Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T05:11:57.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Substance and Modality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Abstract

The Aristotelian distinction between actual and potential presence of a substance in a mixture forms part of a conception of mixture which stands in contrast to atomist and Stoic theories as propounded by the ancients. But the central ideas on which these theories are built need not be combined and opposed to one another in precisely the ways envisaged by these ancient theories. This is well illustrated by Duhem, who maintained the Aristotelian idea that the original ingredients are only potentially, and not actually, present in a mixture, but who sided with the Stoics and against Aristotle on the possibility of co-occupancy. I have argued that the Stoic theory cannot dispense with some such notion as the Aristotelian conception of potentiality in allowing the elements to be actually present in a mixture. Here I suggest that some such Aristotelian notion must be at work in a more modern atomic conception of matter if this is to allow elemental substances to be actually present in compounds, which I think is how compounds are usually understood. Analogous issues arise regarding the status of solutions and their components.

Type
Chemical Substances
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle (1984), The Complete Works of Aristotle. Edited by Jonathan Barnes. Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cotton, F. Albert, Wilkinson, Geoffrey, Murillo, Carlos A., and Bochmann, Manfred (1999), Advanced Inorganic Chemistry. 6th ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre (1898), “La Loi des Phases, à propos d’un livre récent de M. Wilder D. Bancroft,” Revue des questions scientifiques 44:5482. Translated version in Pierre Duhem, Mixture and Chemical Combination, and Related Essays. Translated and edited by Paul Needham. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre (1902), Le mixte et la combinaison chimique: Essai sur l’évolution d’une idée. Paris: C. Naud. Translated version in Pierre Duhem, Mixture and Chemical Combination, and Related Essays. Translated and edited by Paul Needham. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Earley, Joseph (2005), “Why There Is No Salt in the Sea,” Foundations of Chemistry 7:85102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahm, David E. (1985), “The Stoic Theory of Change,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 13 (suppl.): 3956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoisier, Antoine (1965), Elements of Chemistry. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Needham, Paul (2000), “What Is Water?Analysis 60:1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, Paul (2002a), “The Discovery That Water Is H2O,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16:205226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, Paul (2002b), “Duhem’s Theory of Mixture in the Light of the Stoic Challenge to the Aristotelian Conception,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33:685708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostwald, Wilhelm (1904), “Elements and Compounds,” Journal of the Chemical Society 85:506522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paneth, F. A. (1962), “The Epistemological Status of the Chemical Concept of Element,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13:114, 144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar