David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Cogito 2 (2):17-19 (1988)
Modern physics has cast doubt on Newton's idea of particles with definite properties. Do we have to go back to Aristotle for a new understanding of the ultimate nature of substance? If we ask, `what is the nature of substance?', we might be told that this substance is salt, that one is copper, or that the atomic nucleus is a mixture of protons and neutrons. But what are all these substances? What do they have in common which makes them substances? We don't seem to think that such things as colours, numbers, or shapes are by themselves `substantial enough' to be substances in their own right. We therefore change our question to `what is it to be a substance?', or to `what is the ultimate nature of the simplest substances?'.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Andrej Krause (2006). Are Bolzano's Substances Simple? American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):543-562.
Joshua Hoffman (1994). Substance Among Other Categories. Cambridge University Press.
S. Marc Cohen (2009). Substances. In Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle. Blackwell-Wiley.
John Kronen & Jacob Tuttle (2011). Composite Substances as True Wholes: Toward a Modified Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika Theory of Composite Substances. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):289-316.
Added to index2010-08-13
Total downloads65 ( #22,138 of 1,098,956 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #57,966 of 1,098,956 )
How can I increase my downloads?