Substance and Accidents (Aquinas 101)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 окт 2019
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
The world is not a place of static individuals, but of active realities.
Thomas Aquinas thought that all of reality could be classified according to the distinction between substance and accident. For Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, substances are not inert or static entities. Whatever exists is active, and the more being a thing has, the more active it is.
Substance and Accidents (Aquinas 101) - Fr. James Brent, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
ruclips.net/user/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic
So difficult to clarify substance vs. accidents, and also go into details, in just about 4 minutes, but Fr. James Brent does that brilliantly! Thank you!
You are very skilled in the way of saying the thing that is magnificent. Thanks be to God!
This was excellent Father. It was great seeing you in DC last week, God bless. Hope to see you again next year.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:26 🧪 In philosophical usage, a substance refers to a particular existing thing or the substantial form of that thing, not just any material.
01:19 🔄 Accidents are the features or traits of substances, such as weight, color, or actions, and they only exist within substances.
02:15 💡 Substances are not inert; they are active entities. The more being a thing has, the more active it is.
03:31 🔢 Aristotle identified nine kinds of accidents in things, and together with substances, they form the 10 categories that classify all finite beings.
Made with HARPA AI
Thank-you. This is the most clear explanation I have yet heard.
🙏🏼✝️God bless your work.
It's our pleasure. Please pray for our work.
Thank so much. Please pray for our work!
Thank you Fr Brent! God bless you.
This one was so much needed
Goodness,that was fascinating. Having been told about the Eucharist, I thought I knew about this, but this was a revelation. Thank you.
Cheers!
Awesome 👌 Bless you, Friars!
Thanks for the explanation father. God bless you!
This is an excellent (and very concise) explanation. It seems to me that understanding substance and accident is fundamental not only to understanding reality (being used loosely here) but also the study of argumentation as well. I believe this is why this distinction is so challenging to understand in addition to the equivocation of the terms substance and accident with their use by St Thomas versus our contemporary everyday use. The more I study Aristotle and St Thomas (mainly his commentary on Aristotle), the more I sincerely struggle with Plato’s theory of Form (ειδος). I am not completely persuaded that Aristotle’s refutation of Plato’s forms is conclusive. I agree with his arguments (mostly) and with St Thomas’ penetrating commentary here, but I am still struggling with the term ‘participates’ as used by Plato and as further scrutinized by Aristotle in the beginning of the Metaphysics.
Anyways, thank you again and apologies in advance for my prolixity.
CVery //clearly explained. Thank you.
Wonderful explanation God Bless
Thank you. Keep us in your prayers!
Boa explicação. Vim pelo curso de Filosofia da Academia Atlântico, no Brasil. Mais alguém?
Estamos aqui! A matéria da Filosofia da Natureza me trouxe pra cá.
I've been eating too much substances and my accidents are getting bigger! :) Great work guys!
Hilarious!
Brilliant! Aquinas and Aristotle were genius.
We agree!
Love it
hola me ha encantado este vídeo y me sirve para hablar del tema en la universidad Tomasina y para mi futuro en vida vocacional que estoy partiendo
que fuera en español mejor o suptitulos en español .
saludos desde Colombia D.C. gracias.
Here is a philosophical critique of the video on substance and accidents:
The video presents the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of substance and accidents as fundamental ontological categories. However, this perspective can be challenged on philosophical grounds.
First, the notion of substances corresponding to essences with fixed necessary properties is disputed by views of objects and concepts as bundles of properties without an underlying core essence. Hume and later bundle theorists argue we only directly experience qualities, not substance.
Second, the stark division between unchanging substance and variable accidents seems questionable given modern scientific knowledge of the dynamics and transmutations underlying matter and energy. Alternative philosophies like process philosophy argue for a worldview of change and complexity over static things and fixed properties.
Third, the view of accidents as needing substances seems to rely on substance having some logically prior metaphysical status. But one could question whether substances really are fundamental and accidents merely derivative. A regularity or powers theory of properties may avoid ontological hierarchies.
