Souls

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

Exactly, you know its form in the human mind. It doesn’t only exist in *your *mind, but in *all *minds–therefore it has objective immaterial reality.
And you’re right, a form does not exist as some ‘separate’ entity–it is always attached to the object it inheres.

Indeed. What you are calling forms I would prefer to call (useful) conceptual abstractions; so long as we understand each other there’s no problem in differing terminology.

All this algebraic formulation aside, a soul is simply an immaterial reality–a formal cause of an animate object.The ‘properties’ of a soul are known through its physical body–its material extension. I don’t know how else to explain it. It’s like trying to answer ‘what is an idea?’ There are innumerably different kinds of ideas, and the only commonality is they are all immaterial.

…

I’m just not certain than we need to invoke immaterial causes to explain life as previously described.

I didn’t mean to be “algebraic,” but it was shorter than using words. I just was trying to point out that, as defined, it does not follow from the definition of “soul” that the soul is what causes life.

God is perfectly logical. He cannot create a rock bigger than He can lift ; therefore, I don’t beleive He could create a human being without a human soul. Doesn’t make any sense.
If some material thing has the physical form of a human then it is human. If that human is animate, is alive, then it must have a human soul. Whether that soul demonstrates spiritual properties (i.e. intellect, free-will and self-identity) would depend–as I mentioned in an above post–on whether the body is properly formed (i.e. no physical defects esp. brain damage).

To tell the truth, I think that the question about the rock really is a silly question (I’m actually so arguing on a thread at Infidels, but that’s besides the point). But given that it does not follow from the definition of soul (it only could, I think, if the definition were trivial, and it could in fact turn out that “soul” refers to some material thing; but since you’ve said that the soul is immaterial, the definition is not trivial) that all living things have souls, then I imagine there’s no contradiction in God creating such a thing.

No surprise there, figuring you’re an atheist. In Christianity, Plato’s transcendent realm of forms is perfected in the mind of God.

Indeed.

As a note, I’m not sure if you said this, but:
If you said that the soul is simply the “form” of humans - the conceptual category into which they are all lumped - then I think something is wrong in that you also seemed to indicate that the soul was a “real” entity - that it exists outside of the mind. If you didn’t say that, just ignore this section.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

vz71:

I am sure others will correct me if my reasoning is wrong here, but…
This ‘thing’ would necessarily be non-human.
Since a soul is part of the very definition of human.

Would we actually be able to differentiate the human from the non-human? Maybe, maybe not. It is impossible to say given that there is no means of ‘soul-detecting.’

…

Well, I don’t recall ever specifying that SusanB was human, just that she was physically/materially as simlar to SusanA as I am to you (if I did, it was probably a linguistic mistake - and if so, sorry for the confusion). That aside, thanks for your answer - mind if I ask why you hold that view?

 

[vz71]

EnterTheBowser:

Well, I don’t recall ever specifying that SusanB was human, just that she was physically/materially as simlar to SusanA as I am to you (if I did, it was probably a linguistic mistake - and if so, sorry for the confusion). That aside, thanks for your answer - mind if I ask why you hold that view?

Which view?
The one concerning the humanity of the being with no soul,
Or the view that we do not have a means of detecting the soul.

Z

 

[EnterTheBowser]

vz71:

Which view?

…

Or the view that we do not have a means of detecting the soul.

Z

That one

; )

 

[vz71]

The soul is the life principle of the human body.
Assuming a person is alive, and human, we would know for certain that they have a soul.

But that does not mean that an angel (or devil) could not take on the appearance of humanity. And given the capabilities of either, I have little doubt that should we stumble upon a means of detecting a soul, they (angel or devil) would be able to fool the test.

Z

 

[EnterTheBowser]

vz71:

The soul is the life principle of the human body.

…

This relates what I was saying to Neithan: if that is how you’re defining “soul,” then the soul might turn out to be entirely material; it might turn out to be space women on Mars; it might turn out to be any number of things. But I don’t think you mean to say that - I think you mean to say “the soul is this immaterial thing etc etc and when we examine the world we find that the thing which animates humans is this particular immaterial etc etc thing.”

 

[vz71]

EnterTheBowser:

This relates what I was saying to Neithan: if that is how you’re defining “soul,” then the soul might turn out to be entirely material; it might turn out to be space women on Mars; it might turn out to be any number of things. But I don’t think you mean to say that - I think you mean to say “the soul is this immaterial thing etc etc and when we examine the world we find that the thing which animates humans is this particular immaterial etc etc thing.”

No, I do not believe the soul to be a material anything.
I believe it to be the life principle of the body. What differentiates dead from alive. But more then that, because this life principle can also exist apart from the body (it is spirit, after all).

But I believe this is getting pretty far away from your original question: How would you differentiate from two seperate beings, each identical physically, one with a soul, the other without?

Answer: I wouldn’t. I would treat each the same and let God sort it out.

Z

 

[EnterTheBowser]

vz71:

No, I do not believe the soul to be a material anything.
I believe it to be the life principle of the body. What differentiates dead from alive. But more then that, because this life principle can also exist apart from the body (it is spirit, after all).

But I believe this is getting pretty far away from your original question: How would you differentiate from two seperate beings, each identical physically, one with a soul, the other without?

Answer: I wouldn’t. I would treat each the same and let God sort it out.

Z

Well, it became an issue because the argument cropped up that SusanB would be dead because she had no soul. I didn’t think this was true, so I said a lot of stuff about definitions.

That aside, I’m curious why you hold the view you hold.

 

[vz71]

Again, which view?

The soul being the life principle of the body, or the view that I would treat either the same and let God sort it out?

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

I’m just not certain than we need to invoke immaterial causes to explain life as previously described.

I didn’t mean to be “algebraic,” but it was shorter than using words. I just was trying to point out that, as defined, it does not follow from the definition of “soul” that the soul is what causes life.

Well I personally invoke God as the ultimate immaterial cause of all life–the *efficient *and *final *cause. The soul is merely the *formal *cause, and the body is the *material *cause. This is how Catholics generally think of it since Thomas Aquinas–very Aristotelian. It works IMO.

So yes, the soul *is *what causes life–but only in a formal manner. Matter is obviously the material cause of it.

But given that it does not follow from the definition of soul (it only could, I think, if the definition were trivial, and it could in fact turn out that “soul” refers to some material thing; but since you’ve said that the soul is immaterial, the definition is not trivial) that all living things have souls, then I imagine there’s no contradiction in God creating such a thing.

Yes there is a contradiction–you cannot create a material [Xa] without it having the form [Xb]. A human being (X) must have the form of a human being [Xb] or else it isn’t human [Xa] at all. A basketball that looks and feels completely like a baseball isn’t a basketball anymore.
All human souls are necessarily spiritual. At least, that is my take on it (I don’t exactly have a degree in theology yet).

As a note, I’m not sure if you said this, but:
If you said that the soul is simply the “form” of humans - the conceptual category into which they are all lumped - then I think something is wrong in that you also seemed to indicate that the soul was a “real” entity - that it exists outside of the mind. If you didn’t say that, just ignore this section.

Well a soul is the formal cause of one particular human more specifically. We are running into opposing metaphysics here; as far as I can tell, you are a material monist whereas Catholics are moderate dualists. As a result I get the feeling that you are locked into a corporeal analysis, which won’t lead you anywhere. A *form *does actually exist as a part of the material object–as an actual immaterial reality attached to it, which we *recognise *in our minds.
A human soul *contains *a spirit. So within the immaterial entity of the human soul attached to his/her body is a spiritual entity which consists of

• Free-Will
• Intellect
• Self-Identity

That is the uniqueness of man–his soul is not simply the formal cause of his body, but contains a ‘rational principle,’ a spirit which controls that body. This is *within *the soul and makes up the form.

Man is a spiritual animal.

When a human being dies (according to Catholic theology) his physical form, or that part of his soul pertaining to his body, dissipates with that body, like with all animals; however, because Man’s soul also contains this unique spiritual principle, we believe that the identity of a dead human persists–albeit in an immaterial, disembodied form.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

vz71:

Again, which view?

The soul being the life principle of the body, or the view that I would treat either the same and let God sort it out?

