"How Is It We Are Here?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If we consider space as a whole, we would have to say that space is nowhere.
It would be rare that some one find them self in a place that’s not hospitable to their life for a sustained period and then live to ponder about it. Imagine finding yourself at the center of the earth or on the far side of the Kuiper belt without a protective suit (ignoring for not the question of how you got there). One’s capacity for thinking about their state while in that position would be rather limited.
 
When we dream (are mind is in one state of consciousness) we usually don’t remember what the dream was about when we wake up ( a different state of consciousness). I would think it’s natural for us to forget what happened in another state of consciousness.
I admit that it is possible for us to forget. The Platonists thought as much. They said that learning was a form of remembering what we already knew. My question then is, is it natural for the intellect (or soul if we use them interchangeably) to be united to a body, or is it better to not be united to a body? What is the natural state of the intellect?

It seems to me that if we believe in reincarnation the natural state of the intellect would be to be disunified from the body. In that case, it would seem that, in order to be joined to a body it would take an act of violence to join to a body, like the intellect is forced to join to a body. As others have pointed out, why would it choose to join a body if its better state is disunity with a body?

If it is natural for it to be joined to a body we run into other problems. I’ll just quote St. Thomas as he states the problem better than I (this is from his Summa Contra Gentiles Book II, Chapter 83):

"Now the argument may be raised that union with the body is natural to the soul, as well as separation from it, according to various periods of time. But such a notion seems impossible. For changes that take place naturally in a subject are accidental, such as youth and old age; so that, if its union with, and separation from the body are natural changes, then union with the body will be an accident of the soul. The human being constituted by this union therefore will not be essential but accidental being."

What Thomas is saying is that if the union is an accidental union, then that you are constituted here and now is merely an accident (or attribute) of the soul. Much like a skin tan is an accident of the subject. To speak of a person, unique in his or her individuality and unrepeatable, as merely an accident dehumanizes the person, and if carried far enough, would lead to dangerous ethics.
I don’t understand the above but I’ll try and answer it anyway. I believe God is the Creative Force rather than the Supreme Being that he is normally thought of as. So the naturally organized body would be the Creative Force and our souls would be the first grade actuality. We are moving to become one with this force. I’ll need more clarification on the rest of what you wrote.
I was using Aristotle’s definition of soul as “the first grade actuality of a naturally organized body.”

If God is a creative force, but not a supreme being, how does he act? Is He just an unconcious stream of being that moves all things? If He has no intellect or free will, then how does He move things?

Are you an advocate of a kind of monism where all is one and we are sort of like waves on an eternal becoming?
.
]
 
I want to quote two more arguments that Thomas gives against reincarnation and see your thoughts. One of the reasons I love my faith is that it is reasonable. I once thought reincarnation could be true, but then I read Thomas and realized the beliefs of the Catholic faith can be verified by reason. I now find the idea of reincarnation, not only contrary to my faith, but contrary to reason. The beauty of the Catholic faith for me is that it is not whimsical like mythology or paganism, but rationally grounded. Anyway, have a look at these arguments and tell me what you think. These again come from the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book II, Ch. 83.

On the other hand, the hypothesis that souls are united to bodies neither by violence nor by nature, but by free choice is likewise impossible. For no on voluntarily enters into a state worse than a previous one, unless he be decieved. But the separate soul enjoys a higher state of existence than when united to the body; especially according to the Platonists, who say that through its union with the body, the soul forgets what it knew before, its power to contemplate truth in a pure manner thus being checked. Hence, the soul is not willingly united to the body unless it be the victim of deception. But there can be nothing in the soul that could cause deception, since, for the Platonists, the soul is possessed of all knowledge. Nor can it be said that the soul’s judgment, proceeding from universal scientific knowledge and applied to a particular matter of choice, is overwhelmed by the passions, as in the incontinent; for no passions of this sort occur without bodily change, and consequently, they cannot exist in the separate soul. We are then left to the conclusion that, if the soul had existed before the body, it would not be united to the body of its own will.