Overall, while the substance-accident framework has a long intellectual history, philosophical critiques can be raised from perspectives like empiricism, science, and metaphysical alternatives that avoid positing fixed essences, sharp substance-property dualisms, or hierarchical ontologies. The debate continues, but challenging key assumptions opens space for divergent ontologies.
‘Accident’ means (1) that which attaches to something and can be truly asserted, but neither of necessity nor usually, e.g. if some one in digging a hole for a plant has found treasure. This-the finding of treasure-is for the man who dug the hole an accident; for neither does the one come of necessity from the other or after the other, nor, if a man plants, does he usually find treasure. And a musical man might be pale; but since this does not happen of necessity nor usually, we call it an accident. Therefore since there are attributes and they attach to subjects, and some of them attach to these only in a particular place and at a particular time, whatever attaches to a subject, but not because it was this subject, or the time this time, or the place this place, will be an accident. Therefore, too, there is no definite cause for an accident, but a chance cause, i.e. an indefinite one..."
Aristotle. Metaphysics (Kindle Locations 1641-1647). Global Grey ebooks. Kindle Edition.
Great video! When a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, is that a substantial or accidental change?
Every finite being belongs to one of the categories. One or more ? Or one only? If I have a passion for baseball am I not in time as well ? I flounder on concepts, always have difficulty. Excellent discourse Father thank you !
Had these fellows both statics and dynamics?
Question: in the metaphysics of Aquinas, would you say that some part of a human being, e.g. the hands, have a substance? Or are they just parts of the substance of a human?
And in the other direction, in the world of large scale "things", such as armies or economies or ecosystems: would you say those have substances? And how would you express their relation to their constituent humans/organisms?
That risks replacing Aristotelean science with modern science. Not considered on this channel. But as implied by your questions and by moderns science,- there is an interwoven hierarchy of substantial unities across the whole cosmos.
I would suggest yes and no. The human hand and it’s capability is unique to the human species (nature), which is substance. But if a hand is injured, deformed or cut off, it is an accidental quality and does not discount the substance of the human person.
Thank you, may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
How does this differ from Form Matter distinction?
Matter is the same as substance, form, substantial form, substantian essence, essence.
The substance/accident distinction is a species of matter/form distinction. A substance is "second matter"; an accident is an "accidental form". In substances there is a distinction between "prime matter" (that out of which the substance is made) and "substantial form" (that which makes the prime matter this substance).
@@legron121 helped me, thx.
Decided to dive into thomism
TO GOD BE OUR SHIELD...
So many different substances and substrata too. Composites, individual, substance prime substance. Whew
Thank you. Great stuff well explained. Only the camera angle change not necessary. Disturbing for me.
Thanks for your feedback, and for taking the time to watch and comment! May the Lord bless you!
what is the difference between the position accident and place accident?
*Position* (or "posture") refers to the way the parts of a thing are ordered in a given place, e.g., to be "sitting", "standing", ect. *Place* is the location of a thing in a spatial manifold, e.g., “in the garden”.
@@legron121 You explained it very well, thanks.
I have a hard time understanding Aquinas lol
Aren't the words "substance" and "essence" referring to different things? As I've understood it (having no formal training in metaphysics), a substance is the physical material that comprises an object, whereas an essence is what makes something _what it is._ So, an essential change is something that changes the essence of an object, whereas an accidental change is something that changes an attribute of an object but does not essentially change the object. An example of an accidental change would be plucking the bark off a tree limb; the tree limb lost its bark, but it's still fundamentally a tree limb. An example of an essential change would be burning a tree limb in a fire; the substance and essence of the limb has been fundamentally altered and is now something else. Am I wrong about this? Am I using the scientific definitions of the terms, rather than the metaphysical/philosophical definitions?
You can claim that the intrinsic dynamism of all physical things discovered by modern science is handled by the concept of "Act" in Aristotelean philosophy of ancient science, but the defining Form was still clear-cut, static and only secondarily relational - which latter as you note is just an accidental category. In fact modern science has shown that what Aristotle saw as substantial formality is, in the objects of the senses, just as fundamentally and existentially relational as his "accidents".
why "actions" is both accident and substance?
