D
dmwessel
Guest
Nevertheless it sounded like a cleverly worded insult - but thank you for clarifying.
You’re the first Catholic to admit that Catholicism is not the Bible as the Bible is not Catholicism. Refreshing.
- Status
You’re the first Catholic to admit that Catholicism is not the Bible as the Bible is not Catholicism. Refreshing.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I can never understand why, when I opine to some Thomists that I find a particular argument less than convincing due to better modern day science (ie its a matter of probability rather than certainty), that this gets interpretted as a near total denial of the use of reason?
I consider myself a Thomist (though I am a student not a master) but Aquinas is not a god. Increasingly over the centuries we have come to see that his reasoning on matters admitting of falsifiability are in many cases less than robust and therefore more probable than “certain”.
Reason has its place but it isn’t a silver bullet - unless we deny the very possibility of a position’s falsifiability. In which case “reason” to my mind has become a form of rationalism where the certainty is no more than a hidden tautology of somewhat watered down word definitions that have little relationship to real life.
I’ve always liked the loose perspective of the Hindu saying, “The Way once named is no longer the way.”
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Good one
.From memory our discussion got cut off at the knees because you seem to use the word “matter” as a Newtonian Scientist would. Its impossible to discuss Aristotle/Aquinas if this is the case because the systems are very different.
You didn’t come back on that one so I am unsure if I understood you correctly or not
.I gave you a succint explanation of the difference which I believe would be well understood by those familiar with the change in thinking that the Enlightenment/Renaissance represents. If you are not familiar with the debate then I can understand why you think my explanation is idiosyncratic.
I am not sure why you felt my explanation did not “warrant a reply”.
As a Newtonian/Einsteinian type thinker myself I wish someone had told me this when I fisrt started studying philosophy - it would have explained the two schizophrenic intellectual worlds I lived in for five years that would never meet
.They still do not, but at least I understand why.
It also explains why Catholicism at an intellectual level is incomprehensible to most intelligent sincere lay Catholics. Which is why I studied Scholasticism in the first place.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
L2 you’ve made quite a leap of “logic” here.
I find this a fearful and over-anxious approach to the world, reason, science and God.
It is a chain that Catholicism has yet to break if it is to successfully engage the post-Enlightenment Age. Time cannot be reveresed. If you lived at the time of Aquinas I believe you would have intuitively sided with the status-quo Augustinians against this new fangled Aquinas type thinking making too many concessions to reason and “materialist” Aristotle against Plato and had him condemned. (Relax, I am just being facile).
But seriously, saying that some of the allegedly “immaterial” operations of the intellect may (I repeat “may”. And let me emphasise that one more time, “may”) be explained by a corporeal organ (the brain) is a far cry from denying Christian Dogma on the immortality of the human person made in the image and likeness of God
.You state “it would have proved that man does not have a spiritual and immortal soul” but this is humbug. It just means that particular argument may have to be consigned to the dustbin of history in so far as “certainty” is concerned.
Are we believers so timid and scared that:
(a) another philosophic argument may not be found?
(b) that a 100% certain philosophic argument has to exist anyhow?
(c) what is wrong with probable argument?
(d) this means that "materialism’ as a whole is correct?
I believe there can be other philosophic systems that better make sense (ie appear more probable) re these issues as the ones of the past do not sufficiently well integrate the discoveries and directions of our post Enlightenment Age.
I don’t expect you to agree, but your above logical assertion that denial of Aquinas’s argument leads to denial of human immortality really is a non-sequitur.
Even Aristotle (who actually believed the Intellect had immaterial operations) did not feel forced to conclude human’s were therefore immortal - so why would denying such immaterial operations “prove” (your words) humans are not immortal
.It simply doesn’t follow.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
WRT definition of “matter”I will have to stop you there if you are saying what I think you are saying
If you really mean this then we are in fact defining matter differently - you are on the side of Descartes/Hume/Netwon, I am on the side (I hope) of Aristotle/Aquinas and the understanding still used by the Magisterium.
That is, for me matter does not exist in itself.
For you it clearly does (even if you might say it is interconvertible with energy which Newton did not know)…
This is pure gold if you are interested: hylemorphist.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/4/
Modern science now sees matter and substance as pretty much the same thing.
The Church/Aquinas/Aristotle do not, “substance” exists in itself, “matter” does not.
Aquinas would refer to science’s “matter” as “material substances”
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Hey Blue, you left me out of breath! I’ll try to answer some of your comments.
The Church teaches that man has a rational soul, immaterial and immortal, a spirit which is the life force of the body and the form of the soul. ( see my added post to follow ). So if science ever claimed to prove that all the above functions were adequately explained by biology and perhaps chemistry and physics ( science in general ) that would contradict Church teaching and must be condemned as heresy.
" You state “it would have proved that man does not have a spiritual and immortal soul” but this is humbug. It just means that particular argument may have to be consigned to the dustbin of history in so far as “certainty” is concerned. "
No, it is not " humbug, " just where would you find room for the soul in that event?
7, You said in post # 204, " believe most debate wrt the disembodied soul comes from different understandings wrt to the answers to these fundamental distinctions wrt “substance” and matter/form. "
I absolutely disagree with the author’s analysis on which you judgement here is based.
Aside from the fact that the science of the " forces " within the atom is still an unsettled matter, whatever these " forces " may be ( and we don’t know for certain that they are ), they are still matter, however subtle and brief their existence. They are not incorporeal, they are not immaterial, they are not spiritual substances. If that is what you are banking your " possibilities " on forget it. The Church will definitely cry " foul " at all such attempts.
I also disagree with the author here, " Corporeal substances can be differentiated between living and non-living substances. " It should be substances can be differentiagted between the spiritual, the material, and those that are a composit of both the spiritual and the material ( i.e. man and all living beings ). God, Angels and the human soul are spiritual substances ( though the soul is not technically a being in the sense that man, angel and God are substances because its proper mode of existence is as the substantial form of the body. )
I’m afraid you have been or are being indoctrinated, you really do need to read Feser.
Linus2nd
Linus2nd
- Thomas himself never claimed his reasoning was infallible. But on his proof for the existence of the immortal soul, it is very reasonable.
- I’m not sure it is the type of reasoning and conclusion that is susceptable of " falsefication" as science understands the term.
- I agree that Thomas’ arguments don’t appeal to the modern mind, at least to the modern scientific mind. However, as Edward Feser often points out, this due more to the fact that neither modern scientists nor modern secular philosophers actually read Thomas or Aristotle. The general approach is to copy each other’s criticisms as if they were repeating some Dogma handed down from some great genius of the past, Hume for example or perhaps Darwin, or Laplace, etc.
- Of course some other philosophy may come up with an argument showing Thomas’ conclusions correct, perhaps they already have.
- The essential point is that, the human being manifests certain activities that cannot be operations of a material brain and/or a material body. These include not only thinking, willing, self-consciousness, memory but also living action, the act of living and all that that means - nourishment, growth, the processing, using, and elimination of nutrients, the coodination of all the bodies parts for the good and perfection of the whole. Pure matter cannot do those things. Only a spiritual substance, acting as the substantial form of the body could do any or all of that. When science can throw together some of the basic elements, shake them up a bit and get something like a living being, that we all ( as opposed to the fanatical fringe ) can recognize as a living being then I have to stand by what I have said.
The Church teaches that man has a rational soul, immaterial and immortal, a spirit which is the life force of the body and the form of the soul. ( see my added post to follow ). So if science ever claimed to prove that all the above functions were adequately explained by biology and perhaps chemistry and physics ( science in general ) that would contradict Church teaching and must be condemned as heresy.
" You state “it would have proved that man does not have a spiritual and immortal soul” but this is humbug. It just means that particular argument may have to be consigned to the dustbin of history in so far as “certainty” is concerned. "
No, it is not " humbug, " just where would you find room for the soul in that event?
7, You said in post # 204, " believe most debate wrt the disembodied soul comes from different understandings wrt to the answers to these fundamental distinctions wrt “substance” and matter/form. "
I absolutely disagree with the author’s analysis on which you judgement here is based.
Aside from the fact that the science of the " forces " within the atom is still an unsettled matter, whatever these " forces " may be ( and we don’t know for certain that they are ), they are still matter, however subtle and brief their existence. They are not incorporeal, they are not immaterial, they are not spiritual substances. If that is what you are banking your " possibilities " on forget it. The Church will definitely cry " foul " at all such attempts.
- In post # 205 you said, " Modern science now sees matter and substance as pretty much the same thing.
The Church/Aquinas/Aristotle do not, “substance” exists in itself, “matter” does not.
Aquinas would refer to science’s “matter” as “material substances”
I also disagree with the author here, " Corporeal substances can be differentiated between living and non-living substances. " It should be substances can be differentiagted between the spiritual, the material, and those that are a composit of both the spiritual and the material ( i.e. man and all living beings ). God, Angels and the human soul are spiritual substances ( though the soul is not technically a being in the sense that man, angel and God are substances because its proper mode of existence is as the substantial form of the body. )
I’m afraid you have been or are being indoctrinated, you really do need to read Feser.
Linus2nd
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The Church and the Human Soul, Part 1
Fourth Lateran Council, On the Cathlic Faith
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith
CHAPTER I.
ON GOD, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS
…
This one only true God, of His own goodness and almighty power, not for the increase or acquirement of His own happiness, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, and with absolute freedom of Counsel, created out of nothing, from the very first beginning of time, both the spiritual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the angelical and the mundane, and afterwards the human creature, as partaking, in a sense, of both, consisting of spirit and of body.
Baltimore Catechism, Book 4, ques 3-5 and explanations
It is "a spirit:’ It really exists, but cannot be seen with the eyes of our body. Every spirit is invisible, but every invisible thing is not a spirit. We cannot see the wind. We can feel its influence, we can see its work-for example, the dust flying, trees swaying, ships sailing, etc.-but the wind itself we never see. Again, we never see electricity. We see the light or effect it produces, but we never see the electricity itself. Yet no one denies the existence of the wind or of electricity on account of their being invisible. Why then should anyone say there are no spirits-no God, no angels, no souls-simply because they cannot be seen, when we have other proofs, stronger than the testimony of our sight, that they really and truly exist?
My soul will "never die;’ i.e., will never cease to exist; it is immortal. This is a very wonderful thing to think of. It will last as long as God Himself.
My soul “has understanding,” i.e., it has the gift of reason. This gift enables man to reflect upon all his actions the reasons why he should do certain things and why he should not do them. By reason he reflects upon the past, and judges what may happen in the future. He sees the consequences of his actions. He not only knows what he does, but why he does it. This is the gift that places man high above the brute animals in the order of creation; and hence man is not merely an animal, but he is a rational animal-an animal with the gift of reason.
Brute animals have not reason, but only instinct, i.e., they follow certain impulses or feelings which God gave them at their creation. He established certain laws for each class or kind of animals, and they, without knowing it, follow these laws; and when we see them following their laws, always in the same way, we say it is their nature. Animals act at times as if they knew just why they were acting; but it is not so. It is we who reason upon their actions, and see why they do them; but they do not reason, they only follow their instinct.
If animals could reason, they ought to improve in their condition. Men become more civilized day by day. They invent many things that were unknown to their forefathers. One man can improve upon the works of another, etc. But, we never see anything of this kind in the actions of animals. The same kind of birds, for instance, build the same kind of nests, generation after generation, without ever making change or improvement in them. When man teaches an animal any action, it cannot teach the same to its young. It is clear, therefore, that animals cannot reason.