The view that, if we were to meet the two Susans, there’s no way to figure out which one is SusanA and which SusanB.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

Well I personally invoke God as the ultimate immaterial cause of all life–the *efficient *and *final *cause. The soul is merely the *formal *cause, and the body is the *material *cause. This is how Catholics generally think of it since Thomas Aquinas–very Aristotelian. It works IMO.

So yes, the soul *is *what causes life–but only in a formal manner. Matter is obviously the material cause of it.

Here are four views, and it’s good to distinguish between them:
1: The soul could be the animating principle of life
2: The animating principle of life could be merely material
3: The soul is the animating principle of life
4: The animating principle of life is merely material

Obviously you are denying 4; are you also denying 2?

Yes there is a contradiction–you cannot create a material [Xa] without it having the form [Xb]. A human being (X) must have the form of a human being [Xb] or else it isn’t human [Xa] at all. A basketball that looks and feels completely like a baseball isn’t a basketball anymore.
All human souls are necessarily spiritual. At least, that is my take on it (I don’t exactly have a degree in theology yet).

Well a soul is the formal cause of one particular human more specifically. We are running into opposing metaphysics here; as far as I can tell, you are a material monist whereas Catholics are moderate dualists. As a result I get the feeling that you are locked into a corporeal analysis, which won’t lead you anywhere. A *form *does actually exist as a part of the material object–as an actual immaterial reality attached to it, which we *recognise *in our minds.

…

This seems to be a little different than what you had previously said on the subject. I was under the impression that these forms are just (useful) conceptual abstractions that pretty much all humans share, because we’re presented with pretty much the same evidence and are wired in pretty much the same way. I did not think you said that they were a thing which exists outside of the mind. Sorry for misinterpreting.

At this point, there’s no choice but go metaphysical - so why do you hold the view that you do? Why should we say that these forms are actually existent, immaterial entities, rather than created by and subsistent on human minds?

 

[Neithan]

EnterTheBowser:

Here are four views, and it’s good to distinguish between them:
1: The soul could be the animating principle of life
2: The animating principle of life could be merely material
3: The soul is the animating principle of life
4: The animating principle of life is merely material

Obviously you are denying 4; are you also denying 2?

I’m not denying 2–it could be merely material. This particular dogma is scientifically falsifiable, as I’ve already mentioned in my first post above. I’m just really confident that it isn’t only material–otherwise death would simply not be a problem for us, alas, resuscitation has only a small window of opportunity before the soul dissipates and death is final.

Obviously you deny 3; are you also denying 1?

At this point, there’s no choice but go metaphysical - so why do you hold the view that you do? Why should we say that these forms are actually existent, immaterial entities, rather than created by and subsistent on human minds?

Good question! Since you don’t respect Aristotle all that much, I’m not sure you will really like the answer; but this article explains it pretty well from a Catholic perspective.

Basically, because the material of an object itself is truly extrinsic to the mind (I assume you share that belief), then its form must also be extrinsic. The material object is apprehended by our material senses, and the immaterial form by our immaterial intellect. Without form, then matter would be pure chaos–just a bunch of random stuff without any order to it.

If the form of matter is only in your mind, what basis do you justify belief that matter itself is not only in your mind? How do you argue against idealism?

 

[LatinCat]

EnterTheBowser:

I’m curious to hear a Catholic perspective on this question:

Let’s say that we’re not really sure if Susan has a soul. How would we go about figuring out if she does or not? Or, equivalently, how would we tell the difference between SusanA, who has a soul, and SusanB, who is physically identical to SusanA, but has no soul?

It is simple. I have thoughts in my head. Thoughts are immaterial. They have no weight, length, breadth, and hight. My material body is material. Therefore, it cannot be the source of my thoughts. But still have those thoughts. They must have a source and that source must be immaterial. For the sake of discussion, lets call any substantial thing that is immaterial, spiritual. So the source of my thoughts must be spiritual. My material body does not possess spirituality, and a thing cannot give what it does not have. So I must have a spiritual component that produces my immaterial yet substantial thoughts. I call this my soul.

 

[Neithan]

This particular dogma is scientifically falsifiable

I should mention that–AFAIK–according to Catholic doctrine the plant/animal vegetative/sensitive soul is corporeal, so I’m not sure how you would empirically falsify that, because it’s basically just saying that the immaterial form of a plant/animal is such that it is alive/animated.
Now, the *human *spiritual soul is easier to disprove, because all scientists need to do is either reanimate a dead human body OR construct an artificial lifeform which clearly demonstrates genuine free-will, intellect and self-identity.

