Humans: Body and Soul

[Gorgias]

what does the use of the word incorruptible have to do with the spiritual if it is being used to describe the material?

What’s meant is that a spiritual entity, since it is not physical, is unable to have the physical property of “corruption.”

If you define corruptible by its material application the same defined term cannot be accurately applied to the spiritual.

I think that it can be applied analogously or equivocally, but not univocally.

You cannot say that the soul is incorruptible in comparison with a material substance since the soul has been defined as immaterial.

I think I’d say that our glorified body will be incorruptible, and therefore, by extension, the human person will be incorruptible.

what makes you think that it isn’t true that the subsistent thing in an object isn’t simply the thing that gives the object duration in existence?

I agree – the question does have a “dense” answer. I’d advise that you refamiliarize yourself with Aquinas’ thought on the subject.

For instance the material the object is made out of and that separating the subsistent thing from this isn’t just a semantic device of no real existence?

So… is an “impossible burger” a burger? Is the material the ‘substance’, per se?

How is it that the soul is the “form” of the person? What is it that you understand this to mean?

I’ll defer to Aquinas on this one.

Since a human person is of one nature comprised of body and soul, when the soul separates from the body what is it that is saved or condemned and sent to heaven or hell?

The person is ‘saved or condemned’. The body dies. God creates a “glorified body” at the end of time, and the person’s body and soul is reunited in eternity. So… the whole person – body and soul – spends eternity in its natural state.

 

[Gorgias]

Did you read the post this was quoted from? You haven’t answered the question.

The question you posed was “what does the use of the word incorruptible have to do with the spiritual if it is being used to describe the material?”

Have you really read the answer? Let’s try again: “incorruptible, in a spiritual context, has nothing to do with physical properties.”

I disagree. The term as applied to the physical cannot be analogously applied to the spiritual

Not so. Just as physical entities can be corrupted physically, spiritual entities can be corrupted in a spiritual sense. The former entails material decomposition which destroys the integrity of the physical material; the latter entails the destruction of the integrity of the spiritual entity. Clearly analogous.

You can only say that our bodies will become incorruptible in comparison to a body of inverse capacity or state. For instance a statue can only become a perfect statue if an imperfect statue can exist.

Nice straw man. You’re attempting to move from “glorified” to “perfect”, and pointing the impossibility of perfection in the present universe as if it were likewise impossible in the eschaton.

So if you have an incorruptible human person that consists of the physical and the spiritual then each state is accorded its own perfection which is then taken together to make the whole person incorruptible.

Only if you could divide the two. The human person isn’t some sort of amalgam of “spirit” and “body”; it’s an integral composite.

The question was, “…what makes YOU think…”

And the answer is “because I’m familiar with Aquinas’ though on the subject”.

Um…are you talking about a burger that cannot exist? Or…a vegie burger?

Plant-based burger.

Now how am I to know if you are arguing from Aquinas because you understand what he has demonstrated or if you are deferring to Aquinas simply because you hope he was correct?

That’s up to you. Either way, I can’t hope to be your primer on Aquinas, especially in a forum such as this. I might just as validly ask whether you’re asking the question because you’re unfamiliar with his thought.

 

[Gorgias]

How is it that upon death of the body you still have the same person

You don’t. That’s the whole point. You are incomplete until you are reunited with the body that makes you a “whole person.” And I’m the one who’s being accused of not knowing Aquinas?

We cant be the same person during this period.

Correct. You are only a soul, awaiting the eschaton.

If we were condemned to hell after the separation what is in hell then?

A condemned spirit, awaiting a glorified body.

A damned spirit in a glorified body?

And that’s precisely what makes eternal damnation in the eschaton so horrific. You’ll know – incontrovertibly – who you were meant to be, and that you refused to assent to it. For all eternity.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes lets do try again…Why are you so swift to attempt belittlement of another persons understanding?

Context, aitapyh, context. Let’s look at what I was responding to:

Gorgias:

Did you read the post this was quoted from? You haven’t answered the question.

The question you posed was “what does the use of the word incorruptible have to do with the spiritual if it is being used to describe the material?”

Have you really read the answer?

So, in context, we see who was first to be “so swift to attempt belittlement”…

What I’m questioning and what you’ve failed to answer is how the spirits incorruptibleness can be compared to the bodies corruptibility if the two things aren’t substantially equivalent.

