The Soul by Thomas Aquinas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
My purpose here is merely to introduce all of you to the discussion of the soul by Thomas Aquinas. He begins with a commentary on De Anima by Aristotle which is quite lengthy but is in lecture format and easy to read. He first gives a general introduction and then goes into a history of the development of the idea. It is my hope that many of you will take the opportunity to read the entire " course. "

I had been looking for a definition of " soul " from Thomas Aquinas and couldn’t find it. Finally I found it in Lecture One of this course. It is as follows:

" Now living beings taken all together form a certain class of being; hence in studying them the first thing to do is to consider what living things have in common, and afterwards what each has peculiar to itself. What they have in common is a** life-principle or soul **; in this they are all alike. In conveying knowledge, therefore, about living things one must first convey it about the soul as that which is common to them all. Thus when Aristotle sets out to treat of living things, he begins with the soul; after which, in subsequent books, he defines the properties of particular living beings."

He goes on from there. Of course he treats of the soul in the S.T., the S.C.G. and other places but this is where he defines it.

Here is the link. Put it in your favorites and use it.

dhspriory.org/thomas/DeAnima.htm#11 👍
 
My purpose here is merely to introduce all of you to the discussion of the soul by Thomas Aquinas. He begins with a commentary on De Anima by Aristotle which is quite lengthy but is in lecture format and easy to read. He first gives a general introduction and then goes into a history of the development of the idea. It is my hope that many of you will take the opportunity to read the entire " course. "

I had been looking for a definition of " soul " from Thomas Aquinas and couldn’t find it. Finally I found it in Lecture One of this course. It is as follows:

" Now living beings taken all together form a certain class of being; hence in studying them the first thing to do is to consider what living things have in common, and afterwards what each has peculiar to itself. What they have in common is a life-principle or soul ; in this they are all alike. In conveying knowledge, therefore, about living things one must first convey it about the soul as that which is common to them all. Thus when Aristotle sets out to treat of living things, he begins with the soul; after which, in subsequent books, he defines the properties of particular living beings."

He goes on from there. Of course he treats of the soul in the S.T., the S.C.G. and other places but this is where he defines it.

Here is the link. Put it in your favorites and use it.

dhspriory.org/thomas/DeAnima.htm#11 👍
Sounds interesting. I should start reading Aquinas.
I this particular post, does “alike” mean identical, or similar, and how do you realize this while you can’t see the souls?
 
Sounds interesting. I should start reading Aquinas.
I this particular post, does “alike” mean identical, or similar, and how do you realize this while you can’t see the souls?
You have to read on. See other threads on " soul " discussions. Plenty over the past year. 👍
 
From Lecture Four of Thomas’ Commentary we have the following interesting bit:

"§ 275. (4) Then at ‘Substance is predicated’, I he shows how this conclusion follows from the premisses. For it might have seemed to follow that the body no less than the soul was a form, since we call the body also a principle of life. So, to clinch the argument, he adds that if, as we have said, the term ‘substance’ can refer to three things, to matter, to form, and to the complex of both (the matter being the potential element; the form the actuality; and the complex the thing that is alive in this way) the body is clearly not the soul’s actuality, but rather the soul is the body’s; for the body is potential with respect to the soul. And if the foregoing argument has led us to the alternative that the specifying principle is either the soul or the body, we can now conclude that it is the soul; for it is now dear that the body is not the form of the soul.

§ 276. Then at ‘And on this account’, he deduces from the foregoing: (a) that they were right who thought that the soul required the body and yet was essentially distinct from it. It is not the body, for it is not matter; but it is essentially involved with the body, because it is its actuality; whence too it follows, as he says here, that it exists in that body whose actuality it is. "

Interesting isn’t it. Is it any wonder Thomas refers to Aristotle as the Philosopher. What a giant. It is hard to believe people actually poke fun at Aristotle and Thomas, his great disciple. The arrogance of this age has no bounds. In 2,500 years the world has produced only two intellects approaching that of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine. 👍 thousand
 
In the the Neurocognitive thread about the soul, we were reading from the Summa Theologica about the creation of the soul. In one of Thomas’s discussions on that subject he refered to Genesis 1:26 where God said “Let us make man in our own image…”

What is the Image?
Body, Brain, Mind, or Soul?

As Aquinas wrote that the soul did not have matter or parts,
I vote for the Image = Soul/Mind.

In that way the free will of the soul could choose (or not choose) to follow the will of God.
 
In the the Neurocognitive thread about the soul, we were reading from the Summa Theologica about the creation of the soul. In one of Thomas’s discussions on that subject he refered to Genesis 1:26 where God said “Let us make man in our own image…”

What is the Image?
Body, Brain, Mind, or Soul?

As Aquinas wrote that the soul did not have matter or parts,
I vote for the Image = Soul/Mind.

In that way the free will of the soul could choose (or not choose) to follow the will of God.
Of course. Soul ( Spirit = non-material substance )/ Mind.

But it is the way Thomas built up to that which is so interesting. Of course he carrys on from here in his other works. 👍
 
I am glad that you agree, Linus. This opens up the
whole arena of intercessory prayers.

Because souls/minds are accessible in Eternity,
we can communicate with Holy Mary Mother of God.
The reverent usage of the Rosary is largely confined to Catholicism and not
the post-Reformation variations of Christianity, I think.
I draw on over a half century of serious observation !
 
Continuing the discussion on the Soul, we turn now to a consideration of Memory and whether it is a property of the Soul along with Intellect and Will. I turned to Thomas’ Questiones Disputatae de Veritate ( Disputed Questions about the Truth-available online in English). I selected Question 10, Memory, Article 3

dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm

" We must say that the image of the Trinity in the soul can be predicated in two ways: one in which there is perfect imitation of the Trinity, the other in which the imitation is imperfect.

For the mind perfectly imitates the Trinity in this, that it actually remembers, actually understands, and actually wills. This is so because in the uncreated Trinity the middle Person is the Word. Now, there can be a word only with actual cognition. Hence, it is according to this kind of perfect imitation that Augustine puts the image in memory, understanding, and will. In it, memory refers to habitual knowledge, understanding to actual cognition which proceeds from the habitual knowledge of memory, and will to the actual movement of the will which proceeds from thought. This appears expressly from what he says in The Trinity: “Since the word cannot be there,” in the mind, “without thought; for everything which we speak we think with that internal word which belongs to the language of no people, the image is found especially in those three: memory, intelligence, and will. Intelligence I now call that by which we understand when thinking; I call that will which joins this offspring [thought] with its parent [intelligence].”

We have the image in which there is imperfect imitation when we designate it according to habits and powers. It is thus that Augustine bases the image of the Trinity in the soul upon mind, knowledge, and love. Here, mind means the power; knowledge and love, the habits existing in it. In place of knowledge he could have said habitual intelligence, for both can be taken in the sense of habit. This is clear from The Trinity, where he says: “Can we correctly say that the musician knows music, but he does not now understand it because he is not now thinking about it, or that he now understands geometry because he is now thinking about it? This opinion is obviously absurd.” So, in this sense, knowledge and love, taken as habitual, belong only to memory, as is clear from the authoritative citation from Augustine in the objections.”

But, since acts have radical existence in powers, as effects in their causes, even perfect imitation according to memory, understanding in act, and will in act can in the first instance be found in the powers through which the soul can remember, actually understand and will, as the citation from Augustine shows. Thus, the image will be based upon the powers, though not in the sense that in the mind memory could be some power besides the understanding. This is clear from what follows.

Diversity of objects is the source of differentiation of powers only when the diversity comes from those things which of themselves belong to the objects, in so far as they are objects of such powers. Thus, hot and cold in something colored do not, as such, differentiate the power of sight. For the same power of sight can see what is colored, whether hot or cold, sweet or bitter. Now, although mind or understanding can in a certain way know what is past, still, since it relates indifferently to knowledge of present, past, and future, the difference of past and present is accidental to what is intelligible, in so far as it is intelligible. For this reason, although memory can be in the mind in a certain way, it cannot be there as a power distinct of itself from other powers in the way in which philosophers speak of the distinction of powers. In this way, memory can be found only in the sensitive part, which is referred to the present as present. For this reason, a higher power than that of sense is needed if it is to relate to the past.

