Do plants/animals have souls?

[SimonArizona]

If so, what makes a soul a person?

 

[reginacaeli]

This is a question of natural philosophy. I quote from this website:

There is a hierarchy of vital functions, and thus of different kinds of souls. First of all, there is the vegetative soul which accounts for the functions of nutrition and reproduction. Plants have only this kind of soul. Next, there is the sensitive soul, by which higher animals perceive and respond to their environment. This kind of soul, for some animals, also includes the power of local motion. Finally, there is the rational soul, by which humans are able to use speech and have abstract thoughts. In all of the higher kinds of organisms, the functions that were performed by lower kinds of souls are performed by the higher. Thus, there is only one soul in any particular animal even though it is has the same vegetative capacities as plants. The vegetative functions, which are performed by a plant’s soul without sensitive functions, are also performed by the sensitive soul. Likewise, the rational soul is the principle also of sensitive and vegetative functions of human beings. Thus there is a hierarchy of souls and of vital functions, such that the higher souls subsume the lower, but the lower vital functions are necessary for there to be higher ones. The higher are never found without the lower, but the lower are found without the higher. Moreover, there is an interaction between the capacities that characterize higher and lower souls: a lion uses sight to find food, and moves toward the lamb it spies, which it then eats and digests so that it may chase other prey.

I personally will add that the rational soul is the only one that is immortal.

Does that help, or confuse you further?

 

[LUKBAN]

I read a book that a gave a very simple answer to this question. It was stated that all living things have soul because life is soul, but it’s not the kind of soul human have. Human soul is a spirit that is immortal. Soul of plants and animals dies when the body die, but not human. I’m sorry I can’t remember the title of the book. That was several years ago.

 

[Areopagite]

Yes, plants and animals have souls. In fact, all living creatures that are in the material universe are alive because of their souls. Angels do not have souls, because they have no material component to them. They are simply called spirits.

The scholastic definition of a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. That means, anything that is rational (i.e. has an intellect and will, thus with the capacity of abstract thought and making choices) has personhood.

Thus, humans, angels, and God all have personhood because all of them have a rational nature. God, as we know by divine revelation, incidentally is three persons, not just one.

 

[Ginkgo100]

This is a question of natural philosophy.

I love St. Thomas Aquinas, but I think this is one of the few areas where his answers have not stood the test of time. What was once called natural philosophy is now called biology. What Aquinas describes as a “vegetative soul” is quite similar to the philosophical concept of vitalism, the belief that living things contain an esoteric “life force” qualitatively different from the purely mechanical forces of nature. All scientific investigations, however, have failed to show the existence of any sort of vital force or energy in living beings. All physical functions, even ones such as sensation and language, can be explained entirely through the same mechanical forces that apply to non-living matter.

This does not, of course, disprove the existence of souls in plants, animals, or humans. Instead, it proves that any soul or life force must be purely supernatural. Do plants or animals have a purely supernatural soul? I think this is a question that our rational minds cannot answer. It would have to be revealed by God. Since it is not, as far as I am aware, found in the original Deposit of Faith, we will not know the answer until after our death, when we can ask Him. We do know, however, that if these organisms have souls, they are not immortal.

We know, furthermore, from God’s revelation, that all humans do have an immortal soul, that this soul reflects God, that it is tied to our rational nature (though exactly how it meshes with our organic brain functions is not, and probably never will be, completely clear), and that it is meant to be united with our body, unlike purely spiritual beings (thus the doctrine of the resurrection of the body).

 

[Ginkgo100]

The scholastic definition of a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. That means, anything that is rational (i.e. has an intellect and will, thus with the capacity of abstract thought and making choices) has personhood.

That sounds to me more like the atheistic definition of a person. This is why many atheists deny the personhood of the unborn, and often, of infants and the mentally disabled.

I think a better definition congruent with Catholic teaching is that the definition of a person is any individual being belonging to either the human race or the race of angels. That these are the only known rational, created beings may be significant; but actually possessing rational faculties is not a requirement. (That’s why atheists are allowed to be considered persons, too. Whoops, that was uncharitable.)

It’s conceivable, of course, that there exist additional classes of personal beings. God has not necessarily revealed all his creations to us. In other words, there may be aliens somewhere in the universe who are also persons in the eyes of God. Angels and humans are the only ones revealed to us so far.

 

[jln]

“We do know, however, that if these organisms have souls, they are not immortal.”

How do we know that?

 

[Newbot]

I think a better definition congruent with Catholic teaching is that the definition of a person is any individual being belonging to either the human race or the race of angels. That these are the only known rational, created beings may be significant; but actually possessing rational faculties is not a requirement. (That’s why atheists are allowed to be considered persons, too. Whoops, that was uncharitable.)

I believe this is more or the less same as the scholastic definition; they only differ in that yours uses a more modern style of wording while the scholastic one uses technical scholastic terms. “Individual substance” was meant to indicate a particular as opposed to a kind (hence “individual”) and a “thing” as opposed to a color, length, etc. (hence “substance”), and so I believe it means more or less what you mean by “individual being”. As to “of a rational nature”, I think this too corresponds with what you said. For the scholastics it was rationality (at least primarily) that distinguished man from the brutes, and hence he was often defined as a “rational animal”. So to say “belonging to the human race” could, by this definition, also be put as “possessing a rational nature”. (One would have to go a step further to see how the definition also applied to angels, but that’s a separate issue).

You are quite right that a person should not be defined merely by the ability to exercise reason, since this would exclude infants and the old among others. However, I believe that the word “nature” gets around this. Nature seems to indicate the kind of thing this is, or that one which is common to many such that they are given the same name. But as I understand it, this does not require that some characteristic belonging to an individual by nature is always being exercised, or even always able to be exercised. Hence one might say that newly-born kittens, although they are blind, are still of a seeing nature, since it is natural for cats that they see. Likewise a man born without legs can be said to be of a two-legged nature, although for some reason the development of legs was impeded in his case.

So for the same reason the scholastics used the language “of a rational nature”, since even if the exercise of reason was impeded, still that faculty of rationality belongs to him by nature. Indeed it is more similar to the case of the blind kittens (or even to someone with his eyes closed) than to the man without legs, since (as the scholastics held and we know by faith) infants and the old and so forth do possess a perfectly functional intellect, it is just that due to some bodily condition it cannot act.

I guess I haven’t given any convincing arguments, but at least that is how the scholastics seem to use the word.

The reason “person” was defined in this way was because (and here I’m slightly unsure, so help me out, you real scholastics) there was a special dignity belong to rational substances, due to the range of distinction and particularity possible, which could not belong to other substances. In other words, just as substances can have a range of individuality which other beings cannot (e.g. compare the sun, the Sahara desert, a rock, and water, v.s. red and blue or sphere and cube), so rational substances have an individuality beyond any other substance. And this gives them a dignity beyond plants, animals, and the rest. However, as you can see, I’m not altogether clear on this.

Nonetheless, if the above be true, the case of aliens is rather easy. If they be rational, then they have this special individuality and hence this special dignity, and deserve the name of “person”, whether they be telepathic dolphins or little green men or whatever else.

Newbot

 

[sweetashoney]

If I remember correctly from Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners, all things have souls. Soul being the essence of that thing, the make up of all it’s characteristics, experiences, etc. as an individual. The spirit is the inspiration of God that Adam and Eve had breathed into them in Genesis. Thus all things have souls, but only humans have spirit.

 

[Areopagite]

Definition of Person: An individual substance of a rational nature.

That sounds to me more like the atheistic definition of a person. This is why many atheists deny the personhood of the unborn, and often, of infants and the mentally disabled.

You bring up a good point. I’m glad you mentioned that.

First of all, though, there are many kinds of atheists, and some would agree with that definition and some would not. A lot of theists, on the other hand, would deny the personhood of the unborn, while some atheists would affirm it.

The word “rational” can be used in two ways. We can either mean the “the power to reason” or "the exercise of reason."

Humans all have the power to reason. This is because the power to reason is in our souls, not our bodies (because reasoning has to do with immaterial things … something that material things are unable to grasp). *However, being human, unlike angels, *we are designed with a physical brain that works alongside our non-physical intellect. Even though rationality pertains to our immaterial intellect, we perceive much necessary information through our senses and brain in order for our mind to operate.

This is actually common sense if you think about it. We learn, for example from people telling us things even though, when we hear them, it’s actually just physical sound waves being picked up by our physical senses and then processed to a degree in our brains. However, our intellects are able to form immaterial ideas from such experiences … for our immaterial intellect, in a sense, “decodes” physical phenomena and is able to perceive their underlying meanings. This happens, though, as long as the brain first processes then external data sufficiently.

Even though we learn through the senses (and brain), our intellect is the thing that understands things. This ability to understand is only possible by a rational soul.

Thus, for babies and mentally disabled people (and even sleeping people to some extent), they still have rational souls, and thus can be considered persons. The problem they have is that they have physical limitations in their body (particularly the state of their brain) that does not provide enough processed sense data that the intellect can draw from to form accurate immaterial ideas. They still have the “power to reason” (because that power is in the soul) but they are not “exercising reason” (because the body is not doing the preliminary work). The potential is there, though, I think we can agree. And that is what distinguishes us from the other animals. In fact, it is what distinguishes persons from non-persons.

