Thomists, how does the soul survive death?

[RealisticCatholic]

Thomists, how does the soul survive death in any meaningful way?

The soul is the form of the human body. The spiritual aspect is part of this “soul,” and it is the part that survives death until the resurrection of the body. But if this spiritual aspect is not a substance in its own right, but just a power of the overall human substance, then how can it survive death in any meaningful way to account for other Catholic concepts like the Beatific Vision after death, the communion and intercession of saints, and just a general consciousness after death?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

More info for those who need it… (But I didn’t want to overwhelm in the OP, because then no one would want to read! haha.)

Of course, anyone can answer. But I have become more and more persuaded by the Thomistic/Scholastic philosophical “system” of approaching the Catholic Faith.

Here’s the issue. I’m persuaded by the idea that the human person is not soul substance + body substance, but rather that the human substance is a single entity with a spiritual aspect or power. Using Aquinas’ language, from Aristotle, the “soul” is just the form of the human, with the trans-physical “spiritual” aspect being just a power of this substance, but not a single substance in it’s own right.

This seems satisfying to me because it is not as “Soul of the Gaps” as other understandings of the soul, nor does it face the same “mind-body problem” that some dualists have to deal with.

However, as stated in the OP, the Catholic conception of life after death — and prior to the resurrection of the body on the last day — still includes a robust understanding of the human spirit’s existence in its own right, including the ability to enjoy the Beatific Vision, be conscious and intercede for us on Earth.

How do Thomists understand or talk about the spiritual aspect of man surviving death, then?

 

[Sophie111]

The soul is the form of the human body. The spiritual aspect is part of this “soul,” and it is the part that survives death until the resurrection of the body. But if this spiritual aspect is not a substance in its own right, but just a power of the overall human substance, then how can it survive

You are confused. This is not Aristotle or Aquinas.

The disembodied soul is a substance, though clearly not a complete one if the body is lost.

For that reason the soul, surprisingly, is not strictly speaking a human person.

Does it survive death in a meaningful way.
According to strict philosophy no. It would survive but be blind deaf and dumb and would have no sense based memories. Sounds like eternal torture to me.

Which is why Aquinas posited that the blessed would be given spiritual aids from God so that the disembodied soul could actually function in a personal and happy human way rather than live as a sort of non personal shade suffering from an extreme stroke.

In short Aristotelianism conjoined with Christian belief leads to serious seeming contradictions re a disembodied soul as you observe. Aquinas’s only solution was to use lots of mumbo jumbo (ie unproven and simply speculation) filler.

Nobody knows in short…all philosophic systems fall short of explaining revelation…we just dont know.

But really, what does it matter on this speculative point.
Christianity doesnt fall over if Arstotelianism cannot explain.
You already know faith cannot be proven by philosophy.

Though that does seem to be your repeated attempts on CAF?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I know enough Aquinas to say that the soul is not its own substance, with the body being its own substance.

This is all I meant. I’ll reference Ed Feser:

Now such a stub of a human being is what a soul is, or a disembodied soul anyway. This is why Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophers often call a disembodied soul an “incomplete substance” – not because they are trying incoherently to fudge the difference between a Cartesian res cogitans and the idea of the soul as a kind of form, but because a disembodied soul relative to a living human being is like a legless, senseless, brain-damaged dog relative to a healthy dog. The severely damaged dog is in an obvious and natural sense an incomplete substance, and the disembodied soul is an incomplete substance in just that sense – it is an incomplete, damaged human being.

This is also a way to understand the sense in which the soul is the substantial form – that is to say, the nature – of a human being. A nature or substantial form is not a Platonic abstraction. It exists in a concrete individual thing, as its principle of operation and the source of its properties. It is there as long as, and only as long as, the individual thing itself is there. But when the operations and properties in question are prevented from being manifested, what we are left with in effect is the principle or source without that which flows from it. Thus to reduce a human being to the bare minimum consistent with its being there at all is to reduce it as far as possible to its nature or substantial form – that is, to its soul alone.

Some might insist that if the intellectual and volitional powers of a human being persist in even an impaired form after the animal powers have been destroyed, this must be because the former inhere in a substance distinct from that in which the latter inhere, as Descartes held. But this is like saying that since the stub of a dog would continue to exist in the absence of its legs, eyes, ears, etc., it follows that the stub in question (an eyeless, earless, brain-damaged torso) and the legs, eyes, ears, etc. are all distinct substances. And they are not; rather, they are all aspects of one substance – the dog itself – and can be made sense of only by reference to that one substance. Similarly, that the impaired intellectual-cum-volitional stub of a human being would continue to exist in the absence of its animal powers does not entail that the stub in question and the animal powers must be grounded in distinct substances. They are not; rather, they too are aspects of the one substance – the human being himself – and can be made sense of only by reference to that one substance.

The soul without the body remains a substance, but not because it’s a second, separate substance from the body.

But anyway, back to the main question. Could you give me the references where Aquinas says that God gives these extra gifts to enable a soul to be more than a “non-personal shade”? Thanks.

 

[Sophie111]

I am in bed musing on my studies of 35 years ago.
I have given you a valuable insight, I leave you to do the legwork now you know what to look for it will be relatively easy.
Good luck.

PS see the adder above I inserted after your post.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I have given you a valuable insight, I leave you to do the legwork now you know what to look for it will be relatively easy.

Are you talking about the Aquinas reference?

In short Aristotelianism conjoined with Christian belief leads to serious seeming contradictions re a disembodied soul as you observe. Aquinas’s only solution was to use lots of mumbo jumbo (ie unproven and simply speculation) filler.

I don’t think anything I said was a contradiction. Maybe there is contradiction, but I’ll need the fuller explanations first.
Which is why I prefer answers from faithful Thomists, per the OP.

But really, what does it matter on this speculative point.
Christianity doesnt fall over if Arstotelianism cannot explain.
You already know faith cannot be proven by philosophy.

Though that does seem to be your repeated attempts on CAF?

I find that an offensive thing to say. Was that really necessary? People go to CAF to ask questions. If you don’t like them, feel free not to answer.

Christianity doesnt fall over if Arstotelianism cannot explain.

If Aquinas has contradictions, fine, it will remain to be seen (for me). But I haven’t found other satisfactory attempts. It’s not about my not trusting the Faith. It’s precisely that the Catholic Faith cannot contradict reason, so I will not settle for things that appear unreasonable, like the idea of a spiritual substance interacting with a material brain (for example). Hence Aquinas seems more reasonable, and a way to dialogue with skeptics, etc.

 

[Sophie111]

Which is why I prefer answers from faithful Thomists, per the OP.

But really, what does it matter on this speculative point.
Christianity doesnt fall over if Arstotelianism cannot explain.
You already know faith cannot be proven by philosophy.

Though that does seem to be your repeated attempts on CAF?

No offence was intended, it was a question not an accusation.

Yes I am a Thomist. It is my objective view after 7 years formal education and 35 years of discussion/contemplation that Aquinas could not find good Aristotelian answers for the seeming contradictions his system threw up re disembodied souls.

Asserting this doesnt make faith unreasonable. Its a humble admission that at times faith is faith. Our Church does not have all the rational answers.

 

[Lee1]

Perhaps the soul survives death as it survives life, by the will of God.

 

[Wesrock]

I suggest reading up on Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy of the mind, and particularly the problems of intentionality, though there are other issues. Edward Feser does have some blog posts on the subject for easy reference. Basically, Thomas Aquinas is a philosophical realist, and the gist of it is that there’s no way to grasp universal concepts from particulars through any material medium. Therefore the Intellect (not all of consciousness, which has a significant material component) is immaterial and not composed of physical parts. In this way the Intellect can take on the form (Thomist usage) of a thing, allowing consciousness to grasp a concept universally, or something along those lines. Since it is not composed of physical parts, it has no tendency towards corruption or decay, so once it starts to be, it will continue to be so long as the “laws of nature” are in effect. And so long as it continues to be, it continues to possess the form (or soul) of a human being. I do agree with Sophie111 that, barring supernatural assistance, it would be rather handicapped in function.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But is it so handicapped where it cannot be conscious and be active members of the communion of saints?

