Soul as substantial form of the body

[toaslan]

I am invoking the philosopher’s code: I know nothing about which I was about to speak but thought better of it. Hiya! Howrya?

Hey-ya!

 

[Nullasalus]

Nullasalus, having read some of your other posts I am left with the impression that you have a keen interest in quantum mechanics and theoretical physics.

Keen eye. I’ve been browsing Richard Conn Henry’s site today - not a Catholic, though he does seem to have one nice comment in passing to share about the Pope, and has an interesting perspective on QM & the rest.

More books for my pile! Thank you for the recommendations. Absorbing all this will be a challenge, but a worthwhile one.

 

[toaslan]

Thomas is very accessible. He may be a bit difficult and dry as bones at first, but once you slog through a little bit, it suddenly becomes easily.

Rob, you are So right! Once you get into the zone, which takes a plunge and trust, it all works.

He also approaches things taking into account as much possible conflicting data and interpretations-- he really is an ideal model of how philosophy should be conducted (in that regard).

I agree–and I cannot imagine any regard in which Thomas is not a model of how to do philosophy.

For a pretty easy and self-contained read from St. Thomas, may I suggest his Treatise on Law (Summa Theologica, Part I of the Second Part, after Treatise on Habits). Here he explores the nature of law, and distinguishes human law from natural and eternal law. After one reads this treatise, one is better able to answer, e.g., the question, “should we have a law outlawing marijuana?”

As for Aristotle-- I agree as well. I recently began to read his Physics, which after a bit of a tough start is becoming a good read as well. Although I’d say to start with Ethics, which I also found a bit slow at first. However, once one gets a grasp of the material it becomes fun and entertaining to read. I still love book three on voluntary actions and choice.

Wow, amazing, you read Aristotle–that bodes well for Western Civilization! no Prior and Posterior Analytics (yeah, well, I was forced to read them)? Sooo good you did the Physics before the Metaphysics–people tend to want to jump ahead to the end of the story first! Yes, Aristotle For All!

I’ve heard that much of the reason Thomism became stale at some points was because of, “Thomists” who had become so buried in the arguments of their school. There is a huge difference, it must be said, between Thomas and Thomists, at points.

I guess you are right.

As regards man’s form, it is his soul, but more properly, can’t one say it is his intellect, which for Thomas is what makes man what man is?

Well, Thomas would say, with Aristotle, that the soul is both Intellect and Will (further distinguishing in both various powers/properties).

Anybody got a problem with a blade of grass having a soul???

 

[toaslan]

One of the most important things to remember is that St. Thomas is speaking in the most basic way possible, and he intends his terms to be taken in an almost simplistic way. Once you have that understanding you can follow him as he builds up his arguments; trying to assume too much nuance in the words can actually make the matters unintelligible.

Ghosty, I think this is good advice… to just start and let the context fill the terms as you go along… we can trust Thomas to lead well in all matters of principle, so this approach is valid.

 

[cpayne]

I am invoking the philosopher’s code: I know nothing about which I was about to speak but thought better of it. Hiya! Howrya?

Hey there! You know, I don’t think I’ve ever let lack of knowledge of a subject stop me from having a DEFINITE opinion on it. Also sharing that opinion with everyone around me.

Hey, wait, everybody! Come back! I’m not done yet!

 

[cpayne]

P.P.S. As regards man’s form, it is his soul, but more properly, can’t one say it is his intellect, which for Thomas is what makes man what man is?

The human form is equivalent to the intellectual soul / rational soul (as opposed to the vegetative soul, which = a living being, and the animal soul, which = a living, self-directed being). The intellectual soul = a living, self-directed, RATIONAL being. On this earth, that’s humans. So yes to the question.

 

[cpayne]

With regards to Aquinas, I think I’d do what someone else suggested. Rather than saying, “I shall read the Summa Theologica,” just read one of the treatises therein, like the Treatise on Law or the Treatise on God. It is still sort of long, but not overwhelming. Then move to another one.

 

[cpayne]

I just wanted to get four posts in a row—a personal record.

 

[RobNY]

Yep. With Thomas, reading him on law is a good place to start-- it’s where I did. Check for a copy of the book, Thomas Aquinas on Law, Morality and Politics, which is what I used. It’s really helped me in how I think about things, even if I’m not sure I always agree with him. His view of natural law is not simplistic or facile, and quite honestly, it is a very respectable position.

Then it just gets easier to drop by on individual questions, which I’ve done for other theological questions.

