To: betty boop
Form and substance are philosophical terms, and they are definitely not "redundant." Maybe I wasn't clear. If find it redundant to say that a physical entity ("the earth") is without form or substance, when being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form.
490 posted on
06/26/2007 5:06:40 PM PDT by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
...being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form. Some would say so, tacticalogic. On such a view, Being is substance; and physical form is the result.
496 posted on
06/26/2007 5:20:01 PM PDT by
betty boop
("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
To: tacticalogic
I find it redundant to say that a physical entity ("the earth") is without form or substance, when being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form.
The analogy here would be to time and space. Both are distinct, yet both are necessary in context.
501 posted on
06/26/2007 5:48:32 PM PDT by
csense
To: tacticalogic; betty boop
If find it redundant to say that a physical entity ("the earth") is without form or substance, when being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form. Some languages use that technique of repetition for emphasis. We don't in English, so it seems strange to us.
544 posted on
06/27/2007 9:07:47 AM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson