Philia de Humanitas

As I continue to hear more about how young people can no longer objectively distinguish between virtual worlds and reality, or at least do not have a significant apprehension of import of the real world as opposed to the virtual world, I thought I should say a bit more about substance. 

By substance I do not mean the material out of which something is made. I also do not mean fundamentally what it is.  But rather, I mean the unity that is.  When I say the dog is X, X could be any number of properties, including essential ones that define the very nature of a dog.  But the subject of the sentence refers to a creature that is the unity that is.  This “unity that is” is the notion of substance to which I am referring.  I know this is a rather subtle philosophical point, but it is crucial and important in religion–eg. transubstantiation and consubstantial if you are familiar with those terms– morality because there is always a someone  is responsible for their acts and abiding by their conscience–there are many today who will argue there is no subject who is responsible any more because there is no unified individual who acts which may sound strange to many of us, but more and more it is impacting law–to friendships and family life.  One can see it in the abortion debates as well (is the embryo a substance of its own or not?).

So, I thought for now, I will just give a few examples of substances and those which are not.

Natural Substances

  1. A dog
  2. A tree
  3. A bacteria
  4. A human being
  5. A water molecule

Not a Substance

  1. A bowl of water
  2. A pile of rocks
  3. A car
  4. A computer
  5. A robot
  6. The sun
  7. The earth
  8. A galaxy
  9. An ecosystem
  10. A civilization
  11. A family
  12. A business

Regarding those things listed above as not substances, these are comprise of a multitude of substances.  A bowl of water is a multitude of water molecules and each molecule is a substance.  A pile of rocks is comprise of a multitude of minerals or other types of molecules, and each molecule is a substance.  A car is a composite of a multitude of substances (rubber molecules, metal molecules, plastic molecules, etc.).   Hence just because we can name something does not mean it is a substance.  But some names do refer to the substance.  

I know this does not immediately assist in help a child to discover the meaning of substance, but perhaps materials could be made which set them on the trail for such a discover.  Some things they draw or make could be focused on just substances, others on just multitudes of substances.  When putting together a garden or tending a garden, the word substance could be used more often in identifying the plants or insects.  

One further note regarding those things that are substances.  Notice how substances have an overarching self-directedness to them, which ties the parts together in a more intimate fashion.  Though we might call the branch of a tree a part, notice that it really has all kinds of internal connections to the trunk and the roots and the leaves.  Cut it off and it will change and die.  In the case of a technology however, the parts serve some kind of function, but cut them off, and they remain more or less the same, even if the technology no longer works.  Just some initial thoughts.  Again, materials and activities could be made that would help to begin opening the eyes of young people to the kind of unity that some things have in this world that we call substances.