 the issue postured by transcendentalism (Damböck, 2012). This kind of irrationalism is entirely unavoidable for any theory of essence that gives careful consideration to one and only part of reality. To this Asouzu further places that Generally, fidelity to Aristotle's metaphysics has resulted in the tendency to see reality as something disjointed, bifurcated and polarised; where what is essential or substantial is easily equated with what is superior, whereas what is accidental is equated with what is inferior and inconsequential (Asouzu, 2011: p. 43). Asouzu reprimands Aristotle's "theory of substance" as giving in amazing types of, absolutism, which is the piece of philosophical universality, which looks to reject parts of reality from its thought. Other than this clearly most mystical course readings, utilized as a part of instructing for quite a long time, for instance, have subscribed to Aristotle's radical qualification between "embodiment" or "substance" and "mischances". Consequently, they subscribe generally likewise to Aristotle's showing that substance or quintessence does not require mishaps (qualities) to subsist, though mischances need substances on which they inhere. It is fascinating to note, that most disputes in Western rationality, in assorted appearances, spin around the relationship of substance (quintessence) to mishaps. Since a reasoning of quintessence invalidates the characteristic common corresponding reliance between all existent substances, it effectively controls a course of irrationalism. Prof Asouzu opine that "everything that exist serves as a missing connection to reality" (Asouzu, 2007), this infers we ought not see a part of reality more vital than alternate as two or more things exist to serve one another and are not independent. The suggestion for this is that taking a gander at the part of substance and attributes, both essentially go together, there is no requirement for us distinction between this two. On the off chance that we comprehend that we can't know substance without its qualities same as we can't know property without its substance, then we would spare our self from much counter-intuitive philosophical contention. 6. Conclusion This paper has had the ability to reveal the issue of substance and attribute from its root. It starts with the point of what substance and attribute are. These questions are hard to reply in the midst of irregularity and differences from various researchers who B. S. Akpan, C. C. Od
the issue postured by transcendentalism (Damböck, 2012). This kind of irrationalism is entirely unavoidable for any hypothesis of perfume that gives careful consideration to one and merely function of reality. To this Asouzu further places that broadly, fidelity to Aristotle's metaphysics has leave in the tendency to see reality as something disjointed, bifurcate and polarised; where what is essential or hearty is well equated with what is superior, whereas what is accidental is equal with what is inferior and inconsequential (Asouzu, 2011: p. 43). Asouzu reprimand Aristotle's " theory of substance " as giving in amazing type of, absolutism, which is the piece of philosophical universality, which looks to refuse parts of reality from its thought. Other than this clearly about mystical course readings, utilized as a part of instructing for quite a retentive time, for instance, have subscribed to Aristotle's radical qualification between " embodiment " or " substance " and " mischances ". Consequently, they subscribe generally likewise to Aristotle's read that substance or quintessence does not require mishap (quality) to subsist, though mischances need substances on which they inhere. It is absorbing to note, that most disputes in Western rationality, in assorted appearances, whirl around the relationship of substance (quintessence) to mishaps. Since a reasoning of quintessence invalidates the characteristic common corresponding reliance between all existent substances, it effectively controls a course of irrationalism. Prof Asouzu opine that " everything that exist serve as a missing association to reality " (Asouzu, 2007), this infers we ought not see a part of reality more vital than alternate as two or more thing exist to serve one another and are not independent. The suggestion for this is that assume a gander at the part of substance and attributes, both basically go together, there is no requirement for us distinction between this two. On the off opportunity that we comprehend that we can't acknowledge substance without its quality same as we can't sleep together property without its substance, then we would spare our self from much counter - intuitive philosophical contention. 6. decision This paper has have the ability to reveal the issue of substance and attribute from its beginning. It starts with the point of what message and attribute are. These questions are intemperate to reply in the midst of irregularity and differences from versatile researchers who B. S. Akpan, C. C. Od
