What Is the Relationship Between Opacity of a Substance and Absorbance Readings

Basic ontological concept

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and backdrop borne past the substance but singled-out from it. In this role, a substance tin can be referred to every bit a substratum or a thing-in-itself.^{[one] [2]} Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to be all by themselves.^{[3] [4]} Some other defining feature often attributed to substances is their ability to undergo changes. Changes involve something existing before, during and later on the change. They can be described in terms of a persisting substance gaining or losing properties.^[iii] Attributes or properties, on the other mitt, are entities that can be exemplified by substances.^[5] Properties narrate their bearers, they limited what their bearer is like.^[four]

Substance is a fundamental concept in ontology and metaphysics, which may be classified into monist, dualist, or pluralist varieties according to how many substances or individuals are said to populate, furnish, or exist in the world. Co-ordinate to monistic views, there is only one substance. Stoicism and Spinoza, for example, agree monistic views, that pneuma or God, respectively, is the one substance in the world. These modes of thinking are sometimes associated with the idea of immanence. Dualism sees the world as existence composed of two central substances (for example, the Cartesian substance dualism of heed and thing). Pluralist philosophies include Plato's Theory of Forms and Aristotle's hylomorphic categories.

Aboriginal Greek philosophy [edit]

Aristotle [edit]

Aristotle used the term "substance" (Greek: οὐσία ousia) in a secondary sense for genera and species understood equally hylomorphic forms. Primarily, however, he used information technology with regard to his category of substance, the specimen ("this person" or "this horse") or private, qua private, who survives accidental change and in whom the essential properties inhere that define those universals.

A substance—that which is chosen a substance most strictly, primarily, and most of all—is that which is neither said of a discipline nor in a subject, e.one thousand. the individual human being or the private horse. The species in which the things primarily called substances are, are called secondary substances, every bit also are the genera of these species. For case, the individual man belongs in a species, homo, and animal is a genus of the species; then these—both man and beast—are called secondary substances.^[six]

In chapter 6 of book I the Physics Aristotle argues that whatsoever change must be analysed in reference to the holding of an invariant subject: as it was before the modify and thereafter. Thus, in his hylomorphic account of alter, matter serves every bit a relative substratum of transformation, i.east., of changing (substantial) form. In the Categories, properties are predicated only of substance, but in chapter 7 of volume I of the Physics, Aristotle discusses substances coming to be and passing abroad in the "unqualified sense" wherein primary substances (πρῶται οὐσίαι; Categories 2a35) are generated from (or perish into) a material substratum by having gained (or lost) the essential property that formally defines substances of that kind (in the secondary sense). Examples of such a substantial alter include non only formulation and dying, but too metabolism, e.one thousand., the staff of life a man eats becomes the human. On the other hand, in accidental alter, because the essential property remains unchanged, past identifying the substance with its formal essence, substance may thereby serve as the relative subject matter or property-bearer of modify in a qualified sense (i.e., barring matters of life or death). An example of this sort of accidental modify is a change of colour or size: a tomato becomes red, or a juvenile horse grows.

Aristotle thinks that in improver to principal substances (which are particulars), at that place are secondary substances (δεύτεραι οὐσίαι), which are universals (Categories 2a11–a18).^[vii]

Neither the "blank particulars" nor "holding bundles" of modern theory have their ancestor in Aristotle, according to whom all matter exists in some form. There is no prime affair or pure elements, there is always a mixture: a ratio weighing the four potential combinations of primary and secondary properties and analysed into discrete i-pace and two-step abstract transmutations betwixt the elements.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Nevertheless, according to Aristotle's theology, a form of invariant form exists without matter, beyond the cosmos, powerless and oblivious, in the eternal substance of the unmoved movers.

Pyrrhonism [edit]

Early Pyrrhonism rejected the thought that substances be. Pyrrho put this as:

"Whoever wants to alive well (eudaimonia) must consider these three questions: Outset, how are pragmata (ethical matters, diplomacy, topics) past nature? Secondly, what attitude should nosotros adopt towards them? Thirdly, what will exist the outcome for those who have this attitude?" Pyrrho's answer is that "Equally for pragmata they are all adiaphora (undifferentiated by a logical differentia), astathmēta (unstable, unbalanced, not measurable), and anepikrita (unjudged, unfixed, undecidable). Therefore, neither our sense-perceptions nor our doxai (views, theories, beliefs) tell us the truth or prevarication; so we certainly should not rely on them. Rather, nosotros should be adoxastoi (without views), aklineis (uninclined toward this side or that), and akradantoi (unwavering in our refusal to choose), proverb well-nigh every single one that it no more is than it is non or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not.^[viii]

