Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    Although closer in intentions to the genuine definition of object, the substance ontologists have never
    really offered a valid alternative. The substance version is a circular definition: a synonym. The substance
    theorist uses synonyms such as thing, entity, medium, substance, body, something, corporeal, structure,
    physical, and material to characterize the mysterious ‘bare particular.’  

    The substance argument is that the word swan is circumscribed to the ‘substance’ without wings or white
    or swim:

    “ ‘Substance’ here means what something is in itself…A hat's shape is not the hat
       itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything
       else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape,
       the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them.
       Whereas the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents
       are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.”  [1]

    “ A formal theory about substance …is essentially incomplete if it does not address
       time.”[2]

    “ 1. Substance is not something outside the process but is in it. It is not timeless but has
            the form of duration, as has the process.
      2. Substance is not the process itself but something that, though in process, resists it
           and persists.
      3. Substance is both persistence and the substratum of persistence. What kind of
           substratum it is cannot be ascertained a priori.
      4. There is no valid argument in support of an absolutely persisting 'something'.
           Whatever the substratum may be, it is always only relatively persistent”   [3]

    [Dear, oh dear! What could it be? Is it a bird? Is it a plane?]

    But then, if an object is a substance stripped of all its qualities, what is left? If it is not timeless, what is the
    prosecutor referring to? Should we conclude that a substance is that which we can see, touch, smell, or
    hear (proof)? If not, is a substance that which we can think about? Are we going to prove the definition of
    substance with another object? We could go on forever questioning what these words mean, not so
    much to play extreme devil’s advocate for the fun of it, but because the substance ontologist attempts to
    weasel out of the deal by relying on circular reasoning. If the substance argument has not prevailed after
    all these years it is because the proponents have not provided a definition. The substance theorists have
    offered no alternative to bundle theory. All they have proposed for the last 3,000 is a long list of questions.
    The substance philosophers are still banging their heads trying to figure out this formidable word.
Is an object
a substance?

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/12/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
You stupid fool! If the giant
was just an insubstantial
concept in my head, would it
have the power to knock me
off my horse?