I don’t know anything about that (in the sense of not actually knowing anything about it- not in the sense of using weasel words to disagree with you), but I do know that he did not consider the soul immortal.
I don’t know anything about that (in the sense of not actually knowing anything about it- not in the sense of using weasel words to disagree with you), but I do know that he did not consider the soul immortal.
Well, this point is unclear to me. From what I can gather based on my own read and in consultation with others who are more familiar with Aristotle’s work it seems that the jury is still out. There are certain ambiguities in the thought of Aristotle that would have to be reconciled for us to come down on one side or the other.
What is clear, is that even if the soul persists after substantial change, then the resulting entity would be a different being than the one that existed prior to substantial change.
This was an issue for the Fathers and for Aquinas. So, the classical solutions (due to the development of the notion of ‘person’) is that the separated soul is not, itself, a person. It only regains the status of personal being when it is reunited with the body at the resurrection.
I don’t intend to get us into a theological discussion. I only use this as an example of one solution that is provided to the Aristotelian ambiguity.
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
