-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Substance
- Thread starter Yerda
- Start date
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Sure. If you say there are more than one or two, there are.
Sure, why not?
Of course, a lot rides on what level of definition you're using. It's perfectly correct to say there are millions of distinct and different substances, but is't also correct to say that all these can be reduced to only three "particles." You can go further, of course, and dissect these into subatomic "particles." And then you can always make a case that all these are merely waves or extrusions of a single, underlying brane.
Of course, a lot rides on what level of definition you're using. It's perfectly correct to say there are millions of distinct and different substances, but is't also correct to say that all these can be reduced to only three "particles." You can go further, of course, and dissect these into subatomic "particles." And then you can always make a case that all these are merely waves or extrusions of a single, underlying brane.
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
What is a substance? How would you know that you have identified a substance? How would you distinguish one substance from another?
Personally, I have very little use for the concept "substance".
eudaimonia,
Mark
Yerda
Veteran Member
I have no idea.
I've read a little bit of materialism/dualism/pluralism, and I was wondering how we might be able to shed some light on the problem. It strikes me as unresolvable...and unimportant.
Not even in your words?
They are simply different ideas, ways of assembling the universe in different orders. Only unimportant if you don't want to assemble it that way.
There is no "right" answer to how many substances there are --each philosophy represents a bit of something that makes sense to someone. To the dualist, there is mind and matter, or upper and lower worlds; to the monist, there is no difference between mind or matter, upper or lower, me or world. To study a philosophy (I'm looking into monism right now) is to explore how it is that these ideas can make sense. You're not looking for right answers, you're just looking to "get it."
Get it?
Yerda
Veteran Member
No really.
harleydavidson
Member
to willomena..hi ,in reply to your post of 12/17,,there are no right answers,,,well why ask a question that you presume has no answere?Each philosophy represents something that makes sense to sombody?What kind of wisdom is there in the chaos of subjectivity?,a subjectivity where there are no right answers? Now the question was how many substances make up the universe/reality.Now by substances we have to look to Webster to define that,,"any kind of corporeal matter". Can we use the the atomic structure of the universe with all it's protons,neutrons,electrons,quarks ...ad infinitum as the number you are looking for ? Possibly ,but some of these things have no actual existence as they are described. An electron is not a little piece of negative matter revolving around the neucleus.It's just a way of visualizing ,,Quantum physics sez an electron is just smear of probability,non existing until it is observed [shades of Berkley]!! At the rate science is going ,I don't think there is an answer to your question,,mabey the answer lies in a smear of probablity suspended by a Super String in a parallel universe.....harleydavidson
Hi, Harley. I meant "no right answer" to the particular question.
More accurately, perhaps, I should have said "no one right answer."Well now the answer to that should be obvious, if "right" too is understood to be relative.
There is an answer, indeed, but not a "right" one philosophically speaking unless you consider all of them to be right. Each philosophy looks at "substance" in a different light.
Fluffy
A fool
Do you think there is a difference between an object and the sum of its properties?
I think there is probably a lot to be said for both sides. If we eventually decide yes then we are committed to substance theory. Then you'd need to decide what objects exist and whether you can group all these objects into categories according to their mutually exclusive properties.
There doesn't appear to be any room for fuzziness here. I personally reject the idea that there is a difference between an object and its properties and when I refer to an object, I am actually just using a place holder for a specific set of properties. There is no such thing as substance.
I think there is probably a lot to be said for both sides. If we eventually decide yes then we are committed to substance theory. Then you'd need to decide what objects exist and whether you can group all these objects into categories according to their mutually exclusive properties.
There doesn't appear to be any room for fuzziness here. I personally reject the idea that there is a difference between an object and its properties and when I refer to an object, I am actually just using a place holder for a specific set of properties. There is no such thing as substance.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I don't know. I'd have thought an object was the sum of it's properties.
As you said:
Fluffy said:
Yes and no, and more, depending on how we look at (need) it. The "difference" lies in how we intend to make use of the target object. Of necessity, because of varying intent and circumstances, we will do a slightly different take each time we need the object.
Fluffy
A fool
Willamena said:
Sorry let me rephrase. Do you think an object is identical to the sum of its properties? That is to say, do you think an object is always exactly the same as the sum of its properties?
It doesn't matter whether some objects are sometimes substances or whether all objects are always substances because the question is on the existence of substance. If substances exist some of the time then they exist.
harleydavidson
Member
to fluffy,,hi re your post of 12/22,,I think willomena err'd when she said "yes,no,and more" i think she shld have included"less" so she was covering all the bases lol. It wld be wrong to determine a substance by it's use ,use does not change the character of a substance.Again a definition of a substance is a corporeal thing,so it, as an object is always a corporeal thing even when it's not in use.Use is not a determining factor......harley d.
Yes, however many properties we assign.
Let me ask you this, as I'm not very learned in philosophy, and perhaps you are: Is there a school of thought that allocates properties as the substance of objects?