My shoe has a soul?!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pumpkinmay4ever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pumpkinmay4ever

Guest
Since the principle of motion as applied to my shoe is extrinsic (it can not move on its own), can it not be said that my shoe has a soul, but it is inert?
 
Your shoe has a sole. (An insole.) It doesn’t have a soul.
 
I don’t know. But what I really want to know is whether the sole has a soul…
 
If this is true then in a similar manner, those paralyzed would still have a soul because they were once capable of movement, right?

But how about those incapable of movement from birth?

How would I justify the fact, to put things in a lighter context, that those people are different from the sole of a shoe?
 
pumpkinmay4ever said:
If this is true then in a similar manner, those paralyzed would still have a soul because they were once capable of movement, right?

But how about those incapable of movement from birth?

How would I justify the fact, to put things in a lighter context, that those people are different from the sole of a shoe?
Click to expand...
A principle of intrinsic movement is still natural to those who are paralyzed or even braindead by virtue of what they are, it just isn’t manifested because of physical defects. They are still human and living beings and therefore have a soul.
 
A being isn’t endowed with a soul because of their natural ability (or inability) to be in motion.
 
Only living things have a soul because the soul gives life to the body, this is because the soul is the form of the body, and the form is actuality which is what the soul is to the body because it gives life. Your shoe has a form but because it does not have life this means it does not have a soul.
 
Then, how is a being endowed with a soul?
 
Last edited:
No it is a shoe as long as we can define the essence.
 
Last edited:
But for a human you can define matter, form, and essence - and it is a human - not a corpse…

Why does it make sense that for a shoe you can also define those things, but still say it is a shoe and not ”Bob” for example, having human characteristics (ie. Functionality)?
 
pumpkinmay4ever said:
Why
Click to expand...
Form, matter and essence are different for a shoe than for Bob. A soul is the form of a living thing, which includes it’s quality of being alive. Whereas a shoe is not alive. One property of something that is alive is that it is composed of materials that are naturally ordered to being what that thing is. For instance a tree is composed of wood that naturally grows into a tree. Whereas a wooden desk is composed of wood that is not naturally a desk. If the wood in the desk were still alive it would continue to grow into a tree and not a desk. A shoe is also composed of materials that do not naturally form a shoe. This is also one way you can know a robot is not alive. It is a machine that moves, but all of its component materials do not naturally form a robot. There is nothing natural about a robot. It is really a kind of puppet.
 
Last edited:
No.
The only time we must posit a soul is when a thing moves (ie changes) itself.
This means it must have “internal parts” one of which causes change in the other.
We commonly call this “part” that moves the matter a soul or life.

Hence the word “animated” (“animus” is Latin for soul).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top