Aquinas on the soul-body relation

[GEddie]

respectfully, you say here: “The body is grown “around” and for a particular soul.”

• this statement suggests that the soul came first and does seem to conflict with your above statement that the soul if formed by the genes. So which is it: is the body grown around the soul - the soul came first - or do the genes form the soul. It cannot be both.

Unless you mean something different that I’m not interpreting (?)

The issue I take with this is that people’s souls are not disabled. Disease itself is an evil. Every soul is not born evil. So souls are not disabled. Souls are hindered

Maybe it is just my non-Aquinian mind, but I see no contradiction.

As I understand Church teaching, human Body and Soul appear together at the onset of life; one by the biological process, the other as a “breathing” from God (Hebrew: neshamah). There is then no “body” per se, only an embryo, but the body (head, limbs, etc) grows around the soul.

But the soul is not fully formed either. It has to “learn” to think and to know, to feel, etc; at birth, the mind is empty and the conscience unformed, etc. Soul faculties of mind, will, conscience etc. form inside and grow with the body.

It’s not either or, but both and.

And once growing with the body, the soul will be directed by the conditions of that body’s life. At the roughest level, maleness and femaleness **are **soul deep, though these attributes originate in the genes. Someone born to an “alpha male” body will likewise have a different life geometry, and soul formation, than a differently-bodied male. Racial skin differences certainly direct the life and so indirectly form the soul.

The soul does not become “disabled” per se (although its functions can be distorted by a dysfunction of the brain), but it **is **likewise shaped by overcoming, or failing to overcome a bodily disability.

ICXC NIKA

 

[friardchips]

Maybe it is just my non-Aquinian mind, but I see no contradiction.

As I understand Church teaching, human Body and Soul appear together at the onset of life; one by the biological process, the other as a “breathing” from God (Hebrew: neshamah).

Hi. That was a nice paragraph. They appear together, yes. However, the breath did not happen when we were born. We came to be through the Word; therefore, when He was spoken, our future was to come about eventually and yes then our souls created when the time was to come. But the Word was already spoken and us in Him (eventually).

There is then no “body” per se, only an embryo, but the body (head, limbs, etc) grows around the soul.

But the soul is not fully formed either. It has to “learn” to think and to know, to feel, etc; at birth, the mind is empty and the conscience unformed, etc. Soul faculties of mind, will, conscience etc. form inside and grow with the body.

It’s not either or, but both and.

And once growing with the body, the soul will be directed by the conditions of that body’s life. At the roughest level, maleness and femaleness **are **soul deep, though these attributes originate in the genes. Someone born to an “alpha male” body will likewise have a different life geometry, and soul formation, than a differently-bodied male. Racial skin differences certainly direct the life and so indirectly form the soul.

The soul does not become “disabled” per se (although its functions can be distorted by a dysfunction of the brain), but it **is **likewise shaped by overcoming, or failing to overcome a bodily disability.

ICXC NIKA

The rest I’ll have to come back to later as to address this properly will take some working.

 

[GEddie]

Hi. That was a nice paragraph. They appear together, yes. However, the breath did not happen when we were born. We came to be through the Word; therefore, when He was spoken, our future was to come about eventually and yes then our souls created when the time was to come. But the Word was already spoken and us in Him.

No, not when we were born. **Our **breathing begins when born, obviously, but the neshamah, God’s breathing, comes when life is conceived. (Ignoring the ensoulment issue).

Our soul does not preexist our human body; if I understand correctly, such a theory is heretical.

ICXC NIKA

 

[friardchips]

No, not when we were born. **Our **breathing begins when born, obviously, but the neshamah, God’s breathing, comes when life is conceived. (Ignoring the ensoulment issue).

Our soul does not preexist our human body; if I understand correctly, such a theory is heretical.

ICXC NIKA

Hi. That’s not what is being suggested here. I didn’t make myself understood. The existence of our soul was already pre-ordained due to being given life through the process of Creation, through The Word being Spoken; therefore, we take on life as a matter of course. Our lives are not accidental. It is not by chance that we are to be born at some point. Everything has an order. If it were accidental then we would not have inherited Original Sin, yet we did. Therefore, our connection - the whole of humanity - is Creation, through The Word. So our souls did not exist before the body, but our existence, was already to exist at some point. The Breath had already been spoken. So creation is, in a sense, already created. The Creator doesn’t carry on creating. He has Spoken. His Creation came to be through the Word who was Spoken. If He were to continually speak then we’d have problems to do with multi-layered dimensional aspects to existence (more than there is already ). We are awaiting the unfolding of time/creation. The question we have to answer: is the timing of when we are born pre-ordained?! I think all souls were meant to exist initially as a part of the Creator’s created creation but people do co-inhabit out of wedlock and so I’d imagine that some souls are born prematurely (!) By “some souls are born prematurely” I don’t mean they existed already, but rather, they were to be born at some point in a certain situation but instead of being born in ideal circumstances, because of Original Sin, were born in less than good circumstances. This allows for freewill you see and shows how we are all responsible for each other’s wellbeing.

Going back to the soul/body,we can then see how it is, that the body is not the soul. They are not one in the way you possibly think. (Still trying to work your thinking out, sorry). The soul that is to exist in a certain time in creation is then conceived into existence but begins actual existence there and then as part of the creative unfolding.

How does this sound? No? Okay…

Btw…do you know who it is that writes the Catechism - is the CCC written by a group of Bishops from the Magisterium?

 

[friardchips]

Maybe it is just my non-Aquinian mind, but I see no contradiction.

As I understand Church teaching, human Body and Soul appear together at the onset of life; one by the biological process, the other as a “breathing” from God (Hebrew: neshamah). There is then no “body” per se, only an embryo, but the body (head, limbs, etc) grows around the soul.

But the soul is not fully formed either. It has to “learn” to think and to know, to feel, etc; at birth, the mind is empty and the conscience unformed, etc. Soul faculties of mind, will, conscience etc. form inside and grow with the body.

It’s not either or, but both and.

And once growing with the body, the soul will be directed by the conditions of that body’s life. At the roughest level, maleness and femaleness **are **soul deep, though these attributes originate in the genes. Someone born to an “alpha male” body will likewise have a different life geometry, and soul formation, than a differently-bodied male. Racial skin differences certainly direct the life and so indirectly form the soul.

The soul does not become “disabled” per se (although its functions can be distorted by a dysfunction of the brain), but it **is **likewise shaped by overcoming, or failing to overcome a bodily disability.

ICXC NIKA

Think I’m there now with this post…

Your post is thought-out and insightful but I don’t think it really answers everything. You see, the way you describe the journey of the soul - being formed by the life it leads - is only true to the extent of the senses. Reason being, that we understand that each soul has life for a spiritual purpose, as opposed to being coincidental. Its end is spiritual not physical. In addition, each soul, were it not for the sins of mankind, would have a chance at living a “good” life. Therefore, although we agree that the physical nature that has grown with the soul can hinder the soul’s activity, where we digress, is where I believe the soul is not strictly being formed into a body initially intended to house her that it might allow the soul ways of expressing herself; rather, the soul was always to become who she was intended to be but is hindered by Original Sin. Who we are at soul level is determined by the Creator’s influence and not by the senses or by creation. The soul is formed by grace in relation to an affected creation.

 

[GEddie]

Think I’m there now with this post…

Your post is thought-out and insightful but I don’t think it really answers everything. You see, the way you describe the journey of the soul - being formed by the life it leads - is only true to the extent of the senses. Reason being, that we understand that each soul has life for a spiritual purpose, as opposed to being coincidental. Its end is spiritual not physical. In addition, each soul, were it not for the sins of mankind, would have a chance at living a “good” life. Therefore, although we agree that the physical nature that has grown with the soul can hinder the soul’s activity, where we digress, is where I believe the soul is not strictly being formed into a body initially intended to house her that it might allow the soul ways of expressing herself; rather, the soul was always to become who she was intended to be but is hindered by Original Sin. Who we are at soul level is determined by the Creator’s influence and not by the senses or by creation. The soul is formed by grace in relation to an affected creation.

Well, OK.

I’m not dealing with the issue of original sin, as without it, or rather without the hideous punishment decreed for it, the only change is that soul and body would be inseparable and, really, there would be no point in analytically teasing them apart, as we do now in our attempts to understand death.

I also maintain that we are indeed formed by our bodies and the life that our bodily and interpersonal geometry imposes. While that may not jive with Aquinas, I don’t believe it conflicts with Church teaching per se.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[friardchips]

Well, OK.

I’m not dealing with the issue of original sin, as without it, or rather without the hideous punishment decreed for it, the only change is that soul and body would be inseparable and, really, there would be no point in analytically teasing them apart, as we do now in our attempts to understand death.

I also maintain that we are indeed formed by our bodies and the life that our bodily and interpersonal geometry imposes. While that may not jive with Aquinas, I don’t believe it conflicts with Church teaching per se.

ICXC NIKA.

I think there’s probably room for analysis on the subject and there’s maybe a lot that the Church hasn’t decreed beyond what the Catechism says. Bishops and thinkers have been arguing these details out for time and a century seemingly.

We agree in part, at least (I think?! ).

Thanks.