Locke 1

Locke, empiricist, on "substance"

'Substance in general'

I think what Locke is saying is that some people operate with a notion (which they call 'substance') of a kind of substrate in which properties inhere. But they can't say anything more about this supposed 'substrate'. So it's too vague a notion to be really meaningful or useful.

Comments?

Substance: replaced by the Modern idea of a 'thing'

Is a thing simply a set of qualities?

If so, can we conceive of a Universe in which qualities didn't go about in packages?

If so, is there a question: in this Universe, what brings it about that they do go about in packages? Is something tying the packages together?

VP