Reincarnation

[ericc]

Right ,and where did all these billions of souls come from that we see today when mankind only started out with two souls…billions of people are living their lives without the benefits of Reincarnation .

You didn’t include those non-human souls. Some reincarnation believers believed insects, bacteria, animals etc are ensouled too. That is why they have an unlimited supply of souls to access to. But I couldn’t quite figure out who gave the soul-creation ability to kick off in the first place. Especially if the religion is godless or cyclical i.e. endless birth/death cycles without a god-starter.

 

[Perplexity]

One needn’t look to Pagan thinkers for reasons to believe in reincarnation: Thomas Aquinas himself did just that – though unintentionally, of course.

See, in his system we tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied and toward embodiment when we’re disembodied.

There is thus a circular tendency on Thomism which Aquinas merely posits on theological grounds to be permanently suspended after one’s first death. But, there’s nothing in his philosophy to require this permanent suspension after our first death: it just couldn’t go on forever.

So, those of us who don’t accept Aquinas’ theology are free to endorse reincarnation on the basis of his philosophy.

 

[ericc]

One needn’t look to Pagan thinkers for reasons to believe in reincarnation: Thomas Aquinas himself did just that – though unintentionally, of course.

See, in his system we tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied and toward embodiment when we’re disembodied.

There is thus a circular tendency on Thomism which Aquinas merely posits on theological grounds to be permanently suspended after one’s first death. But, there’s nothing in his philosophy to require this permanent suspension after our first death: it just couldn’t go on forever.

Can you provide the specific source ( Summa Theologica I presume, but under which section. it is a big book) so that I can read what reincarnation philosophy did Aquinas proposed?

So, those of us who don’t accept Aquinas’ theology are free to endorse reincarnation on the basis of his philosophy.

Anyone can adopt any philosophy one prefers. However, how did you determine that reincarnation is true? It can’t be true merely because Aquinas has a viewpoint about it. You believe it because you have either verified it beyond doubt that reincarnation exists or that there is a mechanism that supports reincarnation which you have tested to be working and predictable. Or that you have discounted evil forces being the agent of the appearance of reincarnation so that the end result must be a true reincarnation indeed. I am keen to know how can one prove that a claimed reincarnation is truly an old soul in new bodies. Of course that raises multiple other questions on administration, permissibility/morality of hijacking someone else body/life etc.

 

[Techno2000]

One needn’t look to Pagan thinkers for reasons to believe in reincarnation: Thomas Aquinas himself did just that – though unintentionally, of course.

See, in his system we tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied and toward embodiment when we’re disembodied.

There is thus a circular tendency on Thomism which Aquinas merely posits on theological grounds to be permanently suspended after one’s first death. But, there’s nothing in his philosophy to require this permanent suspension after our first death: it just couldn’t go on forever.

So, those of us who don’t accept Aquinas’ theology are free to endorse reincarnation on the basis of his philosophy.

 

[Dorothy]

superwimp:

<>>How important the virtue of obedience to the legitimate authority of the Church in faith and morals is! <<>>

Yes, it is very important!!!

Our Lord Jesus Christ established a Church and gave the keys to Peter. Jesus Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Obedience to the Magisterium on faith and morals is possible through prayer and the sacraments that were given to us.

Our Lord would not and does not leave the Church up to confusion.

Ephesians 5:11 “…take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”

The Church’s teaching authority is my compass…if I pull up anchor I drift.

Peace!

Dorothy

 

[Perplexity]

Can you provide the specific source ( Summa Theologica I presume, but under which section. it is a big book) so that I can read what reincarnation philosophy did Aquinas proposed?

Sure, in Quaestiones disputatae de malo, q. 5, art. 5, obj.1, corp., and ad 1, Thomas explains that we naturally tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied because we are composed of matter and form. Matter and form are contraries, and thus must be made to hold together, as they inherently tend toward separation.

On the other hand, Aquinas tells us that disembodied life tends toward embodied life:

“The human soul, remaining in its own existence after separation from the body, has a natural aptitude and a natural tendency to union with body.” (S.T. I.76.1.ad 6)

“no soul will remain for ever separated from the body.” (S.T. S.75.2)

As such, we are inclined by our natures to reincarnate. Of course, Thomas believed once we die, we’re permanently reunited with our bodies. But, he didn’t believe that for philosophical reasons: it’s because he was a Christian.