Nevertheless, although memory is not a power distinct from intelligence, taken as a power, the Trinity is still in the soul if we consider those powers in so far as the one power of understanding has an orientation to different things, namely, habitually to keep the knowledge of something, and actually to consider it. It is in this way that Augustine distinguishes lower from higher reason, according to an orientation to different things. "

Hope everyone enjoyed that. So it appears, according to Thomas, that the Memory is not a separate power of the Intellect ( Soul ) but rather an aptitude of the Intellect. That is, it is in the Intellect that Memories of various sorts are " stored " for later recall and reflection. As I said before Thomas speaks of the Soul and its Nature in many places, this is another example of that. Add De Veritate to your favorites. It deals mostly with spiritual things and with the mind as a necessary adjunct to this. Makes one wish one could start things all over again, We have missed so much, intellectually and spiritually. 👍
 
Wow, Linus! Thank you for introducing me to *Disputed Truths *by Thomas Aquinas!
As a teenager (a half century ago) I had read some of the Summa Theologica.
You must have continued reading during my 5 decade gap!

But hadn’t read anything so profound from the Middle Ages since then. Your link was very informative about The Soul — from Aristotle, Augustine, and the solutions by Thomas A.

In the other great Neurocognitive thread, the recent question you answered about whether anyone in the earthly lifetime could see God directly, you answered NO. And I found out why in Question 10 (of Veritae), Article XI, the Reply by Thomas.

I have copy/pasted part of it:​

"Hence, by means of the natural knowledge, which we experience in this life, our mind cannot see either God or angels through their essence. Nevertheless, angels can be seen through their essence by means of intelligible species different from their essence, but the divine essence cannot, for it transcends every genus and is outside every genus. As a result, it is impossible to find any created species which is adequate to represent it.

**Thus, if God is to be seen through His essence, He must be seen through no created species, **but His very essence must become the intelligible form of the understanding which sees Him. This cannot take place unless the created intellect is disposed for it through the light of glory. And in thus seeing God through His essence by reason of the disposition of infused light, the mind reaches the end of its course, which is glory, and so is not in this life.

Moreover, just as bodies are subject to the divine omnipotence, so, too, are minds. Hence, just as it can cause some bodies to produce effects, the dispositions for which they do not have within themselves, as it made Peter walk on water without giving him the gift of agility, so it can bring it about that the mind be united to the divine essence in the present life in the way in which it is united to it in heaven without being bathed in the light of glory.

When, however, this takes place, the mind must leave off that mode of knowing in which it abstracts from phantasms in the same way that a corruptible body is not actually heavy at the same time that it is miraculously given that act of agility. Therefore, those to whom it is given to see God through His essence in this way are withdrawn completely from activity of the senses, so that the whole soul is concentrated on seeing the divine essence. Hence, they are said to be in a state of rapture, as if by virtue of a higher power they were separated from that which naturally belongs to them.

Therefore, in the ordinary course of events, no one sees God through His essence in this life. And if it is miraculously granted to some to see God through His essence before the soul is completely separated from mortal flesh, such are, nevertheless, not altogether in this life, for they are without the activity of the senses, which we use in the state of mortal existence."

Please instruct us further…
 
Wow, Linus! Thank you for introducing me to *Disputed Truths *by Thomas Aquinas!
As a teenager (a half century ago) I had read some of the Summa Theologica.
You must have continued reading during my 5 decade gap!

But hadn’t read anything so profound from the Middle Ages since then. Your link was very informative about The Soul — from Aristotle, Augustine, and the solutions by Thomas A.

In the other great Neurocognitive thread, the recent question you answered about whether anyone in the earthly lifetime could see God directly, you answered NO. And I found out why in Question 10 (of Veritae), Article XI, the Reply by Thomas.

I have copy/pasted part of it:​

"Hence, by means of the natural knowledge, which we experience in this life, our mind cannot see either God or angels through their essence. Nevertheless, angels can be seen through their essence by means of intelligible species different from their essence, but the divine essence cannot, for it transcends every genus and is outside every genus. As a result, it is impossible to find any created species which is adequate to represent it.

