Animal Souls

[mcliffor]

Peter Kreeft has used self-awareness as an argument for the immortal soul. But animals, apes in perticular, who learn sign language are able to express emotional self-awareness with sentences like “I am sad today” or “I feel good.” Does the argument still stand? If so, why don’t animals have souls?

 

[mosher]

It is not that animals do not have souls but rather that they do not have the same kind of souls that humans have - rational souls.

The nature of the animal soul is that it is able to react to its environment. So, because it has this ability to react it has not been adequately answered by scientists that work on the issue of animal intelligence if their “responses” are only reactions or if they are from a true internal self-awareness.

 

[jpjd]

Man was made in the image and likeness of God, and that means that man has an immortal soul. That is why we should be concerned about the state of our soul and where our immortal soul will be spending eternity.

Animals were not created in the image and likeness of God, so while they have a soul (because all living things have a soul), it is not immortal. When they die, their souls cease to exist.

 

[Amateur_Soul]

When they die, their souls cease to exist.

That always makes me sad – I know it’s the teaching on this (along with all the other aspects of it) but i really love my dogs

 

[mosher]

That always makes me sad – I know it’s the teaching on this (along with all the other aspects of it) but i really love my dogs

Don’t worry. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling and make it to heaven. If you do the joy that your pet gives you will be found in heaven. While your dog won’t exist in the same way that you exist in heaven he will exist in some way in the mind of God and as such can be made present to you in a virtual way that is no less joyful.

 

[Ghosty]

Peter Kreeft has used self-awareness as an argument for the immortal soul. But animals, apes in perticular, who learn sign language are able to express emotional self-awareness with sentences like “I am sad today” or “I feel good.” Does the argument still stand? If so, why don’t animals have souls?

While I love Kreeft’s writings, there are arguments of his that I find very unconvincing and this is one of them (the Argument from Design is the other biggie that I dislike).

Self-awareness in itself can’t be the hallmark of the immortal soul in the Thomistic perspective, because self-awareness at the lowest level comes from sensing the self, which is a property of the “animal soul”. For more clarity, growing on your own through absorbing nutrients, and “having offspring” is the property of the “vegetative” soul; sensation and desire, and limited knowledge through these two avenues are properties of the “animal” or “sensitive” soul; the “rational” soul has intellect and free will, intellect being the thing by which we abstract and associate categories, reflect on deeper meanings, ect.

Now each of these souls contains the powers of the ones below it, so an animal soul contains the powers of the vegetative, and the rational soul contains the powers of both.

Since an animal can sense itself, and can tell that its senses don’t extend to those things outside of themselves, they can actually have a certain self-awareness. They can realize that they have their own desires, and feelings, and needs. We can see this in animal behavior all the time. The fact that certain animals like apes are able to use sign language to indicate their desires and feelings doesn’t mean they’re doing anything more, fundamentally speaking, than a bird does when it sings a mating call, or a dog does when it yelps after being stepped on: they have a desire or sensation, and they give a call based on it. Apes simply have more capable brains, and the means by which to make sign-language (human-like hands), so they’re able to extend this animal power in a way that others are not. Parrots, who can make sounds similar to human words are capable of the same feats but with voice.

What really sets humans apart is not self-awareness, but HOW we are self-aware. We are self-aware by sensation, but we are ALSO self-aware by intellect, meaning we can reflect on what it means to be me, the implications of my desires in the greater scheme of human society, we can wonder why I should be or desire at all, ect. All of those things rise above the senses; I can’t sense meaning, I can’t sense “human culture”, I can’t sense what it is that makes me sense (“you can’t feel your own finger with your finger”). So that Koko the gorilla signs that she’s feeling sad, or that she really wants a banana is actually nothing special, but rather to be expected. If she were to write poetry about sadness and bananas, or write an essay about how bananas are like sadness, or give a speech about what it means to be a gorilla in the modern world, then we would have indications of a rational soul. Those are things that the most limited functional humans can do, but the healthiest and smartest ape can’t ever hope to match.