Though man has the gift of reason by which he can learn a great deal, he cannot learn all through his reason; for there are many things that God Himself must teach him. When God teaches, we call the truths He makes known to us Revelation. How could man ever know about the Trinity through his reason alone, when, after God has made known to him that It exists, he cannot understand it? It is the same for all the other mysteries.
My soul has “free will:’ This is another grand gift of God, by which I am able to do or not do a thing, just as I please. I can even sin and refuse to obey God. God Himself-while He leaves me my free will-could not oblige me to do anything, unless I wished to do it; neither could the devil. I am free therefore, and I may use this great gift either to benefit or injure myself. If I were not free I would not deserve reward or punishment for my actions, for no one is or should be punished for doing what he cannot help. God would not punish us for sin if we were not free to commit or avoid it. I turn this freedom to my benefit if I do what God wishes when I could do the opposite; for He will be more pleased with my conduct, and grant a greater reward than He would bestow if I obeyed simply because obliged to do so. Animals have no free will. If, for example, they suffer from hunger and you place food before them, they will eat; but man can starve, if he wills to do so, with a feast before him. For the same reason man can endure more fatigue than any other animal of the same bodily strength. . …”
To be continued
Linus2nd
Fourth Lateran Council, On the Cathlic Faith
- Confession of Faith
First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith
CHAPTER I.
ON GOD, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS
…
This one only true God, of His own goodness and almighty power, not for the increase or acquirement of His own happiness, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, and with absolute freedom of Counsel, created out of nothing, from the very first beginning of time, both the spiritual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the angelical and the mundane, and afterwards the human creature, as partaking, in a sense, of both, consisting of spirit and of body.
Baltimore Catechism, Book 4, ques 3-5 and explanations
- Q. What is man?
A. Man is a creature composed of a body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.
- Q. Is this likeness in the body or in the soul?
A. This likeness is chiefly in the soul. - Q. How is the soul like to God?
A. The soul is like God because it is a spirit that will never die, and has understanding and free will.
It is "a spirit:’ It really exists, but cannot be seen with the eyes of our body. Every spirit is invisible, but every invisible thing is not a spirit. We cannot see the wind. We can feel its influence, we can see its work-for example, the dust flying, trees swaying, ships sailing, etc.-but the wind itself we never see. Again, we never see electricity. We see the light or effect it produces, but we never see the electricity itself. Yet no one denies the existence of the wind or of electricity on account of their being invisible. Why then should anyone say there are no spirits-no God, no angels, no souls-simply because they cannot be seen, when we have other proofs, stronger than the testimony of our sight, that they really and truly exist?
My soul will "never die;’ i.e., will never cease to exist; it is immortal. This is a very wonderful thing to think of. It will last as long as God Himself.
My soul “has understanding,” i.e., it has the gift of reason. This gift enables man to reflect upon all his actions the reasons why he should do certain things and why he should not do them. By reason he reflects upon the past, and judges what may happen in the future. He sees the consequences of his actions. He not only knows what he does, but why he does it. This is the gift that places man high above the brute animals in the order of creation; and hence man is not merely an animal, but he is a rational animal-an animal with the gift of reason.
Brute animals have not reason, but only instinct, i.e., they follow certain impulses or feelings which God gave them at their creation. He established certain laws for each class or kind of animals, and they, without knowing it, follow these laws; and when we see them following their laws, always in the same way, we say it is their nature. Animals act at times as if they knew just why they were acting; but it is not so. It is we who reason upon their actions, and see why they do them; but they do not reason, they only follow their instinct.
If animals could reason, they ought to improve in their condition. Men become more civilized day by day. They invent many things that were unknown to their forefathers. One man can improve upon the works of another, etc. But, we never see anything of this kind in the actions of animals. The same kind of birds, for instance, build the same kind of nests, generation after generation, without ever making change or improvement in them. When man teaches an animal any action, it cannot teach the same to its young. It is clear, therefore, that animals cannot reason.
Though man has the gift of reason by which he can learn a great deal, he cannot learn all through his reason; for there are many things that God Himself must teach him. When God teaches, we call the truths He makes known to us Revelation. How could man ever know about the Trinity through his reason alone, when, after God has made known to him that It exists, he cannot understand it? It is the same for all the other mysteries.
My soul has “free will:’ This is another grand gift of God, by which I am able to do or not do a thing, just as I please. I can even sin and refuse to obey God. God Himself-while He leaves me my free will-could not oblige me to do anything, unless I wished to do it; neither could the devil. I am free therefore, and I may use this great gift either to benefit or injure myself. If I were not free I would not deserve reward or punishment for my actions, for no one is or should be punished for doing what he cannot help. God would not punish us for sin if we were not free to commit or avoid it. I turn this freedom to my benefit if I do what God wishes when I could do the opposite; for He will be more pleased with my conduct, and grant a greater reward than He would bestow if I obeyed simply because obliged to do so. Animals have no free will. If, for example, they suffer from hunger and you place food before them, they will eat; but man can starve, if he wills to do so, with a feast before him. For the same reason man can endure more fatigue than any other animal of the same bodily strength. . …”
To be continued
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The Church and the Human Soul, Part 2
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
Para 326
327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."187
355
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
362-367
II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
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.235
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238
To be continued
Linus2nd
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
Para 326
327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."187
355
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.
362-367
II. “BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE”
362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. the biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.
363 In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.
364 The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232
Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honour since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day 233
365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.
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.235
367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming.236 The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.237 “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.238
To be continued
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The Church and the Human Soul, Part 3
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Ques.75, Artt 2, ans ad 1
Whether the soul is a body ( by " body " the philosophers always mean something made of matter, corporial ).
Article 1. Whether the soul is a body?
Objection 1. It would seem that the soul is a body. For the soul is the moving principle of the body. Nor does it move unless moved.
First, because seemingly nothing can move unless it is itself moved, since nothing gives what it has not; for instance, what is not hot does not give heat.
