Faculties of the different 'souls'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pete_1

Guest
Could anyone point me to a good Catholic article that discusses the respective faculties of the vegetative, animal and rational ‘souls’?
 
I’m not aware of an article.

Jean Borella, a noted lay theologian, has written extensively on the matter in “The Secret of the Christian Way”, and below I offer my precis of his writings. As the definitions themselves belong to the Sacra Doctrina of our Faith, I know he will not mind this posting (from pps 104-114 Suny paperback edition):

“And the Lord God formed man [adam] of the dust of the ground [adamah], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [neshamah]; and man became a living [chay] soul [nephesh].” (Genesis 2:7)

nefesh (psyche [Greek] | anima [Latin])
The animal or sanguinary soul

In the Greek Septuagint nephesh is translated as ‘living soul’ in reference to man, and ‘living creature’ when referring to animals - the Hebrew makes no distinction, a living thing ‘is’ a soul, rather than something in the possession ‘of’ a soul - In this sense nefesh is at the level of biological activity: “for the life [nefesh] of every creature is the blood of it,” (Lev 17:14) or “for the blood is the life [nefesh]” (Deut 122:23).

This animic soul is not an immortal soul however, for whereas ‘chay nefesh’ means living soul or creature, ‘muwth nefesh’ means a ‘dead body’ or a ‘dead soul.’

Ruach (nous/pneuma | spiritus)
The mental soul
The term ‘ruach’ is used in many senses and can only be properly understood against in the total context of scripture. It means ‘breath’ (in the anthropological sense) or ‘wind’ (in the spiritual), and as such can express the principle of animal and all life, although it never designates an individual being, but rather the principle of life as such:

“In whose hand [is] the soul [nefesh] of every living thing [chay], and the breath [ruach] of all mankind,” (Job 12:10)

Thus ruach can imply a transcendant, or a transpersonal, quality, and as such we have not necessarily risen above the cosmological. Ruach in reference to the Spirit of God is Divine, but ruach in reference to the spirit of man is not. Further ‘ruach’ in the human sense can encompass error, “They also that erred in spirit [ruach]” (Isaias 29:44) and this can signify disorder, passion, even madness, “Terrors are turned upon me: they pursue my soul as the wind [ruach]” (Job 30:15), or “Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind [ruach] and confusion,” (Isaias 41:29).

Neshamah (pneuma/pnoe | spiritus/spiraculum/habitus)
The spiritualised soul

Neshamah is the breath, be it human or divine. In Genesis God made man and ‘breathed’ into him, but the breath of God must necessarily convey more than simple animation. The Divine Breath not only animated humanity but conferred upon it a sanctified state, a state of grace (the descent of the Holy Spirit as ‘tongues of flame’ continues this idea), our Adamic or Primordial state.

Here great care must be taken to differentiate between neshamah as a natural quality of the human spirit, and neshamah as a supernatural quality infused by the Divine Breath, a situation made more difficult by ther apparent interchangeability of ruach and neshamah:

“All the while my breath [neshamah] is in me, and the spirit [ruach] of God is in my nostrils;”
Job 27:3

Whilst neshamah sanctifies man, it remains in and of itself Divine and forms no part of his individual nature: “The Spirit breatheth where he will and thou hearest his voice: but thou knowest not whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

It is through neshamah we receive our life from God, and it is through neshamah we must also return to Him, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” (John 3:6) upon the breath of prayer: “Let every thing that hath breath [neshamah] praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.”

There are in the kabbala two further determinations - but these are degrees or modes of neshamah:

Hayah
The living soul
An awareness of the divine life force itself.

Yehidah
The one soul
In which one can achieve as full a union with God as is possible.

Both rabbinic and kabbalistic works posit that there are also additional non-permanent states (infused or inspired) of the soul that people can develop on certain occasions. These spiritual qualities play no part in any eschatalogical scheme, but are mentioned for completeness:

Ruach HaKodesh
The spirit of holiness
A state of the soul that makes prophecy possible. Since the age of classical prophecy passed, no one receives the soul of prophesy any longer.

Note: as healing is considered among the Divine Gifts of the Spirit, then I would posit, in accord with Rabbinic, Kabbalistic and Christian doctrine, that the ‘realm’ of healing is that of the ruach, which locates its function in the greater scheme of things.

Neshamah Yeseira
The supplemental soul that a Jew experience on Shabbat. It makes possible an enhanced spiritual enjoyment of the day. This exists only when one is observing Shabbat; it can be lost and gained depending on one’s observance.

Neshamah Kedosha
A spiritual quality related to the study and fulfillment of the Torah commandments. It exists only when one studies and follows Torah; it can be lost and gained depending on one’s study and observance.