Let’s look again:

aitapyh:

Just as physical entities can be corrupted physically, spiritual entities can be corrupted in a spiritual sense. The former entails material decomposition which destroys the integrity of the physical material; the latter entails the destruction of the integrity of the spiritual entity. Clearly analogous.

Nope. Pretty much asked and answered, three days ago.

What do you mean by this? “…destruction of the spiritual entity”

Nope – I said “destruction of the integrity of the spiritual entity.” A soul which is in the state of moral sin has destroyed its raison d’etre – that is, union and relationship with God – and therefore, is no longer participating in its telos. It no longer ‘is’ what it is meant to be. Hence the analogy with a physical being undergoing material corruption.

Never the less, what then is in purgatory if it isn’t the person that is saved or damned?

We’re getting off-topic, but here goes: there really is nothing “in purgatory”, per se. Souls aren’t physical, and therefore, they don’t have the property of “location”. So, they can’t be “in” anything (whether that’s “purgatory”, “Kansas”, or “a box”). The soul, rather, undergoes purgation.

Prior to the eschaton, it would be more accurate merely to assert whether or not the soul is experiencing the “Beatific Vision” – that is, the immediate presence of God.

Why are WE in a discussion of these theories if your answers are merely to refer to the person whose theories we are discussing?

Because he already gave the answers. Because he did it so well. Because he’s a saint and a Doctor of the Church.

My question as above then becomes how is it that a portion of what we are is then immediately sent to “wherever”

It isn’t.

Makes more sense to me if we are “suspended” until the eschaton

We aren’t.

Why is it only the spirit which is condemned

The body exists no longer. (It’s a corpse, not a human body.)

 

[Gorgias]

I fail to see how simply unifying the spirit with its newly glorified body would give that spirit new insight into what a glorified spirit would be like

How does “new insight” enter the equation?

 

[Vico]

Would it be correct to say that the body makes the soul visible? Why or why not?
…

The soul is the principle of activity in living things.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

It is my understanding that Catholics consider the lower creatures to be soulless

This is wrong. Catholics do not believe this as a whole. Aquinas shows that there are different levels of souls, sensitive souls and intellectual souls.

 

[Vico]

Could you clarify “principle of activity”? It is my understanding that Catholics consider the lower creatures to be soulless yet they are by definition living and certainly exhibit activity. Am I incorrect about this understanding?

Modern Catholic Dictionary has this to say:

… In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being.

A living thing’s soul is its capacity to engage in the natural characteristic living activities. Examples from Aristotle’s De Anima II are:

• Self-nourishment
• Growth
• Decay
• Movement and rest (in respect of place)
• Perception
• Intellect

 

[Gorgias]

The point I was trying to make early on was that one cannot assume incorruptibility in the spirit based on corruptibility in the body.

OK. It seemed that the point you were attempting to make was that there was no analogous “spiritual corruption”. Fair enough.

Okay, I think either your losing track of your arguments or I’m getting confused in what your debating.

I’d argue for the latter, but that’s just me.

So when you say nope what is it you are saying nope to that was answered three days ago?

I must’ve set up the quotation poorly, because what shows up as your words were mine. The point is that your question had already been answered.

I asked what is in purgatory. I didn’t mention a specific location. Seems even you automatically assign location when someone mentions purgatory.

Well, that’s the natural implication when you ask what’s “in” a particular thing, right?

If souls retain existence then they must exist somewhere.

Nope. They’re spiritual, not physical, so they don’t have the property of “whereness”.

Boundaries and confinement determine location.

And souls, as spiritual entities, don’t have the property of “location”, and therefore, are neither “bound” nor “confined”.

It seems you were saying this spirit will acquire knowledge about its union with the body that it didn’t have before.

No, I’m not attempting to imply “knowledge”.

 

[Gorgias]

If you believe that spirits have no location but can be in a particular location-less state and my question didn’t mention location you should have automatically answered the question with the latter in mind and not mentioned location by assuming that that’s what I meant.

Ahh… except that this is what you meant, and what you explicitly stated! So, yeah… I did respond to your thought!

What makes you believe that there is no sense of location in the spiritual realm?

Spirits are not physical. Therefore, they do not have the quality of “spatial location”, as such. Next question?

If so then what of time?