In short, being self-aware of needs and feelings is animal; being self-aware of WHO I am, and WHAT I am, and WHY I am, that is a function of the rational immortal soul.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Struggling]

But animals, apes in perticular, who learn sign language are able to express emotional self-awareness with sentences like “I am sad today” or “I feel good.” Does the argument still stand? If so, why don’t animals have souls?

When the Ape says “I am sad” they don’t really know what they are talking about when they say “I”. They really mean “the ape is sad”…

An Ape may indeed feel pain, and know that the ape is feeling pain, but it doesn’t know that it is the ape, because it has no spiritual “self”. There is a disconnect between Knower and Known in animals whereby it can know itself, but cannot know itself AS itself because it doesn’t have that kind of Self. An eye cannot see itself, nor the tongue taste itself. A non-material principle is needed for truly full self consciousness, for the Knower to Know itself irreducibly as Knower and not as some type of Known.

If she were to write poetry about sadness and bananas, or write an essay about how bananas are like sadness, or give a speech about what it means to be a gorilla in the modern world, then we would have indications of a rational soul.

I don’t necessarily think so. A computer with proper algorithms could do this stuff someday, but it would have no meaning for the computer. The reality of the soul is ultimately non-rational. Not that it is illogical…but like logic itself, or the fact that the world isn’t all just a dream…it is something that ultimately preceeds reason. I choose to believe (and it is confirmed by the Faith) that all humans have rational souls. But certainly I can never know this or “prove it” empirically or even logically by the very fact that the soul is by it’s nature SUBJECTIVE…that is to say I can, by definition, only directly know my self. Otherwise I would cease to be myself. I could imagine my soul seeing what is going on in someone else’s BRAIN, but I could never penetrate their Self obviously, because then I would cease to be I.

 

[mcliffor]

While I love Kreeft’s writings, there are arguments of his that I find very unconvincing and this is one of them (the Argument from Design is the other biggie that I dislike).

Self-awareness in itself can’t be the hallmark of the immortal soul in the Thomistic perspective, because self-awareness at the lowest level comes from sensing the self, which is a property of the “animal soul”. For more clarity, growing on your own through absorbing nutrients, and “having offspring” is the property of the “vegetative” soul; sensation and desire, and limited knowledge through these two avenues are properties of the “animal” or “sensitive” soul; the “rational” soul has intellect and free will, intellect being the thing by which we abstract and associate categories, reflect on deeper meanings, ect.

Now each of these souls contains the powers of the ones below it, so an animal soul contains the powers of the vegetative, and the rational soul contains the powers of both.

Since an animal can sense itself, and can tell that its senses don’t extend to those things outside of themselves, they can actually have a certain self-awareness. They can realize that they have their own desires, and feelings, and needs. We can see this in animal behavior all the time. The fact that certain animals like apes are able to use sign language to indicate their desires and feelings doesn’t mean they’re doing anything more, fundamentally speaking, than a bird does when it sings a mating call, or a dog does when it yelps after being stepped on: they have a desire or sensation, and they give a call based on it. Apes simply have more capable brains, and the means by which to make sign-language (human-like hands), so they’re able to extend this animal power in a way that others are not. Parrots, who can make sounds similar to human words are capable of the same feats but with voice.

What really sets humans apart is not self-awareness, but HOW we are self-aware. We are self-aware by sensation, but we are ALSO self-aware by intellect, meaning we can reflect on what it means to be me, the implications of my desires in the greater scheme of human society, we can wonder why I should be or desire at all, ect. All of those things rise above the senses; I can’t sense meaning, I can’t sense “human culture”, I can’t sense what it is that makes me sense (“you can’t feel your own finger with your finger”). So that Koko the gorilla signs that she’s feeling sad, or that she really wants a banana is actually nothing special, but rather to be expected. If she were to write poetry about sadness and bananas, or write an essay about how bananas are like sadness, or give a speech about what it means to be a gorilla in the modern world, then we would have indications of a rational soul. Those are things that the most limited functional humans can do, but the healthiest and smartest ape can’t ever hope to match.