Anyone can adopt any philosophy one prefers. However, how did you determine that reincarnation is true? It can’t be true merely because Aquinas has a viewpoint about it. You believe it because you have either verified it beyond doubt that reincarnation exists or that there is a mechanism that supports reincarnation which you have tested to be working and predictable. Or that you have discounted evil forces being the agent of the appearance of reincarnation so that the end result must be a true reincarnation indeed. I am keen to know how can one prove that a claimed reincarnation is truly an old soul in new bodies. Of course that raises multiple other questions on administration, permissibility/morality of hijacking someone else body/life etc.

I came to Paganism from Catholicism about 10 years ago. At the time, I didn’t think there was any systematic Pagan philosophy, so I sought to forge one. The first phase was very analytical and contemporary. But, I fell in love with the Scholastic philosophers, especially through reading Edward Feser. I soon found Scholastic thinkers opening the door to ‘reincarnation’, such as Cardinal Mercier:

“This theory of metempsychosis, provided it allows that the soul retains through its successive reincarnations the consciousness of its own personality, and that the series at some time will have an end, cannot be shown by reason alone, we think, either to be impossible or even to be false. All that can be said is that there is not a single positive argument in its favour, and that our present ignorance of any previous existences is a strong presumption against a plurality of existences in the future.” - A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Vol. 1, London, Ed. 8, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1916 p. 326

It was in devouring Aquinas – whose broad metaphysics I came to wholeheartedly endorse – that I realized unless one had theological reason to think otherwise, there was a solid philosophical case for reincarnation. I’m no longer a Thomist, but I know many Catholics are. So, I thought I’d mention that reincarnation can certainly be grounded in Thomism.

 

[ChineseCatholic]

Sure, in Quaestiones disputatae de malo, q. 5, art. 5, obj.1, corp., and ad 1, Thomas explains that we naturally tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied because we are composed of matter and form. Matter and form are contraries, and thus must be made to hold together, as they inherently tend toward separation.

On the other hand, Aquinas tells us that disembodied life tends toward embodied life:

“The human soul, remaining in its own existence after separation from the body, has a natural aptitude and a natural tendency to union with body.” (S.T. I.76.1.ad 6)

“no soul will remain for ever separated from the body.” (S.T. S.75.2)

As such, we are inclined by our natures to reincarnate. Of course, Thomas believed once we die, we’re permanently reunited with our bodies. But, he didn’t believe that for philosophical reasons: it’s because he was a Christian.

Hmm… i think it might be more appropriate for my fellow Catholics to understand this as “Thomism’s metaphysics do not preclude the possibility of Reincarnation.”

Although I do have to wonder how the boys in the Philosophy forum up above might take it.

In point of full disclosure, at the very beginnings of the Church, there were a couple of Fathers who couldn’t fully discount the possibility of Transmigration/Metempsychosis, at least in the manner the Greeks understood the concept (There are some issues undergirding the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist conceptions - specifically about -what- is being thrown into the cycle that is).

Much of this has to do with the Church’s attempt to digest Plotinus and Neoplatonism which strongly argued for the pre-existence of souls prior to embodiment due to the combined weight of the Timaeus, Republic, Phaedo, and Phaedrus dialogues.

I came to Paganism from Catholicism about 10 years ago. At the time, I didn’t think there was any systematic Pagan philosophy, so I sought to forge one. The first phase was very analytical and contemporary. But, I fell in love with the Scholastic philosophers, especially through reading Edward Feser. I soon found Scholastic thinkers opening the door to ‘reincarnation’, such as Cardinal Mercier:

“This theory of metempsychosis, provided it allows that the soul retains through its successive reincarnations the consciousness of its own personality, and that the series at some time will have an end, cannot be shown by reason alone, we think, either to be impossible or even to be false. All that can be said is that there is not a single positive argument in its favour, and that our present ignorance of any previous existences is a strong presumption against a plurality of existences in the future.” - A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Vol. 1, London, Ed. 8, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1916 p. 326

It was in devouring Aquinas – whose broad metaphysics I came to wholeheartedly endorse – that I realized unless one had theological reason to think otherwise, there was a solid philosophical case for reincarnation. I’m no longer a Thomist, but I know many Catholics are. So, I thought I’d mention that reincarnation can certainly be grounded in Thomism.

Hahahaha - this is amazing.