Secondly, because if there be anything that moves and is not moved, it must be the cause of eternal, unchanging movement, as we find proved Phys. viii, 6; and this does not appear to be the case in the movement of an animal, which is caused by the soul. Therefore the soul is a mover moved. But every mover moved is a body. Therefore the soul is a body.
Objection 2. Further, all knowledge is caused by means of a likeness. But there can be no likeness of a body to an incorporeal thing. If, therefore, the soul were not a body, it could not have knowledge of corporeal things.
Objection 3. Further, between the mover and the moved there must be contact. But contact is only between bodies. Since, therefore, the soul moves the body, it seems that the soul must be a body.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 6) that the soul “is simple in comparison with the body, inasmuch as it does not occupy space by its bulk.”
I answer that, To seek the nature of the soul, we must premise that the soul is defined as the first principle of life of those things which live: for we call living things “animate,” *, and those things which have no life, “inanimate.” Now life is shown principally by two actions, knowledge and movement. The philosophers of old, not being able to rise above their imagination, supposed that the principle of these actions was something corporeal: for they asserted that only bodies were real things; and that what is not corporeal is nothing: hence they maintained that the soul is something corporeal. This opinion can be proved to be false in many ways; but we shall make use of only one proof, based on universal and certain principles, which shows clearly that the soul is not a body.
It is manifest that not every principle of vital action is a soul, for then the eye would be a soul, as it is a principle of vision; and the same might be applied to the other instruments of the soul: but it is the “first” principle of life, which we call the soul. Now, though a body may be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, as the heart is a principle of life in an animal, yet nothing corporeal can be the first principle of life. For it is clear that to be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, does not belong to a body as such; since, if that were the case, every body would be a living thing, or a principle of life. Therefore a body is competent to be a living thing or even a principle of life, as “such” a body. Now that it is actually such a body, it owes to some principle which is called its act. Therefore the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat, which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a body.
Reply to Objection 1. As everything which is in motion must be moved by something else, a process which cannot be prolonged indefinitely, we must allow that not every mover is moved. For, since to be moved is to pass from potentiality to actuality, the mover gives what it has to the thing moved, inasmuch as it causes it to be in act. But, as is shown in Phys. viii, 6, there is a mover which is altogether immovable, and not moved either essentially, or accidentally; and such a mover can cause an invariable movement. There is, however, another kind of mover, which, though not moved essentially, is moved accidentally; and for this reason it does not cause an invariable movement; such a mover, is the soul. There is, again, another mover, which is moved essentially–namely, the body. And because the philosophers of old believed that nothing existed but bodies, they maintained that every mover is moved; and that the soul is moved directly, and is a body.
Reply to Objection 2. The likeness of a thing known is not of necessity actually in the nature of the knower; but given a thing which knows potentially, and afterwards knows actually, the likeness of the thing known must be in the nature of the knower, not actually, but only potentially; thus color is not actually in the pupil of the eye, but only potentially. Hence it is necessary, not that the likeness of corporeal things should be actually in the nature of the soul, but that there be a potentiality in the soul for such a likeness. But the ancient philosophers omitted to distinguish between actuality and potentiality; and so they held that the soul must be a body in order to have knowledge of a body; and that it must be composed of the principles of which all bodies are formed in order to know all bodies.
Reply to Objection 3. There are two kinds of contact; of “quantity,” and of “power.” By the former a body can be touched only by a body; by the latter a body can be touched by an incorporeal thing, which moves that body.
To be continued
Linus2nd*
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Ques.75, Artt 2, ans ad 1
Whether the soul is a body ( by " body " the philosophers always mean something made of matter, corporial ).
Article 1. Whether the soul is a body?
Objection 1. It would seem that the soul is a body. For the soul is the moving principle of the body. Nor does it move unless moved.
First, because seemingly nothing can move unless it is itself moved, since nothing gives what it has not; for instance, what is not hot does not give heat.
Secondly, because if there be anything that moves and is not moved, it must be the cause of eternal, unchanging movement, as we find proved Phys. viii, 6; and this does not appear to be the case in the movement of an animal, which is caused by the soul. Therefore the soul is a mover moved. But every mover moved is a body. Therefore the soul is a body.
Objection 2. Further, all knowledge is caused by means of a likeness. But there can be no likeness of a body to an incorporeal thing. If, therefore, the soul were not a body, it could not have knowledge of corporeal things.
Objection 3. Further, between the mover and the moved there must be contact. But contact is only between bodies. Since, therefore, the soul moves the body, it seems that the soul must be a body.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 6) that the soul “is simple in comparison with the body, inasmuch as it does not occupy space by its bulk.”
I answer that, To seek the nature of the soul, we must premise that the soul is defined as the first principle of life of those things which live: for we call living things “animate,” *, and those things which have no life, “inanimate.” Now life is shown principally by two actions, knowledge and movement. The philosophers of old, not being able to rise above their imagination, supposed that the principle of these actions was something corporeal: for they asserted that only bodies were real things; and that what is not corporeal is nothing: hence they maintained that the soul is something corporeal. This opinion can be proved to be false in many ways; but we shall make use of only one proof, based on universal and certain principles, which shows clearly that the soul is not a body.
It is manifest that not every principle of vital action is a soul, for then the eye would be a soul, as it is a principle of vision; and the same might be applied to the other instruments of the soul: but it is the “first” principle of life, which we call the soul. Now, though a body may be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, as the heart is a principle of life in an animal, yet nothing corporeal can be the first principle of life. For it is clear that to be a principle of life, or to be a living thing, does not belong to a body as such; since, if that were the case, every body would be a living thing, or a principle of life. Therefore a body is competent to be a living thing or even a principle of life, as “such” a body. Now that it is actually such a body, it owes to some principle which is called its act. Therefore the soul, which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body; thus heat, which is the principle of calefaction, is not a body, but an act of a body.
