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

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You lose your rationality when a part of your brain is damaged. Your soul is intact.
Click to expand...
When part of your brain is damaged, you still have the potential for rationality. Since the potential for rationality exists, rationality still exists.
How you can possibly prove that soul is required for intellect when all biological indications point to the brain as a source of rationality.
Click to expand...
Look up the “Tree of Porphyry.” There are different levels of being. For example, a living body has a higher sense of being than a non-living body. Likewise, a rational animal has a higher sense of being than a non-rational animal. We are different than beasts. We possess reason. As such, the principle that animates us (our soul) is different. Our soul allows up to possess certain capabilities that other animals do not possess. This is reason. Since our capabilities come from our soul and humans uniquely possess reason in comparison to other animals, we see that our soul provides rationality. We need a brain to allow us to act on our rationality, but that doesn’t mean rationality comes solely from the brain. After all, I could die today yet my corpse would have no reason even if my brain has the correct configuration.
 
rom said:
The soul is not a prisoner in the body, like a ghost in a machine. Rather, it is the body’s substantial form.
Click to expand...
He still insist that soul is intelligent in spite of brain damage.
 
STT said:
Where exactly the matter becomes united by soul and then disunited?
Click to expand...
Food breaks down and loses its substantial form when it gets digested. In the process the ingredients that get carried by the blood to nourish the other cells of the body become part of the body and get united with the soul. Other ingredients, that are either useless or harmful to the body, are expelled as waste. How detailed do you want this explanation to be? I already told you in simple terms that whatever gets assimilated to the body becomes united with the soul.
 
STT said:
He still insist that soul is intelligent in spite of brain damage.
Click to expand...
I’ll give you an analogy that might help. I think that the brain is an instrument of the soul, just as a piano is an instrument of the pianist. Just as the pianist cannot play the piano if the piano is broken, so the soul cannot use its instrument (the brain) when the brain is damaged. And, just as the pianist retains his art as a pianist even if the piano is broken, so the soul keeps its rational nature even if the brain is damaged.
 
rom said:
I’ll give you an analogy that might help. I think that the brain is an instrument of the soul, just as a piano is an instrument of the pianist. Just as the pianist cannot play the piano if the piano is broken, so the soul cannot use its instrument (the brain) when the brain is damaged. And, just as the pianist retains his art as a pianist even if the piano is broken, so the soul keeps its rational nature even if the brain is damaged.
Click to expand...
So, soul has ability to rationalize but it cannot because there is no proper instrument to do so?
 
I already answered this.
St. Thomas 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.”
 
SeekerOfTruth7 said:
This, your most recent.
Click to expand...
But we are talking about when the soul is still united to the body. I am wondering how it looks like. I cannot rationalize the existence of rational ability in a person when s/he cannot rationalize.
 
Last edited:
rom said:
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.
Click to expand...
So does that mean before being joined with the resurrected body the soul of the saved are in heaven but without a location? Then upon the final judgement when all the souls are joined with the bodies all of a sudden they all have location?
 
Last edited:
STT said:
So, soul has ability to rationalize but it cannot because there is no proper instrument to do so?
Click to expand...
Although the soul does not intrinsically depend on the brain for its intellectual operations, it has an extrinsic dependence on the brain when it is united to the body. As the substantial form of man, the soul also depends on the brain because it derives its ideas from sense data, which it collects with the help of the brain. But this is a dependence extrinsic to its nature as a cognitive power. When the soul is separated from the body, it derives its knowledge, not from the data of the senses, but from other intelligible objects, as St. Thomas says. Thus, in heaven a created soul continue to exercise its intellectual operations through intelligible objects communicated to it by God, the angels, or by other souls.
 
STT said:
So you cannot ratiocinate when you are in Haven?
Click to expand...
Prior to the eschaton and the possession of a glorified body? No. You cannot.
STT said:
How could you judge that you are in Haven when you can not judge about its state?
Click to expand...
You have direct knowledge that you are in the presence of God.
STT said:
What operation? The intellect is lost upon the brain damage.
Click to expand...
That’s the fundamental disconnect in this conversation, I’m afraid. You look at the lack of the operation of rational thought and you conclude “the intellect is lost.” We’re saying that rationality is still present but that the activity is compromised.
STT said:
To me the rationality seems to be a property of the brain.
Click to expand...
The classical approach of Aquinas is that rationality is a property of the brain, but activity takes place with the action of the brain.
STT said:
How can you prove that soul is still rational when there is no rationality in person?
Click to expand...
When your phone call disconnects, do you presume that the person died… or just that the connection was compromised? Would you have to ‘prove’ that the person is still alive?
STT said:
40.png
rom:
A separated human soul can perform intellective functions, but not sentient or vegetative functions.
Click to expand...
@Gorgias thinks not.
Click to expand...
No, I would agree with @rom’s statement. What a separated human soul cannot perform are functions that require a body.
STT said:
So, soul has ability to rationalize but it cannot because there is no proper instrument to do so?
Click to expand...
I would use the more precise term ‘ratiocinate’, rather than ‘rationalize’.
 