Usually the story is told in reverse - Church theologians grappling with philosophical schools of thought to hammer out a philosophical system.

We now have a Pagan who grappled with a thorougly Christianized metaphysic to hammer out a systematized philosophy for his own beliefs.

If you ever feel inclined to write your system down into a book, i’d love to read it.

I do have one small quibble with you though Perplexity

At the time, I didn’t think there was any systematic Pagan philosophy, so I sought to forge one.

I am hardly an expert with all the “Reconstructionist/Neo/Whatever Label you decide to attach to the word Pagan” sphere of thought, but i was under the impression that birds of that feather were flocking toward other non-Aristotlean based systems.

Neoplatonism always seems to be the school of choice.

 

[superwimp]

hello ericc,

But Elijah didn’t die. He was taken up to heaven in a flaming chariot 2 Kings 2:9 -12. So that rules out reincarnation.<<<

When they used the term heaven they meant sky. If you read the bible Elijah was tired of being God’s prophet so he had him ordain Elisha. He then began walking towards a school of the prophets but Elisha wouldn’t leave. Finally god sent a chariot down to take him up into the sky and separate him from Elisha. Then some years later Elijah sends one of his students to give a message to the king. Then we must assume he died sometime afterwards.

Perhaps you could share which school of thought adopts that knowledge is retained at the subconscious level. Buddhism? Hinduism? How was that determined to be true and evidence to support that view. And somehow through some mechanism, memories of the distant past of a dead person can float, migrate to a totally unconnected person. Even if memories are transferable, it does not mean that reincarnation is true. It only means that memories are transferable. How would one know the subconscious is not just neurons misfiring, brain chemicals reacting and causing us to have weird dreams which we know are not real.<<<

There is no verifiable proof for any version of the afterlife. The study of dreams (and what needs to be done to make them useful) is a whole other topic. I heartily recommend the information provided through Edgar Cayce if one has a desire to begin working with their dreams.

 

[Perplexity]

ChineseCatholic: Aquinas tried to baptize Aristotle, I tried to enchant Aquinas. I did construct a Scholastic Paganism, one centered around polytheism, reincarnation and witchcraft, even wrote a 50,000 + word introduction…but, I ended up becoming convinced of Neoplatonism lol. There’s not much left of it, but if you’re interested there’s a brief outline of its polytheism in An Ontological Argument for Polytheism, Walking the Worlds 2.2, 2016.

 

[ericc]

Sure, in Quaestiones disputatae de malo, q. 5, art. 5, obj.1, corp., and ad 1,
(S.T. I.76.1.ad 6)
(S.T. S.75.2)

This appear to be in Latin and abbreviated. Do you have an English translated source and less abbreviated reference? My Google translate failed.

 

[ericc]

Sure, in Quaestiones disputatae de malo, q. 5, art. 5, obj.1, corp., and ad 1, Thomas explains that we naturally tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied because we are composed of matter and form. Matter and form are contraries, and thus must be made to hold together, as they inherently tend toward separation.

On the other hand, Aquinas tells us that disembodied life tends toward embodied life:

“The human soul, remaining in its own existence after separation from the body, has a natural aptitude and a natural tendency to union with body.” (S.T. I.76.1.ad 6)

“no soul will remain for ever separated from the body.” (S.T. S.75.2)

As such, we are inclined by our natures to reincarnate.

The words in RED is a fallacious conclusion from the statements leading it. None of Aquinas statements lead to the necessary conclusion of reincarnation. They certainly do not lead to the conclusion of multiple bodies sharing one soul over time. Since all new embryos come with their own unique souls, which mechanism will permit old body-less souls to hijack those new bodies? And what will happen to the fate of those new souls which has been ejected by those “reincarnated” souls? And for what purpose does body-hopping across time achieve for reincarnated souls? Who decides who get reincarnated? Aquinas context is very clear for the soul to incline to union with ITS own body and not other foreign bodies.
One should not presuppose that the body-less soul upon death of the material body is compelled by some mechanism to seek habitation again in some foreign body. There is no urgent need of the soul to find another physical container. Time is of no consequence or meaning to the soul after the physical body has died. I think you have misrepresent his writings or came to an unwarranted conclusion by disregarding his point on the soul immediate departure to heaven/hell/purgatory upon the body’s death.

Of course, Thomas believed once we die, we’re permanently reunited with our bodies. But, he didn’t believe that for philosophical reasons: it’s because he was a Christian.