If the form of Fido is both a substance and an essence, then what is the difference between substance and essence?
The form of Fido is not the complete substance or the essence of Fido. It is the matter/form composite that is the substance and essence of Fido.
@@legron121 Hi, you seem to master the concepts.
I'm having trouble discussing with a miaphysite christian at understanding what is the principle creating individualized persons who share the same nature. My intuition is that nature preexists as a form before individuals receive their accidents as a matter, but on the one hand, this contradicts what we see in Christ, where the person (hypostasis) was eternal before uniting itself with the human nature in time, and on the other hand, accidents cannot technically exist in God (at least not in the divine nature) and the hypostasis of the Son is supposed to be perfect and unchanging, how is it then that the Son of God united the accidents of human nature to his hypostasis, such as brown hair, a certain eye color, a certain height, etc... ?
My understanding of the Incarnation of Christ, therefore, works as Russian dolls: Christ is one substance containing one hypostasis, which contains the 2 natures.
But more problems arise. How did the hypostasis of the Son of God (unchanging) united itself with the human nature: If we affirm this as an addiction of the human nature thereby subsisting in the hypostasis, as it is my understanding, then it seems to mean that the hypostasis changed, and if we affirm that the human nature united itself 'sidely' to the hypostasis, then it almost means we affirm 2 persons in the being of Christ - the human Christ in his incarnation and the Son of God existing eternally - which is the Nestorian heresy.
Note: my terminology overall may not be correct, as nature, for example, should always be a form (not individualized), but then, how do accidents relate to nature, where do they come from, and where do they subsist - this video says they are in substance, but what does this mean in the case of Christ ?
So, in that line of thinking, is substance equal to the sum of essential properties of an object? If so, what's the purpose of using a different term such as substance instead of just saying essence? Is essence = substance? If not, then what the hell is a substance? If so, why are we using the term substance? God, I have so many questions...
Get any good explanations yet? To me "substance" seems really similar to essence. Maybe it's, as you say the essence of all the properties that are essential to the composite thing, which in combination become a substance?
@@godfreydebouillon8807 Yes, I have learned a lot about the issue and read all the relevant entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. I will explain the difference and philosophical and historical background but now I am a little bit busy, I will return to this comment.
@@Kolektifcs You're awesome, thanks!
@@godfreydebouillon8807 English is not my first language, but I will try my best. First, by substance, we might mean two things in philosophy. 1) Substance as a fundamental reality or fundamental particles of reality, such as atoms (as in atomism in ancient Greek). In this sense, substance means the basic block of existence. In the second sense, and more important for us, is the particulars. First, in history, Aristotle was the one who used the term substance. According to him, a substance, or a primary substance is what there is: a cat in front of me, you, that tree, the car, etc, everything, every individual. Aristotle says that a substance is something that cannot be predicated of something. For instance, the property of being tall can be a predicate for you. But you, your individuality (not in the sense of human individuality) cannot be a predicate of something. You cannot be the property of something, you are the property-bearer. Here comes the most philosophically important part.
Now think of a cat. A cat is composed of many properties, right? Now, one by one get rid of the cat's properties. All of them, at the end. What remains? If you say nothing, then this question arises: If we get rid of all the properties of a cat and nothing remains, then what on earth are these properties attached to? There must be something that all these properties are attached to, right? That thing, that propertyless thing is called substance or after John Locke, it got a new name: Substratum. Some philosophers such as David Hume say that the idea of a propertyless substratum or substance is bs. Things or substances (as in Aristotle's sense) or particulars are composed only of properties, they are a collection of properties, this is called trope theory. So trope theory and substratum theory are two rival theories in metaphysics.
Essence, on the other hand, is the sum of all of your essential properties. Again, these are, no matter whether they are essential properties, properties. So, an opponent of substratum theory would claim that the substance of you bears your essence and your accidental properties. So your essence is what you are. But what you are is a bunch of properties. If you support some kind of substratum theory, you'd claim that your substance bears your properties including your essence or sum of all of your essential properties.
