J
JoeT777
Guest
Just thinking out loud:
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus seems to give good reason for belief in the immortal soul.
It follows, in my opinion, as a necessary consequence, that what is simple is immortal. And as to how that follows, hear my explanation: Nothing that exists is its own corrupter, else it could never have had any thorough consistency, even from the beginning. For things that are subject to corruption are corrupted by contraries: wherefore everything that is corrupted is subject to dissolution; and what is subject to dissolution is compound; and what is compound is of many parts; and what is made up of parts manifestly is made up of diverse parts; and the diverse is not the identical: consequently the soul, being simple, and not being made up of diverse parts, but being uncompound and indissoluble, must be, in virtue of that, incorruptible and immortal.[St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, On the Soul]
As you may notice he seems to start in circular logic only to come out of his spiral at the end using Occam.'s razor, the simplest answer is most always the correct answer. St. Gregory says that the soul is the simplest of things and incorruptible, like mortal flesh, and thus the soul is incorruptible and immortal. This doesn’t satisfy me, but none the less acceptable.
ST. Gregory continues.
Besides, everything that is put in action by something else, and does not possess the principle of life in itself, but gets it from that which puts it in action, endures just so long as it is held by the power that operates in it; and whenever the operative power ceases, that also comes to a stand which has its capacity of action from it. But the soul, being self-acting, has no cessation of its being. For it follows, that what is self-acting is ever-acting; and what is ever-acting is unceasing; and what is unceasing is without end; and what is without end is incorruptible; and what is incorruptible is immortal. Consequently, if the soul is self-acting, as has been shown above, it follows that it is incorruptible and immortal, in accordance with the mode of reasoning already expressed.[St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, On the Soul]
This is Plato’s argument that what is immortal are things that move. Thus the soul is placed in motion, it is moved, and itself is the mover animating the body. ST. Thomas argues this can’t be true. Because what is both the mover and the moved must have two parts, one moving, the other being moved. But, the souls is not a body, it is not moved, of course, except by grace or by accident. Secondly, St. Thomas says nothing can be the act of a potential act. Furthermore, since movement induces sensation and understanding we can not simultaneously know and come to know at the same time - in any event the sensation of movement requires the senses, i.e. the body. So it seems that the soul placed in movement must has an infinity for its body, they must co-exist in a person to be moved. [Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles]
And further, everything that is not corrupted by the evil proper to itself, is incorruptible; and the evil is opposed to the good, and is consequently its corrupter. For the evil of the body is nothing else than suffering, and disease, and death; just as, on the other hand, its excellency is beauty, life, health, and vigour. If, therefore, the soul is not corrupted by the evil proper to itself, and the evil of the soul is cowardice, intemperance, envy, and the like, and all these things do not despoil it of its powers of life and action, it follows that it is immortal.[St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, On the Soul]
St. Thomas seems to solve the problem ever so simply without assigning the belief in the immortal soul to reason. Instead he seems to suggest there are just those things we need to take at face value, and the belief in the immortal soul is one of those things.
Consider this dear brothers: there were many philosophers who spoke many things belonging to faith, and you will scarcely find two philosophers agreeing upon one opinion; and any one of them that did say something true, did not speak without an admixture of error. A little old woman now knows more about what belongs to faith than all the philosophers once knew. We read that Pythagoras began as a boxer; he heard his teacher discuss the immortality of the soul, asserting that the soul was immortal, and he was so enthralled that after having forsaken everything, he dedicated himself to the study of philosophy. But what little old woman is there today who does not know that the soul is immortal? Faith is capable of much more than philosophy, consequently if philosophy contradicts faith, it must not to be accepted, as the Apostle to the Colossians says: See to it that no one deceive you by philosophy and empty deceit. Let no one seduce you, willing, walking in the things which he has not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, not holding the head, that is Christ. [St. Thomas Aquinas, Sermon Attendite]
JoeT
