Criticisms of Substance Notion by Locke and Other Philosophers

Extract

[...] Critique of Substance and Accident by Locke 1. The Opportunism of Philosophers Locke criticizes the notion of accident as a kind of easy solution. It can indeed be observed that the philosopher uses pejorative terms to designate the way in which philosophers 'have thrown themselves on the notion of accidents'. He explains how, after the fact, philosophers had to find a 'support' for this notion. Locke criticizes the lack of appropriateness of these philosophers who did not think that once one imagined the substance as a support for these accidents, it would still remain to define the notion of substance. [...]

[...] Critiques of the notion of substance subsequent to Locke 1. The Critique of Substance according to David Hume The philosopher David Hume challenges the idea of a substance that persists over time. According to him, the individual is traversed only by distinct and distant impressions: 'The idea of a substance as well as that of a mode is nothing but a collection of simple ideas united by the imagination to which one has left a particular name' 2. The Critique of Substance according to Gaston Bachelard Gaston Bachelard joins Locke in a way in that the notion of substance is used only for convenience of thought, he does not hesitate to speak of 'lazy thought'. [...]

[...] Leibniz distinguishes simple substances, monads from composite substances. The monads appear as complete units in themselves. He writes thus: 'The Monads have no windows, through which something could enter or leave. Accidents cannot detach themselves or wander outside of substances, as the sensible species of the Scholastics used to do. Thus neither substance nor accident can enter from outside into a Monad'. The philosopher thinks of the monad as a closed, autonomous set, through which one cannot introduce or remove non-essential accidents. [...]

[...] It may therefore be interesting to look at the definition of these notions in order to study them better as they are analyzed in the philosopher's text. The concept of substance refers to the fundamental or essential entity that constitutes reality. It is what gives its existence and permanence to an object or a being. Substance is considered the stable basis on which the changing qualities or attributes of an object, called 'accidents', rest. For example, in Aristotelian philosophy, substance is the unchanging essence of an object, while accidents are its changing characteristics. However, different interpretations of substance exist according to philosophies and eras. [...]

[...] How, in this excerpt, does philosopher John Locke challenge the notions of substance and accident as defined by traditional European philosophies? In the first place, it will be interesting to study these two fundamental notions of philosophy that are the notions of substance and accident as approached by Locke. In the second place, we will be interested in the way Locke was able to criticize these notions and how both defenders and opponents of these notions were found subsequently to the philosopher John Locke. I. The Notions of Accident and Substance in Philosophy A. [...]