How social beings have substance and accidents? #AskAFriar
If accidents are always part of a substance, how can the accidents of the bread remain in the eucharist after transubstantiation has taken place and the substance of bread has been removed and replaced by the substance of Christ?
By the divine power, which is able to elevate things beyond their natural capacities.
fumbo la imani
So names of things are accidents? Things are not their name?
Way too deep for me. Wowsers
"We call ‘substance’ (1) the simple bodies, i.e. earth and fire and water and everything of the sort, and in general bodies and the things composed of them, both animals and divine beings, and the parts of these. All these are called substance because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them.-(2) That which, being present in such things as are not predicated of a subject, is the cause of their being, as the soul is of the being of an animal.-(3) The parts which are present in such things, limiting them and marking them as individuals, and by whose destruction the whole is destroyed, as the body is by the destruction of the plane, as some say, and the plane by the destruction of the line; and in general number is thought by some to be of this nature; for if it is destroyed, they say, nothing exists, and it limits all things.-(4) The essence, the formula of which is a definition, is also called the substance of each thing. It follows, then, that ‘substance’ has two senses, (A) ultimate substratum, which is no longer predicated of anything else, and (B) that which, being a ‘this’, is also separable and of this nature is the shape or form of each thing."
Aristotle. Metaphysics (Kindle Locations 1339-1347). Global Grey ebooks. Kindle Edition.
How can we participate in God's being without coming to Panentheism?
I'm pretty sure panentheism is the correct classical theistic view of God. Humans don't exist independently of God, because existence isn't a part of our nature. We're being sustained in existence by God
@@markwisler9846 yeah but to say that some part of our substance/existence something other than God doesn’t seem meaningful if we cease to exist when God isn’t sustaining us.
But Aquinas maintains creation Ex Nihilo
Substance and accidents from Greek Platonism and metaphysics. Nothing New if you check out the history if Ideas
So Thomas Aquinas figured out through Philosophy the truth that the apostles who knew Jesus directly didn't know.
Colossians 2:8 (NLT)
Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.
Explication is not innovation. St. Thomas explicated using philosophical tools which had nothing to do with the false philosophies St. Paul admonished the Colossians to avoid. St. Thomas neither added anything to the deposit of faith, nor try to.
These metaphysical categories may have cut the mustard for Aristotle and even philosophers up to the European Renaissance but have been definitely superceded since the dawn of the Enlightenment. They are assumed and used in a quasi-scientific way but I'm afraid have little currency with thinking people of today.
Understood. But did the enlightenment’s departure from Greek thought usher in a reductionist ideology that led to Marxism? We’ve seen the impact of that.
That's why the enlightenment sucked (except for economics of course)
The substance of life is in participation with GOD , therefore human life is sacred
The catholic church is too much based on Aristoteles
You're just complaining -with no nexus at all- that the Church is not senseless to arbitrarily ignore an enormous amount of perennial reason just because it came from Aristotle.
Are we the accidents of God ? :-)
No. We are the effects of God, who has no accidents.
yo im kinda scared
is this a cult?
No lol
A very large one
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr and the best one!
@@garrettpeters6175 I don't think any cult is good. Following the bible is best.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr Who compiled, codified and gave us the Bible as we know it today? Who decided which books, letters and gospels would belong to the official canon of the New Testament?
Substance Ontology is nonsense.
@Sam Lowry It's unfortunate that although you seem to have an excellent grasp of this topic, you are not willing to enlighten those of us who don't without resorting to rude smugness. Not very becoming--hopefully you're not a teacher.
This is where they get the wrong doctrine of transubstantiation
This is not by God . Quit listening to man . Read your bible and listen to the real word of God
so, mike, faith is supported by reason, which the Dominicans are expressing; this is not contrary to Scripture, but rather a rational support for Scripture; think of it this way -- would you say "don't believe anything you learn in science class" since it's not in the Bible? Of course not. These are metaphysical truths that you ought not reject. Peace be with you. Btw, the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret the Bible, since the Catholic Church (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) authoritatively decided which books belong in the Bible.
@@angelicdoctor8016 Colossians 2:8
Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.