Great question. Some philosophers use these terms differently, but classically (going back to Plato and Aristotle and those working from that tradition) essence is the perfect idea of what a thing is (Plato would call it Form) apart from any references to accidents. Substance refers to an actually existing thing itself (not just the concept) which is generally a composite of both Form/Essence and Matter. Of course in the case of God he has no matter. His substance is pure being (in which he is unique).
An interesting way to distinguish them comes from Seneca who says we can have thoughts of object that require certain Forms (essences) to be those objects but they would never have substance because they don’t exist, like centaurs (his example!). There are certain qualities that every centaur must have, but there is no substance to centaurs because they don’t exist outside of our mind.
Like Jacob said God is unique within this understanding (not to the Stoics like Seneca but that’s a different topic) but it does lead to some really interesting parallels in later thinkers like Augustine with things like the concept of Time.
Hi there, I love your works, but I'm still not clear on what's essence, form, matter, subject... All these complex technical terms doesn't seem to have any meaning for a beginner like me😅. Is there any source or video I can refer? Because I'm recently interested in Aquinas way to God, the de ente et essentia, have you heard of that before? Let me know 🤔💫
In general, I would just take the slow road of reading the great works to gain a growing understanding. Plato’s Meno would be a good shorter read to ease in, you could also read the four dialogues that make up “The last days of Socrates” and The Republic when you’re ready for a bigger Plato read. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics would be where I’d start with him. Don’t be in a hurry, plod on and grow. It’ll be totally worth it.
Peter Kreeft’s book Socratic Logic would also be great. He also has the “Suma of the Suma” to help you get to the meat of Aquinas’ work. Really helpful.
I’m glad to try to help answer any specific questions you may have as well, let me know if I can try to clarify anything from my post which was unclear to you.
Hi teacher, I have a question, I've discovered people like Parmenides, and things like being is and non-being is not (as far as I understand this means we cannot talk about non-being because it simply don't exist and nothing for us to talk about), I'm thinking of how Aquinas's act potency distinction can solve this, especially the idea that potential is relative non-being, the middle between being and non-being, I'm confused by this idea. Another thing is presupposed there's diversity for us to talk about, again either being is or not, how can there be something in the middle? (I'm trying to understand not raising any objection :))
Maybe I am betraying my nominalism, but it seems this important distinction of essense and accident refers not to actual objects (various chairs), but to the name or concept ("chair). I say this because in other languages and cultures they do not just have different words for things, but their words can refer to different categories. There may well be languages where one word refers to both what we call "chairs" and "stools", maybe also to "couches" and "love seats". The list of essences and accidents for their word would be rather different than for ours.
Of course if a word in another language had the same essential attributes as our word "chair", they would be the same concept. So the essence of a "concept" is its list of essential attributes, whereas the spelling and pronunciation of its name would be accidents.
You are definitely right that concepts are more fundamental than particular words. The nominalist would deny that there are essences but only observable similarities between objects or ideas and therefore they are given a common name. But I would argue, as a Metaphysical Realist, that words are like wrappers on a candy bar. You could peel off a wrapper and seal the candy bar in a new wrapper and it wouldn’t change the candy bar. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. Words are tools trying to describe unchanging essences.
"It is difficult for me to decide whether having a back is essential or accidental to “chairness.”"
I'd say it's essential because the word comes from the Medieval French *chaiere* (which in turn is derived from *cathedra* (Latin <= Greek).) These referred to ceremonial seats with cushions and supports, i.e. a throne (whether a lord's or a bishop's). *Stool* was Germanic and was in fact displaced by the borrowed *chair*, becoming a reference to the more humble kind of seat.
Are essence and substance the same?
Great question. Some philosophers use these terms differently, but classically (going back to Plato and Aristotle and those working from that tradition) essence is the perfect idea of what a thing is (Plato would call it Form) apart from any references to accidents. Substance refers to an actually existing thing itself (not just the concept) which is generally a composite of both Form/Essence and Matter. Of course in the case of God he has no matter. His substance is pure being (in which he is unique).