The words in RED is another fallacious reasoning. You have not provided any evidence that his conclusion is compelled by his status as a Christian. He may well think the same even if he is not a Christian. Similarly it would be unbecoming of me to say that you support reincarnation just because you a pagan. He did say the soul departs immediately upon the body’s death to hell/heaven/purgatory. I didn’t find the reference to the soul immediately uniting with the body which is not true anyway. But since the souls do have a place to go, I failed to see how reincarnation can take place at all. The souls do eventually get reunited with the bodies. So there is no way that Aquinas has room for reincarnation at all since all souls immediately ends up in their proper places according to him.

I came to Paganism from Catholicism about 10 years ago. At the time, I didn’t think there was any systematic Pagan philosophy, so I sought to forge one. The first phase was very analytical and contemporary. But, I fell in love with the Scholastic philosophers, especially through reading Edward Feser. I soon found Scholastic thinkers opening the door to ‘reincarnation’, such as Cardinal Mercier:

“This theory of metempsychosis, provided it allows that the soul retains through its successive reincarnations the consciousness of its own personality, and that the series at some time will have an end, cannot be shown by reason alone, we think, either to be impossible or even to be false. All that can be said is that there is not a single positive argument in its favour, and that our present ignorance of any previous existences is a strong presumption against a plurality of existences in the future.” - A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Vol. 1, London, Ed. 8, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1916 p. 326

It was in devouring Aquinas – whose broad metaphysics I came to wholeheartedly endorse – that I realized unless one had theological reason to think otherwise, there was a solid philosophical case for reincarnation. I’m no longer a Thomist, but I know many Catholics are. So, I thought I’d mention that reincarnation can certainly be grounded in Thomism.

That is interesting background. But I fail to see any evidence provided to show that reincarnation is true. Cardinal Mercier whatever his personal beliefs is merely unable to disprove reincarnation. He may think reincarnation may be a solution or an answer for other problems but he did not teach reincarnation as Church teaching. There may be others who have no problem in disproving or show the untenability of reincarnation.

No, reincarnation is NOT grounded in Thomism because Aquinas didn’t allow for souls to wander around after bodily death. For him, it is straight to hell/heaven/purgatory.

 

[Vico]

The words in RED is a fallacious conclusion from the statements leading it. None of Aquinas statements lead to the necessary conclusion of reincarnation. They certainly do not lead to the conclusion of multiple bodies sharing one soul over time. Since all new embryos come with their own unique souls, which mechanism will permit old body-less souls to hijack those new bodies? And what will happen to the fate of those new souls which has been ejected by those “reincarnated” souls? And for what purpose does body-hopping across time achieve for reincarnated souls? Who decides who get reincarnated? Aquinas context is very clear for the soul to incline to union with ITS own body and not other foreign bodies.
One should not presuppose that the body-less soul upon death of the material body is compelled by some mechanism to seek habitation again in some foreign body. There is no urgent need of the soul to find another physical container. Time is of no consequence or meaning to the soul after the physical body has died. I think you have misrepresent his writings or came to an unwarranted conclusion by disregarding his point on the soul immediate departure to heaven/hell/purgatory upon the body’s death.

The words in RED is another fallacious reasoning. You have not provided any evidence that his conclusion is compelled by his status as a Christian. He may well think the same even if he is not a Christian. Similarly it would be unbecoming of me to say that you support reincarnation just because you a pagan. He did say the soul departs immediately upon the body’s death to hell/heaven/purgatory. I didn’t find the reference to the soul immediately uniting with the body which is not true anyway. But since the souls do have a place to go, I failed to see how reincarnation can take place at all. The souls do eventually get reunited with the bodies. So there is no way that Aquinas has room for reincarnation at all since all souls immediately ends up in their proper places according to him.

That is interesting background. But I fail to see any evidence provided to show that reincarnation is true. Cardinal Mercier whatever his personal beliefs is merely unable to disprove reincarnation. He may think reincarnation may be a solution or an answer for other problems but he did not teach reincarnation as Church teaching. There may be others who have no problem in disproving or show the untenability of reincarnation.

No, reincarnation is NOT grounded in Thomism because Aquinas didn’t allow for souls to wander around after bodily death. For him, it is straight to hell/heaven/purgatory.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Summa Theologiae
Part III,
Question 59. Christ’s judiciary power
Article 5. Whether after the Judgment that takes place in the present time, there remains yet another General Judgment?

I answer that, Judgment cannot be passed perfectly upon any changeable subject before its consummation: just as judgment cannot be given perfectly regarding the quality of any action before its completion in itself and in its results: because many actions appear to be profitable, which in their effects prove to be hurtful. And in the same way perfect judgment cannot be passed upon any man before the close of his life, since he can be changed in many respects from good to evil, or conversely, or from good to better, or from evil to worse. Hence the Apostle says (Hebrews 9:27): “It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the Judgment.”

But it must be observed that although man’s temporal life in itself ends with death, still it continues dependent in a measure on what comes after it in the future. * In one way, as it still lives on in men’s memories, in which sometimes, contrary to the truth, good or evil reputations linger on. * In another way in a man’s children, who are so to speak something of their parent, according to Sirach 30:4: “His father is dead, and he is as if he were not dead, for he hath left one behind him that is like himself.” And yet many good men have wicked sons, and conversely. * Thirdly, as to the result of his actions: just as from the deceit of Arius and other false leaders unbelief continues to flourish down to the close of the world; and even until then faith will continue to derive its progress from the preaching of the apostles. * In a fourth way, as to the body, which is sometimes buried with honor and sometimes left unburied, and finally falls to dust utterly. * In a fifth way, as to the things upon which a man’s heart is set, such as temporal concerns, for example, some of which quickly lapse, while others endure longer.

Now all these things are submitted to the verdict of the Divine Judgment; and consequently, a perfect and public Judgment cannot be made of all these things during the course of this present time. Wherefore, there must be a final Judgment at the last day, in which everything concerning every man in every respect shall be perfectly and publicly judged.

newadvent.org/summa/4059.htm#article5

 

[Perplexity]

erricc: I think it would be helpful to first draw a couple of distinctions.

First, there’s a difference between this or that theory of reincarnation, and reincarnation as such. All the latter means is to incarnate again: it does not mean to incarnate again multiple times or into a different body – these are particular theories of reincarnation. As such, resurrection is a kind of reincarnation: it means to incarnate again, permanently and into the same body.

Second, there’s a difference between knowing that reincarnation occurs, and knowing how or why it occurs. The former is more important to me, and so I don’t get into the latter.

Bearing these points in mind, let’s take a look at what you said.

In the first place, you accuse me of committing a “fallacy” and say “[n]one of Aquinas statements lead to the necessary conclusion of reincarnation.” I’m guessing you mean I’ve committed the fallacy of non-sequitur. But, have I? Aquinas says we tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied and toward embodiment when we’re disembodied. Unless something intervenes, these tendencies will propel us through a cycle of death and re-birth, and that just is reincarnation.

You accuse me a second time of committing a “fallacy”, but this time on the basis of making a claim without showing that it is true. I must confess that I’ve never heard of this fallacy before. Interestingly, while you call it a fallacy to assert without evidence that Aquinas rejected multiple reincarnations for theological reasons, you then go on to assert without evidence Aquinas believed “the soul departs immediately upon the body’s death to hell/heaven/purgatory” which destinations are only believed in for theological reasons. As it stands, I know Aquinas believed this, which is why I said what I did.

Finally, you say that “Aquinas context is very clear for the soul to incline to union with ITS own body and not other foreign bodies.” Of course, this would only preclude theories of reincarnating into foreign bodies, it would not preclude reincarnating into the same body, nor doing so multiple times.

The issue between a “Pagan” theory of reincarnation and Thomism is whether we incarnate again into our body only once, and there’s just no good reason to think we do short of Christian theology.

 

[ChineseCatholic]

The issue between a “Pagan” theory of reincarnation and Thomism is whether we incarnate again into our body only once, and there’s just no good reason to think we do short of Christian theology.

Perhaps i can help Perplexity in this distinction making.

Ultimately, what Perplexity seems to have adopted in his previous iteration of philosophical thought (as opposed to his current Neoplatonism ) is the Scholastic system.

What he is rejecting is the Christian content added by Thomas Aquinas.

Stop and think for a second - this isn’t as odd as it may first appear.

Thomism, whether we are speaking of Aquinas’ heirs or of the saint himself, is an outgrowth of Aristotlean thought. Furthermore, we must remember that Thomas’ sources for Scholastic thinking was not just Aristotle.

He quotes Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Sina.

So think about that - 1 Pagan, 1 Muslim, The Greatest Philosopher of the Middle Ages (who happened to be a Muslim), and the Greatest Jewish Thinker of the Middle Ages.

Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Sina all used Aristotle’s ideas in defense of their own respective faiths with varying degrees of success.

Maimonides, while not considered -the- authority on all things Jews in the modern era, is still considered the most influential scholar and philosopher of Religious Judaism to-date.

Ibn Sina however suffered a fate similar to our own Origen of Alexandria. Branches of modern Islam tends to view him as a dangerous heretic. Its why when our own Catholic Theologians dialogue with Islam, we have an easier time of it with the Sufis and the Shi’ite Muslims (who still honor Ibn Sina and teach his works)…because we acutally share Common Categories with them.

Hell, technically Perplexity’s Scholastic Paganism would also be able to dialogue with them as well.

The best analogy i could come up with is… A Computer Operating System.

All our faiths at some point in time wanted the “Aristotle OS”. No faith ever accepted the “Aristotle OS” as Aristotle had it - we obviously modded it to fit our own religious predilections.

As Catholics, we are the only ones who continued improving and adding more “apps” and correcting errors in the system. Its why to a certain degree the “Aristotle OS” is almost exclusively ours at this point. Thomism may as well be the Windows to Aristotle’s DOS.

All Perplexity has done, was take “Thomism/Windows” and stripped out the Christian parts to it.

 

[Perplexity]

ChineseCatholic: Precisely Another analogy would be architecture. The middle ages were flooded by translations of Aristotle, and so these works formed the raw material out of which architects of reason built conceptual structures. Some used this material to build Cathedrals, and these were the Christians, others used it to build Synagogues, and these were the Jewish thinkers, still others used it to build Mosques, and these were the Muslim thinkers. There’s no reason why a Pagan couldn’t do the same to build a Temple – in fact, it might even be considered a returning of Aristotle to his own Paganism. But, just as Aristotle’s works could be used as raw material, so too can any philosopher’s, Aquinas’ included.

 

[ChineseCatholic]

in fact, it might even be considered a returning of Aristotle to his own Paganism.

That’s where the historian in me has to raise a quibble.

Remember how i said “Paganism is just a word for anything not Christian.” In which case its a catch-all term for anything coming out of Western Europe - Nordic beliefs, Graeco-Roman beliefs, etc.

You would have to establish first what Aristotle believed in order to claim you are returning him to something. And we all know that the Graeco-Roman Philosophic Schools tended to flout convention, including common religious mores.

Socrates was executed precisely because he was “corrupting the youth” with his strange notions. The Stoics turned all the Olympian Gods into allegories of natural forces.

Plotinus was so disruptive to “common religion” that it took one of his students students - Iamblichus, to restore Hellenistic religious practice (Theurgy) as a positive thing - whereas Plotinus himself didn’t regard it at all. In fact, if you read through Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus, there are multiple occasions when he simply shot down “conventional Hellenistic religion” in favor of his own philosophical musings.

But, just as Aristotle’s works could be used as raw material, so too can any philosopher’s, Aquinas’ included.

Well there are kind of limits i think - how could any religion use Karl Marx for instance to form a metaphysic?

Actually i’d love to see someone try that with Ayn Rand.

Incidentally, if you are an Augustinian or derive your theology from the Church Fathers like some of our own theologians or our Orthodox brethren - this isn’t an issue. In fact this is kind of the sticking point the Orthodox have with Thomism…

Same with Islam - the Kalam theologians ultimately felt the sojourn into Aristotle was proving fruitless.

 

[ericc]

erricc: I think it would be helpful to first draw a couple of distinctions.

First, there’s a difference between this or that theory of reincarnation, and reincarnation as such. All the latter means is to incarnate again: it does not mean to incarnate again multiple times or into a different body – these are particular theories of reincarnation. As such, resurrection is a kind of reincarnation: it means to incarnate again, permanently and into the same body.

Second, there’s a difference between knowing that reincarnation occurs, and knowing how or why it occurs. The former is more important to me, and so I don’t get into the latter.

Bearing these points in mind, let’s take a look at what you said.

In the first place, you accuse me of committing a “fallacy” and say “[n]one of Aquinas statements lead to the necessary conclusion of reincarnation.” I’m guessing you mean I’ve committed the fallacy of non-sequitur. But, have I? Aquinas says we tend toward disembodiment when we’re embodied and toward embodiment when we’re disembodied. Unless something intervenes, these tendencies will propel us through a cycle of death and re-birth, and that just is reincarnation.

