Substance theory
Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an
Substance is a key concept in
Ancient Greek philosophy
Aristotle
Aristotle used the term "substance" (Greek: οὐσία ousia) in a secondary sense for genera and species understood as hylomorphic forms. Primarily, however, he used it with regard to his category of substance, the specimen ("this person" or "this horse") or individual, qua individual, who survives accidental change and in whom the essential properties inhere that define those universals.
A substance—that which is called a substance most strictly, primarily, and most of all—is that which is neither said of a subject nor in a subject, e.g. the individual man or the individual horse. The species in which the things primarily called substances are, are called secondary substances, as also are the genera of these species. For example, the individual man belongs in a species, man, and animal is a genus of the species; so these—both man and animal—are called secondary substances.[6]
— Aristotle, Categories 2a13 (trans. J. L. Ackrill)
In chapter 6 of book I the Physics Aristotle argues that any change must be analysed in reference to the property of an invariant subject: as it was before the change and thereafter. Thus, in his hylomorphic account of change, matter serves as a relative substratum of transformation, i.e., of changing (substantial) form. In the Categories, properties are predicated only of substance, but in chapter 7 of book I of the Physics, Aristotle discusses substances coming to be and passing away in the "unqualified sense" wherein primary substances (πρῶται οὐσίαι; Categories 2a35) are generated from (or perish into) a material substratum by having gained (or lost) the essential property that formally defines substances of that kind (in the secondary sense). Examples of such a substantial change include not only conception and dying, but also metabolism, e.g., the bread a man eats becomes the man. On the other hand, in accidental change, because the essential property remains unchanged, by identifying the substance with its formal essence, substance may thereby serve as the relative subject matter or property-bearer of change in a qualified sense (i.e., barring matters of life or death). An example of this sort of accidental change is a change of color or size: a tomato becomes red, or a juvenile horse grows.
Aristotle thinks that in addition to primary substances (which are particulars), there are secondary substances (δεύτεραι οὐσίαι), which are universals (Categories 2a11–a18).[7]
Neither the "bare particulars" nor "property bundles" of modern theory have their antecedent in Aristotle, according to whom all matter exists in some form. There is no prime matter or pure
However, according to
Pyrrhonism
Early Pyrrhonism rejected the idea that substances exist. Pyrrho put this as:
"Whoever wants to live well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: First, how are pragmata (ethical matters, affairs, topics) by nature? Secondly, what attitude should we adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will be the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "As for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or lie; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, we should be adoxastoi (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantoi (unwavering in our refusal to choose), saying about every single one that it no more is than it is not or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.[8]
Stoicism
The
Neoplatonism
Early modern philosophy
John Locke views substance through a corpuscularian lens where it exhibits two types of qualities which both stem from a source. He believes that humans are born tabula rasa or "blank slate" – without innate knowledge. In An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke writes that "first essence may be taken for the very being of anything, whereby it is, what it is." If humans are born without any knowledge, the way to receive knowledge is through perception of a certain object. But, according to Locke, an object exists in its primary qualities, no matter whether the human perceives it or not; it just exists. For example, an apple has qualities or properties that determine its existence apart from human perception of it, such as its mass or texture. The apple itself is also "pure substance in which is supposed to provide some sort of 'unknown support' to the observable qualities of things"[vague] that the human mind perceives.[12] The foundational or support qualities are called primary essences which "in the case of physical substances, are the underlying physical causes of the object's observable qualities".[13] But then what is an object except "the owner or support of other properties"? Locke rejects Aristotle's category of the forms, and develops mixed ideas about what substance or "first essence" means. Locke's solution to confusion about first essence is to argue that objects simply are what they are – made up of microscopic particles existing because they exist. According to Locke, the mind cannot completely grasp the idea of a substance as it "always falls beyond knowledge".[14] There is a gap between what first essence truly means and the mind's perception of it that Locke believes the mind cannot bridge, objects in their primary qualities must exist apart from human perception.
The molecular combination of atoms in first essence then forms the solid base that humans can perceive and add qualities to describe - the only way humans can possibly begin to perceive an object. The way to perceive the qualities of an apple is from the combination of the primary qualities to form the secondary qualities. These qualities are then used to group the substances into different categories that "depend on the properties [humans] happen to be able to perceive".
