What is a Substance?

[Boston Mass]

What are the things we perceive every day? What are the forms of matter that we interact with? How do we come to know them? Does matter even exist? In this forum, I would like any member nation to feel free to share their epistemology and understanding of metaphysics to tackle these very questions. The responses can be uniquely your own or you can use great thinkers of the past to explain your perspective/belief. If you do use someone else's idea, please cite them and give a small explanation as to why this interpretation sits well with you. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions or answers!

( I have now added new questions regarding the idea of a soul) Look to post 63 on sec. 3

[Adharcaili]

I dunno

[Turkey Interbellum RP]

"...physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence.."

source: Merriam webster

[Boston Mass]

"...physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence.."

source: Merriam webster

I like it! Is this something you believe in? If so, how do we know something, other than ourselves, has a discrete existence?

[Tinhampton]

A substance is a thing it is possible to enter into physical contact with.

[Boston Mass]

A substance is a thing it is possible to enter into physical contact with.

Interesting. Would something not be classified as a substance if we were unable to engage with it through physical contact?

[Floofybit]

A substance is something below a stance. So say your stance on fruit is that fruit is good, the substance would be that tangerines are good in comparison to other fruits.

[Narland]

What are the things we perceive every day? What are the forms of matter that we interact with? How do we come to know them? Does matter even exist? In this forum, I would like any member nation to feel free to share their epistemology and understanding of metaphysics to tackle these very questions. The responses can be uniquely your own or you can use great thinkers of the past to explain your perspective/belief. If you do use someone else's idea, please cite them and give a small explanation as to why this interpretation sits well with you. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions or answers!

Substance is the "stuff" that remains when our mind goes elsewhere. I believe that matter exists as an eventive decree of God from Eternity unfolded as temporality. Our minds to their respective abilities perceive both substance and essence in the Categorical sense.

I tended to follow the meaning of substance from -- Aquinas --> Calvin --> (rejected Kant to Trueblood) resynched to Edwards --> (Schaffer, Lewis, Muggeridge). I am best described as an Objective Realist in the Evangelical Classical Liberal sense through the Scottish Enlightenment close to that of the American Founders such as Webster and Witherspoon with consideration to Sproul, Platinga, Frame, Ellul, and Poythress. I haven't had the time to discuss ontology seriously with others face to face in decades. My mind is rusty, but because I am, I can think, sort of of.

[Boston Mass]

What are the things we perceive every day? What are the forms of matter that we interact with? How do we come to know them? Does matter even exist? In this forum, I would like any member nation to feel free to share their epistemology and understanding of metaphysics to tackle these very questions. The responses can be uniquely your own or you can use great thinkers of the past to explain your perspective/belief. If you do use someone else's idea, please cite them and give a small explanation as to why this interpretation sits well with you. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions or answers!

Substance is the "stuff" that remains when our mind goes elsewhere. I believe that matter exists as an eventive decree of God from Eternity unfolded as temporality. Our minds to their respective abilities perceive both substance and essence in the Categorical sense.

I tended to follow the meaning of substance from -- Aquinas --> Calvin --> (rejected Kant to Trueblood) resynched to Edwards --> (Schaffer, Lewis, Muggeridge). I am best described as an Objective Realist in the Evangelical Classical Liberal sense through the Scottish Enlightenment close to that of the American Founders such as Webster and Witherspoon with consideration to Sproul, Platinga, Frame, Ellul, and Poythress. I haven't had the time to discuss ontology seriously with others face to face in decades. My mind is rusty, but because I am, I can think, sort of of.

I love what you have to say, especially the last sentence! As an objective realist, what leads you to believe that substances exist independently of our consciousness? As I'm sure you are aware, an Idealist would state that substances do not exist at all and only ideas and the mind exist. How would you counter this claim made by people who believe this?

[Kostane]

I think that substance in anything which can be interacted with in a way that can be categorized to behave predictably. By “interacted with” I mean sensed through the five senses of humans, but it could also use a broader interaction by some alien sense that we do not know of. However, this leads to the question — what about dreams? Therefore, I added the qualify “categorized to behave predictably” as a way to distinguish dreams through their inherit unpredictability. While we can derive certain laws to help define the world of substances, or the natural world, the same laws cannot be applied to a dream world.
Anything that cannot be interacted with is not a substance, but would rather fall into the category of a concept or a theory. If we have no means of detection for an object, it has no effect on our world and therefore is not substantial.
I don’t know if this is influenced by any philosophers, because we are all influenced by our past and knowledge, but this is just what I could think of.

[Boston Mass]

I think that substance in anything which can be interacted with in a way that can be categorized to behave predictably. By “interacted with” I mean sensed through the five senses of humans, but it could also use a broader interaction by some alien sense that we do not know of. However, this leads to the question — what about dreams? Therefore, I added the qualify “categorized to behave predictably” as a way to distinguish dreams through their inherit unpredictability. While we can derive certain laws to help define the world of substances, or the natural world, the same laws cannot be applied to a dream world.
Anything that cannot be interacted with is not a substance, but would rather fall into the category of a concept or a theory. If we have no means of detection for an object, it has no effect on our world and therefore is not substantial.
I don’t know if this is influenced by any philosophers, because we are all influenced by our past and knowledge, but this is just what I could think of.

I detect Aristotelian ideas in your argument. When it comes to epistemology, Aristotle uses his observations to explain the world around him. He suggested that through embracing one's senses we can obtain knowledge of the world we live in.

[Narland]

Substance is the "stuff" that remains when our mind goes elsewhere. I believe that matter exists as an eventive decree of God from Eternity unfolded as temporality. Our minds to their respective abilities perceive both substance and essence in the Categorical sense.

