Home
In regards to the nominalist tradition, the phenomenon of the Eucharist was the cause for expanding their ontology. The Eucharist is the act in which a priest blesses a portion of bread and wine, which are then destroyed and replaced by the body and blood of Christ. While the original substances were destroyed, their color, taste and various other qualities remain. Though those qualities are still present, both Ockham and Buridan assert the belief that they do not inhere within the body and blood of Christ. It follows from this that the accidents of color, taste and other qualities of the bread and wine must be able to able to exist without inhering in substances. With this, the phenomena of the Eucharist would occur along the lines of the original substances of bread and wine are destroyed and thereby replaced with the body and blood of Christ. While those original substances are replaced, the distinct accidents which inhered within the original bread and wine remain, albeit independently, without inhering in the body and blood of Christ. Thus, if these distinct qualities can remain without inhering in the subject, it can explain as to why the appearances remain the same.
Overall, this specific case can be cited as a reason for why Ockham and Buridan expanded their ontology beyond simply particular substances, or those things that really exist. In order to explain the Eucharist, they were required to admit that certain qualities also had a distinct existence, thus there really exists something such as ‘whiteness’ or ‘tannedness.’ This does present a problem in regards to how these distinct qualities inhere in substances while remaining distinct. Ockham does not feel the need to add a 3rd sort of disposition, but Buridan feels that a 3rd disposition is necessary in explaining how the whiteness is dependent upon the substance and the substance on the whiteness. Thus, besides being the particular substance, such as man, and the distinct quality, such as whiteness, there must be another disposition, that being the inherence of the whiteness in the man. This third disposition is not a distinct entity in itself, rather it can be thought of as a mode. Looking at this 3rd disposition as a mode allows Buridan to explain how things are, such as how the whiteness is inhering in the man.
Overall, this specific case can be cited as a reason for why Ockham and Buridan expanded their ontology beyond simply particular substances, or those things that really exist. In order to explain the Eucharist, they were required to admit that certain qualities also had a distinct existence, thus there really exists something such as ‘whiteness’ or ‘tannedness.’ This does present a problem in regards to how these distinct qualities inhere in substances while remaining distinct. Ockham does not feel the need to add a 3rd sort of disposition, but Buridan feels that a 3rd disposition is necessary in explaining how the whiteness is dependent upon the substance and the substance on the whiteness. Thus, besides being the particular substance, such as man, and the distinct quality, such as whiteness, there must be another disposition, that being the inherence of the whiteness in the man. This third disposition is not a distinct entity in itself, rather it can be thought of as a mode. Looking at this 3rd disposition as a mode allows Buridan to explain how things are, such as how the whiteness is inhering in the man.