This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. (June 2018) |
The last quality of substance is the way the perceived qualities seem to begin to change – such as a candle melting; this quality is called the tertiary quality. Tertiary qualities "of a body are those powers in it that, by virtue of its primary qualities, give it the power to produce observable changes in the primary qualities of other bodies"; "the power of the sun to melt wax is a tertiary quality of the sun".[13] They are "mere powers; qualities such as flexibility, ductility; and the power of sun to melt wax". This goes along with[vague] "passive power: the capacity a thing has for being changed by another thing".[18] In any object, at the core are the primary qualities (unknowable by the human mind), the secondary quality (how primary qualities are perceived), and tertiary qualities (the power of the combined qualities to make a change to the object itself or to other objects).
Robert Boyle's corpuscularian hypothesis states that "all material bodies are composites of ultimately small[vague] particles of matter" that "have the same material qualities[vague] as the larger composite bodies do".[19] Using this basis, Locke defines his first group, primary qualities, as "the ones that a body doesn't lose, however much it alters."[20] The materials retain their primary qualities even if they are broken down because of the unchanging nature of their atomic particles.[19] If someone is curious about an object and they[who?] say it is solid and extended, these two descriptors are primary qualities.[21] The second group consists of secondary qualities which are "really nothing but the powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities."[22] Locke argues that the impressions our senses perceive from the objects (i.e. taste, sounds, colors, etc.) are not natural properties of the object itself, but things they induce in us by means of the "size, shape, texture, and motion of their imperceptible parts."[22] The bodies send insensible particles to our senses which let us perceive the object through different faculties; what we perceive is based on the object's composition. With these qualities, people can achieve the object through bringing "co-existing powers and sensible qualities to a common ground for explanation".[23] Locke supposes that one wants to know what "binds these qualities" into an object, and argues that a "substratum" or "substance" has this effect, defining "substance" as follows:
[T]he idea of ours to which we give the general name substance, being nothing but the supposed but unknown support of those qualities we find existing and which we imagine can't exist sine re substante — that is, without some thing to support them — we call that support substantia; which, according to the true meaning of the word, is in plain English standing under or upholding.
— John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding; book 2, chapter 23[24]
This substratum is a construct of the mind in an attempt to bind all the qualities seen together; it is only "a supposition of an unknown support of qualities that are able to cause simple ideas in us."[24] Without making a substratum, people would be at a loss as to how different qualities relate. Locke does, however, mention that this substratum is an unknown, relating it to the story of the world on the turtle's back and how the believers eventually had to concede that the turtle just rested on "something he knew not what".[24] This is how the mind perceives all things and from which it can make ideas about them; it is entirely relative, but it does provide a "regularity and consistency to our ideas".[21] Substance, overall, has two sets of qualities — those that define it, and those related to how we perceive it. These qualities rush to our minds, which must organize them. As a result, our mind creates a substratum (or substance) for these objects, into which it groups related qualities.
Criticism of soul as substance
Irreducible concepts
Two irreducible concepts encountered in substance theory are the bare particular and inherence.
Bare particular
In substance theory, a bare particular of an
Inherence
Another primitive concept in substance theory is the inherence of properties within a substance. For example, in the sentence, "The apple is red" substance theory says that red inheres in the apple. Substance theory takes the meaning of an apple having the property of redness to be understood, and likewise that of a property's inherence in substance, which is similar to, but not identical with, being part of the substance.
The inverse relation is participation. Thus in the example above, just as red inheres in the apple, so the apple participates in red.
Arguments supporting the theory
Two common arguments supporting substance theory are the argument from grammar and the argument from conception.
Argument from grammar
The argument from grammar uses traditional grammar to support substance theory. For example, the sentence "Snow is white" contains a grammatical subject "snow" and the predicate "is white", thereby asserting snow is white. The argument holds that it makes no grammatical sense to speak of "whiteness" disembodied, without asserting that snow or something else is white. Meaningful assertions are formed by virtue of a grammatical subject, of which properties may be predicated, and in substance theory, such assertions are made with regard to a substance.
