Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs
(or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
|French to English translations [PRO]|
/ religion, theology
|French term or phrase: suppo^t|
|Catholic theology, borrowed from Aristotle, as in that which 'supports' existance|
In the philosophy of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas it is something that is somewhere between body and soul. See the following ULR: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.html
"The only possibility, therefore, is that the term essence, used with respect to composite substances, signifies that which is composed of matter and form. This conclusion is consistent with what Boethius says in his commentary on the Categories, namely, that ousia signifies what is composite; ousia, of course, is for the Greeks what essence is for us, as Boethius himself says in his book De Persona et Duabus Naturis.[] Avicenna even says, Metaphysicae V, cap. 5, that the quiddity of a composite substance is the very composition of the form and the matter. And commenting on Book VII of Aristotle's Metaphysicae, the Commentator says, "The nature that species in generable things have is something in the middle; that is, it is composed of matter and form." Metaphysicae VII, com. 27. Moreover, reason supports this view, for the existence of a composite substance is neither form alone nor matter alone but is rather composed of these. The essence is that according to which the thing is said to exist; hence, it is right that the essence by which a thing is denominated a being is neither form alone not matter alone but both, albeit that existence of this kind is caused by the form and not by the matter. Similarly, we see that in other things that are constituted from many principles, the thing is not denominated from just one or the other of the principles but rather from that which embraces both. Thus, with respect to flavors, sweetness is caused by the action of a warm animal body digesting what is wet, and albeit that in this way warmth is the cause of the sweetness, nevertheless a body is not called sweet by reason of the warmth, but rather by reason of the flavor, which embraces both the warmth and the wetness."
Selected response from:
|Thank you, that was very helpful, but in my text there is a subtle difference between ousia and 'suppot'. Ousia would be that which is underneath, and 'suppot', that which is placed beneath. Maybe ousia is substance and suppot is essence?|
4 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer
1 hr confidence: peer agreement (net): +4
if you mean "suppôt"
|completely out of context|