyms, but it is a bit awkward to speak of the substance of a thing, it is more natural to speak of the nature of a thing. But Aristotle tells us that, in his parlance, substance answers the question, " What is this thing? " But to us it seems more proper to say that the " nature " of a thing answers the question, " What is this thing? "

So a nature or substance is " What a thing is. " But as we have seen above there are many kinds of natures or substances. But there is no nature in existence called man or horse or gold or oxygen. There are only instantiations in which we fine a man, a horse, a bit of gold, a volume of oxygen. Man and horse, etc. are universals, they apply universally to many individuals. Plato called these unversals " ideas " which existed separately from the world and the instantantiations of them in the world were called " participations. "

Aristotle said no, these forms were caused in the world by the lower Celestial Spheres, which moved the imperfect earthly world the world of change and motion, coming to be and passing away. He said that the forms were educed from prime matter by the causality of the spheres.

Anyway the idea was that each substance or nature that exists is a matter-form composite. And this nature gives rise, naturally, to specifice accidents or behaviors and characteristics by which a thing is identified as a man, a horse, a lump of gold, etc.

So it is not really a question of what is useful in science. It is a matter of what actually is true of the world we experience everyday. Now we can deny that there is such a thing as human nature or horseness, etc. But if we took that denial literally, life, ordinary life, let alone the scientific endeavor would be absolutely impossible. It would be tantemount to denying the world existed.

Linus2nd