Reply to Objection 1. As everything which is in motion must be moved by something else, a process which cannot be prolonged indefinitely, we must allow that not every mover is moved. For, since to be moved is to pass from potentiality to actuality, the mover gives what it has to the thing moved, inasmuch as it causes it to be in act. But, as is shown in Phys. viii, 6, there is a mover which is altogether immovable, and not moved either essentially, or accidentally; and such a mover can cause an invariable movement. There is, however, another kind of mover, which, though not moved essentially, is moved accidentally; and for this reason it does not cause an invariable movement; such a mover, is the soul. There is, again, another mover, which is moved essentially–namely, the body. And because the philosophers of old believed that nothing existed but bodies, they maintained that every mover is moved; and that the soul is moved directly, and is a body.
Reply to Objection 2. The likeness of a thing known is not of necessity actually in the nature of the knower; but given a thing which knows potentially, and afterwards knows actually, the likeness of the thing known must be in the nature of the knower, not actually, but only potentially; thus color is not actually in the pupil of the eye, but only potentially. Hence it is necessary, not that the likeness of corporeal things should be actually in the nature of the soul, but that there be a potentiality in the soul for such a likeness. But the ancient philosophers omitted to distinguish between actuality and potentiality; and so they held that the soul must be a body in order to have knowledge of a body; and that it must be composed of the principles of which all bodies are formed in order to know all bodies.
Reply to Objection 3. There are two kinds of contact; of “quantity,” and of “power.” By the former a body can be touched only by a body; by the latter a body can be touched by an incorporeal thing, which moves that body.
To be continued
Linus2nd*
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The Church and the Human Soul, Part 4
S.T., Part 1, ques 75, Art 2
Article 2. Whether the human soul is something subsistent?
Objection 1. It would seem that the human soul is not something subsistent. For that which subsists is said to be “this particular thing.” Now “this particular thing” is said not of the soul, but of that which is composed of soul and body. Therefore the soul is not something subsistent.
Objection 2. Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does not operate; for, as the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), “to say that the soul feels or understands is like saying that the soul weaves or builds.” Therefore the soul is not subsistent.
Objection 3. Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some operation apart from the body. But it has no operation apart from the body, not even that of understanding: for the act of understanding does not take place without a phantasm, which cannot exist apart from the body. Therefore the human soul is not something subsistent.
In summary. The human soul is non-corporeal, it is not a body. Rather it is incorporeal or immaterial. This being so, the human soul is a spirit and has a nature similar to that of the Angels. The diffirence is the the soul ( the spirit of man ) was created specifically for man’s body, its proper mode of existence is as the " form " of the body. And when we say that the soul is a spirit we do not mean it is a ghost for a ghost is a very subtle material form of a body. The soul is a spiritual form just as an Angel is a spiritual form. The difference is that an Angel’s proper mode of existence is as a Spirit. Whereas the soul’s proper mode of existence is its union with a human body, in which it functions as the form ( philosophers would say substantial form ) of the body.
A spiritual being has no matter. Angel’s and man’s soul are contrasted to the Spirit of God in that Angels and the human soul are dependent or contingent beings, they depend on God for their existence. And both are contingent or limited beings. The Angels are limited as to species and the human soul is contingent and limited to both species and to the individual. There being one Angel to a species, whereas there are many individual souls in the species of man.
Notice how when the Church is speaking of the soul it always contrasts it to the corporeal, as spiritual is contrasted with the material. The soul is further compared to the " invisible " and is called a spirit as Angels and God are Spirits
Futher, the soul is identified as the principle of life, reason, and will in man. And through the soul man knows right from wrong and is conscious of himself. These are spiritual powers that matter does not have, therefore also, the soul is identified as a spiritual principle.
Men have a hard time visualizing or imagining a human soul ( or any spiritual being - though the soul is not a being per se since it normally and properly exists as the form of the body). I think the best way to do that is to consider all that has been said above and then visualize a being with all those qualities but without any matter of any kind, even the most subtle. What you are left with is something like pure intellect, will, memory, an entity totally outside the realm of the physical, yet dependent on the physical for many of its operations.
And since the soul can think and understand and will and remember and is conscious of good and evil and of its own existence in its human unity, the soul is immaterial, incorporeal, spiritual having in it no matter which is subject to corruption. Only matter is corruptible. Therefore the soul is immortal. And nothing physical is immortal except by Divine Decree.
The reason for making a point of discussing this is because some people cannot grasp the nature of a spiritual being and because of that, they deny the incorpreal nature of man’s soul and even of Christ’s Divine Nature and, indeed, the Nature of God Who is an Independent and Limitless Spirit.
They do not formally deny these things but their language clearly indicates that they are in serious error. So it is important to drill into the faithful the difference between a spritual being ( i.e. God, the Angels, and the human soul ) and a purely material being.
Linus2nd
S.T., Part 1, ques 75, Art 2
Article 2. Whether the human soul is something subsistent?
Objection 1. It would seem that the human soul is not something subsistent. For that which subsists is said to be “this particular thing.” Now “this particular thing” is said not of the soul, but of that which is composed of soul and body. Therefore the soul is not something subsistent.
Objection 2. Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does not operate; for, as the Philosopher says (De Anima i, 4), “to say that the soul feels or understands is like saying that the soul weaves or builds.” Therefore the soul is not subsistent.
Objection 3. Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some operation apart from the body. But it has no operation apart from the body, not even that of understanding: for the act of understanding does not take place without a phantasm, which cannot exist apart from the body. Therefore the human soul is not something subsistent.
