Comments on Robert Verrill's Essay (2017) "Elementary Particles Are Not Substances"
ebook ∣ Peirce's Secondness and Aristotle's Hylomorphism, #13 · Peirce's Secondness and Aristotle's Hylomorphism
By Razie Mah
Sign up to save your library
With an OverDrive account, you can save your favorite libraries for at-a-glance information about availability. Find out more about OverDrive accounts.
Share
Find this title in Libby, the library reading app by OverDrive.
Search for a digital library with this title
Title found at these libraries:
| Library Name | Distance |
|---|---|
| Loading... |
Robert Verrill, OP, publishes an article in the Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association (volume 29, pages 63-72). The title is "Elementary Particles are not Substances."
The conclusion presupposes a question, "Can one demonstrate whether elementary particles are substances?"
So, the complete title should be "Elementary Particles are not Substances when relying on Medieval Philosophy."
Who can disagree?
Verrill accomplishes a straight-forward mapping from Aquinas's philosophical concepts onto physical phenomena.
But, are neutrons, protons and electrons physical phenomena?
Or are they models of physical phenomena?
Furthermore, what is the meaning of the word, "substance"?
These comments address these questions while examining Verrill's tidy argument from a Peircean point of view.
Share
