Aristotelean essences and accidents

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This is a question arising from thinking about Aristotelean philosophy.

An object is defined by three characteristics: 1) its substance, 2) its essence, and 3) its accidents. Its substance corresponds to the object itself. Its essence is the universal that defines what kind of object it is. If it is an apple, its essence is “appleness”. If it is a bullet, its essence is its “bulletness”. Finally, properties of the object that are not its essence are its accidents. So, for an apple its accidents would be its color, its weight, its sweetness, etc.

The question I have is about how essences are defined; specifically, how they relate to accidents. The following thought experiment clarifies this.

Consider a table on which there is a collection of apples. There are Granny Smith apples, which are green and moderately sized. There are Golden Delicious apples, which are yellow and also moderately sized. There are Crab Apples, which are red and small. Finally, there are Hokutu apples, which are also red, but very large.

As I understand Aristotelean ontology, all of the objects on the table have the same essence, “appleness”. The other properties of those objects are its accidents, e.g., their color, their mass, their sweetness.

However, it cannot be that the accidents of one object are never the essence of another object. Consider a laser beam shinning through a mist of fog. The essence of the laser beam is its color. Or consider objects known as bullets. Their essence is not the material from which they are made, their shape or their size.

Bullets are launched from a weapon and are intended to strike an object and damage it. Photons are not bullets, since they have zero rest mass and (as a single object) cannot damage a macroscopic object they strike. Soap bubbles and smoke rings are not bullets, since they also cannot damage the objects they strike. So, it would seem that “bulletness” occurs when an object has sufficient mass so when they are launched at sufficient speed, they can damage the object they strike.

Since accidental properties of one object (e.g., mass, color) can define the essence of another object, the definition of what constitutes essence must be subjective. We choose which property to emphasize according to how those objects are used. Apples have “appleness” because we normally think of them as a particular fruit we eat. However, if an apple is launched using a slingshot, its use is that of a bullet. The important property in this situation is not how it is used as food, but how it is acts as a flying projectile, i.e., its essence is related to its mass.

As I understand Aristotelean ontology, an object can have only one property that constitutes its essence. The idea that apples considered as fruit have the “appleness” essence and apples considered as bullets have a different essence related to its mass is contrary to the Aristotelean formmulation.

Has anyone thought about this problem and come up with an adequate solution? Or is their some line of reasoning that shows this is not a real problem, but rather a misunderstanding of the notions of essence and accident?

2

“I identify as dynamite.”

  • Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1882
3

I believe that quote was not addressing the nature of universals (which in Aristotle’s case are known as essences). The whole quote is:

“I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.”

It is from Ecce Homo. Nietzsche asserts that his philosophy will blow up all previous philosophical understanding.

4

I guess that means dynamite is not a true essence for Nietzsche to participate in, then.

Know what is? Personhood. He def got a participation certificate for that one. Definitely an overachiever there. He thought he was a lot of different persons.

No universals (sets/categories) without particulars (members/examples… participants, existants). No nouns without verbs.

Essence is not in a noun, and a noun does not have essence… without a verb.

Who’s the neighbor? The one who acts (and does not just pretend) neighborliness.

“I identify as The Neighbor.” - Jesus, c. 33AD

“Blow up this neighborhood and in three days I will rebuild it.” - also Jesus

5

How do you figure? Laser beams can be of different colors, so the color of a laser beam would be an accident.

No, that does not suffice. You actually hit the mark when you said “intended”. The final cause is arguably the “essential” thing in Aristotle’s public doctrine.

You do have a point here. Although the natural final cause of the apple is to be at least one fruit-bearing apple tree, the apple can acquire an artificial, man-made final cause.

Diderot writes:

“The Eumolpides [Athenian high-priests] caused Aristotle to alternately
admit and reject final causes.”

6

All is Energy

All traits are interpretations. Based on naturally selected a priori methods of interpreting different energy patterns. Binaries, in varying degrees of combinations, referring to different energy rhythms, sequences, tones, speeds etc.

All “things” are like musical notes, and everything the human brain perceives are a senatorial symphony, corresponding to said energy patterns in an eternal swirl of interactivity (flux)…..

Since an ordering organism can only perceive order (patterns) that leaves chaotic energies imperceptible: the silences in the symphony. The darkness, the incomprehensible, the uncertainty, the gaps in our awareness. The “accidents” if you will.

That which is unforeseeable, necessitates the evolution of dynamic adaptability - free-will.W

Will offers an advatage, and separates the living from e non-living. Freedom of will increasing real-time adaptability - an advantage - determined by an organism’s aggregate power.

Power is what determines freedom: options.

Otherwise energy costly, sophisticated big brains are unnecessary and offer no advantage to explain how they developed.

Such a priori methods could only have been selected through trial and error methods.

7

All perceptible unities are combinations of patterns…..and all the traits we associate with them are how these energy combinations combine in harmonious or not unities. Obviously some degree of harmony in excess of disharmony - attractive versus repulsive forces - is present in the unities we perceive.

Every trait….colour, form, taste, scent, viscosity, hardness, etc. are essential interpretations of perceived unities, such as apples.

The manner in which light patterns interact with an object (ephemeral unity), and then with the sensory organ determines how its patterns will be interpreted…just as the sounds we perceive are determined by the atmosphere, or the medium through which they reach our ears.

Every sensory organ, including the skin, has its own method of interpreting interactions with external and internal energy patterns, because the brain is constantly receiving input from wihtin (via organ cells) and without (via sensory cells), both merging within the nervous system - mind/body (spirit).

In less sophisticated life-forms, with no nervous systems, this interpretation occurs locally, gradually cascading across the entire organism.

What we call a unity’s “essence” are its defining characteristics. The traits (energy patterns) that differentiate it from other unities.

The apples “appleness”, differing from a pears “pearness”….but also differing as type of apple. Species and subspecies…breed, race etc., each with its own defining traits.

8

@dnessett

Aristotle ontology, in the way you define it, kind of seems like like a shitty ontology. It seems unable to recognize than an object is a collection of particles which have properties. For example your laser and bullet analogy fails to recognize that a bullet is a collection of particles, and if there are enough “photons” it can make a powerful laser gun stronger than a bullet. Your analogy doesn’t even admit that a single “photon” of an X-ray can damage and behave like a small bullet.

I put “Aristotle ontology, in the way you define it, kind of seems like like a shitty ontology” because I haven’t actually looked into Aristotle ontology myself, I just know he believed in shitty physics models such as the physics that “objects in motion naturally come to rest” kind of physics.

9

@Zeroeth_Nature Thanks for the attachment, I will read it, although it may take me some time to respond, since it is quite long.

10

@Kallikantzaros You use a lot of terms that are drawn from physics, but seem not to understand those term’s definitions. Energy (in physics) comes in 2 forms: kinetic energy and potential energy. In Newtonian physics, kinetic energy is defined as 1/2mv^2. You write all is energy, then say “All things are like musical notes.” A musical note has an associated frequency, but energy is generally not associated with a frequency. Then you write that “Power is what determines freedom: options”. Power in physics is the rate at which energy is transferred. If your use of the terms “energy”, “musical note”, and “power” is drawn from physics, please explain how your statements conform to the definitions of these terms in physics. If you are using these terms in some other interpretation domain, please define them.

1 Like
11

…false.

IMG_2071
IMG_2071750×247 66.7 KB

I am muting this thread.

12

@Ichthus77 I wrote, “…energy is generally not associated with a frequency” [emphasis added]. The use you reference is the energy associated with an electromagnetic wave.” That is the only case where energy is associated with a frequency. Otherwise, it is not.

13

You are free to consider me ignorant….

Big Bang…kinetic energy moving outward.

Energy with a spin and a tempo and a rhythms and a crescendo…existence can be thought of as a symphony.

String Theory - vibrations.

Music is about vibrations….

If you are unable to comprehend, seek guidance.

ALL is ENERGY……vibrations, oscillations…rhythmic (order) or not (chaos).

Vibrations in four-dimensions…oscillations if we include multi-dimensional space/time.

Harmonious energies attract because their vibrations are less repellent. Less friction between them.

Disharmonious energies repel….the harmony is not enough to overcome the repulsive force, the friction.

Chaotic energies are always repellent…because they lack pattern and so cannot harmonize with anything….ergo existence is expanding as chaos is increasing.

Linear Time = from near absolute order - perfectly represented by the Yin/Yang symbol - towards near absolute disorder.

Absolute chaos can be conceptualized as a uniform state of no-thingness, because ‘thing’ is how consciousness interprets pattern (order).

Absolute chaos would be a state where everything is equally and simultaneously possible.

Probability is what order is…..qualification of possibilities.

Which is to say…predictability…or a limitation of the possible. ORDER.

ORDER is restrictive.

Order = consistent, repeating, predictable.

Chaos = inconsistent, non-repeating, unpredictable.

Life, being a manifestation of patterns is attracted and needs order.

14

You don’t have to read the whole attachment, that’s just my source for the Diderot quote. Reading at least the first page may clarify my suggestion, though.

On a less esoteric note, you’re trying to compare Aristotelian physics to modern physics. But modern physics is basically Aristotelian physics without the formal/final cause, leaving only the material/efficient cause…

15

“One cannot ‘explain’ pressure and stress themselves, one cannot get free of the actio in distans:—one has lost the belief in being able to explain at all, and admits with a wry expression that description and not explanation is all that is possible, that the dynamic interpretation of the world, with its denial of ‘empty space’ and its little clumps of atoms, will shortly come to dominate physicists; though an inner quality in dynamis——” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 618 end, Kaufmann ed.; cf. 619 and 550.)

Your quote is inaccurate, both in its dating and in its content, by the way.

16

@Zeroeth_Nature I read the sections on Plato and Aristotle and found them fascinating. For example (among many others) Elias, the 6th century A.D. commentator writes:

When Alexander [the Great] blamed [Aristotle] for publishing his writing, Aristotle said, “they are published and not published,” hinting at their lack of clarity . . . [which is like] what Plato said [in the Second Letter, 312d8]: “if something should happen to the tablet [i.e., the writing] either on land or on sea, the reader because of its obscurity would not understand its contents." Thus [one should write] in order to hide; in order to test those fit and those unfit, so that the unfit should turn their backs on philosophy.

– Elias, Aristotelis Categorias Commentaria, 18.1:125

So, according to Elias and Aristotle’s letter to Alexander the Great, Aristotle deliberately wrote in a way that would hide the meaning of his ideas. Applying this to my original question, this lack of clarity causes us to, perhaps, guess at what Aristotle meant by essence and the confusion that arises may stem from our incorrect understanding. This is something that I had not considered.

In regards to my comments on physics, I was not comparing Aristotelean physics to modern physics. I was asking @Kallikantzaros to explain his use of the terms, energy, musical note and power and how they are related. Those are modern physics concepts that he uses in a way that is not conceptually clear.

1 Like
17

Energy, from the Greek ΕΝ-ΕΡΓΟ…In a state of action…..a state of agitation.

There is no static state…all that exists is active. Inter-Active.

Static refers to an inversion of the experienced - the non-existent.

Even space has a temperature.

Change is how consciousness experiences existence.

18

@Zeroeth_Nature The quote from Nietzsche is from the Goodreads website. I attempted to include the link in this message, but when I pasted it into the text and hit “Reply”, I got an error message saying I can’t include links in my posts.

19

The quote comment was addressed to Ichthus, not to you. You actually provided the correct quote and source!

As for the dynamite thing: a certain user of this site once mused that Nietzsche was only dynamite, whereas Einstein was an A-bomb… Nice rhetoric, but Nietzsche was a classical philologist, so he would have been eminently aware of the etymology of “dynamite”.

20

My opinion is energy is subjective, sort of a human construct.

For example a ball has kinetic energy, but its energy is subjective, and depends on the velocity of a reference frame. If there was no universe, then the ball wouldn’t have any kinetic energy. It only gains an illusion of energy because there is a universe to compare it to. It has energy because it is moving towards something. Its energy is dependent on the velocity of the object it is moving towards. If the velocities are the same (or negative) then it is not moving towards it and has no energy.

Energy as frequency, such as a laser beam, can be said to be similar to cross-sectional density of a projectile, more frequency is analogous to more “stuff” packed into the density.