In short, being self-aware of needs and feelings is animal; being self-aware of WHO I am, and WHAT I am, and WHY I am, that is a function of the rational immortal soul.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

But wouldn’t this then mean that someone in a persistent vegitative state is without a soul?

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t necessarily think so. A computer with proper algorithms could do this stuff someday, but it would have no meaning for the computer.

A computer with the proper algorithms could refer to itself as “I” as well, and express its “needs”, such as down time, from the apparent perspective of “I”. A computer could not spontaneously make such associations without following a program, however.

You can’t rule out for the animal in one breath what you accept as a possibility for the computer in another, especially since an animal functions almost infinitely beyond the powers of a computer even in our wildest current sci-fi fantasy.

My point is not about empirical observation of an animal or computer to determine whether or not it’s self-aware, I don’t believe there is any such test possible even for another human being. My point is that these kinds of actions are what flow from the different types of souls according to Thomistic principles. If it’s possible that something can seemingly mimic these actions that’s another issue entirely. The point is that when speaking of soul-types, these functions are properties of the various souls. Crystals and proteins arguably fit the description of vegetative souls, but whether or not they have such souls is a totally different matter.

This is why I said “indications of a rational soul”, not “proof of a rational soul” in any kind of empirical sense. The main point being that nothing that animals do now, even the best examples such as Koko, scratch even the lowest functions of rationality.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Andruschak]

Don’t worry. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling and make it to heaven. If you do the joy that your pet gives you will be found in heaven. While your dog won’t exist in the same way that you exist in heaven he will exist in some way in the mind of God and as such can be made present to you in a virtual way that is no less joyful.

I hope so. I suppose you know the story of “The Rainbow Bridge” for pets? It’s all over the Internet. I would hope that somehow, someway, what made those pets what they were would live on, and not just in our hearts

 

[Ghosty]

But wouldn’t this then mean that someone in a persistent vegitative state is without a soul?

Not at all. For one thing, “vegetative state” is not the same as “vegetative soul”, it’s just that the same words are used (though calling someone a “vegetable” does come from the old Aristotilean language of what features go with what souls). Vegetative state is drawn from the “vegetative functions” of the soul, such as growth and nutrition and generation/regeneration. These activities are constantly occuring in any “living” human being, whether highly functional or minimally functional (in fact, the vegetative activities are the minimum definition of life, even from a non-theological medical perspective).

Remember, a rational soul still has the functions of a vegetative soul, so just because the higher functions of sensitivity and rationality aren’t obviously engaged doesn’t mean that the soul has changed. All it means is that the rational soul, due to limits of the flesh (brain damage), is not able to go beyond the vegetative functions (which don’t require a brain to operate physically, unlike the sensitive and rational functions). Since it’s a rational soul that animates a human body, if the human body is animated i.e. alive, there is still a human soul within, regardless of its current ability to operate.

Keep in mind also that even when you sleep you actually lose rational functioning to some extent, which is why you aren’t responsible for your behaviors in your dreams. From the outside you are even less “rational seeming”, as you aren’t exhibiting any rational functions at all. At least in your own dreams there is an appearance of rationality.

So just because a human slips into a level where only the vegetative activities are engaged that doesn’t mean they don’t have a human, rational soul. It just means that their rational soul is currently only doing vegetative activities.

Peace and God bless!

 

[batteddy]

My point is not about empirical observation of an animal or computer to determine whether or not it’s self-aware, I don’t believe there is any such test possible even for another human being. My point is that these kinds of actions are what flow from the different types of souls according to Thomistic principles. If it’s possible that something can seemingly mimic these actions that’s another issue entirely.

I agree that even for another human there is no such “test” and that something may very well mimic these actions without actually being truly conscious or having a Self.