In other words, does Aquinas’ view allow for the intercession of saints even before the resurrection?

I believe there was a Pope who wrote an infallible declaration that there is no “soul sleep,” but rather that the faithful departed enter immediately into the Beatific Vision - even before the general resurrection.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Some say that, as death comes, we fade like the sinking sun, falling into the encompassing dusk, into those myriads of softening hue, resonant still of Eden’s cool blue dew, of fragrant, dying breezes
amid the last lingering glow of twilight’s violet splendor, breathing deep an inebriate air, savoring each fading breath as evening savors the warmth of sun forsaken breezes, struggling still to rise heavenward, then falling again, only to endow the night with its tranquil death, with a subtle narration, of lush waving meadows soft, of lucid steaming rivers deep, of slowly swaying pines amid the diffusing shadows as night rises, as it has always risen, above this garden place, with calming presence, vast and ancient like the languid, eternal motion of the pale shimmering procession, streaming endlessly onward in unchanging perpetuation, from east to west, from rise to fall, from past to present to forever, perceiving nothing and knowing no one

 

[Lee1]

Yes. I heard that too.

 

[Wesrock]

But is it so handicapped where it cannot be conscious and be active members of the communion of saints?

In other words, does Aquinas’ view allow for the intercession of saints even before the resurrection?

I believe there was a Pope who wrote an infallible declaration that there is no “soul sleep,” but rather that the faithful departed enter immediately into the Beatific Vision - even before the general resurrection.

I have not seen what Aquinas has to say directly on this with the communion of saints, but yes, I see it as consistent, for the intercession of the saints and their ability to hear and respond to prayers is not a natural power they have after death, but one granted by God. That much is Church teaching. And Aquinas’ position fits easily enough into that, such that with supernatural assistance the saints can know prayers and will their intentions to God, and will his glory, and will his praise, and God can make known to them as knowledge the beatific vision, which I think must be intellectual and not just sensible.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I agree with Ed here.

 

[RandomAlias]

Colonel, Sir, you are a poet.

 

[edwest]

The Bible is all you need.

Matthew 10:28

New International Version
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

New Living Translation
"Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

English Standard Version
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Thanks.

Not really addressing the question.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Fr. Spitzer speaks at length on this type of question on “Fr. Spitzer’s Universe” which airs on EWTN. He also has two web sites, Magis Center and Credible Catholic.
He speaks of near death experiences at times. And likes to site the ones where
the person reports things they could not possible know like a worn out red shoe on a ledge;
or a conversation in another room, and things like that.
They seem to report ‘spiritual bodies,’ apart from their natural human body.

 

[TheOldColonel]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am no expert on the subject. All I know is from reading some of Ed Feser’s material. However, my take on how the soul survives bodliy death according to what I have read has to do with the idea that mind already operates at least partially apart from the body. Every time we contemplate some abstract thought for instance. Thoughts are after all immaterial things. And therefore require an immaterial mind to process them. Nothing purely physical can actually think about anything. And therefore since this immaterial mind exists in man since he is an abstract thinker then the immaterial mind already exists apart from the body in at least this way. And since it exists apart from the body in this way it could therefore at least theoretically exist apart from the body after death as well.

Since we are a composite of this immaterial aspect and the material aspect one cannot reduce the human to merely a body or to merely something spiritual. The body doesn’t merely generate an immaterial mind. That would be impossible for something physical to do. Yet, the mind interacts with the body and both are incomplete substances without each other. It doesn’t mean they are non existent apart from each other, just incomplete. The dead body still exists as a kind of degrading substance after death. The soul also exists as an incomplete substance.