This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eekirk.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Quality is the substance that makes an object/entity what it is. A quality is inherent, a property is relative. A quality is typical of the whole, a property is typical of a part.
Property is relative. Quality is absolute. An object can survive without some properties, but not without its quality.
A property is comon in all members of a class. Properties are of two kinds. Group 1 property shows the limits (contains constraints). If they disappear, the object itself disappears.
They are substantial (not substance) properties. The constraints here are not the same as the specifics of an object, though.
Group 2 properties are simple properties. They do not delimit objects. It is the quality that makes a difference among objects.
The number of qualities of an object is endless.
A particular quality may be the property of different objects, and vice versa.
A quality itself is a propetry, it is relative as any other property, i.e. it does not depend on the object that it is a quality of, but on other objects associated with that object.
Or: what is a quality for one object is a property only for another. (Example: an ability to do something – with an amateur and a professional).
A quality is not complete specifics. Therefore we have a separate sense for it (quality). If two substantial properties make up a quality, then combined, they are again a substantial property. The complete set of qualities is what you call the specifics.
Apogr 20:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is meant by concrete objects being "numerically different" (or equal), if they are not numbers? (Indeed, a number is abstract, not concrete.) See "The bundle theory" section and later. Does it means something like its "state" (like a card or computer word whose physical state may be interpretted as the reification of some (abstract) value, e.g. a number, and, in any case, can be compared with that of another object that is of the same type)? But then, would not the symbols on the card or bits in the word be mere properties of the object? John Newbury 2005-07-30
There are very few names given in the article - who are the current (20thC+) proponents of substance theory - and do their ideas converge? Who are the current opponents to substance theory, and are all of them proponents of bundle theory? To me the article appears to dichotomise all thinkers into bundlists and substantists - is that fair or correct? (excuse the neologisms) ( 20040302 00:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC))
Could someone who understands this stuff take a look at Accident (philosophy)? Is the term accident used in substance theory, and is it used differently than in modern theories about essence? I'm coming at this issue from transubstantiation. The explanation of accidents on Wikipedia doesn't seem to exactly correspond to the usage of this term in the transubstantiation doctrine. This causes unnecessary confusion.-- Srleffler 01:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone wrote that for Spinoza, substance meant "what stands under". Actually, Heidegger showed that the concept of " subject" came from the Greek "Hypokeimenon", which meant "what stands under". Henceforth, Heidegger demonstrated that any criticism of the substance, as in Nietzsche's philosophy, was necesarily a criticism of the subject (i.e. something like a historical subject can't exist, it is an oxymoron). In other words: the subject was thought by classic philosophy as the core of a "personality", i.e. the substance of personality. Any criticism of permanency is therefore a criticism on the unity of the subject. Henceforth, it may be a good idea to generalize Spinoza's understanding of substance, as it is the real signification of substance - backing it with Heidegger's etymology (this last being important, as Heidegger also loved obscure etymologies...). Lapaz 03:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you have good information to add to this article, Lapaz. Please be bold and improve the article's explanation of Spinoza's understanding and add Heidegger's etymology and criticism. (And, if possible, cite Heidegger and Spinoza.) The Rod 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
"what stands under" may be "understood" as "understanding", and that may be all that "substance" really is. [(User: Anders|Anders)] 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 66.188.14.121 ( talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering, what does 'ens perfectissimus' mean? DonkeyKong the mathematician (in training) 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
why the masculine termination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.148.245 ( talk) 10:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't make any sense of the following.
For this reason, Althusser's "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, only a subjective form of liberty could be conceived, to the contrary of Deleuze who talks about "a life", as an impersonal and immanent form of liberty.
What has the existence or otherwise of "stuff" got to do with "social determinism"? 1Z 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a section on the Argument from Change and Endurance. 1Z 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
MOOSE
Everyone has a (different)definition for Quality.
If American cars have so much Quality built into them as the big 3 advertise , than why do they lose so much money. Quality is in the eyes of the customer, perception is everything. Even though these cars are made to high standards and are made with ' quality components ' they are not perceived as a Quality product as compared to other cars , which are made , basically, to the same standards.
I work in a sector where our products are perceived to be better than our American competitors products and maybe the best in the world.
Even though in some ways our products are indeed inferior to some competitors models and more expensive , but made to the same DOT-Dept of Transportation- standards.
Customers are the highest boss and will always be , if they are taken care of - Quality-wise.