**Thus, if God is to be seen through His essence, He must be seen through no created species, **but His very essence must become the intelligible form of the understanding which sees Him. This cannot take place unless the created intellect is disposed for it through the light of glory. And in thus seeing God through His essence by reason of the disposition of infused light, the mind reaches the end of its course, which is glory, and so is not in this life.

Moreover, just as bodies are subject to the divine omnipotence, so, too, are minds. Hence, just as it can cause some bodies to produce effects, the dispositions for which they do not have within themselves, as it made Peter walk on water without giving him the gift of agility, so it can bring it about that the mind be united to the divine essence in the present life in the way in which it is united to it in heaven without being bathed in the light of glory.

When, however, this takes place, the mind must leave off that mode of knowing in which it abstracts from phantasms in the same way that a corruptible body is not actually heavy at the same time that it is miraculously given that act of agility. Therefore, those to whom it is given to see God through His essence in this way are withdrawn completely from activity of the senses, so that the whole soul is concentrated on seeing the divine essence. Hence, they are said to be in a state of rapture, as if by virtue of a higher power they were separated from that which naturally belongs to them.

Therefore, in the ordinary course of events, no one sees God through His essence in this life. And if it is miraculously granted to some to see God through His essence before the soul is completely separated from mortal flesh, such are, nevertheless, not altogether in this life, for they are without the activity of the senses, which we use in the state of mortal existence."

Please instruct us further…
Thank you, I do what I can as little as that is. One of the problems is that prior to the 20th century most of Thomas’s works, if not all, were available only in Latin, and some in Spanish, French, or German. So that exculded most English speakers except Professional Philosophers who were expected to be expert in at least Latin. And of course it would always be better to read him in Latin - which I can’t do.

By the way also under the Disputed Questions his Commentary on De Veritate is also excellent. 🙂
 
Wow, Linus! Thank you for introducing me to *Disputed Truths *by Thomas Aquinas!
As a teenager (a half century ago) I had read some of the Summa Theologica.
You must have continued reading during my 5 decade gap!

But hadn’t read anything so profound from the Middle Ages since then. Your link was very informative about The Soul — from Aristotle, Augustine, and the solutions by Thomas A.

In the other great Neurocognitive thread, the recent question you answered about whether anyone in the earthly lifetime could see God directly, you answered NO. And I found out why in Question 10 (of Veritae), Article XI, the Reply by Thomas.

I have copy/pasted part of it:​

"Hence, by means of the natural knowledge, which we experience in this life, our mind cannot see either God or angels through their essence. Nevertheless, angels can be seen through their essence by means of intelligible species different from their essence, but the divine essence cannot, for it transcends every genus and is outside every genus. As a result, it is impossible to find any created species which is adequate to represent it.

**Thus, if God is to be seen through His essence, He must be seen through no created species, **but His very essence must become the intelligible form of the understanding which sees Him. This cannot take place unless the created intellect is disposed for it through the light of glory. And in thus seeing God through His essence by reason of the disposition of infused light, the mind reaches the end of its course, which is glory, and so is not in this life.

Moreover, just as bodies are subject to the divine omnipotence, so, too, are minds. Hence, just as it can cause some bodies to produce effects, the dispositions for which they do not have within themselves, as it made Peter walk on water without giving him the gift of agility, so it can bring it about that the mind be united to the divine essence in the present life in the way in which it is united to it in heaven without being bathed in the light of glory.

When, however, this takes place, the mind must leave off that mode of knowing in which it abstracts from phantasms in the same way that a corruptible body is not actually heavy at the same time that it is miraculously given that act of agility. Therefore, those to whom it is given to see God through His essence in this way are withdrawn completely from activity of the senses, so that the whole soul is concentrated on seeing the divine essence. Hence, they are said to be in a state of rapture, as if by virtue of a higher power they were separated from that which naturally belongs to them.

Therefore, in the ordinary course of events, no one sees God through His essence in this life. And if it is miraculously granted to some to see God through His essence before the soul is completely separated from mortal flesh, such are, nevertheless, not altogether in this life, for they are without the activity of the senses, which we use in the state of mortal existence."

Please instruct us further…
That is very interesting. Thomas is facinating. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top