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

[STT]

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.

But material gets inside and outside us as we live. Soul cannot be related to something which comes and goes. Now, I am drinking tea. Does the tea become united with my soul?

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.

So the soul is rational but it cannot express his rationality when it is separated from body? Like a person in a prison.

 

[STT]

Souls don’t exist in space.

@rom thinks not.

 

[STT]

Per St. Thomas Aquinas, the rational soul attributes are intelligence and will, not functions of the brain.

We know from the biology that this is true.

 

[Gorgias]

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

You seem to be having difficulty getting anyone to buy what you’re selling. I suspect that this is because you’re attempting to claim that, on your own personal authority, we should stop using this term in the way that classical philosophical / metaphysical inquiry has used it for millennia…

You, however, cannot answer to my objection: How something which is incorruptible is subject of malfunction when the brain is damaged?

I already answered your objection. It’s not that the soul becomes corrupt; it’s merely that the vessel through which the soul expresses itself has become unable to support that full expression. When your wine glass shatters, do you claim that the wine has malfunctioned, or merely that the physical entity through which the wine presented itself has broken?

Does substantial form has any location?

Not in and of itself. However, we believe that the person is a body-soul composite. Therefore, when we talk of the person, we can talk about location; but not when we’re only talking about the soul.

Anyway, you still owe me to explain how causally soul is related to the body.

I already did that, too! “As a substantial form of the person, which is made up of soul and physical body.”

What do you mean with expressed?

It’s the means through which the rational soul acts.

The soul is where the body is when the person is alive.

No. The soul does not have the property of ‘location’. The person does, though, so if you want to say that “the person is where the body is when the person is alive”, then that might work a bit better.

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

I think I would say that the person is rational; but, the body cannot properly express that rationality.

We know from the biology that this is true.

No.

At best, we can see that the brain is part of the physical manifestation of intelligence and will. However, seeing that activity doesn’t prove the cause of the activity, does it?

 

[STT]

So you are saying that soul cannot possibly be rational without body? How something that it is not naturally, needs no other thing, rational could be immortal?

 

[Gorgias]

So you are saying that soul cannot possibly be rational without body?

No. However, you are onto something here! We would say that the act of ratiocination is an act which utilizes the physical body. So, when you die, your body becomes a corpse and your soul is unaffiliated with a physical body. You can no longer perceive (since you no longer have the sense organs with which to make observations, nor a body or brain with which to process these observations). You do not ratiocinate; that’s a function that utilizes the brain as well. However, you retain your intellect and will.

 

[Mountie]

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.

This is not the case since rationality requires a rational soul and a body capable of reason.

 

[STT]

No. However, you are onto something here! We would say that the act of ratiocination is an act which utilizes the physical body. So, when you die, your body becomes a corpse and your soul is unaffiliated with a physical body. You can no longer perceive (since you no longer have the sense organs with which to make observations, nor a body or brain with which to process these observations). You do not ratiocinate; that’s a function that utilizes the brain as well. However, you retain your intellect and will.

Do you experience something when you are dead?

 

[STT]

This is not the case since rationality requires a rational soul and a body capable of reason.

So soul is not rational when it is separated from body? How can Aquinas say that soul is immortal?

 

[Gorgias]

Do you experience something when you are dead?

If by ‘experience’, you mean ‘perceive with sense organs’, then no.

If by ‘experience’, you mean ‘continue to be alive’, then yes.

As Catholics, we would also say that, if we attain to heaven, then we have a direct experience of the Beatific Vision; that is, we have a direct experience of God that is not sensory, per se. After the eschaton, when we each receive our “glorified body”, we will again have the ability to sense and perceive through the mediation of that body.

 

[Gorgias]

Mountie:

This is not the case since rationality requires a rational soul and a body capable of reason.

So soul is not rational when it is separated from body? How can Aquinas say that soul is immortal?

That’s not the way I read Aquinas, @Mountie. Rationality is a property of the rational soul, no? Ratiocination – that is, as a function or operation – requires a body and soul, on the other hand.

 

[STT]

If by ‘experience’, you mean ‘perceive with sense organs’, then no .

If by ‘experience’, you mean ‘continue to be alive’, then yes .

As Catholics, we would also say that, if we attain to heaven, then we have a direct experience of the Beatific Vision; that is, we have a direct experience of God that is not sensory, per se. After the eschaton, when we each receive our “glorified body”, we will again have the ability to sense and perceive through the mediation of that body.

So, you are in Heaven not being rational, before having glorify body?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

@Gorgias didn’t say that, and you’re putting words in his mouth. The rational soul experiences in the sense that it is alive, not in a sensory experience. But you are trying to conflate sensory experience with rationality which we know is false.
The soul is rational in Heaven for it is a rational soul.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Per St. Thomas Aquinas, the rational soul attributes are intelligence and will, not functions of the brain.

We know from the biology that this is true.

Rationality of the brain is lost, but the soul is not corporeal, so the intelligence and will of the soul are not effected, rather there is a corporeal limitation in expression of will and intelligence.

 

[STT]

I didnt put words in his moth. I just asked a question.

 

[STT]

Rationality of the brain is lost, but the soul is not corporeal, so the intelligence and will of the soul are not effected, rather there is a corporeal limitation in expression of will and intelligence.

How then you can argue in favor of immortality of soul if its rationality is lost upon brain damage?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Rationality of the brain is lost, but the soul is not corporeal, so the intelligence and will of the soul are not effected, rather there is a corporeal limitation in expression of will and intelligence.

How then you can argue in favor of immortality of soul if its rationality is lost upon brain damage?

There is no argument for immortality of the soul by St. Thomas Aquinas, rather it is accepted as a matter of faith. There is an argument for incorruptibility of the soul however.

 

[STT]

There is no argument for immortality of the soul by St. Thomas Aquinas, rather it is accepted as a matter of faith. There is an argument for incorruptibility of the soul however.

Doesn’t incorruptibility of soul means that soul doesn’t perish? Isn’t this argument based on rationality of soul?

 

[Mountie]

So soul is not rational when it is separated from body? How can Aquinas say that soul is immortal?

A rational soul is always rational, even when the body dies.

 

[STT]

A rational soul is always rational, even when the body dies.

Soul is not rational while being separated from body.