Is the soul a separate entity?

[mike_sieber]

I was doing some deep thinking last night and I wondered if the soul is a separate entity from my person or if they’re linked.

The reason I’m thinking this is that if the soul is somehow an innocent entity, then my person is responsible for it’s salvation or damnation – and that’s a lot of pressure. I liken it to a baby being entrusted to a drunk driver to get it home safely.

The drive might do it, or might crash and kill them both, but it’s not the baby’s fault.

I’m not saying I regret having life, I don’t because it’s all I know, but sometimes I think that this particular soul would’ve been better off with a different driver.

Any thoughts?

 

[JimG]

Body and soul together are a single entity–a human being.
A human without a soul is a dead body.
A soul without a body is the (temporary) result of death.

A human being, by reason of being human, has the attribute of personhood. When you act, you as a person, act in both soul and body.

 

[De_Maria]

Hello Mike and Jim,

I was doing some deep thinking last night and I wondered if the soul is a separate entity from my person or if they’re linked.

My understanding is as follows:

A human being is correctly regarded as a “soul” because the combination of the flesh and the spirit creates the soul

The “soul” is also considered the “spiritual element” of the man. Therefore, the spirit in the man is correctly regarded as the soul.

Human nature is one nature created by God combining two elements, the spirit and the flesh which result in the “soul”.

The reason I’m thinking this is that if the soul is somehow an innocent entity,

The spiritual component of the soul, the spiritual soul is the driver. It is the seat of the mind and the will. It is the spirit which gives life to the flesh and without the spirit the flesh would not live.

The spiritual soul, encased in the flesh, uses the senses of the flesh to make decisions, to weigh pros and cons. It is through these physical senses that the spiritual soul experiences the world and its temptations.

then my person

The flesh alone is not responsible for your personhood. It is the combination of spirit and flesh which results in your person.

is responsible for it’s salvation or damnation – and that’s a lot of pressure. I liken it to a baby being entrusted to a drunk driver to get it home safely.

No. But you have a point. It is more like a baby (the spiritual soul) being entrusted to drive a car (the body or the flesh) with bad brakes that pulls hard to the left (fallen nature). The spiritual soul must learn to cope with the temptations of the flesh and the world .

The drive might do it, or might crash and kill them both, but it’s not the baby’s fault.

Yes, it is. The baby does not remain a baby. He grows up and in the process learns how to drive. And God is not unfair. Even Pagans have the law of God written in their hearts. So, back to the example above, although the baby has inherited a used car in poor condition, the baby has also been given instructions on where to go, how to drive and how to rehabilitate the car. And the Christian baby has also been given recourse to tools, patches and car parts (the Sacraments and the grace of God) which he can use to fix the car and get to his destination (heaven), with no stops in the garage (purgatory).

I’m not saying I regret having life, I don’t because it’s all I know, but sometimes I think that this particular soul would’ve been better off with a different driver.

Your spiritual soul has been given a guide, the Church, listen and obey and you shall be blessed.

Body and soul together are a single entity–a human being.

Correct.

A human without a soul is a dead body.

Correct.

A soul without a body is the (temporary) result of death.

Could you elaborate? I don’t get it.

A human being, by reason of being human, has the attribute of personhood. When you act, you as a person, act in both soul and body.

Agreed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Greg27]

This assumes the soul is an immaterial substance totally separate from the body (material substance). My understanding of Aquinas, which the church still accepts, is that the ‘soul is the substantial form of the body.’ This basically means the spiritual principle in man is clearly linked and instantiated in the material form (the organisation and structure) of the body, at least if my understanding of Aquinas and Aristotle is right.

The notion of there being an immaterial substance (the soul) and only a material substance (the body), which the soul drives as a pilot drives a ship, was formulated by Descartes. His theory is quite intricate and interesting, as he believed the concious spiritual principle in man which enables us to grasp ‘intelligible’ things (such as mathematical objects and truths, innate ideas, God, etc) could survive death. The problem with this notion is Descartes’s theory is almost totally rejected by most philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists, though it still has some defenders.

Whatever it is which makes us concious, or have a concious mind, or rather conciousness itself and all the properties it has, and whether our conciousness survives death, are all intruiging philosophical, theological and scientific questions. Personally I don’t think the immortality of the soul can be proved, and ultimately I haven’t seen an argument for the immortality of the soul which is free from contradiction, but to me that doesn’t rule out the possibility we can achieve transcendence in this life and the next.

 

[JimG]

A soul without a body is the (temporary) result of death.

Body and soul comprise a unity. The only thing that can rip them apart is death. So one is left with a dead body, and a bodiless soul, which is not its normal condition. Our bodies and souls will eventually be reunited, thus the condition of a soul without a body is temporary.

 

[mike_sieber]

Body and soul comprise a unity. The only thing that can rip them apart is death. So one is left with a dead body, and a bodiless soul, which is not its normal condition. Our bodies and souls will eventually be reunited, thus the condition of a soul without a body is temporary.

But does the body become reunited with the soul at some point even when it’s in hell?

And what about the nature of the soul at conception. Is a soul neutral, meaning neither good nor bad, and then becomes one or the other as time goes on?

If the soul is essentially the ‘engine’ of the body, then it would seem that – judging from what’s evident in humanity – that a soul can be good, evil or somewhere in between.

 

[Brendan]

But does the body become reunited with the soul at some point even when it’s in hell?.

Yes it does.

The re-union of the Body with the Soul in Heaven results in the highest Good. The pleasures of Heaven are felt with both the Body and Spirit.

Conversely, the reunion of the Body with the Soul in Hell produces both physical and spiritual torment.

 

[JimG]

Yes, everyone’s body and soul will be reunited at the resurrection of the dead on the last day. We will go, finally, to heaven or hell once again complete persons, body and soul together.

Don’t think dualistically of body and soul. Though God creates each soul immediately at conception, each human being is a single entity–a unity. Because our human nature is fallen (because of original sin) we have a propensity toward evil and sin. But we are not innately evil. It is the human person who decides between good and evil.

At Baptism, we infuse our soul with the life of God. Whether we keep it (abide in it) is up to us: we must continue to use our human power of choice to choose good and not evil.

 

[De_Maria]

Body and soul comprise a unity. The only thing that can rip them apart is death. So one is left with a dead body, and a bodiless soul, which is not its normal condition. Our bodies and souls will eventually be reunited, thus the condition of a soul without a body is temporary.

Ok, I agree with that.

 

[De_Maria]

This assumes the soul is an immaterial substance totally separate from the body (material substance). My understanding of Aquinas, which the church still accepts, is that the ‘soul is the substantial form of the body.’ This basically means the spiritual principle in man is clearly linked and instantiated in the material form (the organisation and structure) of the body, at least if my understanding of Aquinas and Aristotle is right.

The notion of there being an immaterial substance (the soul) and only a material substance (the body), which the soul drives as a pilot drives a ship, was formulated by Descartes. His theory is quite intricate and interesting, as he believed the concious spiritual principle in man which enables us to grasp ‘intelligible’ things (such as mathematical objects and truths, innate ideas, God, etc) could survive death. The problem with this notion is Descartes’s theory is almost totally rejected by most philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists, though it still has some defenders.

Whatever it is which makes us concious, or have a concious mind, or rather conciousness itself and all the properties it has, and whether our conciousness survives death, are all intruiging philosophical, theological and scientific questions. Personally I don’t think the immortality of the soul can be proved, and ultimately I haven’t seen an argument for the immortality of the soul which is free from contradiction, but to me that doesn’t rule out the possibility we can achieve transcendence in this life and the next.

Are you addressing me (i.e. De Maria) or Mike?

 

[cpayne]

This assumes the soul is an immaterial substance totally separate from the body (material substance). My understanding of Aquinas, which the church still accepts, is that the ‘soul is the substantial form of the body.’ This basically means the spiritual principle in man is clearly linked and instantiated in the material form (the organisation and structure) of the body, at least if my understanding of Aquinas and Aristotle is right.

The notion of there being an immaterial substance (the soul) and only a material substance (the body), which the soul drives as a pilot drives a ship, was formulated by Descartes. His theory is quite intricate and interesting, as he believed the concious spiritual principle in man which enables us to grasp ‘intelligible’ things (such as mathematical objects and truths, innate ideas, God, etc) could survive death. The problem with this notion is Descartes’s theory is almost totally rejected by most philosophers of mind and cognitive scientists, though it still has some defenders.

Whatever it is which makes us concious, or have a concious mind, or rather conciousness itself and all the properties it has, and whether our conciousness survives death, are all intruiging philosophical, theological and scientific questions. Personally I don’t think the immortality of the soul can be proved, and ultimately I haven’t seen an argument for the immortality of the soul which is free from contradiction, but to me that doesn’t rule out the possibility we can achieve transcendence in this life and the next.

There’s another facet to Aquinas’s thought on this which is really intriguing to me. The soul after death, even though it can exist independently and subsistently, is not really a human being any more, and will not be so again until the resurrection of the dead, when it is re-united with the body.

Both fascinating and massively weird, when you think about it.

 

[De_Maria]

But does the body become reunited with the soul at some point even when it’s in hell?

The body and soul are reunited at the resurrection. Yes.

Matthew 10
28 And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

what about the nature of the soul at conception.

The spiritual soul is created immediately by God. All which God creates is good.

**366 **The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

Is a soul neutral, meaning neither good nor bad, and then becomes one or the other as time goes on?

Immediately upon creation, the soul is good and innocent of all sin. Upon union with the flesh it is united with the fallen nature of man.

1 Peter 3
21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 7

24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

If the soul is essentially the ‘engine’ of the body, then it would seem that – judging from what’s evident in humanity – that a soul can be good, evil or somewhere in between.

A soul is initially good. But it may become evil in its life if it unites its will with Satan and against God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Greg27]

Are you addressing me (i.e. De Maria) or Mike?

I was addressing the original question which is the headline to this thread.