I tended to follow the meaning of substance from -- Aquinas --> Calvin --> (rejected Kant to Trueblood) resynched to Edwards --> (Schaffer, Lewis, Muggeridge). I am best described as an Objective Realist in the Evangelical Classical Liberal sense through the Scottish Enlightenment close to that of the American Founders such as Webster and Witherspoon with consideration to Sproul, Platinga, Frame, Ellul, and Poythress. I haven't had the time to discuss ontology seriously with others face to face in decades. My mind is rusty, but because I am, I can think, sort of of.

I love what you have to say, especially the last sentence! As an objective realist, what leads you to believe that substances exist independently of our consciousness? As I'm sure you are aware, an Idealist would state that substances do not exist at all and only ideas and the mind exist. How would you counter this claim made by people who believe this?

Anyone can make or use an instruments (that themselves are non-mind objects) that reflect the same effects regardless of how we think (or unthinkingly do not think) the world works or the objects that are in the world. For example when we look at a picture book showing particular objects, we do not see different things no matter how hard we try or not try to see what is there (or not), but we all see the same thing.

I wanted to be an Existentialist as a child, and even moreso a solipsist. No matter how many times I climbed the roof of the barn to fly and flung myself into the air -- I plummeted to the ground. No matter of wishful thinking, meditation, caffeination, goose fat (don't ask), radiation (electromagnetic and thermal) exposure, and no matter how many experimental permutations nor how hard I tried to get my mind to overcome the persistence of reality, I had to come to the conclusion that something (at the time I attributed it residual effects of the Pioneers and Tribes who preceded us before the ranch). Ken Kesey (a friend of my father) had a few ideas when had the time to take the time to discuss it. By the second grade I read Edwards writings, and it clicked -- objective reality was the better solution. By the 4th grade, I had gone through the writings of the philosophers up to the rationalists -- and (in spite of Trueblood) had finally decided on using Objective Reality as the framework in which to set my mind.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Well, Lenin said that matter is everything that exists objectively, outside consciousness. That is, everything that is not fiction.

There is such a program, Akinator - using 20-30 questions, it guesses any hidden thing (not only an object, but also a physical wave, field, energy) or character. But before that, Akinator asks the main question: does the thing really exist? Or does this exist as fiction? Here is a test that separates matter from non-matter.

[Ifreann]

What is matter? Never mind. What is the mind? No matter.

[Dogmeat]

We can identify the properties of substance via the senses.

We know that, at it's most basic, substance smells bad. Because "smelly," the default description of smell, has negative connotations. If something "smells," it smells bad. Thus, at it's most basic, substance must smell bad.

Substance must also make a loud and unpleasant sound. Because "noisy" has those connotations.

If a thing is "touchy" it is fragile, or sensitive. To be handled delicately. But also prone to anger and outrage.

If something is "sightly," then it is attractive. Pleasing to the eye.

Lastly we know that substance must, by definition, be delicious. Because that is what "tasty" denotes.

[Narland]

The big divide -- those who hold to "no matter, no mind" and those who hold to "no mind, no matter."

[The Astral Mandate]

A substance is a thing it is possible to enter into physical contact with.

No... this simply is not correct. One never truly touches anything.
A substance is anything made up of atomic matter. Water, iron, helium, plastic, etc. are substances. Electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc. are matter, but not substances.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Something that comes in a ziploc bag.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

According to the dictionary: “a particular kind of matter with uniform properties”.

[The Astral Mandate]

According to the dictionary: “a particular kind of matter with uniform properties”.

For the most part, but I don't exactly consider something like pure electrons to be a substance, although it fits the definition.
2000th non-F7 post Monument

[Boston Mass]

A substance is a thing it is possible to enter into physical contact with.

No... this simply is not correct. One never truly touches anything.
A substance is anything made up of atomic matter. Water, iron, helium, plastic, etc. are substances. Electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc. are matter, but not substances.

What prevents atomic matter from being a substance? Is it not something that can be perceived or observed? Are we not able to manipulate atoms and their particles? Does atomic matter not have associated accidents that make them distinguishable? If this is all true what makes it any different from other substances we encounter?

[Boston Mass]

I love what you have to say, especially the last sentence! As an objective realist, what leads you to believe that substances exist independently of our consciousness? As I'm sure you are aware, an Idealist would state that substances do not exist at all and only ideas and the mind exist. How would you counter this claim made by people who believe this?

Anyone can make or use an instruments (that themselves are non-mind objects) that reflect the same effects regardless of how we think (or unthinkingly do not think) the world works or the objects that are in the world. For example when we look at a picture book showing particular objects, we do not see different things no matter how hard we try or not try to see what is there (or not), but we all see the same thing.

I wanted to be an Existentialist as a child, and even moreso a solipsist. No matter how many times I climbed the roof of the barn to fly and flung myself into the air -- I plummeted to the ground. No matter of wishful thinking, meditation, caffeination, goose fat (don't ask), radiation (electromagnetic and thermal) exposure, and no matter how many experimental permutations nor how hard I tried to get my mind to overcome the persistence of reality, I had to come to the conclusion that something (at the time I attributed it residual effects of the Pioneers and Tribes who preceded us before the ranch). Ken Kesey (a friend of my father) had a few ideas when had the time to take the time to discuss it. By the second grade I read Edwards writings, and it clicked -- objective reality was the better solution. By the 4th grade, I had gone through the writings of the philosophers up to the rationalists -- and (in spite of Trueblood) had finally decided on using Objective Reality as the framework in which to set my mind.

I will have to admit I am not too familiar with American Theologians, but I will look into Edwards and learn more. Thank you for sharing!

[Repreteop]

I thought drugs for a second.

[Fractalnavel]

This whole thing looks like substance abuse to me.

[Durius]

What is your opinion on the subject? You didn't give any.