An interesting way to distinguish them comes from Seneca who says we can have thoughts of object that require certain Forms (essences) to be those objects but they would never have substance because they don’t exist, like centaurs (his example!). There are certain qualities that every centaur must have, but there is no substance to centaurs because they don’t exist outside of our mind.
Like Jacob said God is unique within this understanding (not to the Stoics like Seneca but that’s a different topic) but it does lead to some really interesting parallels in later thinkers like Augustine with things like the concept of Time.
Thank you
Love me some good logic (and dunks on nominalism) for breakfast. 👌
Nominalism is a curse. I plan to annihilate it in in the minds of students through my logic curriculum. Lord willing.
👏👏 I’m all for it! That goal alone would make the world a better place.
Thanks Jacob you make me think.
Hi there, I love your works, but I'm still not clear on what's essence, form, matter, subject... All these complex technical terms doesn't seem to have any meaning for a beginner like me😅. Is there any source or video I can refer? Because I'm recently interested in Aquinas way to God, the de ente et essentia, have you heard of that before? Let me know 🤔💫
Hi,
This might be a good QuickStart for you: https://www.audible.com/pd/B0088P41H2?source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=library_overflow
In general, I would just take the slow road of reading the great works to gain a growing understanding. Plato’s Meno would be a good shorter read to ease in, you could also read the four dialogues that make up “The last days of Socrates” and The Republic when you’re ready for a bigger Plato read. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics would be where I’d start with him. Don’t be in a hurry, plod on and grow. It’ll be totally worth it.
Peter Kreeft’s book Socratic Logic would also be great. He also has the “Suma of the Suma” to help you get to the meat of Aquinas’ work. Really helpful.
I’m glad to try to help answer any specific questions you may have as well, let me know if I can try to clarify anything from my post which was unclear to you.
Thanks! God bless ❤️, have a nice day :)
Hi teacher, I have a question, I've discovered people like Parmenides, and things like being is and non-being is not (as far as I understand this means we cannot talk about non-being because it simply don't exist and nothing for us to talk about), I'm thinking of how Aquinas's act potency distinction can solve this, especially the idea that potential is relative non-being, the middle between being and non-being, I'm confused by this idea. Another thing is presupposed there's diversity for us to talk about, again either being is or not, how can there be something in the middle? (I'm trying to understand not raising any objection :))
Maybe I am betraying my nominalism, but it seems this important distinction of essense and accident refers not to actual objects (various chairs), but to the name or concept ("chair). I say this because in other languages and cultures they do not just have different words for things, but their words can refer to different categories. There may well be languages where one word refers to both what we call "chairs" and "stools", maybe also to "couches" and "love seats". The list of essences and accidents for their word would be rather different than for ours.
Of course if a word in another language had the same essential attributes as our word "chair", they would be the same concept. So the essence of a "concept" is its list of essential attributes, whereas the spelling and pronunciation of its name would be accidents.
You are definitely right that concepts are more fundamental than particular words. The nominalist would deny that there are essences but only observable similarities between objects or ideas and therefore they are given a common name. But I would argue, as a Metaphysical Realist, that words are like wrappers on a candy bar. You could peel off a wrapper and seal the candy bar in a new wrapper and it wouldn’t change the candy bar. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. Words are tools trying to describe unchanging essences.
Sir, thanks for this accessible and concise breakdown of the terms.
My pleasure! Glad you found it helpful.
"It is difficult for me to decide whether having a back is essential or accidental to “chairness.”"
I'd say it's essential because the word comes from the Medieval French *chaiere* (which in turn is derived from *cathedra* (Latin <= Greek).) These referred to ceremonial seats with cushions and supports, i.e. a throne (whether a lord's or a bishop's). *Stool* was Germanic and was in fact displaced by the borrowed *chair*, becoming a reference to the more humble kind of seat.
Excellent! Plato approves of your method! He’s always doing etymological studies to get at words. Love it.
Actually, reading Cratylus might have been what got me started way back when.
Ontology is interesting. Thanks for sharing, Jacob, learned a new idea today.
I enjoyed this
Wonderful! Me too 😁
Thank you
My pleasure.