How could you prove that rationality still exist in the soul when the persons brain is damaged and the rationality is lost? What if the soul doesn’t have any contribution in rationality? The person loses his rationality upon brain damage , therefore, the rationality is due to the existence of the brain. What is the contribution of soul?
 
Question 77:Article 8 in the Summa says:
“All the powers(understanding and rationality) of the soul belong to the soul alone as their subject. But some powers belong to the soul alone as their subject; as the intelligence and will. These powers must remain in the soul.” St. Thomas Aquinas is saying that intelligence and rationality are fundamentally powers of the soul, so even if their is no instrument to express the rationality via phantasms(sensory images) the soul still has rationality it being a fundamental power of the soul. Materialistic worldviews like what your implying, the fundamental power of rationality being the brain, isn’t at all what we’re saying and will lead to nothing but confusion to you since you don’t seem to accept the premise that a soul is real. Correct me if I’m wrong though.
 
STT said:
How could you prove that rationality still exist in the soul when the persons brain is damaged and the rationality is lost? What if the soul doesn’t have any contribution in rationality? The person loses his rationality upon brain damage , therefore, the rationality is due to the existence of the brain. What is the contribution of soul?
Click to expand...
If you’re just going to ask the same question over and over again, brother, then you’ll keep getting back the same answer, over and over. 🤷‍♂️

I’ll repeat my answer, for your benefit:
Gorgias said:
When your phone call disconnects, do you presume that the person died… or just that the connection was compromised? Would you have to ‘prove’ that the person is still alive?
Click to expand...
So, when your phone call is dropped, do you presume the person has suddenly died? Or do you make the reasonable inference: the person still exists, but the means through which the conversation took place have broken down?
 
Zach said:
So does that mean before being joined with the resurrected body the soul of the saved are in heaven but without a location? Then upon the final judgement when all the souls are joined with the bodies all of a sudden they all have location?
Click to expand...
You got it! Souls will all be localized in whatever places their resurrected bodies are located. At that point it would be more appropriate, not to speak of souls being in certain places, but of saints being in certain places. Even today while our souls are still united to our bodies, we do not say, “My soul is in school,” or “My soul lives in Pennsylvania.” Instead, we say, “I’m in school,” or “I live in Pennsylvania.” Because once united to the body, it is our person or substance that exists appropriately in certain places, although the soul also exists wherever the human substance is.
 
Gorgias said:
So, when your phone call is dropped, do you presume the person has suddenly died? Or do you make the reasonable inference: the person still exists, but the means through which the conversation took place have broken down?
Click to expand...
No, but in that question the person still has the ability to ratiocinate but it cannot only communicate it. How could you prove that is the case? A person who lost his rationality cannot communicate properly.
 
STT said:
No, but in that question the person still has the ability to ratiocinate but it cannot only communicate it.
Click to expand...
In other words, “the person is unable to perform the activity of communication.” That’s a good analogy to the situation we’re discussing: the person with brain damage has merely reached a point in which he is unable to perform the activity of ratiocination.
STT said:
How could you prove that is the case?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that you could. However, you certainly wouldn’t presume that the person who was at the other end of the line is now dead!
STT said:
A person who lost his rationality cannot communicate properly.
Click to expand...
Again, you keep framing it up improperly, IMHO. I would nuance it as “a person who has lost the ability to ratiocinate cannot ratiocinate properly.” See how obvious it is, when you frame it up well?

Moreover, the “loss of rationality” that you posit, itself cannot be proven. (You keep asking how we might prove that rationality is retained… have you stopped to think that you cannot prove that rationality is lost? All you can demonstrate is that the activity of ratiocination is no longer taking place.)

(Edited to add:

‘communication’ is not necessarily something that requires rationality. Animals communicate with each other through various means, and they are not rational. Now… certain kinds of communication, and certain things being communicated require rationality, but that’s a different story. (After all, a deer can communicate his presence by rubbing his forehead or leg against a tree… but he cannot communicate the sentiment “I feel distraught by the upcoming autumn season and am filled with angst” by doing so. 😉 )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top