Intellect and thought

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
This is not working this way. You gave me a list of attributes of soul and I had some questions. Could you please give me answer to those questions? We work on his proof later. Here are my questions:

Can you give me an example of incorporeal operations?

This I don’t understand. How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

What is left? I mean what else a human being can do except corporeal operation?
Click to expand...
Vico was not the person who said that the soul is both corporeal and incorporeal - that is what you, STT, say Vico has written. But he did not say that.
Vico said: "The soul is the form of a substance which is both corporeal and incorporeal. "
You, STT, changed it to “How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?”

Vico is saying that the individual human (which is what the term substance means, an individual Act of a form with its form).

The substance (the body and soul of an individual human, not humans in general) is both corporeal and incorporeal.

A human individual like you is a composite of your form (incorporeal, where your intellect and will operate), and of your body (corporeal matter that is suited to your soul to be animated successfully with thoughts and movements from your soul).

You, the complete you, are both corporeal and incorporeal, STT, a real individual human.
You, the complete you, are the substance that is both corporeal (body) and incorporeal (soul). It matters not whether one knows this or not; this is what you are.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Well, sometimes a joke is ok. Now, seriously, can you respond to my question?: specifically, which physical state is consciousness?
Click to expand...
I already answered that. Any physical state is the result of physical process as I mentioned in my post and gave several examples. There are many processes in the brain which some are conscious state meaning that they make you experience certain things whether is something related to your internal world, such as thought, or external world, such as object.
 
John_Martin said:
Vico was not the person who said that the soul is both corporeal and incorporeal - that is what you, STT, say Vico has written. But he did not say that.
Vico said: "The soul is the form of a substance which is both corporeal and incorporeal. "
You, STT, changed it to “How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?”

Vico is saying that the individual human (which is what the term substance means, an individual Act of a form with its form).

The substance (the body and soul of an individual human, not humans in general) is both corporeal and incorporeal.

A human individual like you is a composite of your form (incorporeal, where your intellect and will operate), and of your body (corporeal matter that is suited to your soul to be animated successfully with thoughts and movements from your soul).

You, the complete you, are both corporeal and incorporeal, STT, a real individual human.
You, the complete you, are the substance that is both corporeal (body) and incorporeal (soul). It matters not whether one knows this or not; this is what you are.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your explanation. I got all. 🙂

I still have problem with the bold part.

Let me ask my question again: How soul as form of substance could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

I think that my question make sense.
 
STT said:
This is not working this way. You gave me a list of attributes of soul and I had some questions. Could you please give me answer to those questions? We work on his proof later. Here are my questions:

Can you give me an example of incorporeal operations?

This I don’t understand. How soul could be both corporeal and incorporeal?

What is left? I mean what else a human being can do except corporeal operation?
Click to expand...
OK, well I was responding to you comment: “Ok, so that is his view and he doesn’t have any proof for it.”

There are non-corporeal operations of the soul, the five powers of the soul are: vegetative, sensitive, appetitive, locomotive, and intellectual. The powers of the soul are called its parts.

The lowest of the operations of the soul is that which is performed by a corporeal organ, and by virtue of a corporeal quality. Yet this transcends the operation of the corporeal nature; because the movements of bodies are caused by an extrinsic principle, while these operations are from an intrinsic principle; for this is common to all the operations of the soul; since every animate thing, in some way, moves itself. Such is the operation of the “vegetative soul”; for digestion, and what follows, is caused instrumentally by the action of heat, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4). (Summa Theologica, Q78)

The soul is not corporeal.
 
Vico said:
OK, well I was responding to you comment: “Ok, so that is his view and he doesn’t have any proof for it.”
Click to expand...
Lets put his proof aside for a moment please.
Vico said:
There are non-corporeal operations of the soul, the five powers of the soul are: vegetative, sensitive, appetitive, locomotive, and intellectual. The powers of the soul are called its parts.
Click to expand...
Good. I got them all.
Vico said:
The lowest of the operations of the soul is that which is performed by a corporeal organ, and by virtue of a corporeal quality.
Click to expand...
This I understand.
Vico said:
Yet this transcends the operation of the corporeal nature; because the movements of bodies are caused by an extrinsic principle, while these operations are from an intrinsic principle; for this is common to all the operations of the soul; since every animate thing, in some way, moves itself.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand this part. I think that is what he means: Body is subjected to external forces. Soul also could move itself so it could move body because soul and body are united. Is that what he means?

I however have a question: How soul could possibly move itself? This is problematic to me because movement is the result of cause and effect so I cannot understand how anything could move itself without cause and effect. Think of moving your arm. Your arm is attached to your body by muscles and joints. You can contract your muscles in your arm, this causes a force in your joint and the effect is that you move your arm.

Could you please answer my question in plain English without citing another part of his writing before we can reach to an agreement on this part?
 
Souls do not move, per se. Movement is physical. As a faculty, it properly belongs to the body.

ICXC NIKA
 
STT said:
Lets put his proof aside for a moment please.

Good. I got them all.

This I understand.

I don’t understand this part. I think that is what he means: Body is subjected to external forces. Soul also could move itself so it could move body because soul and body are united. Is that what he means?

