Offline
Hello all,
I am trying to flush out the sources for fundamental Scholastic terms like Act and Potency, Form and Matter, Substance, Essence and Accident as quickly and as simply as possible, so as many ordinary thinkers can see the sense in them and understand something of their import. To that effect, I have drafted the following brief argument to help illustrate especially Act and Potency and Matter (and by inference also to Form and Essence). Please let me know your thoughts:
---
Act & Potency, Form & Matter from PID & PNC.
PID: Everything is what it is.
PNC: Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.
Wood is potentially charcoal. But wood is not charcoal; for what it is to be wood is not what it is to be charcoal; otherwise, wood and charcoal would be the same thing.
But wood is potentially changed into charcoal. But wood is never actually charcoal.
Therefore, if wood is not charcoal, then what is potentially charcoal from wood?
Answer: the matter or material substratum of wood is what is potentially charcoal.
Offline
That looks good to me - there's of course loads of technical stuff one could go into about substance and accident and essential/accidental properties but the above gives the core argument i.e. Aristotle's response to Parmenides.
Offline
Ty DanielCC,
Also there are other Scholastic terms of art that can be difficult for people to appreciate... Substance, for instance and Essence. Might it help by adding and including an argument that the reason for the distinction between substance and essence is that some substances, for example, can change but no essence can ever change (which I think could be flushed out in my above argument)? Would anyone find any problems or think of any objections to that claim?
Last edited by Timocrates (7/06/2015 7:55 pm)