In summary. The human soul is non-corporeal, it is not a body. Rather it is incorporeal or immaterial. This being so, the human soul is a spirit and has a nature similar to that of the Angels. The diffirence is the the soul ( the spirit of man ) was created specifically for man’s body, its proper mode of existence is as the " form " of the body. And when we say that the soul is a spirit we do not mean it is a ghost for a ghost is a very subtle material form of a body. The soul is a spiritual form just as an Angel is a spiritual form. The difference is that an Angel’s proper mode of existence is as a Spirit. Whereas the soul’s proper mode of existence is its union with a human body, in which it functions as the form ( philosophers would say substantial form ) of the body.
A spiritual being has no matter. Angel’s and man’s soul are contrasted to the Spirit of God in that Angels and the human soul are dependent or contingent beings, they depend on God for their existence. And both are contingent or limited beings. The Angels are limited as to species and the human soul is contingent and limited to both species and to the individual. There being one Angel to a species, whereas there are many individual souls in the species of man.
Notice how when the Church is speaking of the soul it always contrasts it to the corporeal, as spiritual is contrasted with the material. The soul is further compared to the " invisible " and is called a spirit as Angels and God are Spirits
Futher, the soul is identified as the principle of life, reason, and will in man. And through the soul man knows right from wrong and is conscious of himself. These are spiritual powers that matter does not have, therefore also, the soul is identified as a spiritual principle.
Men have a hard time visualizing or imagining a human soul ( or any spiritual being - though the soul is not a being per se since it normally and properly exists as the form of the body). I think the best way to do that is to consider all that has been said above and then visualize a being with all those qualities but without any matter of any kind, even the most subtle. What you are left with is something like pure intellect, will, memory, an entity totally outside the realm of the physical, yet dependent on the physical for many of its operations.
And since the soul can think and understand and will and remember and is conscious of good and evil and of its own existence in its human unity, the soul is immaterial, incorporeal, spiritual having in it no matter which is subject to corruption. Only matter is corruptible. Therefore the soul is immortal. And nothing physical is immortal except by Divine Decree.
The reason for making a point of discussing this is because some people cannot grasp the nature of a spiritual being and because of that, they deny the incorpreal nature of man’s soul and even of Christ’s Divine Nature and, indeed, the Nature of God Who is an Independent and Limitless Spirit.
They do not formally deny these things but their language clearly indicates that they are in serious error. So it is important to drill into the faithful the difference between a spritual being ( i.e. God, the Angels, and the human soul ) and a purely material being.
Linus2nd
P
Pondero
Guest
It is years since I took a few courses in philosophy, and I have forgotten a lot of it, and I realize after reading the views of the contributors on this topic, that there is much I never knew.
However, I am going to read Etienne Gilson’s book:“The Elements of Christian Philosophy”, It will soon be Lent, and I am going to read it once again, after all these years, for my enlightenment.
When I bought the book for one of my courses, it cost only $1.25. Which shows you how long ago that was.
However, I am going to read Etienne Gilson’s book:“The Elements of Christian Philosophy”, It will soon be Lent, and I am going to read it once again, after all these years, for my enlightenment.
When I bought the book for one of my courses, it cost only $1.25. Which shows you how long ago that was.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Part One:
Linusthe2nd;11733795The general approach is to copy each other’s criticisms as if they were repeating some Dogma handed down from some great genius of the past said:Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to also posit this of “neo Thomists” who do not 'read" modern science as well as they should. A somewhat subjective comment perhaps.
Oh dear…your quote above sounds apposite here “…repeating some Dogma handed down from some great genius of the past.” I suggest the word “cannot”, if you really mean it, means you are unable to dialogue this point as it seems an apriori and unfalsifiable position. Personally I see no coercive logic or reason behind it which demands assent.
While it is presently a valid hypothesis, and possibly the best to date, there are others physicalist models which are not illogical and therefore of some degree of probability.
There seems no intrinsic reason why such alternative hypotheses must deny Christian Revelation that the human person is eternal.
There is nothing illogical with your position, yet because you believe it strongly through faith does not mean alternative less probable physicalist hypotheses are indubitably wrong and cannot also contend as a possibly valid explanation. There is seems no intrinsic reason why such alternative hypotheses must deny Christian Revelation that the human person is eternal.
This is a bit of a red herring. There seems to be no intrinsic logic that the creation of life from base elements is the only empirical test for proving that human thinking operations can be explained by a corporeal organ without need to multiply causation to a further hidden principle. This is not denying a human soul, it is just saying it may be more like an animal soul than hitherto acknowledged. That does not mean the human soul, for Christians, cannot still be immortal.
Yes, yes, this typical non-falsifiable position is very clear. But lets not confuse it with reason for it is based on authority only.
The point is that such excessively rationalistic thinking makes a “crisis” situation (only one of two propositions can be right) when there is no logic that demands we posit such a crisis. This means your “reasoned” position, even if you my not realise it, is likely based purely on authority (the Church) and may explain why you do not present a case for this position based on reason (which is what the original poster asked for).
This seems close to the approach of the bishop who when invited to look into Gallileo’s telescope at the moons of Saturn said, “I have no need to look into your blurry lense to know such is but the product of your heated imagination.”
I don’t see the problem. You seem to be saying that just because we say that all acts of the human soul require an organ in this life that man cannot be immortal.
It doesn’t logically follow. Sure, human immortality becomes less clear to human reason but that doesn’t prove Christian revelation wrong. Your difficulty reminds me of the saying “What is the difference between fact and fiction…well, only fiction has to make sense.” You seem to believe the opposite.
Continued…
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Part Two
I simply asked you to place the “Soul” and “Man” on the ancient Tree of Porphory wrt Substance of which this website simply provided an ancient visual example in English.
It doesn’t matter if he adapted/translated it wrongly. Just use the traditional one you know.
I look forward to your response?
The main purpose of this link was to provide you an ancient example of Porphery’s Tree wrt so you could place Soul and Man on it for the sake of this discussion.
May I remind you of the comments I gave when linking to that web site:
“This site has an interesting take attempting to integrate a bit of modern thinking on the matter”
Do note the word “interesting”. I never said it was my position - you aren’t the only one here with a brain or a classical education so lets tone down the slightly paranoid nannying.
