Substance and Accidents (Aquinas 101)

The world is not a place of static individuals, but of active realities.
Thomas Aquinas thought that all of reality could be classified according to the distinction between substance and accident. For Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, substances are not inert or static entities. Whatever exists is active, and the more being a thing has, the more active it is.

Substance and Accidents (Aquinas 101) - Fr. James Brent, O.P.

❓ Questions you want answered? Make sure to put #AskAFriar in your comment!

— WHAT'S NEW —

— WHAT'S NEXT —

— SOCIAL MEDIA —

— SUPPORT —

— THE THOMISTIC INSTITUTE —

— AQUINAS 101 —

#ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #Thomism

[paolo]

So difficult to clarify substance vs. accidents, and also go into details, in just about 4 minutes, but Fr. James Brent does that brilliantly! Thank you!

[iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:26 🧪 In philosophical usage, a substance refers to a particular existing thing or the substantial form of that thing, not just any material.
01:19 🔄 Accidents are the features or traits of substances, such as weight, color, or actions, and they only exist within substances.
02:15 💡 Substances are not inert; they are active entities. The more being a thing has, the more active it is.
03:31 🔢 Aristotle identified nine kinds of accidents in things, and together with substances, they form the 10 categories that classify all finite beings.

Made with HARPA AI

[oswaldomaldonado]

This was excellent Father. It was great seeing you in DC last week, God bless. Hope to see you again next year.

[letdaseinlive]

You are very skilled in the way of saying the thing that is magnificent. Thanks be to God!

[ktnsteve]

Thank-you. This is the most clear explanation I have yet heard.
🙏🏼✝️God bless your work.

[kathiesalter]

Goodness, that was fascinating. Having been told about the Eucharist, I thought I knew about this, but this was a revelation. Thank you.

[johanpaul]

Thanks for the explanation father. God bless you!

[MariEllaOficial]

Boa explicação. Vim pelo curso de Filosofia da Academia Atlântico, no Brasil. Mais alguém?

[jeffsmith]

This is an excellent (and very concise) explanation. It seems to me that understanding substance and accident is fundamental not only to understanding reality (being used loosely here) but also the study of argumentation as well. I believe this is why this distinction is so challenging to understand in addition to the equivocation of the terms substance and accident with their use by St Thomas versus our contemporary everyday use. The more I study Aristotle and St Thomas (mainly his commentary on Aristotle), the more I sincerely struggle with Plato’s theory of Form (ειδος). I am not completely persuaded that Aristotle’s refutation of Plato’s forms is conclusive. I agree with his arguments (mostly) and with St Thomas’ penetrating commentary here, but I am still struggling with the term ‘participates’ as used by Plato and as further scrutinized by Aristotle in the beginning of the Metaphysics.
Anyways, thank you again and apologies in advance for my prolixity.

[teton]

I've been eating too much substances and my accidents are getting bigger! :) Great work guys!

[lukeabbott]

Brilliant! Aquinas and Aristotle were genius.

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the video on substance and accidents:

The video presents the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of substance and accidents as fundamental ontological categories. However, this perspective can be challenged on philosophical grounds.

First, the notion of substances corresponding to essences with fixed necessary properties is disputed by views of objects and concepts as bundles of properties without an underlying core essence. Hume and later bundle theorists argue we only directly experience qualities, not substance.

Second, the stark division between unchanging substance and variable accidents seems questionable given modern scientific knowledge of the dynamics and transmutations underlying matter and energy. Alternative philosophies like process philosophy argue for a worldview of change and complexity over static things and fixed properties.

Third, the view of accidents as needing substances seems to rely on substance having some logically prior metaphysical status. But one could question whether substances really are fundamental and accidents merely derivative. A regularity or powers theory of properties may avoid ontological hierarchies.

Overall, while the substance-accident framework has a long intellectual history, philosophical critiques can be raised from perspectives like empiricism, science, and metaphysical alternatives that avoid positing fixed essences, sharp substance-property dualisms, or hierarchical ontologies. The debate continues, but challenging key assumptions opens space for divergent ontologies.

[CameronRiecker]

Great video! When a caterpillar turns into a butterfly, is that a substantial or accidental change?

[AidenRKrone]

Aren't the words "substance" and "essence" referring to different things? As I've understood it (having no formal training in metaphysics), a substance is the physical material that comprises an object, whereas an essence is what makes something _what it is._ So, an essential change is something that changes the essence of an object, whereas an accidental change is something that changes an attribute of an object but does not essentially change the object. An example of an accidental change would be plucking the bark off a tree limb; the tree limb lost its bark, but it's still fundamentally a tree limb. An example of an essential change would be burning a tree limb in a fire; the substance and essence of the limb has been fundamentally altered and is now something else. Am I wrong about this? Am I using the scientific definitions of the terms, rather than the metaphysical/philosophical definitions?

[chrisbakhito]

Thank you. Great stuff well explained. Only the camera angle change not necessary. Disturbing for me.

[jameseldridge]

‘Accident’ means (1) that which attaches to something and can be truly asserted, but neither of necessity nor usually, e.g. if some one in digging a hole for a plant has found treasure. This-the finding of treasure-is for the man who dug the hole an accident; for neither does the one come of necessity from the other or after the other, nor, if a man plants, does he usually find treasure. And a musical man might be pale; but since this does not happen of necessity nor usually, we call it an accident. Therefore since there are attributes and they attach to subjects, and some of them attach to these only in a particular place and at a particular time, whatever attaches to a subject, but not because it was this subject, or the time this time, or the place this place, will be an accident. Therefore, too, there is no definite cause for an accident, but a chance cause, i.e. an indefinite one..."

Aristotle. Metaphysics (Kindle Locations 1641-1647). Global Grey ebooks. Kindle Edition.

[gregorythorne]

Every finite being belongs to one of the categories. One or more ? Or one only? If I have a passion for baseball am I not in time as well ? I flounder on concepts, always have difficulty. Excellent discourse Father thank you !

[joseraulzarama]

hola me ha encantado este vídeo y me sirve para hablar del tema en la universidad Tomasina y para mi futuro en vida vocacional que estoy partiendo

que fuera en español mejor o suptitulos en español .

saludos desde Colombia D.C. gracias.

[billc]

So many different substances and substrata too. Composites, individual, substance prime substance. Whew

[fr.hughmackenzie]

You can claim that the intrinsic dynamism of all physical things discovered by modern science is handled by the concept of "Act" in Aristotelean philosophy of ancient science, but the defining Form was still clear-cut, static and only secondarily relational - which latter as you note is just an accidental category. In fact modern science has shown that what Aristotle saw as substantial formality is, in the objects of the senses, just as fundamentally and existentially relational as his "accidents".