I however have a question: How soul could possibly move itself? This is problematic to me because movement is the result of cause and effect so I cannot understand how anything could move itself without cause and effect. Think of moving your arm. Your arm is attached to your body by muscles and joints. You can contract your muscles in your arm, this causes a force in your joint and the effect is that you move your arm.

Could you please answer my question in plain English without citing another part of his writing before we can reach to an agreement on this part?
Click to expand...
Intelligence and will are of the soul alone.
 
STT said:
Could you please elaborate?
Click to expand...
Intelligence and will are solely of the human soul. The will is an appetite: a power of the soul by which we are inclined toward something.

The thinking is that humans act on an intrinsic desire caused by an extrinsic agent which agent is a desire for the good implanted by God. And humans move themselves to act in *choosing the means *by which they are to strive for goodness.
 
Vico said:
Intelligence and will are solely of the human soul. The will is an appetite: a power of the soul by which we are inclined toward something.

The thinking is that humans act on an intrinsic desire caused by an extrinsic agent which agent is a desire for the good implanted by God. And humans move themselves to act in *choosing the means *by which they are to strive for goodness.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with the second definition but anyhow how what you said in the previous comment is related to our discussion?
 
STT said:
I don’t agree with the second definition but anyhow how what you said in the previous comment is related to our discussion?
Click to expand...
What second definition?

Everything I wrote it pertinent. Be more specific if you want an answer, I am not going to guess.
 
Vico said:
What second definition?

Everything I wrote it pertinent. Be more specific if you want an answer, I am not going to guess.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the definition of knowledge: The thinking is that humans act on an intrinsic desire caused by an extrinsic agent which agent is a desire for the good implanted by God. And humans move themselves to act in choosing the means by which they are to strive for goodness.

To me thinking is the process of information with the goal to extract knowledge.

I think we can skip debating on definition if you wish and go the proof of Thomas for existence of soul which differs from Aristotle’s.
 
STT said:
I was talking about the definition of knowledge: The thinking is that humans act on an intrinsic desire caused by an extrinsic agent which agent is a desire for the good implanted by God. And humans move themselves to act in choosing the means by which they are to strive for goodness.

To me thinking is the process of information with the goal to extract knowledge.

I think we can skip debating on definition if you wish and go the proof of Thomas for existence of soul which differs from Aristotle’s.
Click to expand...
That is not a definition of knowledge, therefore I am not debating such a definition. The thinking [of St. Thomas Aquinas on intrinsic and extrinsic movement] is …
 
Vico said:
That is not a definition of knowledge, therefore I am not debating such a definition. The thinking [of St. Thomas Aquinas on intrinsic and extrinsic movement] is …
Click to expand...
I was proposing a definition for thinking and not knowledge. But never mind. Are you willing to present the proof of Thomas for existence of soul which differs from form, the one that Aristotle proposed?
 
STT said:
I was proposing a definition for thinking and not knowledge. But never mind. Are you willing to present the proof of Thomas for existence of soul which differs from form, the one that Aristotle proposed?
Click to expand...
OK, well you posted: “I was talking about the definition of knowledge:”

I was hoping that you understood the answer to your previous question: “I however have a question: How soul could possibly move itself?”
 
What makes you think the Mind and Soul are One ?
Humans have intellect ( intelligence)
And a thought process,
Is anything else other than that possible
 
STT said:
I was proposing a definition for thinking and not knowledge. But never mind. Are you willing to present the proof of Thomas for existence of soul which differs from form, the one that Aristotle proposed?
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas did not hold that the soul differs from form (essence). Also, Aristotle argues that the intellect (nous: mind or intellect), which is a part of the soul, can exist without the body. (See: De anima, Book III, Chapter 5 psychclassics.yorku.ca/Aristotle/De-anima/de-anima3.htm)

Summa Contra Gentiles Book II: God The Origin of Creatures, Chapter 56 contains some of this (continues through Chapter 69), some key points are:
  • “A subsistent intelligence cannot be united with a body by any manner of combination”
  • “cessation of actual existence cannot befall subsistent intelligences; for they are imperishable.”
  • “there is one mode of contact whereby a subsistent intelligence may be mingled with a body.”
  • “a subsistent intelligence may be united with a body by virtual contact.”
  • “body and soul are not two actually existing substances, but out of the two of them is made one substance actually existing: for a man’s body is not the same in actuality when the soul is present as when it is absent: it is the soul that gives actual being.”
Reply 5. Nor is it necessary, as was argued in the fifth place, that if the soul in its substance is the form of the body, its every operation should be through the body, and thus its every faculty should be the actuation of some part of the body: for the human soul is not one of those forms which are entirely immersed in matter, but of all forms it is the most exalted above matter: hence it is capable of a certain activity without the body, being not dependent on the body in its action, as neither in its being is it dependent on the body.

Reference:
56: How a Subsistent Intelligence may be United with a Body, with a Solution of the Arguments alleged to prove that a Subsistent Intelligence cannot be United with a Body as its Form
www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc2_56.htm
 
Vico said:
OK, well you posted: “I was talking about the definition of knowledge:”

I was hoping that you understood the answer to your previous question: “I however have a question: How soul could possibly move itself?”
Click to expand...
Yes, thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top