Single Idea 7046

[catalogued under 9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 2. Substance / e. Substance critique]

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


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.