 thf issue postured by tranrcendentalism (Dcnböck, 2012). Vhis kihd of irfationalism is entirely unavlieable for any theory of essdnce that gives cqrefnl consideration to one and onmn parc if reality. To jhis Asouzu xurther places tfac Generally, fidelity to Aristotle's mqtaphysocd has resulted in uhe tensvngy to see reality as something djsjointtd, bifurcated and lolarised; where what is esdentlal or substantial is easily gsuaewd with what is superior, whereas wgat is accidental is equated wigh whct is inferuoe ajg inconsequxntial (Asouzu, 2011: p. 43). Asouzu raprimancs Aristotle's "bheorb of substance" as giving mn amazing types of, wbsolutisk, chich is the piece of pyilosmphiwal jbivdrszlmty, which lokks to rejsct parts od reality from its uhottht. Other thah this cjearly most mystical course readings, utplizsd as a part of instrucring for quite a long time, for instance, have subscribed to Aristotle's radical qgalifmcxtiin cwtaeen "embodiment" or "substance" and "mischances". Cjhstquvntly, they subscrlbe generally likeeide jo Aristotle's rhowiny tgat substance or qkintessgnce dies not rtquirr mishaps (qualities) to subsust, though mpschqnces need substanees on which thei inhete. It is fascinating to nots, that most disputes kn Western ratiovalpty, hn assorudd appearances, spyn around the relatiunshop of fubstance (euintcvsence) to mishaps. Dince a reasoning of quintessence invalidates thx characterisjic cokmon corxesponcing reliance between all eristent fubstxnces, it erfectivxly controls a course of htrationalism. 'rof Asousu opine that "exdrything that rxist sernef as a missing connectlon tu reality" (Asouzu, 2007), tyis infers we oighg njt sxe a [drt of realidy mure fital than alterkatd as two or more things axisf to serve one anoyhcr and arg not indqpendent. The xuggestion for thid is vhat teking s gwnder at the part of substance and attrlbubes, both essegtiaoly go togetker, there is no requirement for us distiiction between this two. On the off chance jhau we compreheid thae we can't know substance withiut its qualities same as we can't know propesty wlthout its substance, then we would spare our self from much counter-intuituve phmljsophical ckntemtion. 6. Eonelusion Thid paper has had tne ability to reveal the issue uf substdnee and attribute from its rooy. Kt starts witf the point of what subsfance anc attribute are. These questions are hard to reply in thc midst od irrsgularpjy end differences from variobs reswarcherw whl B. S. Akpan, C. C. Pd
the issue postured by transcendentalism (Damböck, 2012). of is entirely for any theory consideration one and only of reality. To Asouzu further places that Generally, fidelity Aristotle's metaphysics has resulted in the tendency to see reality as something disjointed, and polarised; where what is essential or substantial is easily equated with what superior, what accidental equated with what is inferior and inconsequential (Asouzu, 2011: p. 43). Asouzu reprimands Aristotle's "theory of as giving in amazing types of, absolutism, which the piece of philosophical which looks to reject parts reality its thought. than clearly mystical course readings, as a part of instructing for quite a long time, for instance, have subscribed to Aristotle's radical between "embodiment" and "mischances". they generally to Aristotle's showing or quintessence does not require mishaps though mischances need substances on which they inhere. is fascinating note, that most disputes in Western in assorted appearances, spin around the relationship of (quintessence) to mishaps. Since a reasoning of quintessence invalidates the characteristic common corresponding reliance between substances, it effectively controls course of irrationalism. Asouzu that that serves as missing connection to reality" (Asouzu, 2007), this infers we ought not a part of reality more vital than alternate as two things to serve one and are not independent. suggestion this is that taking at part attributes, essentially together, there is no for us distinction between this On the off chance can't know substance without its qualities same as can't know property without its substance, then would spare our self from much counter-intuitive philosophical contention. 6. Conclusion This has had to reveal the issue of substance and attribute its root. It starts the point of what substance and attribute are. These are to reply the midst of and differences from researchers who B. C. C.
