Reply
Fri 17 Dec, 2010 09:48 am
The theory of substance dualism states that there are two existing components:
The mind/soul
The material world
The mind is a substance, which can various properties predicated to it, but cannot be predicated of anything else. The mind, being a substance, is indivisible, which means that it cannot be broken down into its constituent parts, because as such, it has none.
The material world, taken as a whole, is said to be a substance also. This would also mean that the material world is an indivisible, which cannot be broken down either.
The material world possesses various properties, or can exist in various states, which can alter and change, but the material world itself is a continuant, it persists regardless of the changes to its properties.
Things like trees, houses, water etc are properties of the material world, which decay and breakdown, but ultimately the material world remains.
Just as the mind/soul is indivisible, a substance, and therefore it is argued, eternal, surely the material world, on account of this theory, would be eternal also?
Is the material world eternal
As far as you're concerned, it might as well be.
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:
The theory of substance dualism states that there are two existing components:
The mind/soul
The material world
The mind is a substance, which can various properties predicated to it, but cannot be predicated of anything else. The mind, being a substance, is indivisible, which means that it cannot be broken down into its constituent parts, because as such, it has none.
The material world, taken as a whole, is said to be a substance also. This would also mean that the material world is an indivisible, which cannot be broken down either.
The material world possesses various properties, or can exist in various states, which can alter and change, but the material world itself is a continuant, it persists regardless of the changes to its properties.
Things like trees, houses, water etc are properties of the material world, which decay and breakdown, but ultimately the material world remains.
Just as the mind/soul is indivisible, a substance, and therefore it is argued, eternal, surely the material world, on account of this theory, would be eternal also?
Why do you take substance dualism to be the default option? It's incredibly counter-intuitive.
...In the far distant future it may be that our Universe "wares" itself into pure energy thus reaching a state of equilibrium...if that is the case, which by the way I believe its not, then it would n´t be eternal...(although latest evidence points out in that direction)
the material world is absolutely eternal
the material or substance world is the essence of the Universe and without the Universe we , Humans , life would not be here
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...In the far distant future it may be that our Universe "wares" itself into pure energy thus reaching a state of equilibrium...if that is the case, which by the way I believe its not, then it would n´t be eternal...(although latest evidence points out in that direction)
pure energy is still material
@north,
You obviously haven't a clue about what is meant by substance.
@north,
I'm not your governess. Do some reading.
@George,
George wrote:
I'm not your governess. Do some reading.
don't need to
the material world is eternal , and this fact is quite obvious
@north,
I agree that it may well be the case, at least intuitively the idea sounds appealing, but it certainly it is not obvious North...
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I agree that it may well be the case, at least intuitively the idea sounds appealing, but it certainly it is not obvious North...
perhaps the obviousness is not obvious to some , but it is to me
@north,
"material" and "substance" are not interchangeable.
a substance is an indivisible thing, whereas the "material world" can be divided, or at least portions of it can be divided.
@Setanta,
You should be posting in a fashion forum...
(...pseudo pragmatism is just so boring...)
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:"material" and "substance" are not interchangeable.
a substance is an indivisible thing, whereas the "material world" can be
divided, or at least portions of it can be divided.
Yeah, agreed. But doesn't this contradict your original post?
@George,
i don't think so.
the material world taken as a whole is a substance, an indivisible thing, but any particular part of the material world is not a substance.
you cannot destroy the material world itself, because it is a substance, but
its properties can be changed, the way the material world "is" can be altered. a mug may be smashed, a car crushed etc, but that is not the destruction of the material world, it is only the alteration of it.
@existential potential,
So, in material terms, there is one and only one substance?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace