We are same in the essence but different in the surface

[Bahman]

Here we accept a dualistic picture in which any alive being is composed of soul and body. What differs a species from another is the body and we all have similar souls. The argument is very simple: Human being is the highest in the hierarchy of species but they have all attributes of species in lower hierarchy such as intelligence and vegetation. By this we accept the fact that animals and insects are intelligent and plants are not hence intelligence is an attribute of body and not soul since intelligence can be easily affected by body damage most importantly brain damage and a person can easily go to state vegetation also.

Your thought?

 

[Gorgias]

Your thought?

I think you should read up on Aquinas. (aquinasonline.com is a good source.) He’s already addressed these questions quite well.

Here we accept a dualistic picture in which any alive being is composed of soul and body.

‘Composite’ does not imply ‘dualistic’.

What differs a species from another is the body and we all have similar souls.

How do we know that all species has similar souls?

Jewish and Christian theology, for example, looks to the Book of Genesis and sees that God created humans in his image and likeness. Christians conclude that humans have immortal souls. So, we wouldn’t conclude that “all species [have] similar souls.”

The argument is very simple: Human being is the highest in the hierarchy of species but they have all attributes of species in lower hierarchy such as intelligence and vegetation.

Aquinas would argue that intelligence is characteristic only of the human soul.

By this we accept the fact that animals and insects are intelligent

No, we don’t have to accept it – you’ve just asserted it without substantiation.

and plants are not hence intelligence is an attribute of body and not soul since intelligence can be easily affected by body damage most importantly brain damage and a person can easily go to state vegetation also.

I would respond that intelligence exists independent of the body, but that rational thought is expressed (by virtue of intelligence) through the medium of a body. Therefore, a person’s ability to express rational thought might vary, but human intelligence (as a characteristic of the human soul) remains. Yes, there’s an effect there, but it’s not that intelligence resides in the human body.

 

[Bahman]

I think you should read up on Aquinas. (aquinasonline.com is a good source.) He’s already addressed these questions quite well.

Could you please tell me what is his answer?

‘Composite’ does not imply ‘dualistic’.

Perhaps I didn’t use a right wording.

How do we know that all species has similar souls?

That is explained in the argument.

Jewish and Christian theology, for example, looks to the Book of Genesis and sees that God created humans in his image and likeness. Christians conclude that humans have immortal souls. So, we wouldn’t conclude that “all species [have] similar souls.”

We are talking philosophy here not theology. But what does the image and likeness of God mean? The reality is plain and simple. We and another spiciest living on and sharing this land so called earth.

Aquinas would argue that intelligence is characteristic only of the human soul.

What is his argument?

No, we don’t have to accept it – you’ve just asserted it without substantiation.

Animal and insects behave intelligently by having complex societies.

I would respond that intelligence exists independent of the body, but that rational thought is expressed (by virtue of intelligence) through the medium of a body. Therefore, a person’s ability to express rational thought might vary, but human intelligence (as a characteristic of the human soul) remains. Yes, there’s an effect there, but it’s not that intelligence resides in the human body.

Haven’t you seen a person without any intelligence because of a disorder or malfunction of the brain? These people really have no intelligence. It is not matter of expressing yourself. Moreover, the complexity of brain and how it function is an evidence that intelligence does depend on body rather than soul. Why a body should be so complex if soul is the source of intelligence?

 

[Vico]

Here we accept a dualistic picture in which any alive being is composed of soul and body. What differs a species from another is the body and we all have similar souls. The argument is very simple: Human being is the highest in the hierarchy of species but they have all attributes of species in lower hierarchy such as intelligence and vegetation. By this we accept the fact that animals and insects are intelligent and plants are not hence intelligence is an attribute of body and not soul since intelligence can be easily affected by body damage most importantly brain damage and a person can easily go to state vegetation also.

Your thought?

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 76. The union of body and soul

A1 Whether the intellectual principle is united to the body as its form?

There remains, therefore, no other explanation than that given by Aristotle–namely, that this particular man understands, because the intellectual principle is his form. Thus from the very operation of the intellect it is made clear that the intellectual principle is united to the body as its form.

The same can be clearly shown from the nature of the human species. For the nature of each thing is shown by its operation. Now the proper operation of man as man is to understand; because he thereby surpasses all other animals. Whence Aristotle concludes (Ethic. x, 7) that the ultimate happiness of man must consist in this operation as properly belonging to him. Man must therefore derive his species from that which is the principle of this operation. But the species of anything is derived from its form. It follows therefore that the intellectual principle is the proper form of man.

But we must observe that the nobler a form is, the more it rises above corporeal matter, the less it is merged in matter, and the more it excels matter by its power and its operation; hence we find that the form of a mixed body has another operation not caused by its elemental qualities. And the higher we advance in the nobility of forms, the more we find that the power of the form excels the elementary matter; as the vegetative soul excels the form of the metal, and the sensitive soul excels the vegetative soul. Now the human soul is the highest and noblest of forms. Wherefore it excels corporeal matter in its power by the fact that it has an operation and a power in which corporeal matter has no share whatever. This power is called the intellect.

It is well to remark that if anyone holds that the soul is composed of matter and form, it would follow that in no way could the soul be the form of the body. For since the form is an act, and matter is only in potentiality, that which is composed of matter and form cannot be the form of another by virtue of itself as a whole. But if it is a form by virtue of some part of itself, then that part which is the form we call the soul, and that of which it is the form we call the “primary animate,” as was said above (Question 75, Article 5).

newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm

Also see Article 2. Whether the intellectual principle is multiplied according to the number of bodies?

I answer that, It is absolutely impossible for one intellect to belong to all men. This is clear if, as Plato maintained, man is the intellect itself. For it would follow that Socrates and Plato are one man; and that they are not distinct from each other, except by something outside the essence of each. The distinction between Socrates and Plato would be no other than that of one man with a tunic and another with a cloak; which is quite absurd.

 

[Bahman]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 76. The union of body and soul

A1 Whether the intellectual principle is united to the body as its form?

There remains, therefore, no other explanation than that given by Aristotle–namely, that this particular man understands, because the intellectual principle is his form. Thus from the very operation of the intellect it is made clear that the intellectual principle is united to the body as its form.

The same can be clearly shown from the nature of the human species. For the nature of each thing is shown by its operation. Now the proper operation of man as man is to understand; because he thereby surpasses all other animals. Whence Aristotle concludes (Ethic. x, 7) that the ultimate happiness of man must consist in this operation as properly belonging to him. Man must therefore derive his species from that which is the principle of this operation. But the species of anything is derived from its form. It follows therefore that the intellectual principle is the proper form of man…

This really doesn’t follow " But the species of anything is derived from its form…" because I can replace form with brain in this statement and reach to different conclusion.

 

[Vico]

This really doesn’t follow " But the species of anything is derived from its form…" because I can replace form with brain in this statement and reach to different conclusion.

The is not the definition of form that Aquinas is using.

 

[Bahman]

The is not the definition of form that Aquinas is using.

It is alright. Could you please say what is wrong with my argument?

 

[davidv]

It is alright. Could you please say what is wrong with my argument?

I reread the OP. I did not see an argument, just a declaration. most of which lacks any sort of evidence. So what is wrong is that there is no rational argument to discuss.

 

[Gorgias]

Could you please tell me what is his answer?

What is his argument?

With all due respect, I think that you might consider reading up on philosophy before attempting to construct your own philosophical proofs. Aquinas isn’t a fringe philosopher…

That is explained in the argument.

No … it’s asserted in your argument, without any attribution or proof. You can’t just say “the moon is made of green cheese” and then move on as if you’ve proven it, without substantiating it at all…

But what does the image and likeness of God mean? The reality is plain and simple. We and another spiciest living on and sharing this land so called earth.

God neither lives on this earth nor shares the land with us… so, we can’t say that this is the definition of “image and likeness”.

Animal and insects behave intelligently by having complex societies.

The salient issue is rationality. Are you saying that animals are rational in the way that humans are? What’s your proof?

Haven’t you seen a person without any intelligence because of a disorder or malfunction of the brain? These people really have no intelligence.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I say that they have intelligence, but are physically unable to express it. How might you suggest to resolve this difference in opinion?

 

[Vico]

It is alright. Could you please say what is wrong with my argument?

Form is “contrasted with matter in scholastic philosophy and theology.” “Form is the nature or essence of a thing; the internal specific principle of the distinctive nature or activities of any created being.” – Modern Catholic Dictionary

 

[Bahman]

I reread the OP. I did not see an argument, just a declaration. most of which lacks any sort of evidence. So what is wrong is that there is no rational argument to discuss.

Here there is the argument:

1. Any alive being is the result of union of soul which is immaterial part and body which material part
2. Soul is immaterial and doesn’t have any part
3. From (2) we can deduce that soul is irreducible and it is simple
4. From (3) we can deduce that soul is not subject to decay in another word it is immortal because it is irreducible
5. From (3) we can also deduce that we have similar soul because soul is simple
6. From (4) and (5) we can deduce that we are same in the essence
7. From (6) we can deduce that we are different because we have different body

 

[Bahman]

With all due respect, I think that you might consider reading up on philosophy before attempting to construct your own philosophical proofs. Aquinas isn’t a fringe philosopher…

With all due respect I have to say that he was wrong on his philosophy. I also have to say that I read enough and learn enough from you.

No … it’s asserted in your argument, without any attribution or proof. You can’t just say “the moon is made of green cheese” and then move on as if you’ve proven it, without substantiating it at all…

Please read post #11 to see my argument.

God neither lives on this earth nor shares the land with us… so, we can’t say that this is the definition of “image and likeness”.

So can you say what is image and likeness of God is? I have solid evidence that we are living on and share earth.

The salient issue is rationality. Are you saying that animals are rational in the way that humans are? What’s your proof?

Yes. Please read post #11. I also have solid evidence that human being can undergo to unintelligent and vegetation states because of brain damage so it is easier to accept that any malfunction is the result of brain decay or damage.

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I say that they have intelligence, but are physically unable to express it. How might you suggest to resolve this difference in opinion?

So you have never be mentally ill? Then you can ask people who have been mentally ill.

 

[Bahman]

Form is “contrasted with matter in scholastic philosophy and theology.” “Form is the nature or essence of a thing; the internal specific principle of the distinctive nature or activities of any created being.” – Modern Catholic Dictionary

Please read my argument in post #11.

 

[Gorgias]

1. From (3) we can deduce that soul is not subject to decay in another word it is immortal because it is irreducible

This is the part of your argument that fails. “Not subject to decay” and “immortal” are not synonymous. (In addition, you seem to be saying that “irreducibility” implies “immortality”. That, too, is in error. We can think of the smallest fundamental particle of matter. (Doesn’t matter what it is or if we know what it is yet: it exists, since matter exists.) By definition, it is irreducible. That doesn’t imply that all matter is immortal – that is, that it will always exist. It might not decay, but that doesn’t imply that it will always be.)

Therefore, your logic breaks down, and we do not have to conclude that human souls and all other souls of living beings are identical.

 

[Bahman]

This is the part of your argument that fails. “Not subject to decay” and “immortal” are not synonymous.

So I change (4) to the following: 4) From (3) we can deduce that soul is immortal because it is irreducible. That was not a huge point.

In addition, you seem to be saying that “irreducibility” implies “immortality”.

That is a correct statement.

That, too, is in error. We can think of the smallest fundamental particle of matter. (Doesn’t matter what it is or if we know what it is yet: it exists, since matter exists.) By definition, it is irreducible. That doesn’t imply that all matter is immortal – that is, that it will always exist. It might not decay, but that doesn’t imply that it will always be.)

I am physicist so I can tell you that elementary particles, such as electron, as it is defined in particle physics are not irreducible. That is why people are working on string theory too. So my statement stands: Irreducibility means immortality.

Therefore, your logic breaks down, and we do not have to conclude that human souls and all other souls of living beings are identical.

So my argument stands. I would be happy if I see your comment on post #12 too.

 

[Vico]

Please read my argument in post #11.

Item 2 is not compatible with Aquinas so it would not work with his system: “2) Soul is immaterial and doesn’t have any part”. For example,

Summa Theologica Q79, A9:

Reply to Objection 1. We speak of parts, in whatever way a thing is divided. And so far as reason is divided according to its various acts, the higher and lower reason are called parts; but not because they are different powers.
newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm

And Q77 A1:

Reply to Objection 7. Rational and sensitive, as differences, are not taken from the powers of sense and reason, but from the sensitive and rational soul itself. But because substantial forms, which in themselves are unknown to us, are known by their accidents; nothing prevents us from sometimes substituting accidents for substantial differences.

and Summa Theologica, Q77, A8:

I answer that, As we have said already (5,6,7), all the powers of the soul belong to the soul alone as their principle. But some powers belong to the soul alone as their subject; as the intelligence and the will. These powers must remain in the soul, after the destruction of the body. But other powers are subjected in the composite; as all the powers of the sensitive and nutritive parts. Now accidents cannot remain after the destruction of the subject. Wherefore, the composite being destroyed, such powers do not remain actually; but they remain virtually in the soul, as in their principle or root.