I am less certain about these actions “flowing from” different types of souls. How does a soul “compose poetry about being sad”?? I think that is mainly the brain. Sadness is an emotion, a passion in the lower appetite. “composing” implies imagination and memory, both functions in the brain, the verbal cortex and all that. If a soul Knows and Wills…I don’t see how it could ever do anything more than simply consent to the brain’s composition of poetry.

We know from severed-brain studies that the soul cannot act as a “bridge” between the brain-halfs. If your right brain sees something…your soul will certainly be aware of it…but that doesn’t mean that your left brain (where speech is) will be able to SAY what it was if the left brain itself never saw the thing. The soul cannot “communicate” back down to the brain in such a way it seems. It seems in many ways to be like me watching a TV…I can watch it and change the channel, but I can’t effect the story line of the program that is on…

 

[Ghosty]

I agree that even for another human there is no such “test” and that something may very well mimic these actions without actually being truly conscious or having a Self.

I am less certain about these actions “flowing from” different types of souls. How does a soul “compose poetry about being sad”?? I think that is mainly the brain. Sadness is an emotion, a passion in the lower appetite. “composing” implies imagination and memory, both functions in the brain, the verbal cortex and all that. If a soul Knows and Wills…I don’t see how it could ever do anything more than simply consent to the brain’s composition of poetry.

We know from severed-brain studies that the soul cannot act as a “bridge” between the brain-halfs. If your right brain sees something…your soul will certainly be aware of it…but that doesn’t mean that your left brain (where speech is) will be able to SAY what it was if the left brain itself never saw the thing. The soul cannot “communicate” back down to the brain in such a way it seems. It seems in many ways to be like me watching a TV…I can watch it and change the channel, but I can’t effect the story line of the program that is on…

Again, the soul acts through the medium of the body, so any disconnect in the body is going to interfere with the soul’s actions just as the nerves being severed in your spine prevent you from moving your legs. The brain still sends the signal, the legs just don’t respond. Between the body and soul the relationship is a bit more complicated, but the basic principle applies.

Another thing to remember is that the soul and body are not truly seperate, as if the soul is riding the body, but are a single entity together (which is why belief in the Resurrection of the Dead is so critical to the Catholic Faith; if our bodies aren’t raised from the dead then we’re incomplete humans for all time after death, which is highly unfitting). So long as the soul is acting on the body at all, the very least of organic functions will continue, and this is how we say that something is “alive”. A soul that is disconnected from the body is not complete, even if it has the Beatific Vision; its complete disconnect from the body allows it to operate in ways without flesh that it can’t if it were bound to flesh yet that flesh was somehow damaged, but it ultimately lacks something critical to calling it a “human being”.

The way the body, including the brain, is related to the soul is actually quite complex and worthy of its own thread. The body is always “after” the soul in terms of its actions, however, as the soul is the thing that makes the body capable of any organic action at all (in Thomistic terms the soul is what makes a human body a human body and not a lump of meat in the shape of a human body). Because of this we can’t say that “poetry comes from the brain” or “sight comes from the eye” in a true sense, but rather we can say that the “brain is the medium of poetry”, and the “eye is the medium of sight”. Any defect in the brain can inhibit the poetry coming forth, or even being formed, but poetry flows from a brain only if it’s animated, and therefore principally from the soul since the soul is what makes the brain a brain in a true sense, rather than a lump of fat.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Melissa]

I have looked long and hard, but I can’t find where I originally read this idea, so I may bungle it a bit (it’s probably a good 20-some years since I read it).

Basically the writer was saying that humans have immortal souls by virtue of being human. Domesticated animals could attain some sort of immortal soul by getting a share of the soul from the human to whom the domesticated animal submitted to–so an obedient dog, for instance–but a dog that disobeys could lose that bit of immortality gained.

I have no idea how that would fit in–I wasn’t reading it w/ an eye to Catholic theology at the time (given that it was probably a decade or so before I even became Catholic), and I’ve probably botched it up pretty badly (but if anyone recognizes this and can point me back to the source so I can re-read, I’d be grateful).