I think a better definition congruent with Catholic teaching is that the definition of a person is any individual being belonging to either the human race or the race of angels. That these are the only known rational, created beings may be significant; but actually possessing rational faculties is not a requirement.

Defining “person” as “any individual being belonging to either the human race or the race of angels” is a definition by example, opposed to a logical definition or a definition by distinction. It’s like giving the definition of a car by saying “Anything that’s either a Chevy, Toyota, Dodge, etc” opposed to a more useful definition like “a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine” or something like that. We want to know what distinctive feature Toyotas and Dodges have that make them cars, just like we want to know what distinctive features humans, angels, God, and possibly aliens have that make them persons.

I agree with the stuff Newbot said, and repeated a lot of it. It’s a tough issue, but it is understandable when explained clearly enough … which I might not have done. Hopefully, it helped.

 

[Nino]

to play along with your silly question…yes they do…as does water…so when I would assign posters to my art class I would allow them to make anykind they wish…within reason of course…if they chose one on the enviornment…dont eat meat…I would then explain to them that plants are sensitive to the sun and music so dont eat veggies also…then I would reveal that water has microbes inside of it that think and feel and care ,so dont drink water…dont eat meat,fish or fowl,veggies or fruit or drink water…all the rest you can have!!! most caught my message! You know darn well these things do not have an immortal soul why dont you try tennis as an outlet?

 

[jln]

if they chose one on the enviornment…dont eat meat…I would then explain to them that plants are sensitive to the sun and music so dont eat veggies also…then I would reveal that water has microbes inside of it that think and feel and care ,so dont drink water…dont eat meat,fish or fowl,veggies or fruit or drink water…all the rest you can have!!! most caught my message! You know darn well these things do not have an immortal soul why dont you try tennis as an outlet?

But just maybe the souls of the plants and animals and whatever-else-in-creation recognize that their role on this planet is to provide sustenance for the “higher” (coff, coff, choke) creatures, such as the humans who devour them.

 

[slyOne]

I love St. Thomas Aquinas, but I think this is one of the few areas where his answers have not stood the test of time. What was once called natural philosophy is now called biology. What Aquinas describes as a “vegetative soul” is quite similar to the philosophical concept of vitalism, the belief that living things contain an esoteric “life force” qualitatively different from the purely mechanical forces of nature. All scientific investigations, however, have failed to show the existence of any sort of vital force or energy in living beings. All physical functions, even ones such as sensation and language, can be explained entirely through the same mechanical forces that apply to non-living matter.

This does not, of course, disprove the existence of souls in plants, animals, or humans. Instead, it proves that any soul or life force must be purely supernatural. Do plants or animals have a purely supernatural soul? I think this is a question that our rational minds cannot answer. It would have to be revealed by God. Since it is not, as far as I am aware, found in the original Deposit of Faith, we will not know the answer until after our death, when we can ask Him. We do know, however, that if these organisms have souls, they are not immortal.

We know, furthermore, from God’s revelation, that all humans do have an immortal soul, that this soul reflects God, that it is tied to our rational nature (though exactly how it meshes with our organic brain functions is not, and probably never will be, completely clear), and that it is meant to be united with our body, unlike purely spiritual beings (thus the doctrine of the resurrection of the body).

I think you are equivocating soul to mean some kind of spirit, which isn’t necessarily true. Aquinas distinguished the differences of soul not by their substance, which really is indeterminate and irrelevant, but their act. After all, is God’s supreme existence not inextricably linked to His supreme power? Plants have souls not because some sprite is chained to its corporeal structure, but the fact that plants do things, like grow. Rocks don’t grow, they can build up overtime, but they don’t grow. This essential difference distinguishes them. So even if microbes evolved from the latter and evolved into the former, and at possibly any instant they could change from having a soul to not having a soul, this does not discount the validity of the soul in these items. I think I’m overly repeating myself, but soul is embodied in funtion.

 

[masterjedi747]

I love St. Thomas Aquinas, but I think this is one of the few areas where his answers have not stood the test of time.

I definitely disagree, but I can see where you’re coming from.

What was once called natural philosophy is now called biology.

…sort of. As I understand it, the distinction between “natural philosophy” and “natural science” didn’t arise until around/during/after the scientific revolution, so they were basically seen as one complete subject by both Aristotle and Aquinas. But even today, when we do tend to make the distinction, biology is just one part of natural science, not the whole thing. Other branches of natural science include astronomy, geology, chemistry, and physics. Likewise with natural philosophy, both ancient and modern… it extends over everything that is part of the natural sciences, not just biology.

What Aquinas describes as a “vegetative soul” is quite similar to the philosophical concept of vitalism, the belief that living things contain an esoteric “life force” qualitatively different from the purely mechanical forces of nature.

Instead, it proves that any soul or life force must be purely supernatural.

That’s precisely the part that I disagree with. I can see why it might look that way, but I don’t believe that’s true for either Aristotle or Aquinas. They simply held the soul to be the form of the living material – almost exactly the same as how regular inanimate substances are always composed of both form and matter. The soul in plants and irrational animals really is just the form of the matter, whereby we call the substance a living thing. I believe Aquinas even speaks of plants and animals as having material souls, as opposed to the rational/spiritual souls of men. – It truly wasn’t until much later, when Newtonian mechanics and Cartesian dualism arrived on the scene, that the erroneous idea of a substantial “vital force” or “life force” started making its way into 18th century biological thought, masquerading (erroneously, but with the best of intentions) as something like the “modern version” of Aristotelian philosophy, when in fact it was pretty much just a completely new creation. Put simply, the soul is simply the form, but the human form is spiritual (and hence immortal) in a way that the forms of plants and irrational animals are not.

Source: I’ve read quite a bit of Aristotle, including De Anima and the beginning of the Physics.
I’d also very much recommend the articles from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, if you’re interested.

 

[PJM]

=SimonArizona;5345471]If so, what makes a soul a person?

***The short answer is “YES”, as a “soul” can be understood to be in every living THING, and is indeed the animator of all THINGS; thus it is the giver and sustainer of life.

Thus we can see the active hand of God in all of Creation even today.

The difference is that just as Nature has a Natural Hierarchy, mankind, made in the “image and likeness of God” although we are imperfect and finite, while God is Perfect and infinite, are at the very top of all of God’s Created Things. [Gen. Chapter 1]

It is a combination of our “Physical Things” and our “Spiritual Things”; our minds, intellects and freewill that are animated by our souls and make us a different, unique and decidedly “better” [more, indeed the most advanced] species of God’s Created Universe. ***

In fact it is in this way that we are “Created in the image of God” who too is Spirit. [Gen. 1:26-30; Jn. 4: 23-24]. We can demonstrate these human Spiritual attributes but cannot see, smell or touch them. And as further evidence of God’s love for each of us as Children of God, every single human person throughout time is different. No two are exactly because these special gifts from God are our OWN PERSONAL possessions.

Love and prayers,

 

[jen_fla]

i think the answer can be found here:

message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=36337

… sorry… i couldn’t help myself…

 

[Nino]

animals and plants can be grown and just looked upon as pretty…or if one needs to one can eat that animal or plant to survive for that animal and plant are inferior to we humans! of course now that the deftinition of marriage is being changed…soon one can ‘love’ and cherish a plant or animal as much as any human and marry it…and so the mockery continues…on course…towards a fully pagan society that worships only the all powerful,all knowing,all caring state. Jesus did not become a victim for animals or plants…only for Gods greatest creation…we the people!

 

[learningtheway]

One heck of a question. It says in Revelations that the lion will lie down with the lamb so I believe I will see my pets on the other side but as for plants I’m not really sure.

 

[Anthony_A]

To see a variety of extremely vague instances of the term “soul” please see the objections raised against my thesis in the thread I started called “should AI ever be granted rights?”.

After I give a long, philosophically thorough explanation of a point I am trying to make in that thread, you will typically see several people try to knock my entire argument by saying “AI does not have a soul” without ever explaining what they mean by soul or what is necessary for a being to have a soul.

(this does not apply to you, aeropagite)

 

[Bluegoat]

Are you familiar with the idea of substance and form? To be very succinct, all material things are composed of two, inseparable(except in a special case) components - the underlying substance that constitutes the “stuff” of it and the form that makes it what it is. ( I have heard of some people comparing this in a more modern way to energy and atoms and their mathematical relationships, but I can’t speak for the accuracy of that. I only mention it because it might give an idea of what I am talking about.) For Christians, form and matter both come from God.

Living things are also made up of form and matter, but we call the forms souls. Now, in the case of plants and animals, the form is entirely bound up with the matter, so when the matter dissolves, the individual instantiation of the form also ceases to exist. (What happens after the whole remaking of the Earth and the Resurrection of the dead is a question, some think plants and animals may be present there.)

A rational soul is a different matter. Rationality, reason, is something that exists apart from matter. So that would suggest that there is some kind of existence for the rational soul even with the dissolution of matter.

Now, many of the ancient pagan philosophers felt that nothing of the individual really survived, because their memories, experiences, etc, would all be tied to the body and dissapear with it - they did not have any concept that the body might somehow survive, it seemed obvious it didn’t. So what was left would be very abstract and not much like a person.

Christians are different in that they believe in the Resurrection of the body and that our whole personhood will survive. We also believe - correct me if I am wrong here someone - that we retain that personhood and individuality in Heaven, before we get our bodies back. I am not sure what theological explanation for that is, though I am sure there must be one.