Graduate studies at Western
Cogito 2 (2):17-19 (1988)
|Abstract||Published in: Cogito, 2 (1988) pp 10 - 12. Pdf version 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?'. We might first turn to scientists for an answer, to physicists in particular|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
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.
Ian Thompson (1988). The Nature of Substance. Cogito 2 (1):17-19.
Added to index2010-08-13
Total downloads28 ( #49,866 of 737,480 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,909 of 737,480 )
How can I increase my downloads?