Note:
These two give a view of neshamah - whilst this spiritual quality is enhanced with regard to ruach, it is still within the human domain, but can aspire or attain to higher qualities when engaged corectly in ‘higher’ things. The former, ‘Neshamah Yeseira’ is liturgical (the proper observation of the sabbath) and again ‘Neshamah Kedosha’ is a state in contremplation of the Divine Mysteries - which again are most present and profound in the liturgy of the tradition in question.

Thomas
 
Thanks.

What are the faulties specific to the rational soul and by extebnion which faulties do animals lack?
 
does this help? st. 1-2, q.1, a.1 c.
I answer that, Of actions done by man those alone are properly called “human,” which are proper to man as man. Now man differs from irrational animals in this, that he is master of his actions. Wherefore those actions alone are properly called human, of which man is master. Now man is master of his actions through his reason and will; whence, too, the free-will is defined as “the faculty and will of reason.” Therefore those actions are properly called human which proceed from a deliberate will. And if any other actions are found in man, they can be called actions “of a man,” but not properly “human” actions, since they are not proper to man as man. Now it is clear that whatever actions proceed from a power, are caused by that power in accordance with the nature of its object. But the object of the will is the end and the good. Therefore all human actions must be for an end.
Click to expand...
 
mizznicole said:
does this help? st. 1-2, q.1, a.1 c.
Click to expand...
I already knew that :D. But thanks for your help.

Perhaps I should define something specific:

Humans and computers experience the world in different ways. We experiance the world around consciously, images of the world are ‘projected’ into our mind. Now it is clear that a computer is not concious in this way and does not ‘see’ anything or ‘hear’ anything consciously but merely responds to stimuli.

Which are animals most simmilar to, a human or a computer, what is the Church’s stance if any?

Is the type of conciousness we experience, when things such as images, sounds, pain etc are ‘projected’ into our mind a result of the soul or some material cause?
 
Pete said:
I already knew that :D. But thanks for your help.

Perhaps I should define something specific:

Humans and computers experience the world in different ways. We experiance the world around consciously, images of the world are ‘projected’ into our mind. Now it is clear that a computer is not concious in this way and does not ‘see’ anything or ‘hear’ anything consciously but merely responds to stimuli.

Which are animals most simmilar to, a human or a computer, what is the Church’s stance if any?
Click to expand...
Since a machine does not have a soul (the church’s position as it is not living), animals are more similar to man than to the computer.
Is the type of conciousness we experience, when things such as images, sounds, pain etc are ‘projected’ into our mind a result of the soul or some material cause?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “type of conscienceness”?

As a human we have only one type, that is, human conscienceness.

It seems to me that the list you have provided all have material causes:

images – from light waves entering your eye and being intrepted by your brain
sounds – from sound waves impinging on your ear drum and being interpreted by your brain
pain – from some trama that nerves signal to the brain.

In each of these cases, humans are very similar to animals.

What you mean by “‘projected’ into our mind”?
 
davidv said:
images – from light waves entering your eye and being intrepted by your brain
sounds – from sound waves impinging on your ear drum and being interpreted by your brain
pain – from some trama that nerves signal to the brain.

In each of these cases, humans are very similar to animals.

What you mean by “‘projected’ into our mind”?
Click to expand...
What I mean by projected into our mind is that we are aware that we are seeing, images appear ‘in front’ of our eyes. Does this occur in animals? Does the fact we see require some sort of awareness?

A computer camera sees in a very different way to us, it just merely reacts to electrical impulses. We see an image right before our eyes, a computer does not (even though it can react to images), do animals?

What is the Church’s position, can animnals conciously see and act on things or are they unconcious automata?
 
Pete said:
Could anyone point me to a good Catholic article that discusses the respective faculties of the vegetative, animal and rational ‘souls’?
Click to expand...
I don’t know a good article, but I can refer you to a great book - “Philosophical Phsychology” by D.Q.McInerny, a seminary philosophy professor for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. I ordered the book through the Priestly Fraternity.

Here is one simple listing of the differences between the faculties of the vegetative, animal and rational souls - (taken from that book). Quote:

*VEGETATIVE SOUL
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth

SENSITIVE LIFE
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
Locomotion
Sensation
Sense Appetites

RATIONAL LIFE
Reproduction
Nutrition
Growth
Locomotion
Sensation
Sense Appetites
Intellect
Will*

It’s difficult to quit with just the above list, because it could lead one to false conclusions. So, a little bit of what follows in the book:
*"…This being the case, it can be said that rational life, the highest form of life, embraces within itself all forms of life. … But mark well what we are not saying here. We are not saying that the human being has three souls, a rational soul and a sensitive soul and a vegetative soul. … Again, the principle involved is this: a soul of a higher grade…subsumes within its single soul the powers which are peculiar to the soul or souls graded below it."

"…the fact that ‘life’ is very much an analogical term. … There can be no mistaking the fact that between these two forms of life, vegetative and sensitive, we do not have merely differences in degree, but differences in kind. Plant life and animal life, in other words, are essentially different.

The transition from sensitive life to rational life, … is yet more dramatic than the transition from vegetative to sensitive life. As was noted earlier, once we are on the rational level we find ourselves in a whole new world of life. Everything is transformed, and the transforming factor is intellect…"*(Underlining mine)

Nita
 
Nita said:
I don’t know a good article, but I can refer you to a great book - “Philosophical Phsychology” by D.Q.McInerny, a seminary philosophy professor for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. I ordered the book through the Priestly Fraternity.

Here is one simple listing of the differences between the faculties of the vegetative, animal and rational souls - (taken from that book). Quote:

*VEGETATIVE SOUL *

*Reproduction *

*Nutrition *

Growth

SENSITIVE LIFE

Reproduction

Nutrition

Growth

Locomotion

Sensation

Sense Appetites

RATIONAL LIFE

Reproduction

Nutrition

Growth

Locomotion

Sensation

Sense Appetites

Intellect

Will
It’s difficult to quit with just the above list, because it could lead one to false conclusions. So, a little bit of what follows in the book:

"…This being the case, it can be said that rational life, the highest form of life, embraces within itself all forms of life. … But mark well what we are not saying here. We are not saying that the human being has three souls, a rational soul and a sensitive soul and a vegetative soul. … Again, the principle involved is this: a soul of a higher grade…subsumes within its single soul the powers which are peculiar to the soul or souls graded below it."

"…the fact that ‘life’ is very much an analogical term. … There can be no mistaking the fact that between these two forms of life, vegetative and sensitive, we do not have merely differences in degree, but differences in kind. Plant life and animal life, in other words, are essentially different.

The transition from sensitive life to rational life, … is yet more dramatic than the transition from vegetative to sensitive life. As was noted earlier, once we are on the rational level we find ourselves in a whole new world of life. Everything is transformed, and the transforming factor is intellect…"(Underlining mine)

Nita
Click to expand...
Thanks! This is great I think I will buy the book.
 
Pete said:
Thanks! This is great I think I will buy the book.
Click to expand...
You won’t be sorry. The book is “understandable” for us beginners. I think it’s because the author is a teacher and wrote the book for his students (no doubt coming into seminary, green from high school), and not for PHD philosophers (who are already familiar with all the philosophical terms and concepts).

I don’t know if you can get the book in an ordinary bookstore. My copy was printed in 1999 by The Alcuin Press, Elmhurst, Pennsylvania. If you can’t get it through a regular bookstore, write to:
Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter
Griffin Road, PO Box 196
Elmhurst, PA 18416

I receive monthly mailings from them, and about once a year they send a sheet with a few book offerings. That’s how I happened to learn about, and order, the book. Title almost scared me off!!! But then the little explanation gave a few blurbs as to some things that were in it – eg. “What is the soul”, “What are the emotions”. Those two hooked me and I ordered it. So, so glad. I had been struggling with Aquinas (what his philosophical terms meant). This book answered so many of those questions for me. D.Q. McInerny is a Thomistic philosopher.

[There is another philosopher with the last name of McInerny (first name “Ralph”) who also authors books. His books are for sale in the bookstores. . Just didn’t want you to think they were one and the same person.]

Nita
 
Nita said:
You won’t be sorry. The book is “understandable” for us beginners. I think it’s because the author is a teacher and wrote the book for his students (no doubt coming into seminary, green from high school), and not for PHD philosophers (who are already familiar with all the philosophical terms and concepts).

I don’t know if you can get the book in an ordinary bookstore. My copy was printed in 1999 by The Alcuin Press, Elmhurst, Pennsylvania. If you can’t get it through a regular bookstore, write to:
Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter
Griffin Road, PO Box 196
Elmhurst, PA 18416

I receive monthly mailings from them, and about once a year they send a sheet with a few book offerings. That’s how I happened to learn about the book. Title almost scared me off!!! But then the little explanation gave a few blurbs as to some things that were in it – eg. “What is the soul”, “What are the emotions”. Those two hooked me and I ordered it. So, so glad. I had been struggling with Aquinas (what his philosophical terms meant). This book answered so many of those questions for me. D.Q. McInerny is a Thomistic philosopher.

[There is another philosopher with the last name of McInerny who also authors books. His books are for sale in the bookstores. Think his first name might be Frank. Just didn’t want you to think they were one and the same person.]

Nita
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top