Precisely. They have neither ‘location’ nor the quality of “the measurement of physical change”!

Perhaps you believe also that time can only exist within a physical frame of reference?

Exactly. The temporal dimension, as we perceive of it, only exists in correlation with the physical dimension.

If this were true it would render God’s attribute of omnipresence not unique to itself and meaningless since God is spirit and omnipresence can only be rendered meaningful in contradistinction to boundaries or confinement.

No. It would, if “omnipresence” were a part of the nature of all spiritual beings. It isn’t. Therefore, whereas you and I – as spirits, following our deaths – will be literally nowhere (since we don’t have the property of location), God is omnipresent. It really is a stunning display of His nature as God, which is shared with no creature!

Isn’t it contradictory to say that something is at once nowhere and existent at the same time?

Only if the entity is physical.

 

[Gorgias]

I guess you’re saying that you can read my mind

Nope. Just your posts.

you can read my mind and therefore my intended meaning when location specifically associated with physicality was not mentioned by me.

Really? Let’s see…

I wonder though, in breaking up the chair unless the parts are recognizably parts of the form of a chair whatever the material that subsists can no longer be considered parts that make up the substance of a chair.

Are the “parts… recognizably of the form of the chair” not a reference to physicality in a location?

Even though spirits are not physical, what makes you believe that they are not in some fashion locally confined in relation to other spirits?

Because they don’t have the property of “location”, since they have no physical extension.

Do you believe spirits are all equally like God in that being aware of other spirits, they are aware of all other spirits at the same time in all times and in all modes, themselves having no boundaries to their awareness?

Nope.

If not then how do you define their local awareness verses their universal awareness?

They are aware inasmuch as God grants them awareness. We would expect that this means that they know that other spirits exist. However, to suggest that they are aware of an attribute which spirits do not possess… well, that just doesn’t hold up to reason. It’s like asking “does this spirit know what ‘color’ that spirit is?”. It’s a nonsensical question.

If spirits can interact with the physical as the scripture seems to indicate and yet aren’t omnipresent like God then what bounds their location in the physical realm?

God does. Spirits cannot “interact with the physical” outside of God’s express will that they do so. They don’t just decide “I’m bored… so I’m gonna go hang out in Las Vegas tonight.”
aitapyh:

You apparently misunderstand how we apply time to our understanding of reality.

Apparently. Guess I should re-read Aristotle and Aquinas, then.
aitapyh:

Time is not bound by the measurement of just the physical aspects of change.

Umm… that’s explicitly what the definition of ‘time’ is!
aitapyh:

For instance, what has changed physically if one changes ones attitude over time?

Look in the mirror. You’ll see what’s physically changed.
aitapyh:

I cannot believe that you would think spirits cannot change?

They cannot. Please describe the change that you think that occurs, and demonstrate the truth of your proposition.
aitapyh:

Here again your trying to confine the intent of the questions to a direct relationship with the physical and thereby nullify the question itself.

Nope. The question itself nullifies itself. I’m just trying to help you see that this is the case.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem with you is I have to tease out of you the slightest of explanations for the applicability of your statements. You seem to be equivocating.

Nah. It just seems that you haven’t read up on the subject matter much. So, rather than provide the basics (which I’d encourage you to read up on!), I provide concise answers.

How do you define the existence of a thing?

See Aquinas.

How do you contrast this existence with being nowhere?

“Existence” and “location” aren’t synonyms.

It seems to me that to be existent as a self-aware being that being has to be somewhere in existence

For a physical being? Sure. For a spiritual one? Not so much.

 

[Abrosz]

For a physical being? Sure. For a spiritual one? Not so much.

If only there would be some actual definition of a “spiritual being” and some way to describe what constitutes “existence” in this respect, and how can one substantiate the “existence”, we could develop a conversation.

To begin: what is “spiritual”? Some stuff, which is not composed of particles, but which can interact with the physical reality? Good luck to present an example and provide some evidence for its existence. And HOW would this “spiritual” whatever interact with the physical reality?

Any exchange with the physical reality is based on exchanging some elementary particles. (electrons for the electromagnetic forces.) Other particles for the weak and strong forces (muons, etc)… Some New-agers try to stipulate some mysterious “stuff” for telekinesis, and their efforts are futile. According to our best knowledge there is nothing “magical” in the universe. But this is not a “proof” so you are welcome to try to find it.

