How can the soul leave the body if it is the form of it?

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Each Angel is his own species too. Imagine each human being being his own species.

 

[Gorgias]

Physical extension is an attribute of matter

Agreed.

Form is attribute of matter.

Disagree, in this context. Here, we don’t mean ‘form’ as in “a soccer ball has the form of a sphere.” In this sense, as we’re currently using it, ‘form’ doesn’t imply either matter or physical extension, per se.

The soul is contained within the body, or the body is contained within the soul.

Neither.

Form to me is the configuration of matter. Nature and essence are different things.

Fine. However, if you want to have an intelligible conversation in a given subject area, you use the jargon of that context. In this context, ‘form’ doesn’t mean “configuration of matter.”

Is soul immaterial? If yes, how could it have a location, the position of the alive person?

Correct: the soul does not have the property of “physical location”.

Each Angel is his own species too. Imagine each human being being his own species.

Sometimes I wonder…

 

[Mountie]

How do you relate soul to the body if they reside in two different realms?

The soul relates to the body because it is its form. Form is the principle of actuality. It is what makes things “be.” In other words, the soul, when actualizing the body, is what makes a person a person. Or it is what makes a cat a cat. A person is a rational animal. We have animal bodies and a rational soul. If we remove one of these, we cease to be a person. This action of actualizing by the soul is what connects the soul and the body. But the soul can be separated in that it is not bound to the body.

What do you mean with “the rationality is a sign of actuality”? How something which is actual could survive upon death?

Aristotle outlined a difference between actuality and potentiality. This can be easily demonstrated by an example. Currently, I am actually sitting. But I am potentially standing. It is possible for me to change and go from sitting to standing. But I am sitting right now. This actuality is like being in accordance with reality whereas potentiality is being but only in possibility.

Let’s go back to analyzing the human person. We have a body and a soul. Our body is potential because it is material. It can change. It can be altered. It is changing right now (it is growing older, cells are dying, etc.). Our soul on the other hand cannot change with the body. It is actualizing our bodies. It is making us human. No matter how I change, I’ll always be human on account of my soul. My body may change, but I will always have the form of man.

Humans possess rationality on account of our rational soul. Since this rationality is tied to our soul, it shares in actuality. The reason that we have mirrors the actuality that we posses by virtue of our rational soul. Since death implies change (living->dead) and the rational soul does not change with the body, it follows logically that the rational soul cannot die, even if the body dies.

 

[rom]

Good solution. I have another question: Is soul immaterial? If yes, how could it have a location, the position of the alive person?

Yes, the soul is immaterial. This means that left to itself, or without the body, the soul will not have a location or position in space. But when it is united to the body as its substantial form, then it is located in the same place where the body is. However, it is located, whole and entire, in every part of that body. It is wrong to think that one part of the soul is in the head, another part in the body, and another part in the limbs. No, because the soul has no parts and is indivisible. it is the same indivisible soul that animates every living part of the same body.

Therefore, it is ok to say that a soul that is united to the body will have the same shape or position (standing, sitting, etc.) as the living body of which it is the animating principle. For, although the human soul, considered in itself, has no physical extension, figure or shape, it will be accidentally extended in space by the body to which it is united. Ultimately, it is not the soul itself that stands or sits, but the human substance – that means, the composite of matter and substantial form.

Incidentally, when making discussions about the soul, it is best to speak of it as the “substantial form” of the body, in order not to confuse it with figure or shape, which is an accidental form of the body.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Form means the nature or essence of a thing.

Form to me is the configuration of matter. Nature and essence are different things.

That is not the definition of substantial form that St. Thomas Aquinas is using. Substance is different than matter in scholastic philosophy and theology.

 

[STT]

Disagree, in this context. Here, we don’t mean ‘form’ as in “a soccer ball has the form of a sphere.” In this sense, as we’re currently using it, ‘form’ doesn’t imply either matter or physical extension, per se.

Form is simply configuration of matter. It is easy to see that is true. The functioning of body changes if a part of brain is damaged, Alzheimer for example.