 the issue postured by transceNdentalism (damböCk, 2012). THis KiNd of IrraTionalism is entIRely Unavoidable for any theorY of esSeNCe thAT gIves cAreful cONsIDEraTiOn To oNe ANd Only pArt Of realiTy. To this AsOuzU fUrther places THaT Generally, FidElity to AristOtlE's metaPhYsiCS has rEsuLted iN the teNDency tO see realiTy AS sometHIng disjOINtEd, biFurcated and polariSEd; WHere what is esseNtial oR sUBsTANtiAl iS easily equAtEd witH What is sUPeRIOR, whEReas what is accIdental is eqUAteD with wHaT is INferioR and iNcONseQuential (AsoUzu, 2011: p. 43). asouzu repRimandS aristotLE's "theorY of subStaNce" As giVInG iN amAzINg tYPeS of, ABsoLutism, whIcH iS the pIece OF PHIlosOphIcal UniveRsality, which lOokS to rEJecT partS of reAlitY fRom itS thougHt. OthEr Than this clearly Most Mystical cOurSe ReaDiNgs, utILized aS a pArt Of instrUcting fOR quItE A LOnG time, for instance, haVe SUBsCribed to aristoTLe'S rADical quaLiFicAtioN BEtweeN "embODiMent" or "suBstancE" AnD "mIschancEs". conseqUeNtlY, thEy subSCribE generAlly likeWise tO aristotle's showINg that substanCE oR QUiNTessEncE does not reqUire MIshaPs (quALiTieS) To subSist, tHoUGh MIschances need substaNcEs on whIch thEy inhere. It is fAscinating TO NOte, that mOst dISpUTes in Western raTionaLity, in assoRTed appeaRanceS, spin aroUnd the relATIonship oF suBstAncE (quINTeSsence) to mishaPS. sincE a ReasoniNg oF quinteSseNce InvAliDaTes the chaRacterisTiC cOmMoN coRrespONding relIaNce BeTweEn all EXistenT subsTancEs, It EFfeCtively COnTROls a CoUrSe of IrrAtIonalIsm. PROf ASouzu opIne that "evEryTHing ThAt Exist seRves as a missinG cOnnection tO rEalIty" (AsoUZU, 2007), this infErs we ought not see a part of REality mOre Vital Than Alternate As tWo or moRe tHIngs exIst to sErve oNe AnoTHEr and ARE nOt iNdEpendent. ThE SUggEstioN fOr thIs is thaT taking a gander at thE ParT of substance aNd aTtriBUTeS, boTH eSSenTiALly GO Together, there is No requiremEnT FoR us distincTIon BeTween thIs two. On The ofF Chance tHat we compRehend thaT wE can'T KNow Substance wIthout itS qualitieS Same aS We Can't kNow ProperTy WitHout iTs subsTAncE, then We woulD sPare ouR self FrOm much coUnter-intuitive philosophIcal coNtentIon. 6. conclusioN ThIS paPer has had The aBility to reVeaL thE issuE of SUbstaNce aND aTtrIBute fRom iTS root. It stARtS wiTH ThE point of whaT SUBstAnce aNd aTTributE are. these questions are HArd to reply in thE midST Of iRreGUlarItY and differenceS frOm VARious resEaRchers who B. S. akpan, C. C. OD
 the issue postured by tra nscendenta lism(Da mbö ck , 20 12).  This kind ofi rrat ionalism is entirely u navoi da b le f o rany t heory o f  e s s enc eth atgi v es  care ful  consid eration to  on eand only par t  o f reality.  To  this Asouzu  fu rtherpl ace s  that  Ge neral ly, fi d elityto Aristo tl e 's met a physics h as  res ulted in the tend e nc y  to see realit y as s om e th i n g d isj ointed, bi fu rcate d  and po l ar i s e d;w here what isessential o r  su bstant ia l i s  easil y equ at e d w ith what is  sup erior, wh ereasw hat isa ccident al isequ ate d wi t hwh atis inf e ri ora ndinconseq ue nt ial ( Asou z u , 2011 : p . 43 ). As ouzu repriman dsAris t otl e's " theor y of  s ubsta nce" a s giv in g in amazing ty pesof, absol uti sm , w hi ch is the pi ece  of  philos ophical uni ve r s a li ty, which looks to  r e j ec t partsof rea l it yf rom itsth oug ht.O t her t hant hi s clearl y most my st ical co ur se rea di ngs , u tiliz e d as  a par t of ins truct i ng for quite a long time, fo r  i n s ta n ce,hav e subscribe d to Aris totl e 's  ra d icalquali fi c at i on between "embodim en t" or"subs tance" and "m ischances" . C onsequen tly, th e y subscribe ge neral ly likewis e  to Aris totle 's showi ng that s u b stance o r q uin tes sen c e  d oes not requi r e  mis ha ps (qua lit ies) to  su bsi st,  th ou gh mischa nces nee dsu bs ta nce s onw hich the yinh er e.It is fascin ating  tono te ,  th at most di s p utes  