Chinese (Mandarin)

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Philosophy

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Up until now, this chapter has examined substance from a materialistic perspective—the concrete substances (water, fire, atoms) that make up the physical world that we see around us. As such, the discussion has been located squarely within a physicalism, an approach that equates the real world with the physical world. The study of existence, of being, of what is real—a discipline known as <OpenstaxTerm>ontology</OpenstaxTerm>—is broader. <OpenstaxEm>Ontos</OpenstaxEm> is the Greek participle from the verb “to be” and means “being.” What qualifies as being? How should we categorize being?
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Naturalism</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Naturalism</OpenstaxTerm>, in its simplest form, is the view that meaningful inquiry includes only the physical and the laws governing physical entities and rejects the priority placed on reason assumed within metaphysics. For example, naturalism asserts that the inventory of beings allowed should include beings that are found within the physical realm. If we can see a thing or if we can test a thing within a laboratory environment, then a naturalist would include the being within their inventory. Naturalists also weed out the assumptions, theories, and questions that are introduced but are not capable of empirical proof.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/5bac5e518398192ccb1a560ef02b3ed92c99ad66" alt="The image depicts a printing of a wood engraving in which a man crawls under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious cosmos beyond." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="1300" height="1089" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1300">
	Figure 6.3 This engraving first appeared on Camille Flammarion’s L’atmosphère: météorologie populaire (1888). It suggests that even the heavens (above or beyond the visible world) consist of mechanisms and regularities that could be discovered by scientific investigation. This is the essence of classical naturalism. (credit: Camille Flammarion/Wikipedia, public domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The debate between supernaturalism (that accepts the existence of beings beyond or above our natural realm) and naturalism is as old as philosophical inquiry itself. But the tension became particularly relevant during the modern period. During modernity, scholars made advances across many disciplines based upon a turn to a scientific method and a rejection of <OpenstaxEm>a priori</OpenstaxEm> reasoning.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxNote>
	<OpenstaxNoteTitle> Connections </OpenstaxNoteTitle> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		The chapter on <a href="./fe58be6f-3b61-4e16-b3b6-db6924f0b2f2@a904be0:2ef161f6-f767-4478-a452-bfe94fbc4022.xhtml">logic and reasoning</a> covers the topic of logic in greater detail.
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
</OpenstaxNote>
<OpenstaxH3>The Allegory of the Cave</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In Book VII of <OpenstaxEm>The Republic</OpenstaxEm>, <OpenstaxTerm>Plato</OpenstaxTerm> offered his <OpenstaxTerm>allegory of the cave</OpenstaxTerm>, which depicts prisoners who have mistaken shadows cast on the wall of the cave for real beings and therefore have mistaken illusion for truth. The prisoners have been imprisoned throughout their lives. They are chained in place and have been positioned so that they can only see shadows that are cast upon the wall in front of them. They have come to treat the shadows not as the reflections that they are, but as something real. In an unexpected plot twist, one prisoner escapes and reaches the cave entrance. There, for the first time, he sees the sun—the true source of light (knowledge). After adjusting to the overpowering light emanating from the sun, the prisoner realizes that a fire was causing objects to cast shadows on the cave wall. The shadows cast by the fire within the cave were reflections. He realized that the shadows are not actual being or truth—they were merely fading facsimiles of reality. The escaped prisoner, freed from the chains of his earlier captivity (metaphorically speaking), understands the true nature of being and truth. He returns to the cave to “free” his fellow captives, but his claim is rejected by those in chains.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00002" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/dad2a5db4019d2273ffa1f82007d3dbc471fb55c" alt="An illustration shows prisoners chained together behind a wall in a cave. Behind the wall is a fire, and between the fire and the wall are people carrying cutouts of a horse, a soldier, and a dog. The fire casts a large shadow of these images onto the wall near the prisoners." mediaType="image/png" width="1800" height="766" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="1800">
	Figure 6.4 The Allegory of the Cave (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Plato’s Notion of Substance and Form</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The prisoners were mistaking shadows for that which was real. But shadows do not last. As soon as the source of light fades, the shadows too disappear. If we want to identify the really real, Plato argued, we need to go beyond mere shadows and try to find those beings whose reality is not temporary. The idea or <OpenstaxTerm>form</OpenstaxTerm> of a thing, unlike the material “shadow,” was not subject to atrophy and change.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The Latin term <OpenstaxEm>substantia</OpenstaxEm>, translated as “substance,” describes the basic reality or essence of a thing that supports or stands under features that are incidental to the substance itself. While the so-called incidental features (e.g., quantity, time, place, etc.) can change, the essence of the entity endures. To account for the fundamental whatness of a thing, Plato posited an unchanging form or idea as the underlying and unchanging substance. As all things within a person’s reality are subject to change, Plato reasoned that the forms or unchanging basic realities concerning all things must not be located within this world. He therefore posited a realm in which change did not occur.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	There is an intuitive appeal to Plato’s accounting of the real to forms. How else could we explain our ability to recognize a type of being given the sheer number of differences we will observe in the instances of a thing? We can make sense of dog, for example, because beyond the differences found among spaniels, poodles, and retrievers, there is a form of dog that accounts for knowing dog and being as dog.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Aristotle on Matter and Form</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Aristotle</OpenstaxTerm>, a student of Plato, disagreed with his teacher. If forms did exist, he challenged, then how could forms influence things? How could an immaterial form–which lacks matter—cause change to material entities?
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In addition, what about concepts that are not easily reducible to a simple meaning or idea? Aristotle noted that “good was said in many ways” (<OpenstaxEm>Ethics</OpenstaxEm> 1096a–b as found in Adamson 2016, 232). The reduction to a single form to identify the whatness for something works when the concept is simple but does not work when a wide-ranging concept (such as “the good”) is considered. Aristotle agreed with the approach of isolating dogness as the essence, but through the study of specific instances or <OpenstaxTerm>particulars</OpenstaxTerm>. He encouraged natural observation of the entity in question and introduced the categories of species and genera.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not posit an otherworldly form or collection of forms. In his middle and later works, Aristotle explained substance through a composite of matter and form. Form, much like an idea a sculptor has in mind, is the unchanging purpose or whatness informing each particular or individual instance. In this case of a sculpture, the sculptor’s vision or idea was referred to as the formal cause. The marble would be the material cause. The ability and artistic skill of the sculptor was termed the efficient cause. The final cause reflected the purpose of the being, or the reason why the sculpture was made in the first place.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The idea of substance being a composite of form within matter became known as <OpenstaxTerm>hylomorphism</OpenstaxTerm>. The Greek word <OpenstaxEm>hyle</OpenstaxEm> translates as “wood.” Here wood is figurative, a symbol of basic building material that is shaped by the form within a particular instance. The form does not reside in the Platonic heavens but, through purpose and efficiency, moves a particular thing from its beginning state (potentiality) along a continuum toward its final goal (actuality). The acorn is driven by its form and purpose to become the mighty oak. The movement from potentiality to actuality requires material and the efficient (proper) application of these materials such that the acorn can become!
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00003" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/8137bb7c20bf19258a1da508173fecb2fdb6c9b6" alt="The painting School of Athens shows a gathering of ancient people. They are gathered together in different groups, surrounded by stone arches and statues." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="518" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 6.5 School of Athens (credit: modification of work “The School of Athens by Raphael” by Bradley Weber/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The attitudes of Plato and Aristotle are reflected in <a href="#fig-00003">Figure 6.5</a>. The School of Athens was discussed in the <a href="./fe58be6f-3b61-4e16-b3b6-db6924f0b2f2@a904be0:5796313c-8206-4685-b4fd-374401b2ab73.xhtml">introduction to philosophy</a> chapter. This section details the interaction between the two central characters in the fresco painting. Plato is the subject displayed to the left of center, and Aristotle is the subject depicted to the right of center. Plato’s gesture toward the heavens with his right hand was the artist’s way of recognizing Plato’s theory of forms. For Plato, forms were immutable and the ultimate reality. Forms were supposed to exist outside of our earthly realm as the things we observe are subject to change. Aristotle’s gesture with his right hand was the artist’s representation of Aristotle’s stressing of the form embedded within particular matter. The ultimate reality was supposed to be within each instance of matter observed. The material components were subject to change, but the form was not.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	What do you think? The crucial difference introduced at this historical point was the emphasis placed upon particulars—individual instances of an entity—by Aristotle. While Plato stressed forms and asserted that there could be no individual instance without the form, Aristotle stressed particulars and asserted that without individual instances, there could be no knowledge of the form. Whereas Plato holds that beauty itself causes the beauty we see in flowers or faces, Aristotle asserts that there is no such thing as beauty without beautiful things, such as flowers and faces (Adamson, 2016, p. 231).
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxNote>
	<OpenstaxNoteTitle> Podcast </OpenstaxNoteTitle> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Listen to the podcast “<a href="https://openstax.org/r/aristotle-substance">Aristotle on Substance</a>” in the series <OpenstaxEm>The History of Philosophy without Any Gaps</OpenstaxEm>.
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
</OpenstaxNote>

6.1.2 Ontological Perspectives on Substance

1 Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

1.1.1 Historical Origins of Philosophy

1.1.2 How It All Hangs Together

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

1.2.1 Sources of Evidence

1.2.2 Logic

1.2.3 Conceptual Analysis

1.2.4 Trade-offs

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

1.3.1 “The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

1.3.2 Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

1.3.3 The Importance of Doing No Harm

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

1.4.1 What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

1.4.2 An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

2 Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

2.1.1 The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

2.1.2 The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

2.2.1 Critical Reflection and Metacognition

2.2.2 Cognitive Biases

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

2.3.1 Strive for Objectivity

2.3.2 Adopt Epistemic Humility

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

2.4.1 Start with a Strong Foundation

2.4.2 The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

2.5 Reading Philosophy

2.5.1 Prepare to Read

2.5.2 Engaging with Philosophical Texts

2.5.3 Pre-reading

2.5.4 First Read

2.5.5 Close Read

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

2.6.1 Identify Claims

2.6.2 Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

2.6.3 Organize Your Paper

3 The Early History of Philosophy around the World

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.1 Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.2 Indigenous African Philosophy

3.1.3 Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

3.1.4 Mesoamerican Philosophy

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

3.2.1 The Vedic Tradition

3.2.2 Classical Indian Darshanas

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

3.3.1 Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

3.3.2 Confucianism

3.3.3 Daoism

3.3.4 Mohism

4 The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

4.1.1 Presentist Approach

4.1.2 Contextualist Approach

4.1.3 Hermeneutic Approach

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4.2.1 Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

4.2.2 Ancient Greek Philosophy

4.2.3 The Presocratics

4.2.4 Socrates and Plato

4.2.5 Aristotle

4.2.6 Epicureans

4.2.7 Roman Philosophy

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.1 Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.2 Early Jewish Philosophy

4.3.3 Early Christian Philosophy

4.3.4 Islamic Philosophy

4.3.5 Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

4.3.6 Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

4.3.7 The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

5 Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

5.1.1 Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

5.1.2 The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

5.1.3 Testing Hypotheses

5.1.4 Laws of Logic

5.1.5 Normativity in Logic

5.2 Logical Statements

5.2.1 Conditionals

5.2.2 Universal Statements

5.3 Arguments

5.3.1 Getting to the Premises

5.3.2 The Difference between Truth and Logic

5.4 Types of Inferences

5.4.1 Deductive Reasoning

5.4.2 Inductive Inferences

5.4.3 Abductive Reasoning

5.5 Informal Fallacies

5.5.1 Fallacies of Relevance

5.5.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

5.5.3 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

5.5.4 Fallacies of Diversion

6 Metaphysics

6.1 Substance

6.1.1 Fundamentality: The One and the Many

Question	Answer
the rejection of any non-natural or appeal to supernatural explanatory concepts within philosophy.	Naturalism
a field within metaphysics dedicated to the study of being.	Ontology