Fine. However, if you want to have an intelligible conversation in a given subject area, you use the jargon of that context. In this context, ‘form’ doesn’t mean “configuration of matter.”

It is as it is discussed in the previous comment.

Correct: the soul does not have the property of “physical location”.

That doesn’t answer my question. How soul can causally relate to a body if it doesn’t have any location.

 

[STT]

The soul relates to the body because it is its form. Form is the principle of actuality. It is what makes things “be.” In other words, the soul, when actualizing the body, is what makes a person a person. Or it is what makes a cat a cat. A person is a rational animal. We have animal bodies and a rational soul. If we remove one of these, we cease to be a person. This action of actualizing by the soul is what connects the soul and the body. But the soul can be separated in that it is not bound to the body.

Do you think that causality is local? If yes, then soul has to be in the place that body is otherwise I cannot understand how soul can causality be related to body.

Aristotle outlined a difference between actuality and potentiality. This can be easily demonstrated by an example. Currently, I am actually sitting. But I am potentially standing. It is possible for me to change and go from sitting to standing. But I am sitting right now. This actuality is like being in accordance with reality whereas potentiality is being but only in possibility.

Let’s go back to analyzing the human person. We have a body and a soul. Our body is potential because it is material. It can change. It can be altered. It is changing right now (it is growing older, cells are dying, etc.). Our soul on the other hand cannot change with the body. It is actualizing our bodies. It is making us human. No matter how I change, I’ll always be human on account of my soul. My body may change, but I will always have the form of man.

Humans possess rationality on account of our rational soul. Since this rationality is tied to our soul, it shares in actuality. The reason that we have mirrors the actuality that we posses by virtue of our rational soul. Since death implies change (living->dead) and the rational soul does not change with the body, it follows logically that the rational soul cannot die, even if the body dies.

I would say that rationality is the result of configuration of brain tissue. Think of Alzheimer. The person is alive but there is no sign of intelligence in him.

 

[STT]

Yes, the soul is immaterial. This means that left to itself, or without the body, the soul will not have a location or position in space. But when it is united to the body as its substantial form, then it is located in the same place where the body is.

This is contrary to me. If the soul is immaterial then it cannot have a location at all. @Gorgias thinks that the soul doesn’t have any location at all too.

Incidentally, when making discussions about the soul, it is best to speak of it as the “substantial form” of the body, in order not to confuse it with figure or shape, which is an accidental form of the body.

If the soul is not an accidental form then why a person loses his rationality when his brain tissue is damaged.

 

[STT]

That is not the definition of substantial form that St. Thomas Aquinas is using.

I know that he makes difference between substantial and accidental form. To me, if there is any soul then it has to be accidental form since a person loses his rationality when his brain tissue is damaged.

 

[goout]

It’s fine to have your own definition of the term, but you are on a Catholic philosophy forum asking for (name removed by moderator)ut.
It seems to me that courtesy would ask for you to accept the commonly accepted definition, so that a productive discussion can happen.
It’s like going to a dinner party and intentionally speaking French in front of English speakers, and expecting them to converse in French.

 

[Mountie]

Do you think that causality is local? If yes, then soul has to be in the place that body is otherwise I cannot understand how soul can causality be related to body.

I tend to side with Aristotle in this debate. I adopt how Aristotle defines the soul. Since it is the animating principle of life, it must be tied to the body. Of course, I agree that the rational soul is separable from the body in a way that the irrational soul is not.

I would say that rationality is the result of configuration of brain tissue. Think of Alzheimer. The person is alive but there is no sign of intelligence in him.

There are two aspects here. The body must be receptive to the soul. This means that for a being to be rational, it must possess a rational soul that animates a body that allows for rational capabilities. Animals that do not possess the neurological capabilities for reason then could not be rational. So from the bodily aspect, you are right. Rationality requires the necessary brain configuration.