{18} Moreover, every effect issuing from the concurrent operation of two mutually unrelated wills is fortuitous, as in the case of a person who goes out to shop and meets his creditor in the market place without any prior arrangement between the two. Now, the will of the generative agent, whereon the body’s production depends, is independent of the will of the separate soul which wills to be united. It follows that the union of the soul and body is fortuitous, since it cannot be effected without the concurrence of both wills. Thus, the begetting of a man results not from nature, but from chance, which is patently false, since it occurs in the majority of cases."
 
*On the other hand, the hypothesis that souls are united to bodies neither by violence nor by nature, but by free choice is likewise impossible. For no on voluntarily enters into a state worse than a previous one, unless he be decieved. *

Hello JP2Admirer,
Code:
 An individual will freely enter into a state worse than his previous one provided either that he perceives it will provide some long term benefit, or to fulfill an urge or some combination of the two.  People get out of bed every morning to go to work.  People go to a great deal of expense to either climb Mt. Everest or hike the Grand Canyon.  In either case no deception is involved.  In both cases the individual involved will probably feel that they should have remained in bed when met with difficulties.  Yet in both cases people continue to get out of bed.
 
If God is a creative force, but not a supreme being, how does he act? Is He just an unconcious stream of being that moves all things? If He has no intellect or free will, then how does He move things?

Are you an advocate of a kind of monism where all is one and we are sort of like waves on an eternal becoming?
I got off topic here. I had to look up monism. I couldn’t grasp the topic so I don’t know if I’m advocating for monism or not.
I believe God is one. All force whether it is gravity, electricity, instinct, etc. is a manifestation of God. The most remarkable force for me is instinct. I believe there are what we might call angels that are one with this Creative Force. These angels are the instruments behind the miraculous stories of the OT.
 
Hello JP2Admirer,
Code:
 An individual will freely enter into a state worse than his previous one provided either that he perceives it will provide some long term benefit, or to fulfill an urge or some combination of the two.  People get out of bed every morning to go to work.  People go to a great deal of expense to either climb Mt. Everest or hike the Grand Canyon.  In either case no deception is involved.  In both cases the individual involved will probably feel that they should have remained in bed when met with difficulties.  Yet in both cases people continue to get out of bed.
I’m curious as to what the ultimate good of the soul is then? Getting out of bed and going to work is done for the good of existing. There is a telos to that action. So why would a soul choose to enter a body?

Also, this idea of the transmigration of souls still has the difficulty of fortuity in generation, as well as the amount of people there are today? What is the wellspring of eternal souls if not animal generation? I don’t think we’ve gotten around the ‘man as accidental’ being issue either.

So two questions: why does the soul enter the body? What is instinct?
 
I’m curious as to what the ultimate good of the soul is then? Getting out of bed and going to work is done for the good of existing. There is a telos to that action. So why would a soul choose to enter a body?

Also, this idea of the transmigration of souls still has the difficulty of fortuity in generation, as well as the amount of people there are today? What is the wellspring of eternal souls if not animal generation? I don’t think we’ve gotten around the ‘man as accidental’ being issue either.

So two questions: why does the soul enter the body? What is instinct?
Hello JP2Admirer,
Code:
 First off, my personal belief is that human souls only go into humans.

 Instinct would be the urge for all life to do certain things.  It also provides direction on how a task is to be done.  It's most noticeable on smaller brain insects who function totally on instinct.  Bees are born with communication skills to tell other bees where food can be located.  In the movie "March of the Penguins" penguins are urged to come out of the water at a certain age and mate with other penguins.
With regards to why a soul would choose to enter a body there is an urge to do so. What makes up that urge would be different for each individual. Each of us has a reason why we chose to come into a certain social structure. There may also be (as I believe) an ultimate goal involved in coming here.
I don’t think we’ve gotten around the ‘man as accidental’ being issue either.<<<
It’s my understanding that we were both beginning with the viewpoint that each human has a soul. Reincarnation is only in competition with the belief that God creates a new soul every time a female gets pregnant and then puts it into the body at some point during pregnancy or at birth.
With regards to the possible ultimate purpose for reincarnation, if we view the earth as one of many classrooms then I think it provides a clue as to why we are here. In a schools you have many classrooms most of which were designed with a certain subject matter in mind. A chemistry classroom might have test tubes. A geology classroom might have pictures of the inner earth. Much of an individuals success in life hinges on whether an individual has self discipline. Most people come to the realization that they need to use moderation in some of their lifestyle choices. Some marriages have been ruined through self indulgence.
 
