Introduction

The discussion begins by examining the term “substance” beyond its traditional confines. Substance, in its broadest interpretation, can refer to entities that are object-like, as opposed to property-like. For instance, an elephant exemplifies a substance, while its attributes, such as height or color, do not. Furthermore, the term can also denote the fundamental elements that comprise reality.

From Aristotle’s perspective, substances exist independently of other entities. He posits that substances do not rely on any external being for their existence. This viewpoint on substances presents a challenge for Carlo Rovelli, who advocates for relationalism. According to this framework, all entities are fundamentally dependent on their relationships with other beings, suggesting that without these connections, they cannot truly be classified as substances.

Rovelli articulates this contrast with Aristotle’s stance on relationality, stating that for Aristotle, relationships are merely properties of substances, which he argues possess "the least being and reality." Rovelli, however, asserts that relationality embodies the most substantial form of existence. This raises an interesting question: does Rovelli’s emphasis on relationality eliminate the need for substances and particulars, or is he merely blurring the lines between these concepts?

The average person might find Aristotle's perspective more relatable, as it seems intuitive to regard an object as having more substantial reality than a relationship. The challenge lies in defining the terms “relation” and “object,” which significantly affects our understanding. Relationships may seem less tangible since they cannot be directly observed or interacted with, in contrast to physical objects that can be empirically tested.

Aristotle: Substance and Essence

In Aristotelian thought, the notion of substance is often tied to essence. Rovelli engages with this idea when he notes that metaphysics seeks a primary substance or essence from which everything derives. It remains ambiguous whether Rovelli treats “substance” and “essence” as interchangeable or views them as distinct yet interconnected concepts.

Aristotle’s exploration of substance (ousia) and essence (to ti ên einai) in his Metaphysics reveals that a particular substance is a combination of matter and form, a view known as hylomorphism. Thus, a substance possesses an essence, signifying that it is not identical to its essence but is characterized by it.

Rovelli on Nagarjuna and Western Philosophy

Rovelli contrasts the Aristotelian focus on substance with insights from the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna, who argued that one can consider the manifestations of objects without needing to understand the object in isolation from these manifestations. This perspective implies that objects are not entirely eliminated from the relationalist framework, despite Rovelli’s emphasis on manifestations.

It’s worth noting that the belief in an object-in-itself is not widely held among contemporary thinkers, yet Rovelli suggests that this notion has been a cornerstone of Western philosophy. He points out that throughout the history of Western thought, critiques have emerged regarding the idea that entities form the foundation of reality, a sentiment echoed by various philosophical traditions.

Rovelli further remarks on the history of physics, noting that the shift from viewing quantities as absolute to recognizing their relative nature has been a persistent theme across scientific disciplines. However, it remains unclear how he applies these concepts of “absolute” and “relative” beyond the context of space and time.

Carlo Rovelli’s Relationalism

At its core, Rovelli's relationalism suggests that objects cannot exist without their relationships. This leads to the inquiry: do relations precede the existence of objects, or are objects defined by their relations? Rovelli’s interpretation of Nagarjuna hints that structures and relations are not simply separate from objects; rather, they are intertwined.

This perspective invites further reflection on how we classify and prioritize the multitude of relations any object may have throughout its existence. Aristotle's notions of substance and essence may provide a framework for understanding how an object can maintain its identity despite undergoing various relational changes over time.

In conclusion, while Rovelli challenges traditional notions of substance and essence by emphasizing relationality, the interplay between these concepts remains complex and worthy of further exploration.