Substance in Philosophy

 What are substances? In science, Substances are those basic stuff, of which this earth is composed of. Substances are matter, which has mass and occupy space. But in Philosophy, substances are those things which have their own independent existence. They are not dependent on any other thing for their existence, other then their own self. They are "causa-sui" or self-caused. Now, what are attributes? Attributes basically means Qualities of a substance. Substance has it's own independent existence and have some qualities in it. Apple is a substance and it has some qualities like it is solid, red in color, spherical in shape, sweet in taste, has mass, density, etc. The other example can be of a table. Table is a substance which has qualities like length, breadth, height, solidity, mass, density, etc.

What if these Qualities are totally ripped of? Will there be any table or apple left without it's length, breadth, height, colour, mass, composition, etc. Can you just imagine a table which has no length, no breadth, no height, no mass, no composition, no density, etc.? You probably can't imagine, right? It means table is nothing but just an accumulation of some attributes or qualities such as length, breadth, height, etc. So, in general, nothing in the world can be called a substance or have a basic or solid identity of it's own without any qualities inhibited. This is what the Buddhists believe about the world. But this doesn't seems to be the true reality. We generally have an idea of table and we don't believe it to be just an accumulation of length, breadth, height, etc. We thought of table something different from it's qualities, something innate in itself. Take another example of Sugar. What is sugar? A white crystal which has sweetness or which tastes sweet. Are sugar and sweetness the same things? If sugar is ripped of it's sweetness, what it is left? A white cubical crystal. Rip of it's white color and cubical shape too, what will now be left? Is there any sugar left? So, there is a relation between Sugar as a substance and sweetness as its quality. There can be three relation between them: First, Sugar and sweetness are "Identical". It simply means Sugar=Sweetness. Sugar means sweetness and sweetness means Sugar. So, when i say that an apple is sweet, it means that the apple is sugar! This is something absurd, isn't it?

Now, the second possibility, Sugar and sweetness are two different things, having no relation between them at all. This front-face Seems wrong. Because sugar and sweetness have a relation.

Third possibility remains is, Sugar and sweetness are partly identical and partly different. Now this seems to be somewhat appealing! But it has flaws too. How will you explain the identical and difference relation, like where is sweetness in sugar? Does it exist in some particular part of the sugar and doesn't exist in other parts or does it exist in whole parts of the sugar? If it exist in whole, it becomes identical but if it doesn't, it is absurd because sugar is sweet in it's every corner of length, breadth and height. Before getting to the so called solution proposed to this riddle, let's get to a very important aspect of a substance, it's Existence?

Is Existence a quality of the substance? If it is, then the substance will be dependent on it's quality of "Existence" even to exist, which ultimately puts a question on it being a substance in the first place. If it is not a quality, then what is it? What is the relation between substance and it's existence? Someone will say there is no relation between them, substance and existence are the one and the same thing. Ok! It means everything which exists, is a substance? Is it true? Not at all! A pot is not a substance because it is caused by it's clay. It is not independent in it's existence, clay is the cause of pot to exist.

It means there can be no substance, which doesn't exist but have it's qualities. It implies no non-existent substance can have a quality because qualities are dependent on substance and if there is no substance there is no quality. Descartes assigns two attributes to a substance, Extension (of body or matter) and consciousness (of mind). This mind-body dualism is the most complex riddle to solve in the history of philosophy, which hasn't yet been solved.

So, summing up the mess created, we came to a view that substance is a thing which has some qualities, we don't know exactly what the thing is. But there is certainly a table or an idea of a table which has length,breadth, height, mass, density, etc. Table is not just the length, breadth, height, etc. Or Sugar is not just the sweetness, cubical shape, white color, etc. So, finally the question is, what is the relation between substance and quality and is Existence a quality too? The general answer proposed by various philosophers till date is that, substance and qualities are the one and same thing. They are not two different things. We first differentiate substance from it's qualities and then try to find a relation between them, which is just absurd! This doesn't seems to be a soul satisfying answer.

This is what I propose the solution to this problem. What if the qualities that occur are dimensionally different and are still a part of the substance! For example, sugar has a cubical shape and sweetness as it's taste. Sugar is neither identical with the cubical shape and sweetness nor different from it, rather it contains cubical shape and sweetness as it's qualities which are dimensionally different. It means there might be a relation between Sugar and cubical shape and sugar and sweetness but not between sweetness and cubical shape because they are dimensionally different. Cubical shape exist in this 3 dimesional world and sweetness can be said dimensionless. Now, this both qualities can co-exist in sugar without being identical with them or different from them. Conclusively speaking, Qualities which are dimensionally different can co-exist within the same substance.