I was talking to a friend the other day about the Introduction To Philosophy class she is taking, and she asked me to explain to her what the Substance-Transformation Theory is. Well, I was a logic major in college and took my fair share of philosophy classes, but I can’t for the life of me remember what this theory is (although my memory is like a sieve these days). I’ve done multiple searches on several search engines, but I haven’t been able to find any reference to it. A lot of “substance” hits and a lot of “transformation” hits, but nothing with the two words together. Is this a real theory, or is her professor just making this term up to convey his own ideas?
Well, I’ve heard of “Transformation Theory” as it applies to Philiosophy. It has something to do with smaller bits (cells, individuals, etc.) aquiring the characteristics of bigger bits (environment, society, etc.)
“Substance-Transformation Theory” sounds like a term one would pick up from a Physics class rather than a Philosophy class. I think it was Rutherford who came up with the substance transformation theory of radioactivity, about how substances transmute into others through radioactive decay.
Uh, I think this History major has just stepped out of his field of expertise. I await chastisement from all you philosophers and physicists. Be gentle.
Perhaps the most famous proponent of substance transformation was Descartes, who cashed out the
distinction between minds and bodies as follows: minds are things that think but lack spatial
magnitude, and bodies are things that have spatial magnitudes, but don’t think. Different
substance transformationalists may disagree as to how best to define what’s essential to being mental and
physical, but they do agree that the difference in question is one of objects, not properties. So,
for example, my belief that the Eiffel tower is in France and my being six feet tall are properties
of different objects, i.e., my mind and my body, respectively.