Since no definition of reincarnation was given initially, I assumed the most frequent meaning of union of a pre-existing soul into a new embryo of new parents.

(A) Aquinas nowhere mention that these tendencies will manifest in a cycle of death and rebirth, at least not in the references that you quoted. And that was the fallacy I pointed out and you probably miss the point in your reply. . If you have other references, you should provide them to make the discussion relevant. Or is that an extrapolation?

(B) Reunion of a soul with its own original body is not reincarnation by usual methods of reckoning. That is resurrection. The 2 references of ST that you quoted, pertain to the chapters on Resurrection. So which definition of reincarnation do you actually hold 1) pre-existing soul injected into a new embryo by new parents or 2)resurrection (old soul + old body) or 3) other configuration?

If you subscribe to 2) I am ok with the content but not the title because it causes unnecessary confusion because there was no prior definition of reincarnation to include resurrection. But if you hold 1) then you have to prove that Aquinas actually holds that view, and not something that you extrapolated. You must bear in mind that Aquinas holds the immediate departure of soul to heaven/hell/purgatory upon death of the body. Hence, I can’t see Aquinas holding view 1).

(C)Tendencies towards embodiment does not equate to immediate effect. Aquinas refers to the embodiment in the resurrection and not prior to it.

(D) Please elaborate “these tendencies will propel us through a cycle of death and re-birth”. In your philosophical world, what happens to the soul and in which body would the soul be birthed in. Same body or different body? Without knowing your stance, it is difficult to understand where Aquinas fits into the scheme of things, where he comes in , where he gets left out.

You accuse me a second time of committing a “fallacy”, but this time on the basis of making a claim without showing that it is true. I must confess that I’ve never heard of this fallacy before. Interestingly, while you call it a fallacy to assert without evidence that Aquinas rejected multiple reincarnations for theological reasons, you then go on to assert without evidence Aquinas believed “the soul departs immediately upon the body’s death to hell/heaven/purgatory” which destinations are only believed in for theological reasons. As it stands, I know Aquinas believed this, which is why I said what I did.

The fallacy is your objection to Aquinas is BECAUSE he is a Christian and not because he is proven wrong.(I think they called it genetic fallacy, or fallacy of origins, I am not sure) You have not proven what he wrote was wrong. There may be other Christian denominations that may believe reincarnation is true. If I say that person can not be trusted because he is a vegetarian Buddhist means nothing in actuality. I have proven nothing.

1. Aquinas believed that the souls immediately depart to heaven/hell/purgatory upon the body’s death. See ST Q69 "Whether souls are conveyed to heaven or hell immediately after death?
2. Aquinas believe that the soul and the body reunites on resurrection.
3. If 1 and 2 are correct then is not possible for Aquinas to hold a cycle of death and rebirth i.e reincarnation prior to resurrection.

I am not arguing whether Aquinas beliefs are true or not. I am arguing that his beliefs do not permit cycles of reincarnation of deaths and rebirths. Hence, Aquinas did not believe in cycle of deaths and rebirths prior to resurrection. Unless I am mistaken, you appear to. Since he believe in the resurrection, his writings did not permit in an immediate unity of soul and original body till resurrection day.

Finally, you say that “Aquinas context is very clear for the soul to incline to union with ITS own body and not other foreign bodies.” Of course, this would only preclude theories of reincarnating into foreign bodies, it would not preclude reincarnating into the same body, nor doing so multiple times.

Aquinas only wrote about a one-time reunion of soul and its body during resurrection. Aquinas never wrote about multiple resurrections. I just couldn’t see how reuniting old souls in old (but rejunenated) bodies can be deemed reincarnation because there is no new birth. Just 2 parts (body and soul) coming together again. There is no “growing up” stage. Perhaps you could elaborate how reincarnating several times in same body works in your world, especially if the original body already turned to ashes.

cont’d

 

[ericc]

cont’

The issue between a “Pagan” theory of reincarnation and Thomism is whether we incarnate again into our body only once, and there’s just no good reason to think we do short of Christian theology.

I am not disallowing your take on reincarnation. I want to be clear so that other readers will not be confused on what Aquinas wrote is really concerning Final Resurrection in Catholic lingo. But in your world, you may call it single reincarnation but I think not many view it in those terms. For most, reincarnation is injecting old souls in new embryos from new parents. Jesus wasn’t considered reincarnated when he rose from the dead nor was he considered reborn.

