Immaterial soul?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
In order to keep it simple, please do not present the other side of the agruments, thanks.

If one could help with my understanding of the immaterial soul, please do so.

Thank you.

In plain English, if possible, what are the arguments from philosophy for the immaterial nature of our soul?

Thanks.

If one does not recall those arguments, give some sites on the web.

In order to keep it simple, please do not present the other side of the agruments, thanks.
 
Jim_Baur said:
In order to keep it simple, please do not present the other side of the agruments, thanks.

If one could help with my understanding of the immaterial soul, please do so.

Thank you.

In plain English, if possible, what are the arguments from philosophy for the immaterial nature of our soul?

Thanks.

If one does not recall those arguments, give some sites on the web.

In order to keep it simple, please do not present the other side of the agruments, thanks.
Click to expand...
One of the arguments might be:

The soul, like life, is “immaterial”. Life cannot be directly seen. All that can be seen of life is from its effects.

The soul, which is form combined with matter, cannot be directly seen. All that can be seen of the soul is from its effects.

Of the effects, it can be seen that the soul informs the mind. The mind would not be in possession of the natural law if the soul was not present. The mind would not be in possession of the virtues, were it not for the presence of a soul. In fact, were it not for the soul, the truth of ontological beingness would not be acknowledged.

It can further be seen that it differentiates the body from others in the human species as well as from other species in the animal and plant kingdoms.

It can also be seen that the soul is able to depart the body and return, as in those cases of near death experiences, where the overall house for the soul is so corrupt that measurable life stops, but, later restored by resuscitative means.

Further, it can be seen that human beings seek for and achieve happiness. But, where exactly does happiness reside? Does it reside in the brain? Or, the mind? Or, does it reside in the soul? It can be seen that happiness is ethereal, it is not of the body, but, certain conditions of the body or brain might cause it to be present. Moreover, we know that pleasure is not a reliable source of happiness. Happiness is something above pleasure, and. happiness cannot be seen. Nevertheless, we know that a particular life-path is more certain to produce the effects of happiness than others. So, happiness must reside in the soul.

Let others take it from here.
jd
 
Jim_Baur said:
In order to keep it simple, please do not present the other side of the agruments, thanks.

If one could help with my understanding of the immaterial soul, please do so.

Thank you.

In plain English, if possible, what are the arguments from philosophy for the immaterial nature of our soul?

Thanks.

If one does not recall those arguments, give some sites on the web.

In order to keep it simple, please do not present the other side of the agruments, thanks.
Click to expand...
The basic form of many of these arguments is simple:

Anything that can X cannot be completely material in nature.
Humans can X.
Therefore, humans cannot be completely material in nature. The non-material part is what we tend to call a soul.

There are different candidates for X, such as “cognize abstractions.” My own favorite is “make true statements.” Nothing completely material can make true statements. Humans can. Therefore, humans are not completely material.

Look at JDaniel’s arguments and you’ll see that they can be placed into this form. For example:

Anything that can know virtues and know the natural moral law cannot be completely material in nature.
But humans can know etc.
Therefore humans are not etc.
 
JB,

You may want to look to Aristotle’s De Anima book 3, chapt. 3 and 4.

Aristotle basically makes the claim that the mind can know all things, but anything that is material is determinate and therefore can only know what its material disposition allows it to know.

For instance, the eye sees color (proper object) but the only range it has is determined to color. It cannot know sound, hot or cold because it is grounded in matter.

The mind, on the other hand, is possibily infinite; i.e. there is no limit to its ability to know, therefore it is immaterial.

Plato gives a description of the immortality of the soul at the end of the republic that goes something like this:

Disease is the corruption of the body, but if left unchecked it will destroy the body completely.

Vice – like injustice – is a disease of the soul, but even if unchecked it will not be corrupted in the sense of passing in to non-being. THerefore, it is immaterial.

Aquinas basically uses the same argument as Aristotle, but gives a better description of something being determined or “bound” to matter and its finite range. He says that just as water, when put into a vase that is red takes on the color of the vase, so too the form of something when it is materially disposed takes on the material dispositions of that object.

You will also notice that Aristotle makes another argument in the chapters mentioned which basically says that the bodily senses have a material range that they can know, i.e. the eye represents an equipoise between black and white such that excess of either one of these can destroy the organ (think of snow blindness). The intellect, on the other hand, is made stronger by the extremely intelligible object. Therefore, it is immaterial.

Hope this helps.

Also, if you are referring to immateriality in general I think a couple of terms help.

Try to materialize – make an image in your head – of the concept “double.”

Descartes, at the beginning of the 6th Meditation says that he can imagine and produce a triangle to his minds eye (phantasm in scholastic talk), but when he tries to imagine a thousand sided figure, his mind’s eye cannot produce it. However, he certainly understands what a thousand sided figure is. This, I think, is a helpful distinction that allows someone to see the difference between material imagery and a mental concept that is immaterial.
 
All three of you people have helped.

THANKS!

I will take any other person’s help.

Or, I will take any additional help from those who have already contributed.

Again, I want to thank all of you wonderful people.

Jim Baur
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top