Spirit, source of knowledge, and will?

[ahworst]

I was reading in “Theology for Beginners” by F.J. Sheed and am having difficulty accepting all of the concepts and was hoping to clarify some things. First of all, on page 9 it says, “Spirit is the element in us by which we know and love, by which therefore we decide”. The problem is that it also says on page 10 speaking of the soul, “And just as ours is the only spirit which is a soul, so ours is the only soul which is a spirit”. This would mean that all other creatures with a soul (life principle of the body) would not be able to know and love or decide, right? This is a problem because animals are not totally predictable which means they do decide, perhaps have a will and then know things. If animals have the same capacity as humans in this regard, it either means that animals also have spiritual souls or it is not the spirit by which we know and love and decide.

My hope is to get through this one first, then I have other questions, so any light that can be shed on this will be helpful

 

[Lucretius]

Living things are distinct from inanimate objects by being able to “move themselves.” This means a living thing is a self from which operations arise and act for the sake of the self. This is sometimes called immanent operation. Inanimate things move, but they do not move themselves, nor even have a self for which their operations act for (this is sometimes called transient causality).

In living things, there two kinds of immanent activities, there is that activity by which the real relates to the organism (cognition), and there is that activity by which the organism relates to the real (volition).

All living things share these first two kinds of immanent activity: signal detection or “eating” and response to stimuli. At this level, cognition is basically an object being made a part of the organism, which doesn’t necessarily mean metabolism, I might add.

Volition at this level, however can involve a variety of simply responses, such as movements towards or away, retractions, growth in a certain direction, etc.

Animals, however, have two higher kinds of immanent activity on top of those two: sensation and emotion, consciousness. At this level, cognition is being aware of signs of an object as they are immersed in a certain sensor field (think “field of vision” here). Unlike “eating,” the senses don’t really immerse the object materially into itself (although scent and taste do deal with pieces of the object), but rather immerse aspects of the form of the object.

Emotions and instincts are interior responses to these patterns that reference the needs and overall perfections of the organism, and tend to lead towards exterior responses like fleeing, chasing, etc. The more complex the animal, the more its instincts can be conditioned and formed to be adequate to its environment, the more it can learn.

 

[Lucretius]

Eventually, we reach human beings, and we find that we have two more additional immanent activities: mind/intellect and will.

Here, cognition is awareness of the object, unqualified. Our understanding of objects is not limited to just the signs of sensation themselves, rather, we can know the reality, the being, behind the signs.

Intellect can thusly know the interiority of things, like its immanent activities, their aims and ends, interior principles from which they arise, etc., including our own. Intellect can even know itself, it can even know its own activities, its own thoughts, and by reflecting on them, comparing them to the objects in the world, can experience thoughts and knowledge as true or false.

Not only that, but intellect can also make our thoughts about the simularities between things themselves objects of thoughts, which is what we mean when we say that the intellect can understand universals.

When the experience of true and false is coupled with the universality of intellect, they form the basis of systems of science, mathematics, philosophy, religion, etc.

Will, on the other hand, arises from this awareness of the object-in-itself. Will doesn’t just love an object because of how useful it is, but loves it for its own sake. This is why only humans make art, only we want to create an object that exists for its own sake, with a history, aesthetic, narrative…with a kind of personality.

And when that object is a person, will can love a person for his own sake.

And of course, the will also references what is good for the person.

Because of the universality of the intellect, the will desires abstract objects like moral principles and the like, things that can have a variety of particular applications. This is the basis for our free choice, that we can choose between the particular applications of these abstract principles (although a lot of our choice is determined by circumstances and our own character as well).

Anyway, what Mr. Sheed has in mind when he speaks of knowledge and love is the latter sort, which is “spiritual” in the sense that it operates without the need of a bodily organ, and in the sense that it allows for knowledge of God.

I’d be happy to try and answer any questions you might have

Christi pax.

 

[STT]

I am wondering if you know how thoughts are created/formed and how we could possibly will. I know that our thoughts are the result of our interaction with our surroundings. Our will however independent of condition imposed on us. We will whatever we want - not essentially what we like or correct. I agree that will is a spiritual property, opposite to physical property. I however don’t understand the use of it. Do we need more than being rational to live?

 

[ahworst]

Lucretius,

thanks so much for your response. It helps me tremendously. So, just because animals can feel and want to eat for instance, that is not the kind of knowledge or will that is being spoke of when we talk about the free will of humans allowing us to love. That kind of knowledge, will, and love seem to me much more mysterious since it can’t be quantified or understood as easily. For example, why would someone want to love another person for their sake? It doesn’t make sense. I don’t know that I do that, though I would love someone, it is usually in response to something they did or for my sake. Perhaps, I have a weak spirit. At least now I can move on to the rest of the book. My hope is to make some sense of what is being explained in the book so I can feel better about the faith that I profess and be more confident when someone questions me.

God bless.

 

[Lucretius]

So, just because animals can feel and want to eat for instance, that is not the kind of knowledge or will that is being spoke of when we talk about the free will of humans allowing us to love. That kind of knowledge, will, and love seem to me much more mysterious since it can’t be quantified or understood as easily. For example, why would someone want to love another person for their sake? It doesn’t make sense.

I have to warn you: I wasn’t particularly satisfied with my account of the will. I’m not sure I’d say I have a strong grasp of what it is, nor can articulate my understanding of it properly.

The will, I think, is the hardest to understand because it is the closest power to our very self. After all, intellect is more the world’s mark on our soul, but the will is our mark on the world. What I can tell you is that the will directly controls over the motions of the body.