But it would be interesting to hear your take on how reincarnation work in your world.

 

[ericc]

Perhaps i can help Perplexity in this distinction making.

Ultimately, what Perplexity seems to have adopted in his previous iteration of philosophical thought (as opposed to his current Neoplatonism ) is the Scholastic system.

What he is rejecting is the Christian content added by Thomas Aquinas.

Stop and think for a second - this isn’t as odd as it may first appear.

Thomism, whether we are speaking of Aquinas’ heirs or of the saint himself, is an outgrowth of Aristotlean thought. Furthermore, we must remember that Thomas’ sources for Scholastic thinking was not just Aristotle.

He quotes Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Sina.

So think about that - 1 Pagan, 1 Muslim, The Greatest Philosopher of the Middle Ages (who happened to be a Muslim), and the Greatest Jewish Thinker of the Middle Ages.

Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, and Ibn Sina all used Aristotle’s ideas in defense of their own respective faiths with varying degrees of success.

Maimonides, while not considered -the- authority on all things Jews in the modern era, is still considered the most influential scholar and philosopher of Religious Judaism to-date.

Ibn Sina however suffered a fate similar to our own Origen of Alexandria. Branches of modern Islam tends to view him as a dangerous heretic. Its why when our own Catholic Theologians dialogue with Islam, we have an easier time of it with the Sufis and the Shi’ite Muslims (who still honor Ibn Sina and teach his works)…because we acutally share Common Categories with them.

Hell, technically Perplexity’s Scholastic Paganism would also be able to dialogue with them as well.

The best analogy i could come up with is… A Computer Operating System.

All our faiths at some point in time wanted the “Aristotle OS”. No faith ever accepted the “Aristotle OS” as Aristotle had it - we obviously modded it to fit our own religious predilections.

As Catholics, we are the only ones who continued improving and adding more “apps” and correcting errors in the system. Its why to a certain degree the “Aristotle OS” is almost exclusively ours at this point. Thomism may as well be the Windows to Aristotle’s DOS.

All Perplexity has done, was take “Thomism/Windows” and stripped out the Christian parts to it.

But that is different from what was being alleged: That Aquinas somehow permitted reincarnation (in the traditional sense) in his philosophy. I am saying not possible because Aquinas did not leave room for reincarnation at all since the departed soul is “tied up” in heaven/hell/purgatory upon bodily death till resurrection.

I am not even arguing whether his theology is right or not. Cutting out particular bits and presenting it in a way not intended by Aquinas is akin to proof texting. We must consider the whole context in how Aquinas present his stuff otherwise we do a disservice to his intention.

 

[ChineseCatholic]

But that is different from what was being alleged: That Aquinas somehow permitted reincarnation (in the traditional sense) in his philosophy. I am saying not possible because Aquinas did not leave room for reincarnation at all since the departed soul is “tied up” in heaven/hell/purgatory upon bodily death till resurrection.

I am not even arguing whether his theology is right or not. Cutting out particular bits and presenting it in a way not intended by Aquinas is akin to proof texting. We must consider the whole context in how Aquinas present his stuff otherwise we do a disservice to his intention.

Well you can see his own response to my post.

Either. A.) he’s being provocative by using “Thomism” as a phrase to summarize what
He took from Thomism.

Or B.) he hadn’t thought it through although from the title of the article he wrote
It probably best to call what he’s created “Scholastic Paganism” than saying
He’s following Thomas Aquinas.
Or. C.). he’s trolling

Be at ease - no formal academic, secular or religious, would ever state Thomas Aquinas believed in reincarnation. Heck, Perplexity even stated Aquinas didn’t, he merely took his logic in a different direction.

It’s like how Ibn Sina and Maimonides follow Al-Kindi and Al-Farabi on their ideas of the Active Intellect and how Aquinas dissects that bit out by basing his objections within the context of Aristotles own logic and makin a wholely separate argument as to what the Active Intellect or Agent Intellect is.

But given that the kid only got so far before jumping ship and moving onto NeoPlatonism, I don’t think you are going to find any formal statements a la Summa Pagan Theologica.

He can speak for himself,d of course - although I think you’d both be beating a dead horse at this point.

He isn’t even a Scholastic anymore.