 

[Gorgias]

To begin: what is “spiritual”? Some stuff, which is not composed of particles, but which can interact with the physical reality?

A spiritual being isn’t made up of “stuff”. “Stuff” is physical. If you’re going to attempt to define spiritual beings in terms of physical attributes, you’ll fail miserably. “That which has being, but no physical extension” might be a better start.

And HOW would this “spiritual” whatever interact with the physical reality?

We would posit that God created the physical universe. Given this “interaction”, it doesn’t hold up to reason to suggest that suddenly, He is unable to “interact” with what He has created.

So… the real question isn’t “how does the spiritual interact with the physical?” but rather “how did God create the physical universe?” We would answer, from a theological perspective, that He did so by merely willing it.

Any exchange with the physical reality is based on exchanging some elementary particles. (electrons for the electromagnetic forces.)

No – “an exchange between physical objects is based on…”, is more like it. And we’re not talking about an exchange between physical objects.

 

[Abrosz]

A spiritual being isn’t made up of “stuff”.

“Stuff” is a generic placeholder. Can you fill it with details? I am not about to define the spiritual in any way, shape or form. I am ASKING you to do it. As far as I am concerned it is a meaningless “gobbledygook”. But I am eager to learn.

“That which has being, but no physical extension” might be a better start.

What does “being” mean in this context? Remember? The devil (or God) is in the details.

So… the real question isn’t “how does the spiritual interact with the physical?” but rather “how did God create the physical universe?”

Don’t change the question. The question was as stipulated. In general, how would a non-material being interact with the physical reality? Magic? And God is just one instance of the alleged “non-physical reality”. Gods, angels, demons, ghosts, poltergeists share this label.

And we’re not talking about an exchange between physical objects .

No, I am talking about the exchanges between any non-physical and any physical “entity”.

Now, if you cannot answer the questions AS STATED, just admit it. No harm, no foul in honesty.

 

[Gorgias]

“Stuff” is a generic placeholder.

Except that it leads us in the wrong direction, as if spiritual beings were made up of anything that we could point to and say “stuff!”. They’re not.

I am not about to define the spiritual in any way, shape or form. I am ASKING you to do it.

Asked and answered. As a starting point, I offered “that which has being, but no physical extension.”

As far as I am concerned it is a meaningless “gobbledygook”. But I am eager to learn.

sniff sniff sealion?

What does “being” mean in this context?

Here, we’re talking about entities which are alive. We’d say that the “soul” is the principle of life in a being, so we’re talking about living ensouled beings.

Don’t change the question. The question was as stipulated.

Nice try. I didn’t change the question – I asserted that it’s a question improperly asked.

In general, how would a non-material being interact with the physical reality?

By virtue of God willing it to do so.

Magic?

“Magic” is merely the word we use for the manipulation of physical stuff beyond the ability of humans. That doesn’t apply here, since we’re not talking about things humans themselves couldn’t do, right?

And God is just one instance of the alleged “non-physical reality”. Gods, angels, demons, ghosts, poltergeists share this label.

Meh. Add in unicorns and the FSM, while you’re engaged in snark.

Now, if you cannot answer the questions AS STATED, just admit it.

Have you ever read Pirsig? I answer “mu”.

It is not a weakness to refuse to “answer questions as stated”. Sometimes, the formulation of the question is such that it does not admit of a reasonable answer. By the way… have you stopped beating your wife?

See what I mean? Please answer that yes/no question as stated.

 

[IWantGod]

Would it be correct to say that the body makes the soul visible?

We can detect the activity of the intellect through the body and what it produces. The Arts, culture, sciences, these are are products of the soul. So like we can see God through his effects, we can see the soul through its effects in the world.

 

[Abrosz]

Except that it leads us in the wrong direction, as if spiritual beings were made up of anything that we could point to and say “stuff!”. They’re not.

Instead of empty rejection, you could answer with a suggestion for a better nomenclature. “Stuff” is a generic word for anything undefined, not necessarily composed of matter.

Asked and answered. As a starting point, I offered “that which has being, but no physical extension.”

Meaningless gobbledygook. We are not familiar with beings without physical extension. They are called “imaginary” beings. Let me help you: “how do you determine if you encountered an active spiritual being?” or “how do you find out if it is NOT a figment of your imagination?” Because our whole interface to the external reality is the five senses. Simple, direct questions.

