I am a bit confused as to how Aristotle accounts for change (accidental and substantial). I seem to understand the idea of a substance being the compound of material and form to some degree, but how this is supposed to account for change, I do not see. Let me give you an example which I'm taking from the opening paragraphs of the following link (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/) which talk about Socrates become a musical man. Here, it says that, "when Socrates learns to play the flute, he transitions from a state of being unmusical (the lack) to a state of musicality (the form)."
Formulating this in a "substance = matter + form" way of thinking, I write this as
- Unmusical Socrates = Socrates + unmusical
- Musical Socrates = Socrates + musical
So, it seems that the matter, Socrates, is what persists here, as the lack "unmusical" passes to the form "musical".
However, in the article, it states "...in an accidental change, the underlying thing is the substance which acquires a new accidental property."
Herein lies my confusion. According to the above sentence, it is the the SUBSTANCE which persists. This seems odd, for if the substance is the compound which is supposed to be changing, it should not be persisting.
Can somebody help me an armchair philosopher? Thanks!