So it is false that, as some say, these powers remain in the soul even after the corruption of the body. It is much more false that, as they say also, the acts of these powers remain in the separate soul; because these powers have no act apart from the corporeal organ.

newadvent.org/summa/1077.htm

 

[openmind77]

Here we accept a dualistic picture in which any alive being is composed of soul and body. What differs a species from another is the body and we all have similar souls. The argument is very simple: Human being is the highest in the hierarchy of species but they have all attributes of species in lower hierarchy such as intelligence and vegetation. By this we accept the fact that animals and insects are intelligent and plants are not hence intelligence is an attribute of body and not soul since intelligence can be easily affected by body damage most importantly brain damage and a person can easily go to state vegetation also.

Your thought?

The mistake is in thinking that a human beings consists of only two parts - physical body and a material soul.

Hinduism recognizes five bodies (or sheaths) that enclose a human soul - physical body, etheric/pranic body, astral body, mental body and causal body (these are usual referred to by Sanskrit names). The last four are non-material bodies. The soul itself consists of two parts - the individual soul and the spirit. So a human being is a septenary rather than a duality.

A plant only has only the first two bodies. Primitive animals/insects have first three bodies. More complex mammals have first four bodies. All living beings have the spirit but only humans have individual souls The common essence in all living beings is the inner most spirit.

A human with damaged brain still has the non-material mental body, except that he can not express himself with his physical body (or think with his physical brain).

 

[Bahman]

The mistake is in thinking that a human beings consists of only two parts - physical body and a material soul.

That would be a mistake if it was not able to explain subject matter well.

Hinduism recognizes five bodies (or sheaths) that enclose a human soul - physical body, etheric/pranic body, astral body, mental body and causal body (these are usual referred to by Sanskrit names). The last four are non-material bodies. The soul itself consists of two parts - the individual soul and the spirit. So a human being is a septenary rather than a duality.

That is just different model. The presented model is just simpler so we don’t need more part unless the presented model fail.

A plant only has only the first two bodies. Primitive animals/insects have first three bodies. More complex mammals have first four bodies. All living beings have the spirit but only humans have individual souls The common essence in all living beings is the inner most spirit.

A plant in the presented model just don’t have a brain and nerve system.

A human with damaged brain still has the non-material mental body, except that he can not express himself with his physical body (or think with his physical brain).

A human with the brain damage in the presented model just has brain damage. So as you can see the presented model is simpler and can explain subject matter well so you cannot discard it unless you find a subject matter that it is not explicable within the model.

 

[Bahman]

Item 2 is not compatible with Aquinas so it would not work with his system: “2) Soul is immaterial and doesn’t have any part”. For example,

Summa Theologica Q79, A9:

Reply to Objection 1. We speak of parts, in whatever way a thing is divided. And so far as reason is divided according to its various acts, the higher and lower reason are called parts; but not because they are different powers.
newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm

And Q77 A1:

Reply to Objection 7. Rational and sensitive, as differences, are not taken from the powers of sense and reason, but from the sensitive and rational soul itself. But because substantial forms, which in themselves are unknown to us, are known by their accidents; nothing prevents us from sometimes substituting accidents for substantial differences.

and Summa Theologica, Q77, A8:

I answer that, As we have said already (5,6,7), all the powers of the soul belong to the soul alone as their principle. But some powers belong to the soul alone as their subject; as the intelligence and the will. These powers must remain in the soul, after the destruction of the body. But other powers are subjected in the composite; as all the powers of the sensitive and nutritive parts. Now accidents cannot remain after the destruction of the subject. Wherefore, the composite being destroyed, such powers do not remain actually; but they remain virtually in the soul, as in their principle or root.

So it is false that, as some say, these powers remain in the soul even after the corruption of the body. It is much more false that, as they say also, the acts of these powers remain in the separate soul; because these powers have no act apart from the corporeal organ.

newadvent.org/summa/1077.htm

What is accident? I did remember that I read it but I forgot. Sorry for having a bad memory.

Moreover what is wrong with #2?

 

[Vico]

What is accident? I did remember that I read it but I forgot. Sorry for having a bad memory.

Moreover what is wrong with #2?

The conflict is that a soul doesn’t have any part. The rational soul has parts that are not ontological: the powers. The powers are from the essence of the soul as* necessary accidents* of the substance.

Accidents cannot exist in themselves; accidents are incidental and not the identity of something. The substance gives identity.

The rational soul of a person (the person is soul and body) is not identical to all other souls because it is suited especially for that person’s body.