Can you prove by reason that we have souls?

[masterjedi747]

If anyone can help me sort these two things out, it would be much appreciated:
Thomas Aquinas:

It must necessarily be allowed that the principle of intellectual operation which we call the soul, is [noncorporeal,spiritual].

However, spiritual souls are inherently immortal, since they have no parts and thus cannot break down into anything else. So how do we reconcile this philosophy with our understanding of animal souls? The Church teaches that animals do not have immortal (spiritual) souls…they have “physical” or “material” souls that die along with the animal (or plant, for that matter).

Perhaps it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem to work very well with Aquinas’ philosophy.
And it leads us to the following problem:

KBarn:

Many cells remain alive long after the body dies. Various cells and tissues can live for quite some time. But they lack the organic unity necessary for the cadaver to be a living human being.

So how are these cells/tissues alive? They must have some kind of soul; something that distinguishes them from dead cells/tissue. Is it a “mortal” or “physical” soul, like animals have?

And that also leads me to wonder what exactly a “physical soul” is. If it is physical, then is this something that science can explain, whether it be cell communication in an electric form, or whatever else they might discover? Does Aquinas’ reasoning fall short in light of Church teaching and modern science, meaning that the existence of a spiritual soul is simply a matter of faith that we can know must be true through the infallibility of Church doctrine?

Any help here would be great…it’s been driving me insane for a while now.

 

[KBarn]

MasterJedi,

Human souls are of a different character than animal souls. That is Aquinas’ teaching. He says that human souls have a particular power of themselves (per se), namely intellect. No corporeal organ can account for the intellect, though corporeal organs are necessary in the process of intellection. The human soul is capable of apprehending universals like human-ness, while the power of knowing that accompanies corporeality (a composite soul-body reality) is only capable of knowing individuals such as humans. The spiritual is intellectual. The souls of brutes, on the other hand, are not capable of intellect per se. Animals are capable of knowing, but their knowing is through corporeal organs, more specifically the composition of soul and body. They can know particular things, but not universals. (e.g. particular: human, universal: human-ness.) Thus, because their souls are so bound up with their bodies, they are material souls, and not immortal. Only immortal souls are truly capable of intellect.

However, with respect to all living things, the soul is a principle of life and unity. It is simply that all souls are not the same.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[john_doran]

masterjedi747:

However, spiritual souls are inherently immortal, since they have no parts and thus cannot break down into anything else. So how do we reconcile this philosophy with our understanding of animal souls? The Church teaches that animals do not have immortal (spiritual) souls…they have “physical” or “material” souls that die along with the animal (or plant, for that matter).

Perhaps it’s just me, but this doesn’t seem to work very well with Aquinas’ philosophy.

human (rational) souls are subsistent and are capable of existence apart from the body; animal “souls” aren’t - they are simply the form of the body, and cease to exist when the animal ceases to exist (like the formal component of a log ceases to exist and is replaced by the formal component of ash when it is burned).

Kbarn:

Many cells remain alive long after the body dies. Various cells and tissues can live for quite some time. But they lack the organic unity necessary for the cadaver to be a living human being.

keep in mind that this phenomena can be explained, in the case of humans, by saying that the soul doesn’t actually leave the body immediately upon (clinical) death. for animals it can be said that the animal doesn’t actually cease being a living organism until it is completely dead, at which point the form of “living organism” has ceased to exist.

 

[KBarn]

john doran:

keep in mind that this phenomena can be explained, in the case of humans, by saying that the soul doesn’t actually leave the body immediately upon (clinical) death. for animals it can be said that the animal doesn’t actually cease being a living organism until it is completely dead, at which point the form of “living organism” has ceased to exist.

I agree, clinical definitions of death do not always coincide with the soul leaving the body, but death is truly indicated by a loss of organic unity because the principle of organic unity is a soul.

 

[J_Anthony]

I really appreciate everyone’s help, but now I have another question.
What constitutes our identity or our ‘self’? Is it our soul, our body, or both? Since the cells in our body are replaced over time, are we the same person our whole life because we have the same soul? In class, we read David Hume who said that the self is just a bundle of perceptions. I know this is wrong, but could someone help me understand why. It was also said in class that our identity depends on psychological continuity. I don’t really know what they mean by that.

I apologize if none of this makes sense. These people really confuse me with their arguments and assertions.

Thanks and God bless!

 

[john_doran]

J Anthony:

I really appreciate everyone’s help, but now I have another question.
What constitutes our identity or our ‘self’? Is it our soul, our body, or both?

both.
J Anthony:

Since the cells in our body are replaced over time, are we the same person our whole life because we have the same soul?

yes, partly. we remain the same person throughout our existence because we have the same essence at each moment in time.
J Anthony:

In class, we read David Hume who said that the self is just a bundle of perceptions. I know this is wrong, but could someone help me understand why.

because you can’t have perceptions unless there is some underlying thing doing the perceiving, and which makes all of the various perceptions perceptions had by the same thing. it is this foundational thing that kant identified as the self.
J Anthony:

It was also said in class that our identity depends on psychological continuity. I don’t really know what they mean by that.

i don’t, either. perhaps they mean that unless you maintain your memory then you’re not the same person (this is what locke said). but why should anyone believe that?

 

[masterjedi747]

john doran:

human (rational) souls are subsistent and are capable of existence apart from the body; animal “souls” aren’t - they are simply the form of the body, and cease to exist when the animal ceases to exist (like the formal component of a log ceases to exist and is replaced by the formal component of ash when it is burned).

Still a little bit fuzzy…but it certainly makes more sense than before. Still one question: Are plant/animal souls spiritual or not? Because if they are…doesn’t that imply immortality (because they are of a higher order than matterm and have no parts to break down)? And if they’re not (if they’re “physical”)…doesn’t that imply that modern science could help us determine how they work (through the nervous system, et cetera)?
john doran:

keep in mind that this phenomena can be explained, in the case of humans, by saying that the soul doesn’t actually leave the body immediately upon (clinical) death. for animals it can be said that the animal doesn’t actually cease being a living organism until it is completely dead, at which point the form of “living organism” has ceased to exist.

And that would make sense…but what about something like in the case of an organ transplant? If your liver or heart is being transplanted, those organs are still “alive” for a certain amount of time, although they are no longer connected to your body (the nerves have been severed, et cetera) before they might be inserted into another person. Do those organs have a “physical soul” that takes over for that limited amount of time?

I guess it seems to me that human beings could have both a physical soul (the life principle, like plants and animals have, that is scientifically/biologically explainable) and a spiritual soul (the spiritual principle, that plants and animals do not have, that contains our intellect and will, and can be affected by sin, et cetera). Obviously the spiritual soul would be the only “real” soul, and the “physical soul” would simply be more of a concept (so that we’re not actually saying that humans have two souls)…but it would seem to help eliminate particular problems such as this. But is this even remotely possible…or is it for some reason metaphysically impossible? (Phew! Glad I got that all out of my system…hope it makes sense.)