Stoicism [edit]

The Stoics rejected the idea that incorporeal beings inhere in matter, as taught by Plato. They believed that all being is corporeal infused with a creative burn called pneuma. Thus they developed a scheme of categories different from Aristotle's based on the ideas of Anaxagoras and Timaeus. The fundamental basis of Stoicism in this context was a universally consistent ethical and moral code that should exist maintained at all time, the physical belief of beings every bit matter is an important philosophical footnote, as it marked the beginning of thinking equally beings as inherently linked to reality, instead of to some abstract heaven.^{[9] [10]}

Neoplatonism [edit]

Neoplatonists debate that beneath the surface phenomena that present themselves to our senses are three college spiritual principles or hypostases, each one more sublime than the preceding. For Plotinus, these are the soul or earth-soul, existence/intellect or divine listen (nous), and "the one".^[eleven]

Religious philosophy [edit]

Christianity [edit]

The Christian writers of artifact adhered to the Aristotelian conception of substance. Their peculiarity was the use of this idea for the discernment of theological nuances. Clement of Alexandria considered both cloth and spiritual substances: blood and milk; mind and soul, respectively.^[12] Origen may be the first theologian expressing Christ's similarity with the Father as consubstantiality. Tertullian professed the same view in the W.^[13] The ecclesiastics of the Cappadocian grouping (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa) taught that the Trinity had a single substance in three hypostases individualized by the relations amongst them. In later ages, the meaning of "substance" became more important because of the dogma of the Eucharist. Hildebert of Lavardin, archbishop of Tours, introduced the term transubstantiation about 1080; its use spread after the 4th Council of the Lateran in 1215.

According to Thomas Aquinas, beings may possess substance in three different modes. Together with other Medieval philosophers, he interpreted God's epithet "El Shaddai" (Genesis 17:1) equally self-sufficient and ended that God's essence was identical with existence.^[fourteen] Aquinas also accounted the substance of spiritual creatures identical with their essence (or form); therefore he considered each angel to belong to its ain distinct species.^{[ citation needed ]} In Aquinas' view, blended substances consist of form and matter. Human substantial course, i.east. soul, receives its individuality from body.^[15]

Buddhism [edit]

Buddhism rejects the concept of substance. Circuitous structures are comprehended as an aggregate of components without whatever essence. Simply as the junction of parts is called cart, so the collections of elements are chosen things.^[16] All formations are unstable (aniccā) and defective any constant core or "self" (anattā).^[17] Concrete objects have no metaphysical substrate.^[18] Arising entities hang on previous ones conditionally: in the notable instruction on interdependent origination, effects ascend non as caused by agents just conditioned by former situations. Our senses, perception, feelings, wishes and consciousness are flowing, the view satkāya-dṛṣṭi of their permanent carrier is rejected as fallacious. The school of Madhyamaka, namely Nāgārjuna, introduced the thought of the ontological void (śūnyatā). The Buddhist metaphysics Abhidharma presumes particular forces which decide the origin, persistence, aging and decay of everything in the world. Vasubandhu added a special force making a human, called "aprāpti" or "pṛthagjanatvam".^[19] Because of the absence of a substantial soul, the conventionalities in personal immortality loses foundation.^[20] Instead of deceased beings, new ones emerge whose fate is destined by the karmic law. The Buddha admitted the empirical identity of persons testified by their birth, proper noun, and age. He canonical the authorship of deeds and responsibleness of performers.^[21] The disciplinary practice in the Sangha including reproaches, confession and expiation of transgressions,^[22] requires continuing personalities as its justification.

Early on modernistic philosophy [edit]

René Descartes ways by a substance an entity which exists in such a manner that it needs no other entity in order to exist. Therefore, only God is a substance in this strict sense. However, he extends the term to created things, which need only the concurrence of God to exist. He maintained that two of these are mind and torso, each being distinct from the other in their attributes and therefore in their essence, and neither needing the other in order to exist. This is Descartes' substance dualism.