Bundle theory rejects the argument from grammar on the basis that a grammatical subject does not necessarily refer to a metaphysical subject. Bundle theory, for example, maintains that the grammatical subject of a statement refers to its properties. For example, a bundle theorist understands the grammatical subject of the sentence, "Snow is white", to be a bundle of properties such as white. Accordingly, one can make meaningful statements about bodies without referring to substances.
Argument from conception
Another argument for the substance theory is the argument from conception. The argument claims that in order to conceive of an object's properties, like the redness of an apple, one must conceive of the object that has those properties. According to the argument, one cannot conceive of redness, or any other property, distinct from the substance that has that property.
Criticism
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (November 2022) |
The idea of substance was famously critiqued by David Hume,[34] who held that since substance cannot be perceived, it should not be assumed to independently exist.[35]
For Heidegger, Descartes means by "substance" that by which "we can understand nothing else than an entity which is in such a way that it need no other entity in order to be." Therefore, only God is a substance as Ens perfectissimus (most perfect being). Heidegger showed the inextricable relationship between the concept of substance and of subject, which explains why, instead of talking about "man" or "humankind", he speaks about the Dasein, which is not a simple subject, nor a substance.[36]
Alfred North Whitehead has argued that the concept of substance has only a limited applicability in everyday life and that metaphysics should rely upon the concept of process.[37]
Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, as part of his critique of transubstantiation, rejected substance theory and instead proposed the doctrine of transfinalization, which he felt was more attuned to modern philosophy. However, this doctrine was rejected by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium fidei.
The 20th century Australian philosopher
Bundle theory
In direct opposition to substance theory is bundle theory, whose most basic premise is that all concrete particulars are merely constructions or 'bundles' of attributes or qualitative properties:
- Necessarily, for any concrete entity, , if for any entity, , is a constituent of , then is an attribute.[42]
The bundle theorist's principal objections to substance theory concern the
Identity of indiscernibles counterargument
The
The substance theorist's indiscernibility argument against the metaphysically realistic bundle theorist states that numerically different concrete particulars are discernible from the self-same concrete particular only by virtue of qualitatively different attributes.
- Necessarily, for any complex objects, and , if for any entity, , is a constituent of if and only if is a constituent of , then is numerically identical with .[42]
The indiscernibility argument points out that if bundle theory and discernible concrete particulars theory explain the relationship between attributes, then the identity of indiscernibles theory must also be true:
- Necessarily, for any concrete objects, and , if for any attribute, Φ, Φ is an attribute of if and only if Φ is an attribute of , then is numerically identical with .[42]
The indiscernibles argument then asserts that the identity of indiscernibles is violated, for example, by identical sheets of paper. All of their qualitative properties are the same (e.g. white, rectangular, 9 x 11 inches...) and thus, the argument claims, bundle theory and metaphysical realism cannot both be correct.
However, bundle theory combined with trope theory (as opposed to metaphysical realism) avoids the indiscernibles argument because each attribute is a trope if can only be held by only one concrete particular.
The argument does not consider whether "position" should be considered an attribute or relation. It is after all through the differing positions that we in practice differentiate between otherwise identical pieces of paper.
Religious philosophy
Christianity
The Christian writers of antiquity adhered to the Aristotelian conception of substance. Their peculiarity was the use of this idea for the discernment of theological nuances.
According to
Jainism
Buddhism
See also
References
- S2CID 18712931.
- ISBN 0-19-924317-4.
- ^ a b Kim, Jaegwon; Sosa, Ernest; Rosenkrantz, Gary S. (1994). "substance". A Companion to Metaphysics. Wiley-Blackwell.
- ^ a b Borchert, Donald (2006). "Ontology". Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Macmillan.
- ^ Orilia, Francesco; Paolini Paoletti, Michele (2020). "Properties". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- ISBN 9781400835829.
- ^ Studtmann, Paul (January 9, 2018). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Aristotle's Categories. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ISBN 9781400866328.
- JSTOR 43646211.
- JSTOR 1584833– via JSTOR.
- ISBN 0520258347, pages 48–52.
