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

[SeekerOfTruth7]

So you deny all the arguements given above by the posters? Give your argument for your assertion

 

[Mountie]

Rationality is a property of the rational soul, no?

Rationality is a property of the soul. Absolutely, yes. But the capacity for rational activity requires the correct configuration of the brain. That is what I was referring to. Take for instance an infant child. That child has a rational soul. However, his brain is not developed to the point that he can actually reason.

 

[Mountie]

Soul is not rational while being separated from body.

Sure it is! Why would rationality cease in a soul upon separation from the body? Rationality is precisely why we can say the rational soul is separable from the body. If the soul loses rationality, then it is not separable from the body at all. But if that were the case, then we lose human reason completely. I don’t think either of us would bite that bullet!

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Read in the Summa question 89, article 1 on whether the separated soul can understand anything. Here is a link:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1089.htm

 

[STT]

I still don’t know how something which has no location can causally be related to something which has location. @rom thinks that soul has a location while body is alive. He also says that another form takes place of soul when the person dies. @Gorgias think that soul doesn’t have any location but it just uses body to expresses itself… So we are discussing different things now.

 

[Mountie]

Excellent source! I’ll just add that understanding, especially for Aristotle and Aquinas, implies rational activity.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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?

The natural incorruptibility of the human soul is assured because the act of being by which a human being exists belongs to the soul which animates that matter not to the composite of soul and matter.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Quote from Aquinas:
“The soul, therefore, when united to the body, consistently with that mode of existence, has a mode of understanding, by turning to corporeal phantasms, which are in corporeal organs; but when it is separated from the body, it has a mode of understanding, by turning to simply intelligible objects, as is proper to other separate substances. Hence it is as natural for the soul to understand by turning to the phantasms as it is for it to be joined to the body; but to be separated from the body is not in accordance with its nature, and likewise to understand without turning to the phantasms is not natural to it; and hence it is united to the body in order that it may have an existence and an operation suitable to its nature.”
One thing I will admit, your posts have thoroughly challenged my intellect and led me to much deeper study and a more intense study. So thank you very much for that!

God Bless

 

[STT]

Sure it is! Why would rationality cease in a soul upon separation from the body? Rationality is precisely why we can say the rational soul is separable from the body. If the soul loses rationality, then it is not separable from the body at all. But if that were the case, then we lose human reason completely. I don’t think either of us would bite that bullet!

You lose your rationality when a part of your brain is damaged. Your soul is intact. How you can possibly prove that soul is required for intellect when all biological indications point to the brain as a source of rationality.

 

[STT]

If soul doesn’t need body to be rational then why the person loses his rationality when he is alive and his brain is damaged?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I would say the way Gorgias explained:

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”

The brain is the medium through which rationality is expressed in the united body and soul. The soul is rational whether the brain is functioning correctly or not. At least thats how my unintelligent brain understands. I’ll admit, these posts remind me how unintelligent are am haha!

 

[Gorgias]

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

No. First off, we have to be precise in the way we talk about this: if being “in Heaven” means being in a location, then we’re not “in Heaven”; our souls aren’t “in” a location. If it means something more like a “state of being”, then we’re on track.

So, prior to the eschaton, when we’re “in Heaven”, we are still rational. Humans have rational souls. However, we are not ratiocinating.

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

You’re misquoting @Vico, I think. He didn’t say “rationality is lost”, but rather, “rationality of the brain is lost.” In other words, the brain’s function is compromised, but the rational soul continues on in its operation.

But the capacity for rational activity requires the correct configuration of the brain.

I agree – the discussion is around activity, not rationality.

You lose your rationality when a part of your brain is damaged.

No. You lose the ability to reason with your brain. Your rationality – as a faculty of your soul – remains intact.

 

[rom]

n 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?

After the death of the body and before it is joined with a resurrected body, the soul has NO location in space because it is an immaterial entity. However, it retains its relation to its previous body, and that is how it is distinguished from other individual souls. Unlike angels, which differ from each other specifically, a human soul separated from the body does not specifically differ from other separated human souls. But it differs from other separated human souls on account of its relation to a previous body, since it is that body’s substantial form.

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?

When any substance of food or drink is assimilated by the body, then it becomes part of the body and is united with the soul. Any substance of food or drink that is expelled as human waste is, of course, not united to the soul.

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

A separated human soul can perform intellective functions, but not sentient or vegetative functions.

 

[STT]

What do you mean with expressed? Do you mean that soul is like a rational entity in prison of body?

 

[Gorgias]

@rom thinks that soul has a location while body is alive.

You keep saying this, but that’s not at all what @rom wrote to you! Here – take a look:

STT:

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

Left to itself, and without the body, yes.

See? The soul does not have the property of ‘location’.

But, read on:

rom:

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.

So… although the soul does not have the attribute of ‘location’, it is associated (through its participation in the person) with something that does have that attribute. So: soul – no location; body – location; person (by virtue of the body) – location.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

The soul, therefore, when united to the body, consistently with that mode of existence, has a mode of understanding, by turning to corporeal phantasms, which are in corporeal organs; but when it is separated from the body, it has a mode of understanding, by turning to simply intelligible objects, as is proper to other separate substances.

rational entity in prison of body

Not a prison. As Aquinas says:
“It is clear then that it was for the soul’s good that it was united to a body, and that it understands by turning to the phantasms. Nevertheless it is possible for it to exist apart from the body, and also to understand in another way.”

 

[STT]

No. First off, we have to be precise in the way we talk about this: if being “in Heaven” means being in a location, then we’re not “in Heaven”; our souls aren’t “in” a location. If it means something more like a “state of being”, then we’re on track.

So, prior to the eschaton, when we’re “in Heaven”, we are still rational . Humans have rational souls. However, we are not ratiocinating .

So you cannot ratiocinate when you are in Haven? For example, you cannot judge about the state of good and bad? How could you judge that you are in Haven when you can not judge about its state?

You’re misquoting @Vico, I think. He didn’t say “rationality is lost”, but rather, “rationality of the brain is lost.” In other words, the brain’s function is compromised, but the rational soul continues on in its operation.

What operation? The intellect is lost upon the brain damage.

I agree – the discussion is around activity , not rationality .

To me the rationality seems to be a property of the brain.

No. You lose the ability to reason with your brain. Your rationality – as a faculty of your soul – remains intact.

How can you prove that soul is still rational when there is no rationality in person?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

So you cannot ratiocinate when you are in Haven? For example, you cannot judge about the state of good and bad? How could you judge that you are in Haven when you can not judge about its state?

As Aquinas says:

but when it is separated from the body, it has a mode of understanding, by turning to simply intelligible objects, as is proper to other separate substances.

 

[rom]

Do you mean that soul is like a rational entity in prison of body?

The soul is not a prisoner in the body, like a ghost in a machine. Rather, it is the body’s substantial form. In the case of man, for example, the body ceases to be a man once the soul leaves the body, whereas a machine can still be a machine and function as a machine if a ghost departs from it.

 

[STT]

When any substance of food or drink is assimilated by the body, then it becomes part of the body and is united with the soul. Any substance of food or drink that is expelled as human waste is, of course, not united to the soul.

Where exactly the matter becomes united by soul and then disunited?

A separated human soul can perform intellective functions, but not sentient or vegetative functions.

@Gorgias thinks not.