I appreciate the compliment. This video is in a series; so, if you follow the playlist, I address this question in more detail. I will say this: since substance is a composite of form and matter, if form were a substance, it would be a composite of form and matter. Is that possible? Thank you for watching and spread the word.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy ahh philosophy. Where questions bring more questions haha. It may be possible, maybe not. It depends on the definition/predicates of “form”. My mind is blown. I will keep watching 😄
@@fluffysox6072 You are right that it depends on the definition of “Form”. Does Aristotle’s Definition of “Form” allow for a form to be a matter/form composite?
If you are talking about Aristotle, he did contribute greatly to our current understanding of reality. If you are talking about me, I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Thanks for the video.The word 'green'. Humans use this sound 'green' because it works in comminicating with other people. Its the sound of an experience we have. Its just the same as saying 'ow' when you burn yoiur finger. There is no deeper or more myserious meaning. The way we perceive the world is by its physical interations with us. We call these interactions 'properties'. Perhaps only properties exist - perhaps there is no such thing as substance.
That is one way to go. You are now, more or less, appealing to Kant, or perhaps Berkeley. If you really want to say that there are only perceptions, but no substance, you are appealing to Berkeley. I have a video on Berkeley here: ruclips.net/video/DAqfO3BiNE8/видео.html If you say there is something causing the perceptions and we do not know what that is, you are likely appealing to Kant. I do not yet have a video on Kant.
Extremely enlightening and well presented. I would say that being a teacher is not an accidental property of yourself. Its what your form is :)
I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Understood this for the first time. Thnx
I am glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
nice way to present your thoughts in a different setting to classroom, much more interactive with the substances and all that,
Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for watching.
22:17 "Substance is a composite of form and matter"
Love your videos! Quick questions if you're still around. Could form be considered to be substance?
I appreciate the compliment. This video is in a series; so, if you follow the playlist, I address this question in more detail. I will say this: since substance is a composite of form and matter, if form were a substance, it would be a composite of form and matter. Is that possible?
Thank you for watching and spread the word.
@@haugenmetaphilosophy ahh philosophy. Where questions bring more questions haha. It may be possible, maybe not. It depends on the definition/predicates of “form”. My mind is blown. I will keep watching 😄
@@fluffysox6072 You are right that it depends on the definition of “Form”. Does Aristotle’s Definition of “Form” allow for a form to be a matter/form composite?
Damn... This guy knows his stuff
If you are talking about Aristotle, he did contribute greatly to our current understanding of reality. If you are talking about me, I appreciate the compliment. Thanks for watching and spread the word.
Its such an undiscovered channel
Yeah, but that is kind of neat in its own way. Kinda like, “you knew Haugenmetaphilosophy before it was cool”.
What is vs composition... Most people today worry more about potential's
Is it only the categories where Aristotle discusses his views on substance?
well , I guess you probably know by now but no the main text on substance is the Zeta book of the Methaphysics
Thanks for the video.The word 'green'. Humans use this sound 'green' because it works in comminicating with other people. Its the sound of an experience we have. Its just the same as saying 'ow' when you burn yoiur finger. There is no deeper or more myserious meaning. The way we perceive the world is by its physical interations with us. We call these interactions 'properties'. Perhaps only properties exist - perhaps there is no such thing as substance.
That is one way to go. You are now, more or less, appealing to Kant, or perhaps Berkeley. If you really want to say that there are only perceptions, but no substance, you are appealing to Berkeley. I have a video on Berkeley here:
ruclips.net/video/DAqfO3BiNE8/видео.html
If you say there is something causing the perceptions and we do not know what that is, you are likely appealing to Kant. I do not yet have a video on Kant.
two substances having different attributes have nothing in common. What is the justification for this?
I don’t think I understand the question. Can you give a timestamp referencing which part of the video to which you refer?
@@haugenmetaphilosophy no it's one of Spinoza's proposition. Proposition 5 I believe.
PHILIPPINES MENTION RAAA 🗣️🙌🇵🇭
critical thinker