- ^ a b Millican, Peter (2015). "Locke on Substance and Our Ideas of Substances". In Paul Lodge; Tom Stoneham (eds.). Locke and Leibniz on Substance. Routledge. pp. 8–27.
- ^ a b Jones, Jan-Erik. "Locke on Real Essence". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ a b Dunn, John (2003). Locke: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Jones, Jan-Erik (July 2016). "Locke On Real Essence". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Atherton, Margaret (1999). The Empiricists: Critical Essays on Locke, Berkely, and Hume. Rowman and Littlefield.
- ^ Locke, John (1959). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Dover Publications.
- ^ Garret, Jan (February 27, 2004). "A Lockean Glossary". A Lockean Glossary.
- ^ a b Sheridan, P. (2010). Locke: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum. pp. 34, 38.
- ^ John Locke (August 2007) [1690]. "Book II, chapter 8, paragraph 9" (PDF). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Translated by Jonathan Bennett.
- ^ a b Stumpf, S. E. (1999). Socrates to Sartre: a history of philosophy. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. p. 260.
- ^ a b John Locke (August 2007) [1690]. "Book II, chapter 8, paragraph 10" (PDF). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Translated by Jonathan Bennett.
- ProQuest 1030745650.
- ^ a b c John Locke (August 2007) [1690]. "Book II, chapter 23, paragraph 2" (PDF). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Translated by Jonathan Bennett.
- ISBN 0-521-35402-1
- ^ Seth, Anil K. The hard problem of consciousness is a distraction from the real one. Retrieved 14.01.2017 from https://aeon.co/essays/the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real one
- ISBN 0-415-04029-9
- ISBN 0-631-14660-1
- ^ Strawson P. Individuals. Methuen: London., 1959, p.98-103
- .
- ^ Ayer A.J. Language, Truth and Logic. Penguin Books: [s.l.], 1946, p. 166-168
- ^ Gallagher, Shaun and Zahavi, Dan, "Phenomenological Approaches in Self-Consciousness", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL= https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/self-consciousness-phenomenological/
- JSTOR 2022957.
- ^ Hockney, Mike (2015). The Forbidden History of Science. Hyperreality Books.
- ^ Robinson, Howard, "Substance", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/substance/>
- ^ A. Kadir Cucen (2002-01-18). "Heidegger's Critique of Descartes' Metaphysics" (PDF). Uludag University. Retrieved 2011-12-28.
- ISBN 978-2-930517-08-7).
- ^ Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers Shook, John. 2005 p. 2451 Biography of Colin Murray Turbayne on Google Books
- ^ JSTOR 25000234.
- ^ The University of Rochester Department of Philosophy- Berkley Essay Prize Competition - History of the Prize Colin Turbayne's The Myth of Metaphor on rochester.edu
- ^ Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers Shook, John. 2005 p. 2451 Biography of Colin Murray Turbayne on Google Books
- ^ LCCN 97011036.
- ^ Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromata, VIII, 6; IV, 32; VI, 6
- ^ Tertulianus adversus Marcionem, lib. IV, 9, 7.
- ^ Thomas Aquinas (1997). "V". De ente et essentia. Translated by Robert T. Miller.
- ^ Thomas Aquinas, De ente et essentia, VI; Summa Theologica, q.29, a.1
- ISBN 0-86171-168-8
- ^ Aṅguttara Nikāya (The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha). A complete translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2012, III, 137
- ^ Stcherbatsky Th. The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word "Dharma". London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1923, p. 12
- ^ L'Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu. Traduit et annoté par Louis de la Vallée Poussin. Tome I. Paris: Paul Geithner, 1923, p. 179–191
- ^ The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (Majjhima Nikāya). Translated by Bhikkhu Nāṇamoli, Boston (MA): Wisdom Publications, 1995, Part 1, 22 (25)
- ^ Aṅguttara Nikāya, VI, 63 (5); III, 36 (1)
- ^ The Book of Discipline (Vinaya-Pitaka). Vol. II (Sutta-Vibhanga). Translated by I. B. Horner. London: Luzac, 1957, passim
External links
- Robinson, Howard. "Substance". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Robinson, Tad. "17th Century Theories of Substance". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Weir, Ralph. "Substance theory". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Friesian School on Substance and Essence