I do want to point out that this rationality is a capacity. So not every person with a rational soul can utilize reason. Someone with a particular mental handicap cannot use reason in the same way that a normative person can. This does not negate their humanity nor does it make them less human. It is the soul that defines our humanity and not the physical aspect. For a disclaimer, I’d argue that if another species of life out there developed or possessed rational capabilities similar to homo sapiens, they would be just as human as you or me. We’d be a different species, but we’d all be humans as they would possess a rational soul (defined as rational animals).

 

[STT]

If you accept that the configuration of brain tissue allows rationality then what is the use of soul? In your philosophical language that is accidental form which is matter in giving rationality so there is no place left for substantial form in regards to the rationality.

 

[Gorgias]

Form is simply configuration of matter.

That’s not the definition of the concept we’re addressing. If you want to address a different concept, then you’re free to do so. However, the issue you’d be discussing is distinct from the subject of this thread.

The functioning of body changes if a part of brain is damaged, Alzheimer for example.

The ‘brain’ isn’t the ‘soul’. Perhaps you’re conflating the two?

It is as it is discussed in the previous comment.

It really isn’t. You’re just repeating the definition that you want to use, and which no one else is using.

How soul can causally relate to a body if it doesn’t have any location.

As a substantial form.

Do you think that causality is local?

It is expressed, in part, through the body. I think you’re approaching this from a dualist perspective, which doesn’t work in this framework.

I would say that rationality is the result of configuration of brain tissue.

I would disagree. Perhaps, as a starting point, we might consider whether rationality is expressed, in part, through the medium of the brain. Rationality is not “the brain”, however.

rom:

But when it is united to the body as its substantial form, then it is located in the same place where the body is.

This is contrary to me. If the soul is immaterial then it cannot have a location at all. @Gorgias thinks that the soul doesn’t have any location at all too.

I would say that it is expressed through the body, without being located there.

If the soul is not an accidental form then why a person loses his rationality when his brain tissue is damaged.

Again, I think I’d assert that he doesn’t lose his rationality, per se, but merely his ability to express it through his body.

If you accept that the configuration of brain tissue allows rationality then what is the use of soul?

Brain tissue is only relevant in the sense that it allows the expression of rationality in the way that, for instance, a banana creme pie does not.

 

[Mountie]

If you accept that the configuration of brain tissue allows rationality then what is the use of soul? In your philosophical language that is accidental form which is matter in giving rationality so there is no place left for substantial form in regards to the rationality.

The soul is what gives us life and our form. We are more than just material bodies. And we can’t possess reason without a rational soul, even if our bodies allow for it.

Another way of describing humanity is prime matter plus substantial form. Prime matter is pure potency. It is pure change. The substantial form is what makes us us. It defines all of our being. Matter is not accidental form. There is no form in matter. Only stuff that can change. The soul is what gives us form. If there were no soul in a living body, it would have no form. It would just be stuff. Rationality does not come from our bodies but from our soul. But our bodies must allow for the capabilities to become actualized. Think of it like this: Reason comes from the soul (animating principle) but a being cannot possess reason if its body does not “cooperate” (this word is being used VERY loosely) with the soul. If the body cannot allow for rationality, the soul cannot actualize it. No potential = nothing to actualize. The body needs to have the potential for reason for there to be reason.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

That is not the definition of substantial form that St. Thomas Aquinas is using.

I know that he makes difference between substantial and accidental form. To me, if there is any soul then it has to be accidental form since a person loses his rationality when his brain tissue is damaged.

Per St. Thomas Aquinas, the rational soul attributes are intelligence and will, not functions of the brain. The non-human souls are mortal and do not have intelligence and will like humans. Since the rational soul is spiritual not corporeal, the link between spiritual and corporeal is described as phantasm. The person exists only when the body and soul are both present, so at death the person no longer exists, only the soul, until the resurrection.

 

[rom]

If the soul is immaterial then it cannot have a location at all.