Here, we’re talking about entities which are alive. We’d say that the “soul” is the principle of life in a being, so we’re talking about living ensouled beings.

Meaningless for a non-believer. You are unable even to define “soul” much less offer a method how to discover it. And the distinction between “living” and inanimate matter is question for biology - but even the biologists are unable to draw a precise diving line between the two. The only useful attempt is to say that “life means complex responses to complex stimuli”.

Nice try. I didn’t change the question – I asserted that it’s a question improperly asked.

Again, instead of empty criticism offer a constructive and helpful one. Besides, the only improper (or dumb) question is the one that is never asked.

By virtue of God willing it to do so.

That is not a technical answer.

“Magic” is merely the word we use for the manipulation of physical stuff beyond the ability of humans. That doesn’t apply here, since we’re not talking about things humans themselves couldn’t do, right?

Which describes the problem precisely. And not being able to emulate it is not the same an not being able to describe it - in technical detail.

Meh. Add in unicorns and the FSM, while you’re engaged in snark.

Typical attempt to derail. To bring up other non-existent entities is NOT a snark.

 

[Abrosz]

It is not a weakness to refuse to “answer questions as stated”. Sometimes, the formulation of the question is such that it does not admit of a reasonable answer. By the way… have you stopped beating your wife?

Ill formed questions cannot be answered, that is true. Example could be: “what is on the reverse side of the Mobius strip?” or “what is the taste of the color of the sound of middle ‘C’?” or “what is outside the universe?”. But my question was not about a logical impossibility. It was “how does the spiritual interact with the physical?” a perfectly sensible (both syntactically and semantically correct) question for which you cannot provide an answer.

As to your “trick” question, the answer is “no”. It is a standard practice in our fun pretend play. By the way, the correct “tricky” question is: “WHEN have you stopped beating your wife?”. Just being helpful here…

To sum up the questions: “How do you know if the alleged, active, non-physical ‘reality’ is not simply a product of your imagination?” This is the final question, for which an answer is requested - respectfully, of course!

 

[Gorgias]

Instead of empty rejection, you could answer with a suggestion for a better nomenclature. “Stuff” is a generic word for anything undefined, not necessarily composed of matter.

Fine. A spiritual being is something that’s made up of stuff that isn’t stuff.

Meaningless gobbledygook. We are not familiar with beings without physical extension.

That’s. The. Whole. Point. They are completely different than us!

They are called “imaginary” beings.

Nice try. But, to look past the snark and address the contention, let me say this: an ‘imaginary’ being is one posited to have material form, but which doesn’t really exist (e.g., unicorns, leprechauns); a spiritual being is one posited not only to have no material form, but also to really exist. Thanks for making it possible to express the distinction!

Let me help you: “how do you determine if you encountered an active spiritual being?” or “how do you find out if it is NOT a figment of your imagination?” Because our whole interface to the external reality is the five senses.

Again, thank you for bringing this important point to light! First, a clarification: “our whole interface to the physical reality is our physical senses”. Yes! So, it follows that our senses are capable of detecting physical presence. But… spiritual beings, by default, have no physical presence. So, suggesting that it’s reasonable to ask our physical senses to sense something non-physical is, fundamentally speaking, an unsound assertion. So, the answer to your question is simple: you don’t have a physical sense that detects spiritual entities. In fact, generally speaking, if you have a physical sensation that you ascribe to a spiritual being… then you’re fooling yourself.

There is one dimension of your question that bears examination, though: if God were to create a physical experience, what would that imply? Well, first off… if God created the universe, why wouldn’t He be able to create something that we would be able to sense? And secondly, if He did… then our experience wouldn’t be “imagination”, but rather, actual sensory experience!

And, just to cut you off at the pass: in case you want to ask how we might capture that experience for examination / analysis, let me ask you: how might you offer a procedure to predict the appearance of a God-created physical apparition/experience? After all, without such a procedure, then your lack of observation doesn’t prove a lack of God. At best, it would be like looking for a horse at the bottom of the ocean, and concluding that horses don’t exist when you don’t find any there.

Meaningless for a non-believer.

Oh. Ok then: by your own admission, you’re saying you’re close-minded to the question. That’s valuable to know! Thanks!