6 sigma head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.38.225.2 ( talk) 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
not to be picky, but 8 1/2 by 11. nora 15:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)icountyoureyelashes
I've heard of the term anti-substantialism being applied when talking about opposition to substance theory. Perhaps this term could be mentioned if adequate sources were gfound. [1] ADM ( talk) 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Fantastic! You responded this time. The link you posted has a constructivist -- Pragmatist-- approach if you will. As for anti-substance it is always down the rabbit hole of Reductio ad absurdum. You must be Greek (actually Christian, Greek in the East means Pagan) about it. A more Pragmatic way in lose conformaty to your link you posted would be that Particle physicists are "pro Substance theory" where those in opposition as part of the Wave tradition of Quantum physics would be more inclined to be anti- or absences of substance theorists (saying that that way is so general though it is almost a misnomor). It will however get you to the city but not the house your looking for. I say theorist to mean one must have knowledge created, validated by experience. That experience can be external or internal. A priori - A posteriori. I (and for that matter Dostoevsky too) am not existentialist because knowledge is a component of substance. It is sentient. The Christian God in Father is uncreated in essence but sentient in hypostasis, where as the Platonic One or Monad is a force without form a non-sentient uncreated motion that is good but without mind or consciousness. Plotinus' One or source as metaphysic (or more correctly) Ontology is an indeteminate infinite vitality. It is the One the Monad that is the essence or substance of all things. God to Plotinus is a second manifestation of the source the force without form (power without sentitence). Therefore man has instinctual knowledge that also directs and shapes or influences (if you will) their essence (substance). Meaning it is of a changing or dynamic character. The issue here for science is, is consciousness a substance? Is the nous a substance? IS it a particle or is it a wave. If physics are true what can account for electron clusters? It goes back to Godel. Noesis is the scope of conscious activites. Pure consciousness with no distortion. Pure nous. Again the nous made of a substance. What is mankinds organic connection to the objective world. LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you take some caffeine, are you hyper-active today ? You should also consult a dictionary, to make sure that your English doesn't get mixed in with some of that Russian. ADM ( talk) 13:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean that as an offense, I just thought that from a purely grammatical point of view, it is difficult to follow what you are saying. ADM ( talk) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
LoveMonkey (
talk) 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
N.O. Lossky took the Nominal and Nietzchian (yes the pseudo history creator himself Mr N is Senior~
Duplicity) position of relativism and refutes it using the standard dialectial method. His apology is called Value and existence. It is also a position of sobornost to the German culture and philosophy while explicity rejecting Nietzche. Or as Dostoevsky might say Everything is Good and nothingness is dead.
[5]
LoveMonkey (
talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the following example a useful contribution as a subsection for the article: Substance theory?
Objections have been raised regarding a subsection intended to show that substance theory, that is, the proposition that a substance is distinct from its properties, plays a role in today's physical sciences. The subsection is provided at this link. Please comment upon its suitability and, if possible, provide suggestions for its improvement. Brews ohare ( talk) 04:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
"Amount of substance is defined to be proportional to the number of specified elementary entities in a sample, the proportionality constant being a universal constant which is the same for all samples. The unit of amount of substance is called the mole, symbol mol, and the mole is defined by specifying the mass of carbon 12 that constitutes one mole of carbon 12 atoms. By international agreement this was fixed at 0.012 kg, i.e. 12 g.
- 1. The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12; its symbol is "mol".
- 2. When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of such particles."
Please add your comments below with a leading asterisk *
It is disturbing that the introduction of this article links to Ousia, which article begins by apparently stating the usage here in Substance theory is incorrect: “Ousia is often translated (sometimes incorrectly) to Latin as substantia and essentia, and to English as substance and essence” It is arguable that the introduction of the word ousia in the introduction to this article is an unfortunate injection of theology into the subject before the subject has gotten properly laid out. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
This distraction is continued in the introduction by raising the topic of Substantialism, a subject better left to a later subsection. See this discussion. Brews ohare ( talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems worth asking. There is also an article called Accident (philosophy).-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Add ousia to the list of what appear to be over-lapping articles. Can someone give any good reason not to merge them?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The section entitled "The concept of substance in Western philosophy" contains the following words: "Essentially, matter does not disappear, it only changes form." This implies that the essence of substance is matter, that is, substance is matter. This may be true but is usually kept secret and unspoken. "Matter" is a physical concept. "Substance," on the other hand, is a metaphysical concept. Lestrade ( talk) 19:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
1. It is not immediately clear how what appears to be skepticism in the domain of ethics bears on metaphysics——even if, say, the world is first structured ethically. 2. If rejection is a dogmatic negation, skepticism does not appear to entail rejection. But the article presently says that early Pyrrhonism rejects substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4100:54E0:7868:28BA:9DF3:FCC1 ( talk) 12:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ciao fellow Wikipedians: From a philosophical perspective, there can be no doubt that the concept of "substance" is certainly substantial in nature!! (Sorry, I could not resist the pun). I have added a reference and links to the philosopher Colin Murray Turbayne and his work on the use and abuse of metaphor as it relates to the development of modern epistemology within the Western world. I hope that this does not "muddy the waters" and helps readers to view "substance" in a whole "new light". As always, it was a pleasure to lend some small assistance to such a thought provoking discussion. Best of luck-- Ciao 160.72.80.178 ( talk) 17:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)NHPL