more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 16174

[filed under theme 9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / c. Statue and clay ]

Full Idea

What it is to be shapeless is different from what it is to be bronze. …An underlying nature is related to substance as, in general, matter (which is to say, something shapeless), before it gains shape, is to something with shape.

Gist of Idea

A nature is related to a substance as shapeless matter is to something which has a shape

Source

Aristotle (Physics [c.337 BCE], 190b39-)

Book Ref

Aristotle: 'Physics', ed/tr. Waterfield,Robin [OUP 1996], p.27


A Reaction

This is an interesting take on the modern problem that the bronze seems to be a separate 'object' from the statue. If bronze is amorphous stuff, it has no shape, presumably because it has no significant shape.


The 38 ideas with the same theme [united objects with separate aspects]:

The statue is not called 'stone' but 'stoney' [Aristotle]
Primary matter and form make a unity, one in potentiality, the other in actuality [Aristotle]
Statues depend on their bronze, but bronze doesn't depend on statues [Aristotle, by Gill,ML]
A nature is related to a substance as shapeless matter is to something which has a shape [Aristotle]
Shape is essential relative to 'statue', but not essential relative to 'clay' [Putnam]
If there are two objects, then 'that marble, man-shaped object' is ambiguous [Ayers]
If a statue is identical with the clay of which it is made, that identity is contingent [Gibbard]
A 'piece' of clay begins when its parts stick together, separately from other clay [Gibbard]
Clay and statue are two objects, which can be named and reasoned about [Gibbard]
We can only investigate the identity once we have designated it as 'statue' or as 'clay' [Gibbard]
The statue and lump seem to share parts, but the statue is not part of the lump [Inwagen]
If you knead clay you make an infinite series of objects, but they are rearrangements, not creations [Inwagen]
Sculpting a lump of clay destroys one object, and replaces it with another one [Burke,M, by Wasserman]
Burke says when two object coincide, one of them is destroyed in the process [Burke,M, by Hawley]
Maybe the clay becomes a different lump when it becomes a statue [Burke,M, by Koslicki]
If the statue is loved and the clay hated, that is about the object first qua statue, then qua clay [Jubien]
If one entity is an object, a statue, and some clay, these come apart in at least three ways [Jubien]
A statue is essentially the statue, but its lump is not essentially a statue, so statue isn't lump [Yablo, by Rocca]
Statues and bronze lumps have discernible differences, so can't be identical [Heil]
Do we reduce statues to bronze, or eliminate statues, or allow statues and bronze? [Heil]
Clay is intrinsically and atomically the same as statue (and that lacks 'modal properties') [Rudder Baker]
The clay is not a statue - it borrows that property from the statue it constitutes [Rudder Baker]
The essence of lumps and statues shows that two objects coincide but are numerically distinct [Lowe]
The essence of a bronze statue shows that it could be made of different bronze [Lowe]
Statues can't survive much change to their shape, unlike lumps of bronze, which must retain material [Lowe]
Artists 'create' statues because they are essentially statues, and so lack identity with the lump of clay [Sider]
The modal features of statue and lump are disputed; when does it stop being that statue? [Hawley]
Perdurantists can adopt counterpart theory, to explain modal differences of identical part-sums [Hawley]
Clay does not 'constitute' a statue, as they have different persistence conditions (flaking, squashing) [Merricks]
Maybe we should give up the statue [Elder]
A statue and its matter have different persistence conditions, so they are not identical [Macdonald,C]
The clay is just a part of the statue (its matter); the rest consists of its form or structure [Koslicki]
Statue and clay differ in modal and temporal properties, and in constitution [Koslicki]
We can explain the statue/clay problem by a category mistake with a false premise [Magidor]
If the statue and the lump are two objects, they require separate properties, so we could add their masses [Thomasson]
Given the similarity of statue and lump, what could possibly ground their modal properties? [Thomasson]
If statue and clay fall and crush someone, the event is not overdetermined [Mumford/Anjum]
If clay survives destruction of the statue, the statue wasn't a substance, but a mere accident [Pasnau]