Baruch Spinoza denied Descartes' "existent distinction" betwixt heed and matter. Substance, according to Spinoza, is one and indivisible, but has multiple "attributes". He regards an aspect, though, as "what nosotros excogitate as constituting the [unmarried] essence of substance". The single essence of one substance can exist conceived of equally textile and as well, consistently, as mental. What is ordinarily called the natural world, together with all the individuals in information technology, is immanent in God: hence his famous phrase deus sive natura ("God or Nature").

John Locke views substance through a corpuscularian lens where it exhibits two types of qualities which both stem from a source. He believes that humans are built-in tabula rasa or "blank slate" – without innate noesis. In An Essay Concerning Human being Understanding Locke writes that "first essence may be taken for the very being of anything, whereby it is, what it is." If humans are built-in without any knowledge, the fashion to receive knowledge is through perception of a certain object. But, according to Locke, an object exists in its primary qualities, no matter whether the human perceives information technology or non; it but exists. For example, an apple has qualities or properties that determine its beingness apart from human perception of information technology, such as its mass or texture. The apple tree itself is also "pure substance in which is supposed to provide some sort of 'unknown back up' to the observable qualities of things"^{[ vague ]} that the human mind perceives.^[23] The foundational or support qualities are called master essences which "in the example of physical substances, are the underlying physical causes of the object's observable qualities".^[24] But then what is an object except "the owner or support of other properties"? Locke rejects Aristotle's category of the forms, and develops mixed ideas about what substance or "get-go essence" means. Locke's solution to confusion virtually first essence is to debate that objects simply are what they are – made up of microscopic particles existing because they be. Co-ordinate to Locke, the mind cannot completely grasp the idea of a substance as information technology "e'er falls beyond knowledge".^[25] There is a gap between what first essence truly ways and the listen'southward perception of it that Locke believes the heed cannot span, objects in their principal qualities must exist autonomously from man perception.

The molecular combination of atoms in kickoff essence so forms the solid base of operations that humans can perceive and add qualities to depict - the simply fashion humans can perchance brainstorm to perceive an object. The style to perceive the qualities of an apple is from the combination of the primary qualities to form the secondary qualities. These qualities are and so used to group the substances into dissimilar categories that "depend on the properties [humans] happen to be able to perceive".^[25] The sense of taste of an apple or the feeling of its smoothness are not traits inherent to the fruit just are the ability of the primary qualities to produce an thought well-nigh that object in the mind.^[26] The reason that humans can't sense the actual primary qualities is the mental distance from the object; thus, Locke argues, objects remain nominal for humans.^[27] Therefore, the argument then returns to how "a philosopher has no other thought of those substances than what is framed past a collection of those simple ideas which are establish in them."^[28] The heed's formulation of substances "[is] circuitous rather than simple" and "has no (supposedly innate) clear and distinct thought of matter that can be revealed through intellectual brainchild away from sensory qualities".^[23]

The concluding quality of substance is the way the perceived qualities seem to begin to change – such equally a candle melting; this quality is called the tertiary quality. Third qualities "of a body are those powers in it that, by virtue of its primary qualities, give it the power to produce observable changes in the chief qualities of other bodies"; "the power of the sun to cook wax is a tertiary quality of the sun".^[24] They are "mere powers; qualities such as flexibility, ductility; and the power of sunday to cook wax". This goes along with^{[ vague ]} "passive power: the capacity a thing has for being changed by some other thing".^[29] In whatever object, at the core are the master qualities (unknowable by the human being mind), the secondary quality (how primary qualities are perceived), and 3rd qualities (the ability of the combined qualities to brand a alter to the object itself or to other objects).

Robert Boyle'south corpuscularian hypothesis states that "all material bodies are composites of ultimately small^{[ vague ]} particles of matter" that "have the aforementioned material qualities^{[ vague ]} as the larger composite bodies exercise".^[30] Using this ground, Locke defines his first group, principal qualities, every bit "the ones that a body doesn't lose, however much it alters."^[31] The materials retain their primary qualities even if they are broken down because of the unchanging nature of their diminutive particles.^[thirty] If someone is curious well-nigh an object and they^{[ who? ]} say it is solid and extended, these two descriptors are primary qualities.^[32] The second grouping consists of secondary qualities which are "really nada but the powers to produce various sensations in us by their primary qualities."^[33] Locke argues that the impressions our senses perceive from the objects (i.e. gustatory modality, sounds, colors, etc.) are not natural properties of the object itself, but things they induce in u.s.a. past means of the "size, shape, texture, and motion of their ephemeral parts."^[33] The bodies send insensible particles to our senses which permit us perceive the object through unlike faculties; what we perceive is based on the object's limerick. With these qualities, people tin can reach the object through bringing "co-existing powers and sensible qualities to a common basis for caption".^[34] Locke supposes that one wants to know what "binds these qualities" into an object, and argues that a "substratum" or "substance" has this effect, defining "substance" as follows:

[T]he idea of ours to which we give the general proper name substance, being nothing merely the supposed but unknown support of those qualities we find existing and which we imagine can't exist sine re substante — that is, without some thing to support them — we phone call that support substantia; which, according to the true meaning of the give-and-take, is in obviously English standing nether or upholding.

This substratum is a construct of the mind in an attempt to bind all the qualities seen together; information technology is only "a assumption of an unknown back up of qualities that are able to cause uncomplicated ideas in united states of america."^[35] Without making a substratum, people would be at a loss as to how different qualities chronicle. Locke does, withal, mention that this substratum is an unknown, relating information technology to the story of the earth on the turtle's back and how the believers eventually had to concede that the turtle just rested on "something he knew not what".^[35] This is how the heed perceives all things and from which it can make ideas about them; it is entirely relative, but it does provide a "regularity and consistency to our ideas".^[32] Substance, overall, has ii sets of qualities — those that define information technology, and those related to how we perceive information technology. These qualities rush to our minds, which must organize them. Every bit a result, our mind creates a substratum (or substance) for these objects, into which it groups related qualities.

Criticism of soul as substance [edit]

Kant observed that the assertion of a spiritual soul equally substance could exist a constructed proposition which, even so, was unproved and completely arbitrary.^[36] Introspection does not reveal whatsoever diachronic substrate remaining unchanged throughout life. The temporal structure of consciousness is retentive-perceptive-prognostic. The selfhood arises every bit result of several informative flows: (i) signals from our own body; (ii) retrieved memories and forecasts; (three) the affective load: dispositions and aversions; (four) reflections in other minds.^[37] Mental acts have the characteristic of appropriation: they are always attached to some pre-reflective consciousness.^[38] As visual perception is only possible from a definite betoken of view, so inner experience is given together with cocky-consciousness. The latter is not an autonomous mental deed, but a formal fashion how the first person has their experience. From the pre-reflective consciousness, the person gains conviction of their beingness. This conviction is immune to false reference.^[39] The concept of person is prior to the concepts of field of study and body.^[40] The reflective self-consciousness is a conceptual and elaborate knowledge. Selfhood is a self-constituting effigy, a task to be accomplished.^[41] Humans are incapable of comprising all their experience within the current state of consciousness; overlapping memories are critical for personal integrity. Appropriated experience can exist recollected. At stage B, nosotros think the experience of stage A; at stage C, we may exist aware of the mental acts of phase B. The idea of cocky-identity is enforced by the relatively wearisome changes of our body and social state of affairs.^[42] Personal identity may be explained without accepting a spiritual agent as subject of mental activity.^[43] Associative connection between life episodes is necessary and sufficient for the maintenance of a united selfhood. Personal character and memories can persist after radical mutation of the trunk.^[44]

Irreducible concepts [edit]

Two irreducible concepts encountered in substance theory are the bare particular and inherence.

Bare particular [edit]

In substance theory, a blank item of an object is the element without which the object would not be, that is, its substance, which exists independently from its backdrop, even if it is impossible for it to lack properties entirely. Information technology is "bare" because information technology is considered without its properties and "particular" because it is not abstract. The properties that the substance has are said to inhere in the substance.

Inherence [edit]

Some other primitive concept in substance theory is the inherence of properties within a substance. For example, in the judgement, "The apple is blood-red" substance theory says that red inheres in the apple. Substance theory takes the meaning of an apple having the property of redness to exist understood, and likewise that of a belongings'southward inherence in substance, which is similar to, just non identical with, existence part of the substance.

The changed relation is participation. Thus in the example to a higher place, just every bit red inheres in the apple, so the apple participates in crimson.

Arguments supporting the theory [edit]

2 common arguments supporting substance theory are the argument from grammer and the argument from formulation.

Argument from grammar [edit]

The statement from grammar uses traditional grammar to back up substance theory. For example, the sentence "Snow is white" contains a grammatical subject field "snow" and the predicate "is white", thereby asserting snow is white. The argument holds that information technology makes no grammatical sense to speak of "whiteness" disembodied, without asserting that snow or something else is white. Meaningful assertions are formed by virtue of a grammatical field of study, of which backdrop may exist predicated, and in substance theory, such assertions are made with regard to a substance.

Bundle theory rejects the argument from grammer on the basis that a grammatical bailiwick does not necessarily refer to a metaphysical discipline. Packet theory, for instance, maintains that the grammatical bailiwick of a statement refers to its properties. For example, a package theorist understands the grammatical subject of the sentence, "Snow is white", to be a bundle of properties such as white. Accordingly, i tin brand meaningful statements about bodies without referring to substances.

Argument from conception [edit]

Another argument for the substance theory is the argument from conception. The argument claims that in club to conceive of an object's properties, like the redness of an apple, one must conceive of the object that has those properties. According to the argument, i cannot conceive of redness, or any other belongings, distinct from the substance that has that property.

Criticism [edit]

The thought of substance was famously critiqued by David Hume,^[45] who held that since substance cannot be perceived, it should not be assumed to exist.^[46]

Friedrich Nietzsche, and after him Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze also rejected the notion of "substance", and in the same motility the concept of subject - seeing both concepts as holdovers from Platonic idealism. For this reason, Althusser'southward "anti-humanism" and Foucault's statements were criticized, by Jürgen Habermas and others, for misunderstanding that this led to a fatalist conception of social determinism. For Habermas, but a subjective form of liberty could be conceived, to the contrary of Deleuze who talks near "a life", equally an impersonal and immanent form of liberty.

For Heidegger, Descartes ways by "substance" that by which "we can understand nothing else than an entity which is in such a fashion that it need no other entity in order to be." Therefore, only God is a substance as Ens perfectissimus (virtually perfect existence). Heidegger showed the inextricable relationship between the concept of substance and of subject field, which explains why, instead of talking virtually "human" or "humankind", he speaks about the Dasein, which is not a unproblematic subject field, nor a substance.^[47]

Alfred North Whitehead has argued that the concept of substance has only a express applicability in everyday life and that metaphysics should rely upon the concept of process.^[48]

Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, as role of his critique of transubstantiation, rejected substance theory and instead proposed the doctrine of transfinalization, which he felt was more attuned to modern philosophy. Withal, this doctrine was rejected past Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium fidei.

Bundle theory [edit]

In directly opposition to substance theory is bundle theory, whose nearly basic premise is that all concrete particulars are merely constructions or 'bundles' of attributes or qualitative backdrop:

Necessarily, for whatever physical entity, ${\displaystyle a}$ , if for any entity, ${\displaystyle b}$ , ${\displaystyle b}$ is a constituent of ${\displaystyle a}$ , and so ${\displaystyle b}$ is an attribute.^[49]

The parcel theorist's principal objections to substance theory business organization the blank particulars of a substance, which substance theory considers independently of the substance's backdrop. The packet theorist objects to the notion of a thing with no properties, claiming that such a thing is inconceivable and citing John Locke, who described a substance as "a something, I know not what." To the bundle theorist, as soon every bit one has any notion of a substance in mind, a property accompanies that notion.

Identity of indiscernibles counterargument [edit]

The indiscernibility argument from the substance theorist targets those bundle theorists who are also metaphysical realists. Metaphysical realism uses the identity of universals to compare and identify particulars. Substance theorists say that packet theory is incompatible with metaphysical realism due to the identity of indiscernibles: particulars may differ from i some other only with respect to their attributes or relations.

The substance theorist's indiscernibility argument against the metaphysically realistic bundle theorist states that numerically different concrete particulars are discernible from the self-same concrete particular only past virtue of qualitatively different attributes.

Necessarily, for any complex objects, ${\displaystyle a}$ and ${\displaystyle b}$ , if for any entity, ${\displaystyle c}$ , ${\displaystyle c}$ is a constituent of ${\displaystyle a}$ if and simply if ${\displaystyle c}$ is a constituent of ${\displaystyle b}$ , and then ${\displaystyle a}$ is numerically identical with ${\displaystyle b}$ .^[49]

The indiscernibility argument points out that if bundle theory and discernible concrete particulars theory explicate the relationship between attributes, then the identity of indiscernibles theory must besides exist true:

Necessarily, for any concrete objects, ${\displaystyle a}$ and ${\displaystyle b}$ , if for any attribute, Φ, Φ is an attribute of ${\displaystyle a}$ if and but if Φ is an aspect of ${\displaystyle b}$ , then ${\displaystyle a}$ is numerically identical with ${\displaystyle b}$ .^[49]

The indiscernibles argument and so asserts that the identity of indiscernibles is violated, for case, by identical sheets of paper. All of their qualitative properties are the same (e.thou. white, rectangular, nine x 11 inches...) and thus, the argument claims, bundle theory and metaphysical realism cannot both exist correct.

