| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> What is the absolute substance of an item and how does it connect to philosophy?Question: What is the absolute substance of an item and how does it connect to philosophy!? Our history teacher told us that the absolute substance of something is that thing in its entirety, and then he went on about something having to do with 'higher reality' (referring to the allegory of the cave) and how we can't see it when an item takes on another substance but still seems the same to our senses!.!.!. yeah i don't get it!. explain!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I'm not sure what your teacher meant since you are telling us second-hand, not by a direct quote!. There might be something you misunderstood!. But let's begin with what is NOT the "absolute" substance!. "Secondary substance is expressed by the universal term, and by its definition which are "not present in a subject but predicable of it!." [1] For example, an oak tree is not "in" an acorn, but is predicable of an acorn!. And the "universal" term is like saying man is a primate!. The universal, according to Aristotle, is "that which by its nature is fit to be predicated of many!." Many things are predicated of "primate!." The lemur is a primate, but it certainly is not man!. The "particular" of "man" is "rational animal!." So, by "absolute substance" you teacher must mean "particular!." "Man" in his entirety is 1!. the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens (the particular, predicated only of:) 2!. of the species Homo sapiens (predicated only of:) 3!. of the genus Homo (predicated!.!.!.!.!.!.!.etc) 4!. of the sub-tribe Hominoidea (etc down the list) 5!. of the tribe Hominini 6!. of the family Hominidea 7!. of the order of Primates 8!. of the class of Mammalia 9!. of the phylum Chordata 10!. of the Kingdom of Animalia "Animalia" would have to be the "absolute" substance!. But even then, we must define "animalia" as "living, breathing, procreating, digesting, defecating, etc, (and) dying!.)" But these are not substances; they are properties!. As an allegory of the cave, I don't get the reference!. The "absolute substance" of what the prisoners see is outside the cave (or behind them, causing the shadows on the walls and the voices and noises that coincide with the shadows!.) Maybe your teacher is referring to the "essence!." Plato said all essences were in the heavens, qualities of the gods, and what we saw on earth was only a mirror reflection of a god, that part of the essence the god wanted us to see!. Aristotle, however, disagreed, and said essences were "in the things themselves," as if someday science could discover it and extract it!. Neither is true!. The Stoics got it right when they said essences were concepts only!. The Franciscan Occam (of Occam's Razor) disagreed with Aquinas (who agreed with Aristotle, putting essences "in the things themselves!.") Occam said essences were concepts, agreeing with the Stoics, though I know of no proof he knew the Stoics believed it also!. Then in the 20th century, along comes Ayn Rand who describes precisely the process of how our minds comprehend essences as concepts!. Since epistemology is a science, Rand's epistemological explanation of concepts is as scientific as science comes!. ["Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"] So, show this to your teacher and ask: "How does a concept take on another substance!?" or "How does the substance take on another substance!?" Your teacher has me as confused as you are!.Www@QuestionHome@Com the absolute substance of something is relative to our understanding of it!.!.!.!.whats in an atom !? Imagine zooming away from earth, away from our solar system, away from the Milky Way, away from the millions of universes (known and unknown) to an energy which is part of an atom, which is part of a molecule, which is part of a cell, which is part of the skin on the arm of an enormous person, asking the same questions we ask!. And so it goes on for infinity!. As above, so is below!. Imagine, with in an atom (one of billions) in your body, the millions of universes that contain the galaxies that contain the solar system that contains a sun which a person on a tiny planet asks "what is the smallest thing in the universe!?", within his skin and atoms!.!.!. Man likes to put things "in a box" so he can have "total" understanding!. What is a pattern in science for a long time now, is the fact that the better his tools for seeing farther and smaller, he sees more!.!.!. The universe is infinite, it always has been and always will be!. No beginning, no end!. It is forever!. This is what I understand until the day man is unable to see farther or smaller, so there seems to be no "absolute substance", only a "perception that there is an absolute"!.!.!.to me, the Infinity of Time and Space seems to be the only absolute, and even that may be variable!. Is he talking about how the reality of things seem only a certain way, but in fact, reality is much more then what we understand with our senses!. !. !.Www@QuestionHome@Com Take me to be your absolute Teacher No:1 Trust me ask The One and wonly Item Gal!.!.!.!.!.!. you know who!.!.!.!. she has all the answers to this question of yours!. See references is needed now a days wonly spoon feeding is bad for the baby, hiccupping!!!! aaalways!. So good reference means perfect reference, agreed!?Www@QuestionHome@Com I think what your teacher meant was all things are nothing other than what they are and by labeling what ever it is we assign the object our own meaning which takes away from its true being!. Things are not what we perceive them to be, they are what they are!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |