Sibel Ozcan
Patrick Roney
Phil. 213
Second Paper
Aristotle’s notion of being qua being (being in so far as being), which is the main issue
of metaphysics and indicates three properties of being; being is the first, the highest and has a
character of unity, brings the question of what makes something a substance. Since substance
is prior to the being of a being, it must have a primary reason or ground of it. After examining
his notion of subtance (ousia), it is possible to draw a conclusion that substance is the primary
thing of a thing that supports it or grounds it. There should be only one thing which makes a
thing to have a substance, because there is single, unique and central sense of being. In this
sense, substance would be both individual or particular and independent from subjects,
meaning that it is neither said of a subject nor present in a subject.
The notion of substance can be defined in various terms, because being can be
explained in and grounded on many foundations. However, one of the foundations is the one
which defines the substance in the best way; the cause of a being (aitia).
First of all, as mentioned above, being has a character of unity, which also means that
the substance, the basis, of being has a character of unity. The cause of being has a four-fold
dimensions, namely first, the material cause, secondly, the formal cause, thirdly, efficient
cause and fourthly, the purpose cause. In terms of unity, is it possible to claim that all of the
four folds are responsible for bringing the being of a thing. To exemplify, the color or the
shape of a thing gives it the materiality. The pattern of a thing makes it what it is. The maker
of a thing brings it the efficient cause and something’s area of usage gives that thing its
purpose cause. Considering unifying notion of causation, this four causes bring something’s
being. Therefore, in terms of unity, cause of a being would suit in the definiton of substance
properly.
Secondly, to express the notion of substance in other words, one can claim that
substances are independent beings. If the cause of a being is the best definition, the cause
should be independent from the subject also. In this sense, each member of four fold notion of
causality is independent from the subject. There are other choices which give something its
cause, so that the substance of being is based on a independent cause. In this manner,
independence of substance is ensured. For example, if words are the causes of sentences, ink
is the cause of a pen and seconds are causes of minutes, then, words, ink and seconds may not
be the cause of something else. However, if both the color and the manufacturing of a pencil
case are the causes of a pencil case, then, the color and manufacturing would be independent
from the pencil case. They only give the pencil case its cause independently, because they
would remain without one another. In other words, had not the pencil case a color, its cause
would be only its manufacturing.
Thirdly, the cause of being is able to receive contraries just like the substance of a
thing. The same thing is sometimes cause of contraries (W. D. Ross, Aristotle, Metaphysics
Book V). To exemplify, if a person is pale at a time and darker at another time, the color tone
of this person is the substance. In terms of the change of his/her color tone through time, the
substance is in the process of having contraries. Similarly, the absence of the driver in a car
may be predicated as what is left over from a car crash. However, the presence of a driver
may be predicated as a safe trip. In this sense, the driver may be the causes of both the car
crash and safe trip. Therefore, the driver, as the cause, would be able to receive contraries in
terms of the substance of both events. The cause of a being and the substance of a being can
work in the same way when considering the contraries. Because of their similarity, one of
them can be the definition for another.
Lastly, if the same attribute and its opposite can not be the substance of the same
subject at the same time and in the same respect, one cause and its opposite can not be the
cause of a subject at the same time and in the same respect. As mentioned above, there is a
unity in substance, meaning cause. Considering the principle of non-contradiction, if a man is
pale now, the paleness is the substance, the cause, of the man at this time. If a man becomes
darker at another time, the substance, the cause of the man is his darkness at that time.
Accepting that the efficient cause, one of the four dimensions of the cause, of a statue is its
agent, the agent can not be the cause of something else other than the statue at that time.
Eventhough being has one unified sense, it is divided into various genera, which can not be
predicated to the same subject at exactly same times. Substance and the cause of a being are
about the present. If a subject loses its sight of non-contradiction, it means that it loses its
being, namely its substance and its cause. They are the fundamentals of being and because of
this, the cause of a being can be considered as the best definition of the substance.
Although there are various types of definitions for the notion of substance, cause of a
being is the best way to define it. Taking into account of unity, independency of the causes
and substances, being able to receive contraries and principle of non-contradiction, the cause
of being is the most suitable definition for the substance, since both define being in the same
way and are the fundamentals of a being.