Left to itself, and without the body, yes. But not when it is united to something material, like a body. Because, when united to the body, then it accidentally acquires features coming from the body, such as the body’s extension in space, its shape, etc. Perhaps an analogy will help you understand this. Consider a circle. Considered in itself, as a mathematical figure in our mind, a circle has no color at all. Color is not part of its definition. But in the real world a circle does not exist except in some material thing that is circular, such as in a black wheel, a yellow cake, or a red circle drawn on the blackboard. So, although a circle essentially has no color, it accidentally acquires the color of the material object in which it exists. Thus, we see a black circle in a black wheel, a yellow circle in a yellow cake, and a red circle in the figure that is drawn on the blackboard. These different colors are accidental to the circle as such. Essentially and left to itself, a circle has no color. The same is true of the soul. Being immaterial, the soul essentially has no location. But when it is united to a body, it accidentally acquires the location of the body to which it is united.

If the soul is not an accidental form then why a person loses his rationality when his brain tissue is damaged.

You need to distinguish between the possession of reason and the exercise of that reason. Because of sickness or brain damage a person may not be able to exercise his natural ability to think properly, but this does not mean that this person already lacks that natural ability to think. This is similar to the difference between the possession of a right and the exercise of that right. I may have the right to vote, but if I am sick, I may not be able to exercise my right to vote. That does not mean that I have no more right to vote when I am sick. I still do. It is just that, because of my sickness, I can’t go to the polls and vote. Rationality and being able to exercise rationality are the same thing. A sickness or brain damage may not allow me to exercise rational functions. It does not mean that I am no longer a rational being when I have brain damage. This is because being rational is not an accidental, but an essential feature of my nature.

A human soul is the substantial form of a human body. It is not an accidental form that may be present or absent without changing the nature of the human person. Rationality is not accidental to human nature. But actually acting rationally, or the actual exercise of rationality, is accidental, because it can be impeded by accident, sickness, or even by a bad will. Thus, a wicked person can act irrationally by refusing to exercise acts in conformity with reason.

 

[Zach]

Left to itself, and without the body, yes. But not when it is united to something material, like a body.

In light of this statement, can someone explain how the individual soul is distinguished and has location after the death of the physical body but before it is joined with the resurrected body? If matter joined to soul is what gives souls location and is what distinguishes individual souls and persons in the human species (angels have no matter therefore each individual angel is its own species) then in hell, purgatory or heaven, before being rejoined with the body, what is the nature of the soul, how does it exist apart from the body and how does it have location apart from the body?

 

[TK421]

The soul is the form of the body. Therefore, the soul is in the place that the body is.

Souls don’t exist in space.

 

[STT]

That’s not the definition of the concept we’re addressing. If you want to address a different concept, then you’re free to do so. However, the issue you’d be discussing is distinct from the subject of this thread.

The issue is related to the subject of this thread if I can convince you that there is only one form.

The ‘brain’ isn’t the ‘soul’. Perhaps you’re conflating the two?

The brain is soul if there is only one form. You consider soul as a rational thing which as a result incorruptible. You, however, cannot answer to my objection: How something which is incorruptible is subject of malfunction when the brain is damaged? Remember, incorruptibility of soul is deduced from its rationality, a damaged brain is not rational.

As a substantial form.

Does substantial form has any location? @rom thinks it does. You think not. Anyway, you still owe me to explain how causally soul is related to the body.

It is expressed, in part, through the body. I think you’re approaching this from a dualist perspective, which doesn’t work in this framework.

I think there are two things here: soul and body which each is a substance. Therefore, your model is dualist too. The only difference from substance dualism is that soul and body are united during life in hylomorphism dualism and separated after death. These things perhaps didn’t come to mind of Descartes so I think that hylomorphic dualism is just more detailed.

I would disagree. Perhaps, as a starting point, we might consider whether rationality is expressed, in part, through the medium of the brain. Rationality is not “the brain”, however.

What expressed in this case ever mean?

I would say that it is expressed through the body, without being located there.

What do you mean with expressed?

 

[STT]

The soul is what gives us life and our form. We are more than just material bodies. And we can’t possess reason without a rational soul, even if our bodies allow for it.

The soul is where the body is when the person is alive. If the rationality was due to the soul then the person should be rational when the brain is damaged.