 

[LatinCat]

Neithan:

I should mention that–AFAIK–according to Catholic doctrine the plant/animal vegetative/sensitive soul is corporeal, so I’m not sure how you would empirically falsify that, because it’s basically just saying that the immaterial form of a plant/animal is such that it is alive/animated.
Now, the *human *spiritual soul is easier to disprove, because all scientists need to do is either reanimate a dead human body OR construct an artificial lifeform which clearly demonstrates genuine free-will, intellect and self-identity.

Lets see them try

 

[Neithan]

LatinCat:

Lets see them try

I’m sure they will! I figure with human reanimation it’s win-win

 

[EnterTheBowser]

LatinCat:

It is simple. I have thoughts in my head. Thoughts are immaterial. They have no weight, length, breadth, and hight. My material body is material. Therefore, it cannot be the source of my thoughts. But still have those thoughts. They must have a source and that source must be immaterial. For the sake of discussion, lets call any substantial thing that is immaterial, spiritual. So the source of my thoughts must be spiritual. My material body does not possess spirituality, and a thing cannot give what it does not have. So I must have a spiritual component that produces my immaterial yet substantial thoughts. I call this my soul.

That does not exactly answer my question - I’m not asking, “If you were SusanB, how would you figure out that you had a soul?” I’m asking how we would tell SusanA and SusanB apart, given that we’re neither of them.

And in response to what you said, I want to take a line from JJC Smart:

Imagine some dude way back when, when Copernicus proposed that the Sun goes around the Earth. Now, this dude doesn’t like this conclusion, so he makes the following argument. “The Sun is something that rises and sets. But if the Earth goes around the Sun, the Sun can’t really rise. Therefore, the Earth does not go around the Sun. QED.”

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Neithan:

I’m not denying 2–it could be merely material. This particular dogma is scientifically falsifiable, as I’ve already mentioned in my first post above. I’m just really confident that it isn’t only material–otherwise death would simply not be a problem for us, alas, resuscitation has only a small window of opportunity before the soul dissipates and death is final.

Obviously you deny 3; are you also denying 1?

No, I do not deny 1.

Good question! Since you don’t respect Aristotle all that much, I’m not sure you will really like the answer; but this article explains it pretty well from a Catholic perspective.

If I implied that I disrespect Aristotle, I regret it. I merely think he was wrong about some things; I admit that he was a major philosopher. Hell, out of all the ethical theories I’ve learned about, virtue ethics (albeit in its modern incarnation) is the one most appealing to me (though I am currently wondering more about problems of justification in ethics in general than about specific systems).

Basically, because the material of an object itself is truly extrinsic to the mind (I assume you share that belief), then its form must also be extrinsic. The material object is apprehended by our material senses, and the immaterial form by our immaterial intellect. Without form, then matter would be pure chaos–just a bunch of random stuff without any order to it.

Indeed, it is the use of forms that make the world intelligible - that seperate it into classes similar enough that general principles can be derived. But I do not buy the argument “if X is extrinsic, then the form of X must be extrinsic (to the mind).” Why should I accept that - given the following view of forms?

I would say that objects precede forms. The objects are as they are; we then see these objects and lump them into sets based on certain general characteristics and call these sets forms.

If the form of matter is only in your mind, what basis do you justify belief that matter itself is not only in your mind? How do you argue against idealism?

I do not see the connection.

 

[LatinCat]

EnterTheBowser:

That does not exactly answer my question - I’m not asking, “If you were SusanB, how would you figure out that you had a soul?” I’m asking how we would tell SusanA and SusanB apart, given that we’re neither of them.

And in response to what you said, I want to take a line from JJC Smart:

Imagine some dude way back when, when Copernicus proposed that the Sun goes around the Earth. Now, this dude doesn’t like this conclusion, so he makes the following argument. “The Sun is something that rises and sets. But if the Earth goes around the Sun, the Sun can’t really rise. Therefore, the Earth does not go around the Sun. QED.”

He started with a premise that was falicious. When one does not start with falicious premises, then one’s deductive arguement is much more solid.