Full Idea
I prefer the more colloquial 'object' to the traditional term 'substance'. An object can be regarded as a possessor of properties: as something that is red, spherical and pungent, for instance.
Gist of Idea
Rather than 'substance' I use 'objects', which have properties
Source
John Heil (From an Ontological Point of View [2003], 15.3)
Book Reference
Heil,John: 'From an Ontological Point of View' [OUP 2005], p.172
A Reaction
A nice move, but it seems to beg the question of 'what is it that has the properties?' Objects and substances do two different jobs in our ontology. Heil is just refusing to discuss what it is that has properties.