 

[StMarkEofE]

Peter Kreeft has used self-awareness as an argument for the immortal soul. But animals, apes in perticular, who learn sign language are able to express emotional self-awareness with sentences like “I am sad today” or “I feel good.” Does the argument still stand? If so, why don’t animals have souls?

It is my understanding that they do have souls but not immortal ones. How unfortunate that my cocker spaniel wont be with me in eternity. He was such a fine unselfish unconditional lover of his masters. A true image of what we should be to God.

 

[Mystophilus]

Peter Kreeft has used self-awareness as an argument for the immortal soul. But animals, apes in perticular, who learn sign language are able to express emotional self-awareness with sentences like “I am sad today” or “I feel good.” Does the argument still stand? If so, why don’t animals have souls?

According to the Septuagint, they do: in Genesis 1, as each of the animal types is created, they are referred to as ψυχαι ζωσαι, ‘living souls’.

The Vulgate follows the a similar line, referring to them as animae viventes, also ‘living souls’.

In Latin, some authors, such as the natural philosopher Lucretius, following Aristotle, made a differentiation between animus as the ‘rational’ soul and anima as the merely living one. Others, such as Cicero, made no such differentiation.

Later readers of the Vulgate may have taken Aristotle and Lucretius’ differentiation as proof of animals lacking animi, rational souls, and possessing only animae, non-rational ones. This seems peculiar when we consider that the Vulgate also uses anima in Psalm 24,1 (25:1 in English) for the soul which the psalmist lifts up to God, in 102,1 (103:1) for the soul which is instructed to praise God, in Acts 15,24 (15:24) for the soul disturbed by incorrect doctrines, in Matthew 26,38 (26:38) for Jesus’ wearied soul, and also in the Magnificat:
Magnificat anima mea Dominum, etc. (Luke 1,46)

If animals only have souls which can be lifted up to God, can praise God, can be disturbed by falsehoods, can be wearied, and can exalt the Lord, I cannot see that they are missing anything of significance.

 

[Ghosty]

It is my understanding that they do have souls but not immortal ones. How unfortunate that my cocker spaniel wont be with me in eternity. He was such a fine unselfish unconditional lover of his masters. A true image of what we should be to God.

There is no reason to conclude that they wouldn’t come back with the general resurrection. The animals won’t see God in the way that humans can, due to their lack of intellect, but they have souls none the less. The main difference is simply that while our souls continue to live and function, albeit limitedly in certain ways, without the body, an animal’s soul is from the body in such a way that when the body dies so does the soul. It could theoretically be resurrected with the body, however, should that be God’s design for the Resurrection.

We’ll just have to wait in hope, knowing that whatever occurs it will be the best possible outcome

Peace and God bless!

 

[CelticSword]

That always makes me sad – I know it’s the teaching on this (along with all the other aspects of it) but i really love my dogs

If you love your pets, then you haven’t cried until you read a poem called “The Rainbow Bridge”. Our local animal hospital sends it out in a “Sorry for Your Loss” card to the owner of each animal they have to put down. The poem tells of your meeting your pet again when you get to Heaven, and the pet’s joy at seeing you again.

 

[franksv]

Since God created animals to be Adams companions at first(he even let Adam name them all),is it so far fetched that animals may be part of the final plan?

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I always thought Catholic theology taught that there is no resurrection for animals ??
Don’t get me wrong, I WUV widdle doggie woggies, but I don’t want to get my hopes up if the Church teaches they cannot be resurrected.

I miss all my dearly departed pets, especially my last two dogs, Woody and Audrey (she was a REAL character, and Woody was just plain lovable). I also miss our cats. ALL of them.

But where would the resurrection of animals end?
Would all cows and chickens and snakes and fruit-bats be resurrected too ? I have to admit, I wonder…

Yet, having been human living in a world filled with animals, I can’t imagine humans feeling fully human without such familiar companions around…hmmmmmm.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)