There is an inherent tension in Aristotle's writings on substance, a tension he could not solve. Substance, we have learnt is, on the one hand, a (separable) 'this', on the other hand, 'essence'. But essences, as universals, are not 'separable' (= having an independent existence). Inspired by Bernard Lonergan's monumental book 'Insight', Michael Novak made a fresh attempt to solve the tension. Give a brief sketch of his problem analysis and his solution (in the spirit of Lonergan). Add your own critical observations and questions. Is the problem now solved?

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

In fair discourse upon the matter of Aristotle's profound musings, we find a tangled web of substance, wherein dwells the very heart of existence entwined with the threads of essence. Aye, good Aristotle, whilst waxing eloquently on the nature of ‘this’—a singular, tangible thing, perceivable by our fleshly senses—articulates a paradox most perplexing; for in the same breath, he doth present essence, that which defines the quintessence of a being, yet remains not a separate entity, bound by its universal nature to the very myriad of its manifestations. Thus, like shadows dancing upon the walls of thought, these concepts elude the clasp of definitive grasp. Yet hark! At the threshold of our contemplation stands Michael Novak, emboldened by the luminous insights of Bernard Lonergan, whose intellectual alchemy seeks to dissolve this dissonance. Novak, in his sagacious inquiry, discerns that the dichotomy betwixt the separable and the universal may find refuge in the principle of dynamic relations—wherein substances do manifest not merely in isolation, but in the symphony of their interconnections. His solution lays bare the vision that essence, rather than being an abstract specter, can thrive within the dance of becoming, binding the particular with the whole through the manifold interplay of existence. Yet, as we voyage deeper into this philosophical sea, one must ponder: dost the soul of substance not yearn for autonomy, or shall it forever remain chained to the web of relations? Does Novak’s reasoning provide solace, or merely a temporary balm upon the wounds of this age-old conundrum? In such deliberation, we question if the essence of essence remains ever elusive, a phantom haunting the corridors of our understanding, or if through Novak's lens we may finally glimpse the unity within the seeming discord, thus allowing our minds to soar beyond the constraints of archaic frameworks, to weave a tapestry anew, where substance and essence embrace in harmonious existence, rather than play a relentless game of hide and seek.