As I asked above, here are the tough questions:
I don’t know what you are on about here and it doesn’t concern me.
I simply asked you to place the “Soul” and “Man” on the ancient Tree of Porphory wrt Substance of which this website simply provided an ancient visual example in English.
It doesn’t matter if he adapted/translated it wrongly. Just use the traditional one you know.
I look forward to your response?
For the love of God L2 you really have gone off on a tangent.
The main purpose of this link was to provide you an ancient example of Porphery’s Tree wrt so you could place Soul and Man on it for the sake of this discussion.
May I remind you of the comments I gave when linking to that web site:
“This site has an interesting take attempting to integrate a bit of modern thinking on the matter”
Do note the word “interesting”. I never said it was my position - you aren’t the only one here with a brain or a classical education so lets tone down the slightly paranoid nannying
.As I asked above, here are the tough questions:
Are you familiar with Porphery’s Tree?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Maybe best to discuss this apparantly self contradictory paragraph after you have located “Soul” and “Man” on a typical Porphery’s Tree of Substance
.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I think I have made a strong case and doesn’t need to be defended further. I would like to correct several points however. It is not only Catholics who hold to the reasoning I have made, so it is not a case always of depending on Revealed Truth or even of the Truths of the Ordinary Magisterium ( which no Catholic is allowed to set aside but which must adhered to faithfully). Secondly, the Office of the Magisterium guarantees that all Catholics, and others who choose, have access to the entire body of truth essential to salvation without admixture of error. Thirdly, there is no universal agreement in the scientific community with your view, in fact it has been strongly challenged ( see Edward Fesers blog ). Fourthly, I never said the soul is dependent on the body for all its actions. Cogitation, willing, remembering, self-reflection are such actions. These are actions of the intellect only. The brain does not enter into the equation.Part One:
Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to also posit this of “neo Thomists” who do not 'read" modern science as well as they should
Oh dear…your quote above sounds apposite here “…repeating some Dogma handed down from some great genius of the past.” I suggest the word “cannot”, if you really mean it, means you are unable to dialogue this point as it seems an apriori and unfalsifiable position. Personally I see no coercive logic or reason behind it which demands assent.
While it is presently a valid hypothesis, and possibly the best to date, there are others physicalist models which are not illogical and therefore of some degree of probability.
There seems no intrinsic reason why such alternative hypotheses must deny Christian Revelation that the human person is eternal.
There is nothing illogical with your position, yet because you believe it strongly through faith does not mean alternative less probable physicalist hypotheses are indubitably wrong and cannot also contend as a possibly valid explanation. There is seems no intrinsic reason why such alternative hypotheses must deny Christian Revelation that the human person is eternal.
This is a bit of a red herring. There seems to be no intrinsic logic that the creation of life from base elements is the only empirical test for proving that human thinking operations can be explained by a corporeal organ without need to multiply causation to a further hidden principle. This is not denying a human soul, it is just saying it may be more like an animal soul than hitherto acknowledged. That does not mean the human soul, for Christians, cannot still be immortal.
Yes, yes, this typical non-falsifiable position is very clear. But lets not confuse it with reason for it is based on authority only.
The point is that such excessively rationalistic thinking makes a “crisis” situation (only one of two propositions can be right) when there is no logic that demands we posit such a crisis. This means your “reasoned” position, even if you my not realise it, is likely based purely on authority (the Church) and may explain why you do not present a case for this position based on reason (which is what the original poster asked for).
This seems close to the approach of the bishop who when invited to look into Gallileo’s telescope at the moons of Saturn said, “I have no need to look into your blurry lense to know such is but the product of your heated imagination.”
I don’t see the problem. You seem to be saying that just because we say that all acts of the human soul require an organ in this life that man cannot be immortal.
It doesn’t logically follow. Sure, human immortality becomes less clear to human reason but that doesn’t prove Christian revelation wrong. Your difficulty reminds me of the saying “What is the difference between fact and fiction…well, only fiction has to make sense.” You seem to believe the opposite.
Continued…
Finally, to reject my position ( and I realize you have not done so ) is a de facto rejection of Catholic Truth, either of Dogma or of Ordinary Teaching and is therefore heretical. And perhaps this does put Catholics at an unfair advantage. Call it what you want, the fact is that many non - Catholics also hold to the same view, so is theirs a case of " Faith before Reason " of reason dependent on Faith?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Oh, yes. But I would not restrict myself to Porphery’s Tree because the ancients ( including Aristotle ) restricted substance to material being. St. Thomas did not do so, he used a modified " tree " based loosely on Aristotle. In Thomas’ view a substance is any being ( something which exists in any way ), material or spiritual, which existed in reality, which was not a " being of the intellect. "Part Two
I don’t know what you are on about here and it doesn’t concern me.
I simply asked you to place the “Soul” and “Man” on the ancient Tree of Porphory wrt Substance of which this website simply provided an ancient visual example in English.
It doesn’t matter if he adapted/translated it wrongly. Just use the traditional one you know.
I look forward to your response?
For the love of God L2 you really have gone off on a tangent.
The main purpose of this link was to provide you an ancient example of Porphery’s Tree wrt so you could place Soul and Man on it for the sake of this discussion.
May I remind you of the comments I gave when linking to that web site:
“This site has an interesting take attempting to integrate a bit of modern thinking on the matter”
Do note the word “interesting”. I never said it was my position - you aren’t the only one here with a brain or a classical education so lets tone down the slightly paranoid nannying
As I asked above, here are the tough questions:
Are you familiar with Porphery’s Tree?
So the soul and man compose one substance. The soul is not a separate substance in man, nor is the body a separate substance in man. When they are together there is only one substance, the human being, man’s matter and his substantial form. The soul however can exist without the body, which is what this arguement is all about. Alone one would have to say that the soul is an incomplete substance, a " fish out of water " so to speak, a modified substance, a substance lacking something it properly needs - its body. I think Thomas would describe it as a " deprived substance, " or something like that. ( you can look it up if you like, I’m going from memory.).
The soul however is a spiritual substance, not a material substance. And by " spiritual, " I mean a substance or being having no physical constitution of any type, however subtle it may be imagined - utterly simple, limited only by its act of existence.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Oh, yes. But I would not restrict myself to Porphery’s Tree because the ancients ( including Aristotle ) restricted substance to material being. St. Thomas did not do so, he used a modified " tree " based loosely on Aristotle. In Thomas’ view a substance is any being ( something which exists in any way ), material or spiritual, which existed in reality, which was not a " being of the intellect. "Part Two
I don’t know what you are on about here and it doesn’t concern me.
I simply asked you to place the “Soul” and “Man” on the ancient Tree of Porphory wrt Substance of which this website simply provided an ancient visual example in English.
It doesn’t matter if he adapted/translated it wrongly. Just use the traditional one you know.
I look forward to your response?
For the love of God L2 you really have gone off on a tangent.
The main purpose of this link was to provide you an ancient example of Porphery’s Tree wrt so you could place Soul and Man on it for the sake of this discussion.
May I remind you of the comments I gave when linking to that web site:
“This site has an interesting take attempting to integrate a bit of modern thinking on the matter”
Do note the word “interesting”. I never said it was my position - you aren’t the only one here with a brain or a classical education so lets tone down the slightly paranoid nannying
As I asked above, here are the tough questions:
Are you familiar with Porphery’s Tree?
So the soul and man compose one substance. The soul is not a separate substance in man, nor is the body a separate substance in man. When they are together there is only one substance, the human being, man’s matter and his substantial form. The soul however can exist without the body, which is what this arguement is all about. Alone one would have to say that the soul is an incomplete substance, a " fish out of water " so to speak, a modified substance, a substance lacking something it properly needs - its body. I think Thomas would describe it as a " deprived substance, " or something like that. ( you can look it up if you like, I’m going from memory.).
The soul however is a spiritual substance, not a material substance. And by " spiritual, " I mean a substance or being having no physical constitution of any type, however subtle it may be imagined - utterly simple, limited only by its act of existence.
Linus2nd
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Come on L2 this is plain pomposity and baseless assertion.
Part of the difficulty in trying to discuss a specific philosophic issue with you is that you seem more interested in preaching to the choir and on the basis of authority rather deal with my specifics and reason into territory possibly uncharted by Aquinas.
Repeating Aquinas’s well known views, that have been done many times on this thread, without actually elaborating on his more ambiguous or improbable points goes nowhere
. I want to here from your own personal reflections/reasoning, not quote from Feser or Aquinas that you may or may not actually understand or be able to defend.Hiding behind’s mother’s skirts convinces noone.
You come across more anxious to make sure everybody knows the traditional Catholic position of 800 yrs ago rather than engage/explore the difficulties that position raises in the light of modern science. Bandying about the words “heresy” etc etc when such sincere and difficult exploration goes off course is probably unhelpful and perhaps more indicative of an old man’s intolerance than an encouraging of young Catholic thinkers to go further than Aquinas who did not live to see our day.
That therefore logically means there is no universal agreement in the scientific community with your own view as well. There never is is there. This statement is therefore a platitude, a tautology, that in the end is meaningless except for rhetorically advancing one’s own position on the basis of empty emotion and therefore I suggest unworthy of a generous mind.
I would appreciate you briefly stating what you believe my view to be.
From your responses thus far I do not think you have actually read it closely enough to know what it is.
L2 you rush so fast and so anxiously to, your mind, defend “attacks” on tradition/authority that you do not really properly read what is said or try to ruminate on one’s partner’s comments. Its very hard to dialogue when one’s discussion partner is in this frame of mind.
Lets back-up the truck and look and what I actually said:
“I don’t see the problem. You seem to be saying that just because we say that all acts of the human soul require an organ in this life that man cannot be immortal.
It doesn’t logically follow. Sure, human immortality becomes less clear to human reason but that doesn’t prove Christian revelation wrong. Your difficulty reminds me of the saying “What is the difference between fact and fiction…well, only fiction has to make sense.” You seem to believe the opposite.”
So if you read this carefully you will notice that the underlined bit is my position.
All the world knows what your position is because it has been repeated ad nauseam on this thread…and yet with no better argument than that offered by Aquinas 800 years ago.
May I repeat again…
Your position is that some human acts do not require an organ therefore Man must be immortal (which of course is but a parroting of Aquinas). Not only that, you believe this position is certain to clear Reason and is non falsifiable - something that I have never seen Aquinas ever say.
My position is that this argument is no more than the most probable explanation at the moment and that probability has been steadily eroding since the discoveries of Science wrt brain function.
If you believe your position, like Polytropos, is intrinsically non falsifiable by empiricial findings…then I suspect that your position is deeply flawed in the same way that Anselm’s Ontological argument for the existence of God is wonderful in its simplicity and inner coherence but also deeply flawed.
After all the guy who invented the concepts of form/matter held your position wrt intellectual acts - yet he denied the immortality of the soul. He wasn’t stupid.
So try and argue a reasoned case from your own reflections rather than just throwing out parrot quotes from others on the basis of their authority. Anybody can do that.
But if you do agree that Aquinas’s position is non-falsifiable then we cannot discuss further because your mind is already made up and thus closed on this question.
However if this is your position I would say only this. I do not believe Aquinas would agree with you that his position is non falsifiable. As man of his age empiricism did not come naturally to him, nevertheless as others have conceded, the power of his intellect (and perhaps Albert the Great) did make him a reluctant empiricist when the facts spoke for themselves. Aquinas would have looked into Galileos blurry telescope lenses even if he didn’t want to.
- Status