Another thing I know is that, to saint Thomas, will was the operation that was perfected or completed in what he called the virtue of justice, which is about how we relate with other people properly. Also to saint Thomas, will was the instigator of belief, and the instrumental cause of the supernatural virtue of charity. It is regarding this latter point that I say that will is loving the object for its own sake, and what the author means that only humans can love in the proper sense.

Anyway, I do have a simply grasp of what intellect is. The first thing that Thomists notice when dicussing the difference between intellection and sensation is the universality of the other. That is, intellect understands objects by universals. The intellect notices that this and that tree are distinct things, and yet are one thing too. And from this it begets the universal “tree.”

The problem, or at least in my view, of this account is that it is not an account of intellect per se, but an account of intellect in a body. The object of intellect, says St. Thomas, is being, or as I put it, things, including and importantly, things in themselves, not universals. Universals are a means towards that end. And it is this kind of knowledge that the author refers to when he says that only humans have knowledge.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t know that I do that, though I would love someone, it is usually in response to something they did or for my sake. Perhaps, I have a weak spirit.

For me, selfishness and selflessness are categories with limited value in understanding a person’s actions and behaviors.

One reason for this is that same action can be motivated by selfish or selfless reasons, such as one rich man giving out of general kindness to the poor man, while the other giving out of a desire to make himself look favorably in the eyes of others.

Different circumstances can call for a selfless act that would be considered selfish in other contexts, like a police officer kicking a criminal to stop him from shooting vs. a young child kicking another child to take away his toy.

Furthermore, not only can the same action be for different motivations, the same motivation can lead to a variety of actions. Both feeding the hungry and taking away his food when he refuses to work can both be loving actions: one helps his hunger, the other gives him a motivation to better himself when he is unable to gather the motivation himself.

Another reason is that an action doesn’t have to not benefit you to be selfless. A man giving to the poor, for example, can be gaining a virtue, a good habit in his giving. Some goods, like knowledge, jokes, artwork, and of course God, can be shared without decrease, and through sharing can increase for both parties.

I think a key principle in the being charitable is to do good regardless if it benefits you or not, do good even if it makes you suffer. If you benefit too, that’s good. If you don’t, that’s better, for imagine what your reward will be in Heaven.

Christi pax

 

[Richca]

Theologically, a spirit is a being with intelligence and will. There are three kinds of spiritual beings, namely, God and the angels who are pure spirits, and human beings who are a composite of spirit and body. The spirit part of us is commonly called a soul, but more specifically, a spiritual soul with the spiritual powers of intellect and will. Animals have souls but not spiritual souls. Plants have souls but not spiritual or animal or sensory souls, but vegetative souls. The souls of neither brute animals or plants possess the spiritual powers of intellect and will. Only human beings have souls with the spiritual powers of intellect and will by which they are principally made in the image of God. Animals have sensory knowledge and sensory love but not intellectual knowledge or spiritual love. Animals act by natural instinct. They do what is good for them and avoid what is evil for them by natural instinct and sensory passions, not by understanding what is good or evil. Animals have no concept of moral good and evil nor truth or falsehood.

 

[Aloysium]

selfishness and selflessness are categories with limited value in understanding a person’s actions and behaviors.

I think a key principle in the being charitable is to do good regardless if it benefits you or not, do good even if it makes you suffer. If you benefit too, that’s good. If you don’t, that’s better, for imagine what your reward will be in Heaven.

I see what you did there.

I thought I’d expand on your statement. Cutting to the chase, the entire universe is brought into existence through a loving act of Divine will. We either align ourselves to It, or we don’t. We either walk the Way that is Jesus Christ, or we don’t. That we should judge neither others nor ourselves is clear, since we’re not omniscient and it is difficult to know even our own motivations, let alone those of others.

In appropriating what belongs to God at our creation, we chose our will over that of God. We placed ourselves, where God must be, at centre of the garden that is our relationship with creation. God is Love, willing the good of the other. Wanting to become gods without God, we gave away our integrity; our acts are no longer ruled by truth and our will is corrupted with concupiscence. We don’t need external enticements to sin; we unthinkingly tend to place our will ahead of God’s. As a result, we find ourselves acting against our own interests, which as you point out, are ultimately the reward of Heaven.

Spiritual pride is the most subtle of seductions. That’s why Jesus keeps going after those Sadducees and Pharisees. We simply cannot do it without giving ourselves over to Christ. But, how are we to do that? Nirvana means a snuffing out of the flame that is worldly desire, the pointless running in circles, searching for fulfillment in what is transient and illusory. Peace, joy and truth are achieved in transcendence, but how can one do that when it is the most selfish of desires, to have it all? That desire however, is God’s calling us to Him. And, the self love that drives us to follow isn’t to be eliminated but opened to include others.

To pursue our self interest is natural and being charitable requires grace. What is needed on our part are lots of prayers, contemplation, participation in the mass and the sacraments, as well as trying to keep God’s commandments, which burn away our attachments to that which can never truly fulfill. Christ, in establishing His Church has made the load lighter for us. Recalling that the symbol of Christian transcendence is the cross, we also find in our suffering, that we are closest to Jesus, who shares them with us, and through whom we are reborn to a new life. In Him, each act is fulfilled in itself. Simply put by St Augustine, “Love and do what you will.”

 

[ahworst]

thanks everyone for your replies. I looked in the catechism to see if it has anything to say about spirits, but it basically just says that humans are a body/spirit combination. I would love to see if anyone else finds something else applicable to this topic.