Sure: you said (post # 142) “Only the human soul, as we know, is immortal.” I’m wondering how you “know” this. What kind of knowledge is your claim that “only the human soul is immortal”? Is it scientific? philosophical? theological? becaux we’ve been told so? other knowledge? What is its epistemological status? These are interesting questions.
StAnastasia
My statement is based primarily on a philosophical study of the soul, beginning with the ancient Greeks, continuing through the Middle Ages, to the present. Aristotle’s
De Anima provides the best answers to what “soul” is.
De Anima is a consistent application of the hyle-morphic theory to living organisms. Aquinas develops the Aristotelian theory. As far as modern times are concerned, I think the works of Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson, Mortimer J. Adler, and other philosophers in the tradition of the *philosophia perennis *provide the best philosophical analysis of soul.
I really don’t know of any philosopher or theologian of any repute that claims plants and animals have immortal souls. The Church certainly does not teach any such thing. As far as Scripture is concerned, there really is not much said about the soul in the O.T. “Soul” is an unfortunate translation into English of the Hebrew *nepes *because “soul” in common English reflects a complex of ideas going back to ancient Greece and developed later by medieval scholasticism. The O.T. idea of *nepes *is very different. There is no single word that translates
nepes, but basically we can say that man in his total essence is a
nepes.
In the O.T. the only appearance of the Greek idea of soul is in the Book of Wisdom where it is mentioned briefly, and the author does not appear to have extensive knowledge of the Greek concept. Confer Ws.3:1 and 8:19-20.
The N.T. generally uses the word
psyche, which is translated as “soul”. The psyche is oftentimes spoken of as the seat of supernatural life and the object of salvation. However, this does not reach to the Greek concept of
psyche as a distinct spiritual principle. The Greek concept has generally been read into the text. But the concept of
psyche in the NT is still the totality of the self as a living and conscious subject and it is the totality of the self which is saved for eternal life.
In classical philosophy there are a number of arguments that demonstrate that the human soul is a spiritual substance, and as such it cannot die with the body. These arguments only apply to man as a rational animal.
In regard to plants and animals, there is no reason to posit a soul that is spiritual. To do so would put one in the vitalist camp. Vitalism posits something existing in addition to the organism. This is an unwarranted assumption. The Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of soul, in regard to plants and animals, if it is compared to Vitalism or Mechanism, it is closer to Mechanism, because soul is not a force or principle in addition to the totality of the living organism.
I don’t know if this helps, but I tend to think along Thomistic philosophical lines, while keeping an eye on science and theology for what they have to say.
In Thomistic philosophy it is not exactly correct to say man has a soul. Rather, man is a composite being of spiritual soul and physical body.
Thank you lol