Substantialism... issues

[GrowingSmaller]

What can be known of subtstance, if it is different form the visible aspects or "accidental" properties of a thing?

For instance we talk of material substance, or spiritual substance, but the concept we have of material or spiritual seems to come empirically ie through experience of accidental properties. For example the fluidity of blood.

Therefore, if the substantial is not to be equated with the empirical, or accidental, then we are left with an empty concept of either "material substance" or "spiritual substance". Except, I suppose, we can know that it has certain accidental properties at certain space-times. But nothing of substance as it is itself. Thats because all we know of them comes from the accidental, which is not valid appropriate source of knowing the substantial, as it is in itself.

At least thats how it seem's to me.

I am sure someone has grappled with this before and can help. Can anything be known of substance, except it's accidens?

 

[Eucharisted]

Substance is essence, accidents are appearance. The substance of a rock is that of a rock: The rock is, in essence, a rock. The accidents of a rock is that of gray color: The rock is, in appearance, a gray rock. In brief, the rock is a rock (substance/essence) and has gray color (accidents/appearance).

 

[Eucharisted]

The substance of the Eucharist is that of Jesus: The Eucharist is, in essence, Jesus. The accidents of the Eucharist is that of bread and wine: The Eucharist is, in appearance, bread and wine. In brief, the Eucharist is essentially Jesus (substance) under the appearance of bread and wine (accidents).

 

[KeenanParkerII]

Can anything be known of substance, except it's accidens?

And outside of divine revelation concerning that substance.. You raise intriguing questions. *Chin scratch* I kind of want to skip my homework to scour the works of the Church fathers on this. If I find anything later, I'll post it. But quantacura or someone else will probably beat me to it.

 

[Kotton]

I think it is a similar miracle as to how God could take on Human Flesh being at one time 100% God and 100% Human the the person of Jesus Christ. One Hundred percent physicial without losing any of the Devine/Spiritual. Both things absolutly true at the same time. A miracle similar to His being a Trinity while being One. I don't think our finite mind can wrap itself around these miracles of a God who was before he created time and space, and yet already had our salvation in mind. Is not it wonderful that we have such an Awsome God?

Mrs. Kotton

 

[Fitch]

It is perhaps interesting that Aristotle, the originator of these ideas, never thought substance and accidence could be separated.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is perhaps interesting that Aristotle, the originator of these ideas, never thought substance and accidence could be separated.

tHat woud lmake more sense, ty. But then the idea of transubstantiation, with the substance changing but the accidens remaining the same would be hard to understand. I have heard it scalled the "miracle of the accidens".

 

[MoNiCa4316]

It seems to me that in nature, a substance of a thing can be known through its 'accidents'.. but the exception of this is the Eucharist, because it is not what it appears to be. Most things are what they appear. (trees, rocks, animals, etc).

 

[Fitch]

It seems to me that in nature, a substance of a thing can be known through its 'accidents'.. but the exception of this is the Eucharist, because it is not what it appears to be. Most things are what they appear. (trees, rocks, animals, etc).

Yes. I think this is right. Just because Aristotle didn't envision it doesn't mean it can't be used.