It’s the million dollar question that underlies a many philosophical arguments and is worthy of spiritual reflection and meditation. This question was the product of the Moody Blues, a rock band from yesteryear. Answers like, “well, God put us here out of love,” does not do the question justice. We ought to delve deeper, and rethink its implications.

The very notion that we were created and placed here is mind-boggling. Perhaps lyrics describe my feelings the best:

*“I never been laid so low
In such a mysterious way.”
-Paul Simon - Mother and Child Reunion.
*
(I’m rambling, people, help me out here, and provide the spiritual insight to make sense of this life!)
The earth is a place between light and darkness also known as the mid heaven.
We are born by seed and have a choice to grow in the light and bear fruit or stay in the darkness and grow no fruit. When the harvest comes what will be left behind.

In Jesus name
 
Hello JP2Admirer,
Code:
 First off, my personal belief is that human souls only go into humans.

 Instinct would be the urge for all life to do certain things.  It also provides direction on how a task is to be done.  It's most noticeable on smaller brain insects who function totally on instinct.  Bees are born with communication skills to tell other bees where food can be located.  In the movie "March of the Penguins" penguins are urged to come out of the water at a certain age and mate with other penguins.
With regards to why a soul would choose to enter a body there is an urge to do so. What makes up that urge would be different for each individual. Each of us has a reason why we chose to come into a certain social structure. There may also be (as I believe) an ultimate goal involved in coming
A Thomist would call instinct an internal directed ness to a good that is commensurate with the nature of the thing. Sounds like we can agree on ‘instinct.’

What I don’t get is yet why a soul would return to a body? You seem to be stating that it is both good and bad for a soul to be united to a body. If it has an urge to do so, it must be good. But it also seems you have argued that it is a necessary evil.

How would you define soul? The Aristotelian in me has trouble with migrating souls, so I’m curious what a soul is on your definition?
 
A Thomist would call instinct an internal directed ness to a good that is commensurate with the nature of the thing. Sounds like we can agree on ‘instinct.’

What I don’t get is yet why a soul would return to a body? You seem to be stating that it is both good and bad for a soul to be united to a body. If it has an urge to do so, it must be good. But it also seems you have argued that it is a necessary evil.

How would you define soul? The Aristotelian in me has trouble with migrating souls, so I’m curious what a soul is on your definition?
A soul is the bottom part of a shoe?😃
 
A Thomist would call instinct an internal directed ness to a good that is commensurate with the nature of the thing. Sounds like we can agree on ‘instinct.’

What I don’t get is yet why a soul would return to a body? You seem to be stating that it is both good and bad for a soul to be united to a body. If it has an urge to do so, it must be good. But it also seems you have argued that it is a necessary evil.
Code:
Are you claiming that you would never want to live another life on earth?  Suppose your in heaven (however you define it) for 70 years.  Your all rested up from your experience on earth.  Now suppose some of your friends choose to go back to earth.  Are you sure you wouldn't want to join them?  Suppose your enemy goes back to earth.  Are you sure you wouldn't want to go back and work things out with him?  Suppose the earth is about to be visited by the Vulkans.  Are you sure you wouldn't want to be there on this historic event?
How would you define soul? The Aristotelian in me has trouble with migrating souls, so I’m curious what a soul is on your definition?
It’s the part of us that lives on after our body dies. Each one is distinct and yet to varying degrees each one is in union with the One God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top