OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用：99美元

投递稿件

查看量	下载量

相关文章
更多...

Advances in Historical Studies 2016

History of Substance in Philosophy

DOI: 10.4236/ahs.2016.55020, PP. 254-270

Bassey Samuel Akpan, Charles Clement Odohoedi

Keywords: Substance, Attributes, Metaphysics, Complimentary Reflection

Full-Text Cite this paper Add to My Lib

Abstract:

A lot of words investigated by philosophers get their inception for conventional or extra-philosophical dialect. Yet the idea of substance is basically a philosophical term of art. Its employments in normal dialect tend to derive, often in a twisted way, different from its philosophical usage. Despite this, the idea of substance differs from philosophers, reliant upon the school of thought in which it is been expressed. There is an ordinary concept in play when philosophers discuss “substance”, and this is seen in the concept of object, or thing when this is contrasted with properties, attributes or events. There is also a difference in view when in the sense that while the realists would develop a materialistic theory of substance, the idealist would develop a metaphysical theory of substance. The problem surrounding substance spans through the history of philosophy. The queries have often been what is substance of? And can there be substance without its attributes? This paper tends to expose the historical problems surrounding substance. This paper criticizes the thinking which presupposes that there could be a substance without its attributes or substance existing alone. This paper adopts complimentary ontology principles which state that for anything to exist, it must serve as a missing connection to reality. This suggests that everything interconnects to each other and substance cannot exist in isolation.

References

[1]	Aquinas, T. (1961). Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle (p. 2). J. P. Rowan (Trans.), Chicago: Henry Regnery Co.
[2]	Aquinas, T. (1963). In Meta, Proem. A. Maurer (Trans.), The Division and Methods of the Sciences (p. 89). Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
[3]	Aquinas, T. (1975). Summa Contra Gentiles II (p. 158). J. F. Anderson (Trans.), Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
[4]	Aristotle (1956). Metaphysics. H. Tredennick (Trans.), London: Loeb Classical Library.
[5]	Aristotle (1963). Categories and De Interpretatione (Clarendon Aristotle Series) (pp. 1b25-2a4). J. Ackrill (Translation and Notes), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[6]	Aristotle (1985). Metaph. V 4, 1015 a 13-19 (The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation). J. Barnes (Ed.), Princeton.
[7]	Asouzu, I. (2007). Ibuanyidanda: New Complementary Ontology. Deutschland: Litverlag Fresnostr.
[8]	Asouzu, I. (2011). “Ibuanyidanda” and the Philosophy of Essence 1. Filosofia Theoretica, 1.
[9]	Broackes, J. (2006). Substance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 106, 131-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2006.00191.x
[10]	Carpenter, A. D. (2008). Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays. Philosophical Review, 117, 138-141. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2007-032
[11]	Charlton, W. (1970). Aristotle Physics Books I and II. Translated with Introduction, Commentary, Note on Recent Work, and Revised Bibliography by Charlton, W., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[12]	Classen, C. J. (1977). Anaximander and Anaximenes: The Earliest Greek Theories of Change? Phronesis, 22, 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852877X00010
[13]	Cook, T. (2003). Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41, 560-561. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2003.0054
[14]	Copleston, F. (2003). A History of Philosophy (Vol. 4, p. 298). New York: Continuum.
[15]	Dambock, C. (2012). Theory Structuralism in a Rigid Framework. Synthese, 187, 693-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0009-3
[16]	Druart, T. (1987). Substance in Arabic Philosophy: Farabi’s Discussion.
[17]	Ehring, D. (2001). Temporal Parts and Bundle Theory. Philosophical Studies, 104, 163-168. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4321155 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010327401920
[18]	Fadahunsi, A. (2004). Metaphysics: A Historical and Thematic Introduction (p. 45). Ibadan: Hope Publishers.
[19]	Gill, M. L. (2005). Aristotle’s Metaphysics Reconsidered. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 43, 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2005.0138
[20]	Graham, D. W. (1987). Aristotle’s Two Systems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[21]	Hartshorne, C. (1970). Recollections of Famous Philosophers—And Other Important Persons. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 8, 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1970.tb02095.x
[22]	Hume, D. (1978). A Treatise of Human Nature. P. H. Nidditch (Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[23]	Irwin, T. (1988). Aristotle’s First Principles, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[24]	Kett, W. G. (1942). Thales of Miletus. The Australasian Journal of Optometry, 25, 99-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.1942.tb02445.x
[25]	Kirkeboen, G. (2001). Descartes’ Embodied Psychology: Descartes’ or Damasio’s Error? Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 10, 173-191. https://doi.org/10.1076/jhin.10.2.173.7255
[26]	Kohl, M. (2015). Kant on the Inapplicability of the Categories to Things in Themselves. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 23, 90-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2014.978838
[27]	Leclerc, I. (1953). Whitehead’s Transformation of the Notion of Substance. Philosophical Quarterly, 3, 225-243. https://doi.org/10.2307/2216576
[28]	Levy, K. (2005). Is Descartes a Temporal Atomist? British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 13, 627-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608780500293026
[29]	Lewis, F. A. (1991). Substance and Predication in Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
[30]	Lin, M. (2006). Substance, Attribute, and Mode in Spinoza. Philosophy Compass, 1, 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2006.00015.x
[31]	Locke, J. (1824). The Works of John Locke: In Nine Volumes. London: Rivington.
[32]	McMall, R. E. (1967). “Substance” in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 13). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
[33]	Nussbaum, M. & Amelie, R. (Eds.) (1992). Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[34]	O’Leary-Hawthorne, J. (1995). The Bundle Theory of Substance and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Analysis, 55, 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/55.3.191
[35]	Omoregbe, J. (1991). A Simplified History of Western Philosophy: Ancient and Modern Philosophy (p. 5). Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publications.
[36]	Omoregbe, J. (1996). A Simplified History of Philosophy (Vol. 1, p. 21). Lagos: Joja Education Research and Publishers.
[37]	Pappas, G. (1999). Berkeley and Scepticism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 59, 133-149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653461
[38]	Robinson, H. (2014) Substance. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
[39]	Russell, B. (2008). A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. New York: Cosimo, Inc.
[40]	Stumpf, S. E., & Fieser, J. (2003). Philosophy: History and Problems (6th ed., p. 82). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
[41]	The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8, p. 36). New York: Crowell Collier and Macmillan.
[42]	Thomas, J. (1999). Intuition and Reality: A Study of the Attributes of Substance in the Absolute Idealism of Spinoza. Avebury Series in Philosophy.
[43]	Wedin, M. (2000). Aristotle’s Theory of Substance (p. 482). New York: Oxford University Press.
[44]	Whitehead, A. (1978). Process and Reality. New York: Free Press.
[45]	Whitehead, A. N., & Griffin, D. R. (1931). Process and Reality. Economica, 251-252.
[46]	Wiggins, D. (1998). Substance. In A. C. Grayling (Ed.), Philosophy: A Guide through the Subject (pp. 214-249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[47]	Yablo, S. (1992). Cause and Essence. Synthese, 93, 403-449. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01089276

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133