Wow, amazing, you read Aristotle–that bodes well for Western Civilization! no Prior and Posterior Analytics (yeah, well, I was forced to read them)? Sooo good you did the Physics before the Metaphysics–people tend to want to jump ahead to the end of the story first! Yes, Aristotle For All!

Haha, yeah. Well, I read his Ethics for class. It’s really the best place to start.

I haven’t read his logical works-- except a few pages out of categories. I did take an Aristotelian logic course recently, and so I figure that after I finish Physics I’ll read as much from the Organon as I can. Whatever McKeon’s Basic Works has in it, and it has substantial portions.

Metaphysics… I’d like to get to that, probably after those two, but I may want to tackle on generation and corruption or de anima first. Metaphysics really is first-- as the study of being as being it is the broadest and most foundational science, but as far as a beginner being able to understand it, it is truly last. McKeon’s introduction makes perfect sense-- we need to start at the easier to read philosophy, and then work backwards, as it was, to the more foundational philosophy. And then we need to look back on it, and read what we already read in light of the more foundational philosophy.

cpayne-- thanks for the answer. As for four posts-- on the other forum I frequent even double posting is prohibited. At first it used to surprise me to see people doing so, but now it hardly makes me blink. Quadruple posting! Haha.

-Rob

 

[toaslan]

I’ll read as much from the Organon as I can…I may want to tackle on generation and corruption or de anima first. Metaphysics …as far as a beginner being able to understand it… is truly last.

ditto! You’re on the trip of a lifetime

 

[toaslan]

The human form is equivalent to the intellectual soul / rational soul (as opposed to the vegetative soul, which = a living being, and the animal soul, which = a living, self-directed being). The intellectual soul = a living, self-directed, RATIONAL being. On this earth, that’s humans. So yes to the question.

Well put. And, man’s Intellectual Soul (which is the form of his body) may be understood as having two main powers, the intellect and the will. The intellect can be understood as having two main powers, the speculative and the practical intellects…the former being the ability to discern what is a good end or purpose, the latter being the ability to weigh and measure the best means to that end…

 

[toaslan]

As for Aristotle–…I’d say to start with Ethics, which I also found a bit slow at first. However, once one gets a grasp of the material it becomes fun and entertaining to read. I still love book three on voluntary actions and choice.

Had to quickly respond to this–I thought his Nic. Ethics started out with a bang–all that rummaging through popular opinion to come up with the top five answers to the question, “What is Happiness?” I love how Aristotle always starts with what people think and experience–he expects there to be something true there, which just needs to be sifted and worked to uncover the gold. There is a humility which is not only wise but endearing!

 

[RobNY]

Had to quickly respond to this–I thought his Nic. Ethics started out with a bang–all that rummaging through popular opinion to come up with the top five answers to the question, “What is Happiness?” I love how Aristotle always starts with what people think and experience–he expects there to be something true there, which just needs to be sifted and worked to uncover the gold. There is a humility which is not only wise but endearing!

In retrospect… yes. But at first I was still in shock as to the stark difference of his writing and style as compared to everything else I had read before that it was hard to notice. Now, I find his first sentence… every art aims at some good… the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim," Now that’s a brilliant first sentence. What a way to start!

 

[Greg27]

Does anyone know of a Thomist analysis of Kant, Husserl, and Heidigger? That would be interesting as these thinkers I find very interesting, from a philosophical point of view.

 

[toaslan]

… every art aims at some good… the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim," Now that’s a brilliant first sentence. What a way to start!

Genius!!!

 

[cpayne]

Does anyone know of a Thomist analysis of Kant, Husserl, and Heidigger? That would be interesting as these thinkers I find very interesting, from a philosophical point of view.

I am unpacking my office–I’ll get back to you on this. I have Maritain and Gilson on my mind, but am unsure.

 

[tdgesq]

Does anyone know of a Thomist analysis of Kant, Husserl, and Heidigger? That would be interesting as these thinkers I find very interesting, from a philosophical point of view.

Jacques Maritain does treat some of Kant’s ideas in both his An Introduction to Philosophy and in The Degrees of Knowledge. These books are about a whole lot more than that, but Degrees especially gives a fairly unfavorable critique of Kant’s ontology.

Karl Rahner in Foundations of Christian Faith actually tries to synthesize Heidegger’s existentialism with Thomism. Rahner was a student (literally) of Heidegger. Although I found it very interesting and compelling, some Thomists criticize it as a monumental failure. You’d just have to read it and make your own call. Both Degrees and Foundations were a difficult read (for me anyway).