View Full Version : Accident and Substance

Wednesday, July 6th, 2011, 08:27 PM
I wish to analyze this dichotomy today and understand whether these labels are merely posteriori or a priori determinations. An accident is seen merely as something that paints over the surface of the substance something which gives it a personality and an external image of the thing as it is in and of itself. Necessarily an accident can change over time and become altered either through interventions from without by a conscious or even unconscious force or due to the causation of matter. Accident has a temporary value as is well known and thus because of this the aforementioned possibilities are possible.

But what makes these possibilities possible and is there anything that determines this causually or is the causation between change and identity merely something that is simply a habit that is developed over the course of time that makes things appear as something even if they are not. And if something is true it remains hidden from our site because we can only understand an aspect of the material world. If so than is the material world merely comprised of physical beings or is it ineffably an eternal substance which is not capable of being altered. That is do physical beings contain souls and what is soul and how does it make itself known.

The soul by the normal and standard philosophical definition is something that supersedes the form of the body yet coincides with it as a substance. This makes things extremely confusing when we try to understand the metaphysical and a priori relationship between accident and form. Without the body it seems there is no soul and that the soul can not be itself without the presence of a physical body that interacts with the real world and its environment with its five senses. It appears to me that there is no apriori grounds or explanation for the accident and substance relationship and that it is a thing of pure random chance.

If there is an apriori ground than it can not be proven or disproven to exist and it can appear not to exist to the rationally minded individual but perhaps the rationally minded individual is mistaken by his judgments that there is actually a soul out there. On the other hand our "minds" and our instinct might mislead us into "believing" there is such a thing as the soul because it is nothing but merely a delusional spook which is concocted by the death instinct and the subconscious. Is it necessary for the human mind to subconsciously believe in an apriori relationship in space and time that causually links all cause and effect together in order to keep humans in general sane or is this merely an act of insanity?

I think it is fair to say that the soul needs the body to take its form and that the soul is not the body but is something completely different from the body yet it has a similar form and acts in a similar way. The soul is merely a void that is blindly attempting to fill itself in with ethereal energies. I personally believe not all souls have bodies and all bodies have souls but what the relationship between body and soul merely remains unknown. If there is such a thing as a soul or not we can not conclude that the body is dependent on it for its own existence and it is possible that the body is merely the result of an inevitable evolution that seems to have come about through mere random chance.

On the other hand there is no proof that our bodies in essence exist and we might all be the projection of a chemical reaction or subatomic formation in the universe and that this is merely a whimsical dream that is being played out within the context of the universe in a lyrical and musical fashion. If our substance and souls depend simply on materialstic causation for their existence than it seems impossible that mankind could alter or intervent for an accidents form. It is known though that naturally the biology and chemistry of an individual alters over time and that not all of these changes are merely artificial but rather they are more environmental and spiritual.

Yet if the spiritual and environment defines itself as something that is physical it would be hard to get over the fact that in essence our physical existence seems to just be surrounded by other physical existences and that this totality of physical and biological entities is called the substance or the communal shape which predetermines their own existence. It seems like the physical and biological world than depends on both artificial and natural means to alter itself. This issue as it relates to the ideas of accident and substance brings up an interesting question if mutations are merely "biological" accidents and errors so to speak is humanity in general just a mistake in and of itself that the universe created quite blindly and without a distinct mission.

It seems odd to say that there is no such thing as substance and that substance is merely something concocted by the subconscious mind as well as the human mind in order to grasp the totality of similar objects that are contained in space and time. Its nature way of trying to come to know itself even if it can conceive of itself entirely it needs to attempt to conceive of itself entirely because the death instinct impresses this need on the back of the healthy and rational human's consciousness.