Nonetheless, bundle theory combined with trope theory (as opposed to metaphysical realism) avoids the indiscernibles statement considering each attribute is a trope if tin simply exist held past only i concrete particular.

The argument does non consider whether "position" should be considered an attribute or relation. It is after all through the differing positions that we in exercise differentiate between otherwise identical pieces of newspaper.

Encounter likewise [edit]

• History of chemistry
• History of molecular theory
• Hypokeimenon
• Inherence
• Materialism
• Sortal
• Transcendentals

References [edit]

1. ^ Benovsky, Jiri (2008). "The Bundle Theory and the Substratum Theory: Deadly Enemies or Twin Brothers?". Philosophical Studies. 141 (2): 175–190. doi:ten.1007/s11098-007-9158-0. S2CID 18712931.
2. ^ Rae Langton (2001). Kantian humility: our ignorance of things in themselves. Oxford University Press. p. 28. ISBN0-nineteen-924317-four.
3. ^ ^{a b} Kim, Jaegwon; Sosa, Ernest; Rosenkrantz, Gary S. "substance". A Companion to Metaphysics. Wiley-Blackwell.
4. ^ ^{a b} Borchert, Donald (2006). "Ontology". Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, second Edition. Macmillan.
5. ^ Orilia, Francesco; Paolini Paoletti, Michele (2020). "Properties". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
6. ^ Ackrill, J.L. (1988). A New Aristotle Reader. Princeton University Press. p. 7. ISBN9781400835829.
7. ^ Studtmann, Paul (January 9, 2018). Zalta, Edward North. (ed.). Aristotle'due south Categories. Metaphysics Enquiry Lab, Stanford Academy – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
8. ^ Beckwith, Christopher I. (2015). Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early on Buddhism in Central Asia (PDF). Princeton University Press. pp. 22–23. ISBN9781400866328.
9. ^ LEWIS, ERIC (1988). "DIOGENES LAERTIUS AND THE STOIC THEORY OF MIXTURE". Bulletin of the Found of Classical Studies (35): 84–xc – via JSTOR.
10. ^ Robertson, David G. (1998). "Stoic and Aristotelian Notions of Substance in Basil of Caesarea". Vigiliae Christianae. 52 (4): 393–417. doi:10.2307/1584833 – via JSTOR.
11. ^ Neoplatonism (Ancient Philosophies) by Pauliina Remes (2008), University of California Press ISBN 0520258347, pages 48–52.
12. ^ Clemens Alexandrinus, ''Stromata'', Eight, 6; IV, 32; VI, 6
13. ^ Tertulianus adversus Marcionem, lib. Iv, 9, vii.
14. ^ Thomas Aquinas (1997). "V". De ente et essentia. Translated by Robert T. Miller.
15. ^ Thomas Aquinas, ''De ente et essentia'', VI; ''Summa Theologica'', q.29, a.1
16. ^ The Collection of Continued Discourses (Saṁyutta Nikāya), Translated from the Pāli by Bikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publications, [2000]. Office one, 525–526; Role 2, 61 (i). ISBN 0-86171-168-viii
17. ^ Aṅguttara Nikāya (The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha). A complete translation past Bhikkhu Bodhi. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2012, 3, 137
18. ^ Stcherbatsky Thursday. The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Significant of the Word "Dharma". London: Majestic Asiatic Order, 1923, p. 12
19. ^ L'Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu. Traduit et annoté par Louis de la Vallée Poussin. Tome I. Paris: Paul Geithner, 1923, p. 179–191
20. ^ The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (Majjhima Nikāya). Translated by Bhikkhu Nāṇamoli, Boston (MA): Wisdom Publications, 1995, Part 1, 22 (25)
21. ^ Aṅguttara Nikāya, Half dozen, 63 (5); Iii, 36 (1)
22. ^ The Book of Discipline (Vinaya-Pitaka). Vol. Ii (Sutta-Vibhanga). Translated by I. B. Horner. London: Luzac, 1957, passim
23. ^ ^{a b} Millican, Peter (2015). "Locke on Substance and Our Ideas of Substances". In Paul Guild; Tom Stoneham (eds.). Locke and Leibniz on Substance. Routledge. pp. 8–27.
24. ^ ^{a b} Jones, January-Erik. "Locke on Real Essence". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
25. ^ ^{a b} Dunn, John (2003). Locke: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Academy Press.
26. ^ Jones, Jan-Erik (July 2016). "Locke On Real Essence". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
27. ^ Atherton, Margaret (1999). The Empiricists: Critical Essays on Locke, Berkely, and Hume. Rowman and Littlefield.
28. ^ Locke, John (1959). An Essay Concerning Human Agreement. Dover Publications.
29. ^ Garret, Jan (February 27, 2004). "A Lockean Glossary". A Lockean Glossary.
30. ^ ^{a b} Sheridan, P. (2010). Locke: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum. pp. 34, 38.
31. ^ John Locke (August 2007) [1690]. "Volume II, chapter 8, paragraph 9" (PDF). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Translated by Jonathan Bennett.
32. ^ ^{a b} Stumpf, S. E. (1999). Socrates to Sartre: a history of philosophy. Boston, MA: McGraw-Loma. p. 260.
33. ^ ^{a b} John Locke (August 2007) [1690]. "Book Ii, chapter viii, paragraph ten" (PDF). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Translated past Jonathan Bennett.
34. ^ Constantin, Ion (2012). "Philosophy of substance: a historical perspective". Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations. 11: 135–140. ProQuest 1030745650.
35. ^ ^{a b c} John Locke (August 2007) [1690]. "Book II, chapter 23, paragraph 2" (PDF). An Essay Concerning Human being Understanding. Translated by Jonathan Bennett.
36. ^ Kant. Immanuel. ''Critique of Pure Reason'', ed. Paul Guyer, Allen Woods. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge (UK), New York, Melbourne, 1998, p.422-425. ISBN 0-521-35402-1
37. ^ Seth, Anil Grand. ''The hard problem of consciousness is a lark from the real one.'' Retrieved fourteen.01.2017 from https://aeon.co/essays/the-difficult-problem-of-consciousness-is-a-distraction-from-the-real one
38. ^ Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated past Hazel E. Barnes. Routledge: London, [1996], p. XXVI-XXXII. ISBN 0-415-04029-9
39. ^ Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The Blue and Dark-brown Books. Blackwell: [Oxford], [1958], p. 67. ISBN 0-631-14660-1
40. ^ Strawson P. Individuals. Methuen: London., 1959, p.98-103
41. ^ Wisdo, David (28 July 2017). "The Self: Kierkegaard and Buddhism in Dialogue". Comparative Philosophy. 8 (2). doi:x.31979/2151-6014(2017).080209.
42. ^ Ayer A.J. Language, Truth and Logic. Penguin Books: [due south.fifty.], 1946, p. 166-168
43. ^ Gallagher, Shaun and Zahavi, Dan, "Phenomenological Approaches in Self-Consciousness", ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Winter 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL= https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/cocky-consciousness-phenomenological/
44. ^ Quinton, Anthony (1962). "The Soul". The Journal of Philosophy. 59 (15): 393–409. doi:10.2307/2022957. JSTOR 2022957.
45. ^ Hockney, Mike (2015). The Forbidden History of Science. Hyperreality Books.
46. ^ Robinson, Howard, "Substance", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition), Edward Due north. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/athenaeum/spr2020/entries/substance/>
47. ^ A. Kadir Cucen (2002-01-18). "Heidegger's Critique of Descartes' Metaphysics" (PDF). Uludag University. Retrieved 2011-12-28 .
48. ^ See, e.grand., Ronny Desmet and Michel Weber (edited by), Whitehead. The Algebra of Metaphysics. Applied Process Metaphysics Summer Institute Memorandum, Louvain-la-Neuve, Éditions Chromatika, 2010 (ISBN 978-2-930517-08-7).
49. ^ ^{a b c} Loux, M.J. (2002). Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge Gimmicky Introductions to Philosophy Series. Taylor & Francis. pp. 106–107, 110. ISBN9780415140348. LCCN 97011036.

External links [edit]

• Robinson, Howard. "Substance". In Zalta, Edward Northward. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Robinson, Tad. "17th Century Theories of Substance". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Friesian School on Substance and Essence

ferrisvemook82.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Share this post