A Worm Cut in Half Has Two Souls?

[liquidpele]

I always thought if you cut a worm in two it will die?
.

Most will, but some will regenerate. You can even slice their head down the middle and it’ll grow 2 heads for the one body.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarians

 

[surritter]

asking if an animal has a soul is on par with asking if a roomba has a soul. subtract our natural prediliction for projective parodelia and anthropomorphic world views and we come to a nano molecular robot, known as an animal, differing in substance but not kind from any complicated, programmable machine, like a roomba. sentiment aside, i see no reason to believe that animals have actual souls.

A Roomba is a robot programmed by humans to do certain things and act in certain ways. So are you saying that animals are just God’s robots? I don’t think Catholic theology would agree. So my OP was based on the idea that there must be a “soul” of some kind. Everyone on this thread is getting so worked up about the term “soul,” but I think it makes perfect sense if you lay down your definitions: humans have rational souls that live forever, and animals have simple souls that do not continue after death. We are made in the image and likeness of God; animals are not.

 

[Eucharisted]

Hey, I’m not the one that cares, I was simply pointing out that a lot of Catholics believe that animals do have a kind of soul, so you believe whatever you want. As for the dimensions, you claimed only one could fit, so you obviously must know their dimensions otherwise you wouldn’t have made an exact claim… so lets here your logic on why only one would fit on a pin.

In other words, “I’m a troll, please report me.” Thanks for telling me, Liquid.

 

[liquidpele]

In other words, “I’m a troll, please report me.” Thanks for telling me, Liquid.

Are you serious? You made a claim, I pointed out that other Catholics (including apologists on this site) disagreed with you, and you call me a troll. Very mature with the ad hominem. I’ll stop replying to you now as you’ve made it apparent that you’d rather believe yourself to be right than have a discussion, so enjoy the last word.

 

[pzona]

Well, good question.

If you deny the distinction between substance and accident, then I guess you could say “blue” could exist in itself and not necessarily in something. You could say that any action can have substantial being … that is, “Running” could exist in itself … you could hold “Running” because it would be like holding a “ball” (which is a legitimate substance). In short, characteristics could exist by themselves. Crazy stuff like that. Most people wouldn’t think those crazy things.

Also, if you deny the distinction between primary and secondary substance … such as, if you think there are only primary substances, you couldn’t say that there are multiple things of the same kind. For example, you couldn’t say that there are multiple horses, because that would imply that each of them is a “horse” (referring to its secondary substance) but if primary substance only exists then you have to call them completely different things.

Does that make sense? Those are some of the crazy consequences if you deny these Aristotelian and Thomistic concepts. A lot of this is just common sense, but Aristotle (and his successors) merely systemized it and developed a consistent way to talk about this stuff. When you get into complicated debates, it is necessary to hash out distinctions of this level of detail.

These make sense, but they seem more to be an issue of semantics and language than metaphysics. Did these ideas play a role in the development in certain languages, or were they taken from the abstract realm of verbs and adjectives and solidified by Aristotle for the sake of creating a philosophical system? In other words, which came first?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A Roomba is a robot programmed by humans to do certain things and act in certain ways. So are you saying that animals are just God’s robots? I don’t think Catholic theology would agree. So my OP was based on the idea that there must be a “soul” of some kind. Everyone on this thread is getting so worked up about the term “soul,” but I think it makes perfect sense if you lay down your definitions: humans have rational souls that live forever, and animals have simple souls that do not continue after death. We are made in the image and likeness of God; animals are not.

for me the problem of temporary animal souls, is that they arent necessary, there is no evidence that animals arent simply meatbots, so to speak, in order to function a roomba needs no soul, and i dont see why that is necessary to the functioning of animals. on a most basic level they are robots. programmed by evolution. i just dont see a reason for wjhy animals must have a soul.

 

[Bluegoat]

A worm that is cut in half will die. You can remove up to the first five segments from the worm’s front end and that part will grow back, but the removed part will die.

However, there are other creatures that can be increased by division - many plants for example. Since they have vegetative souls there would indeed be two where there was one. THe same would be the case for animals that divide to reproduce. But with plants and animals, the soul is completely attached to/contained within the matirial body - they are one. So it should be no surprise that if the body divides somehow the soul would too.

A much more interesting question along the same lines is the case of identical twins in humans.

 

[pzona]

A much more interesting question along the same lines is the case of identical twins in humans.

Very interesting indeed. I look forward to hearing explanations on this.

 

[surritter]

…[W]ith plants and animals, the soul is completely attached to/contained within the matirial body - they are one. So it should be no surprise that if the body divides somehow the soul would too.

A much more interesting question along the same lines is the case of identical twins in humans.

I think Bluegoat hit the nail on the head. Whether it’s worms or identical twins, when there becomes a case of two bodies, somehow God makes it so there are two souls where previously there was only one. We don’t know how, but it just is.

 

[Areopagite]

These make sense, but they seem more to be an issue of semantics and language than metaphysics.

I can see why you’d say that. My opinion is that there is a thin dividing line between the semantics and metaphysics. If you read Aristotle’s metaphysics, it seems like a lot of it has to do with the use of language. But it’s not just words, it’s making sure how the words are used and what they refer to. You see, metaphysics is the “study of being,” and “being” means “that which can exist.” In other words, metaphysics studies the basic principles behind existence and how to consider existence in its various forms. It thus becomes the universal science that applies to all possible sciences. And a lot of that has to do with how words are used to express and refer to beings.

Did these ideas play a role in the development in certain languages, or were they taken from the abstract realm of verbs and adjectives and solidified by Aristotle for the sake of creating a philosophical system? In other words, which came first?

Good question. I think (as far as I know) they developed more or less together. Perhaps some basic grammatical ideas were developed prior to metaphysical theories, but it is true that advanced semantics was only made possible by a developed metaphysical theory.

The traditional method of studying grammar was studying a lot of metaphysics, and then after that, moving into logic, and then rhetoric (this three part system of learning was called the Trivium … and it was the normal method until the early 20th century … fragments of it survive in modern education).

An example of how Aristotle’s metaphysics set the foundations for our grammar:

Substantives: this includes all nouns and pronouns. They primarily symbolize substances (hence the name), either primary or secondary, concrete or abstract (e.g. trees, rocks, or humanity, animality) but can also symbolize accidents considered in themselves and not a part of a particular substances (e.g. length, cheerfulness, speed, etc.)

Attributives: this includes all verbs, adjective, and adverbs. Attributives only symbolize accidents (e.g. moving, intelligent, quickly)

All Substantives and Attributives symbolize some form of being in Aristotle’s 10 Categories of Being (which are substance, quantity, quality, relation, action, reaction, time, place, posture, and possession … the last nine are all kinds of accidents). Substantives and Attributives and thus call Categorematic Words.

Syncategorematic words are words that do not symbolize any being in themselves but are only meaningful in the presence of other words. Syncategorematic words include Prepositions, Conjunctions, and Articles (and there are some other weird ones).

The common grammatical idea of how adjectives and adverbs modify a noun is identical to the Aristotelian idea of accidents modifying a substance. The connections like that are numerous. Personally, when I was in Junior High studying grammar, I felt there was some deep philosophical underpinning that they weren’t telling us. I felt like I had found a buried treasure when I found out it was true.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

 

[pzona]

Areopagite,

Yes, that answers a lot of questions; I appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed response. One more (for now) question though. This may be related or unrelated, depending on how you look at it. Did God create the ideas of metaphysics, logic, etc.? Or are they inherent conditions governing the laws of existence, including the existence of God?

 

[Areopagite]

Areopagite,

Yes, that answers a lot of questions; I appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed response. One more (for now) question though. This may be related or unrelated, depending on how you look at it. Did God create the ideas of metaphysics, logic, etc.? Or are they inherent conditions governing the laws of existence, including the existence of God?

Good question. There’s a couple ways to interpret what your question is exactly asking …

If you mean “metaphysics” and “logic” in terms of “sciences/studies” … then you could say God created them. God created human knowledge. However that knowledge refers to actual truth/reality.

So, if you mean “metaphysics” and “logic” as referring to the object(s) that those sciences study (namely, inherent conditions of being and existence, etc.) then no, God did not create them. They are no separate from God though. In fact, they are a part of His nature. Studying the nature of being is in some sense (a limited sense of course) studying the nature of God. God must abide by logic and not go against the principle of non-contradiction. Everything God created He created based on different aspects of His nature. There is nothing that positively exists that doesn’t exist in God too, and that of course includes being and existence and logic … and all the usual suspects.

I hope that makes some sense. There’s a couple other things I could say, so if this doesn’t make sense I could elaborate.

 

[buffalo]

5-animals have souls?

Yes all living things have souls. That is what animates them.