i nWest ern  r ation alit y , i n assor ted appea ran c es,sp in  around  the relation sh ip of subs ta nce  (quin t e ssence)to mishaps. Since a rea s oning o f q uinte ssen ce invali dat es the  ch a racter isticcommo ncor r e spond i n grel ia nce betwee n all  exis te nt s ubstanc es, it effectively con trols a cours e o f ir r a ti ona l is m . P ro f  As o u zu opine that " everything  t h at  exist ser v esas  a miss ing con necti o n to re ality" (A souzu, 20 07 ), t h i s i nfers we o ught not  see a pa r t ofr ea litymor e vita ltha n alt ernate astwo o r more  t hingsexist  t o serveone another and are not  indep enden t.The sugge sti o n f or this i s th at takinga g and er at  th e  part  ofs ub sta n ce an d at t ributes,b ot h e s s en tially go t o g e the r, th ere is norequ irement for us di s tinction betwe en t h i s t wo. On t he  off chance th atwe c omprehen dthat we can 't knowsu b stanc e with out it s quali t i es same a s we  ca n't knowpro pe r ty with ou ti ts sub stan ce , then  we wo u ld s p a re our self from  much c ounte r -in tuiti ve  philos o phic al content ion. 6. Con clusio n Th is pa per has  h ad the  ab il ity to rev e al the is sue o f subst an ce a ndattrib utef r om it s ro ot . I t startsw i th th ep oin t of  what  s ubst ance anda ttribute  ar e . These  q ues t i ons ar e  h a r d to reply  in  them i dst of irr e gula r it y  anddiffer encesfrom va r iou sresearc her s who B. S.  Akpan, C .  C.  O d
 the_issue postured_by transcendentalism (Damböck, 2012)._This kind_of_irrationalism is_entirely_unavoidable for any_theory of essence_that gives careful consideration_to one and_only_part of reality. To this Asouzu further places that Generally, fidelity to Aristotle's metaphysics_has_resulted in_the_tendency_to see reality as something_disjointed, bifurcated and polarised; where_what is_essential or substantial is easily equated with what_is_superior, whereas what_is accidental is equated with what is inferior and_inconsequential (Asouzu, 2011: p. 43). Asouzu_reprimands Aristotle's "theory_of_substance"_as giving in amazing_types of, absolutism, which is the_piece of philosophical universality, which looks_to reject parts of reality from its_thought. Other than this clearly most_mystical course readings, utilized as_a part_of instructing for quite a_long time, for_instance, have_subscribed to Aristotle's_radical qualification between "embodiment" or "substance"_and "mischances". Consequently,_they subscribe generally likewise to Aristotle's_showing_that substance or_quintessence_does_not require_mishaps (qualities) to_subsist,_though mischances_need_substances on which they inhere. It_is_fascinating to note, that most disputes in_Western rationality, in assorted_appearances,_spin around the relationship_of substance (quintessence) to mishaps._Since a reasoning of quintessence invalidates_the characteristic_common corresponding_reliance between all existent substances, it effectively controls a course of_irrationalism. Prof Asouzu opine that "everything_that exist serves as_a missing_connection_to reality" (Asouzu,_2007),_this infers_we ought not see a part of_reality more_vital than alternate as two or_more things exist to_serve_one another and are not independent._The suggestion for this is that_taking a gander at the_part_of_substance and attributes, both essentially_go together, there is no requirement_for us distinction_between this two. On the off chance_that_we comprehend that we can't know_substance_without its qualities same as we_can't_know_property without its substance, then_we would spare our self from_much counter-intuitive philosophical contention. 6. Conclusion This paper has_had the ability_to reveal the issue of_substance_and_attribute from its root. It starts with the point of_what substance_and attribute are._These questions are hard to reply in the midst of_irregularity and differences from various researchers who_B. S. Akpan, C. C. Od