You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] Wrestled 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

How does Aristotle define substance and large? Do you mean in terms of physical size?

0
1

[–] ex-redd [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah. It needs to be serve a function, be self sufficient and continuous (not multiple separate parts). A chair is a substance, but the wood un-assembled as a working chair is not a substance and is just aggregate mass (the same for a partially constructed chair that does not work [e.g. with two legs]). A mountain is not a substance. Its been a while since I was in school, but it's all in the Metaphysics (which is a major pain), and apparently in the Catagories. In certain terms philosophers trying to define "substance" is pretty crazy over the years, and doesn't really have scientific merit. Descartes says minds true substance, others say only God: in terms of Aristotle it is basically a physical object that serves a function (mass+form=substance). I'm not sure if e.g. the Sun would be a substance in his terms, in general it seems that he refers to man-made things and living things (I could be wrong on that). It's an interesting debate.

0
1

[–] moretony 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I wouldn't say mass and function. Aristotle speaks to substance as the answer to the question "what is it?" and first substance (the actual thing) as that which is neither said of or present in a subject. I think a supernatural being would also meet Aristotle's consideration. Aristotle didn't really consider "mass" in a modern way. He spoke to form and matter in physical things as an answer to change, but that's a very different concept.