[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?]

[Ham Priday]

On 1/27 David Morey asked:

> Ham
>
> What does 'substance' mean to you?

I knew there had to be a logical reason behind this question, and I found it
by consulting my dictionary.  (Probably what you had expected me to do -- if
not your true motive.)

Yes, David, Webster's New Collegiate does cite "essence; essential nature"
as synonyms for "substance".  But, since you asked for my meaning, I'd go
with Webster's third definition: "physical material from which something is
made or which has discrete existence."  But I also checked the Free Online
Dictionary, and like both of their definitions:  "a. That which has mass and
occupies space; matter.  b. A material of a particular kind or
constitution."

It isn't surprising that Aristotle didn't differentiate between "substance"
and "essence", as they were the same to him; the substance of a thing WAS
its essence.  And Aristotelian ontology has carried over into scientific
objectivism.  But for the essentialist, there is only ONE Essence; and once
something is delimited, identified and defined as "having discrete
existence" [i.e., beingness], the most appropriate term is 'substance'.  For
the general mode of experiential "existence" I would probably tend to use
'matter' and 'beingness' synonomously. That's because I define existence as
the experience of "that which occupies space" and occurs in time.

Now may I return the question, and ask how a Pirsigian would define
'substance'?  (You may consider my motive to be the same as yours.)

Thank you, David.

Essentially yours,
Ham