What exactly is the soul?

[wiggbuggie]

are soul and spirit the same? can anyone explain the relation to soul spirit and body? Doesn’t the brain animate our body? and give us emotions and thought?

 

[ynotzap]

The soul of man is a spiritual entity, the principle of activity in the human body, it gives the body its form. It has for its powers, will (the power to choose,) called volition, and rational intelligence (the ability to know and reason) The human brain stores the sense impressions received through the five senses. It is the the power of the rational intelligence to abstract the ideas, mental images that represent objective realities. The soul animates the body, it is the source of life, and gives life to the body. Man is composed of body and soul, matter and spirit It is made to the image and likeness of God, because God is pure Spirit, Intelligence, and Pure Act, and Goodness. The soul can not be destroyed by matter, because it is spiritual, it is from the soul that we derive our personality. It is responsible for all the order in the human body. When the body can not longer support the activity of the soul because of corruption, death, the soul leaves the body and appears before God, where we are judged. It is the noblist part of man’s nature. Emotions are human reactions that are composed of both feeling and thoughts, feelings belong to the body, thoughts belong to the soul.

 

[GEddie]

The soul is the life.

Animals possess a natural life – natural soul, and so can live only as a natural form.

Thr human soul is spiritual, and so is capable of Eternal Life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vico]

are soul and spirit the same? can anyone explain the relation to soul spirit and body? Doesn’t the brain animate our body? and give us emotions and thought?

In Mankind the soul is called the rational soul.

Modern Catholic Dictionary – SoulThe spiritual immortal part in human beings that animates their body. Though a substance in itself, the soul is naturally ordained toward a body; separated, it an “incomplete” substance. The soul has no parts, it is therefore simple, but it is not without accidents *. The faculties are its proper accidents. Every experience adds to its accidental form. It is individually created for each person by God and infused into the body at the time of human insemination. It is moreover created in respect to the body it will inform, so that the substance of bodily features and of mental characteristics insofar as they depend on organic functions is safeguarded. As a simple and spiritual substance, the soul cannot die. Yet it is not the total human nature, since a human person is composed of body animated by the soul. In philosophy, animals and plants are also said to have souls, which operate as sensitive and vegetative principles of life. Unlike the human spirit, these souls are perishable. The rational soul contains all the powers of the two other souls and is the origin of the sensitive and vegetative functions in the human being.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36571

**Spirit: ** That which is positively immaterial. It is pure spirit if it has no dependence on matter either for its existence or for any of its activities. God is uncreated pure Spirit; the angels are created pure spirits. The human soul is more properly called spiritual. Although it can exist independent of the body, it nevertheless in this life depends extrinsically on the body for its operations, and in the life to come retains a natural affinity for the body, with which after the resurrection it will be reunited for all eternity. (Etym. Latin spiritus, breath, life, soul, mind, spirit, power.)

• Accidents: Things whose essence naturally requires that they exist in another being. Accidents are also called the appearances, species, or properties of a thing. These may be either physical, such as quantity, or modal, such as size or shape. Supernaturally, accidents can exist, in the absence of their natural substance, as happens with the physical properties of bread and wine after Eucharistic consecration.

 

[wiggbuggie]

The soul of man is a spiritual entity, the principle of activity in the human body, it gives the body its form. It has for its powers, will (the power to choose,) called volition, and rational intelligence (the ability to know and reason) The human brain stores the sense impressions received through the five senses. It is the the power of the rational intelligence to abstract the ideas, mental images that represent objective realities. The soul animates the body, it is the source of life, and gives life to the body. Man is composed of body and soul, matter and spirit It is made to the image and likeness of God, because God is pure Spirit, Intelligence, and Pure Act, and Goodness. The soul can not be destroyed by matter, because it is spiritual, it is from the soul that we derive our personality. It is responsible for all the order in the human body. When the body can not longer support the activity of the soul because of corruption, death, the soul leaves the body and appears before God, where we are judged. It is the noblist part of man’s nature. Emotions are human reactions that are composed of both feeling and thoughts, feelings belong to the body, thoughts belong to the soul.

interesting when you said that emotions are human reactions, in scripture paul tells us that the body and soul are in a constant struggle. I guess things like selfless love and finding and being close to God is what the soul produces while the body wants material things or things thats good for the body (sleep,food, etc) That our spiritual self is at war with our body that acts on impulses and natural law

 

[Blue_Horizon]

are soul and spirit the same? can anyone explain the relation to soul spirit and body? Doesn’t the brain animate our body? and give us emotions and thought?

Different authors come from different traditions and have different definitions. Don’t expect consistency in the Bible on either of those words as its made up of 72 different books after all written by many different people over a long period of time.

Church philosophy/theology since the middle ages has been consistent in adopting the view of the soul provided by Aquinas who based himself on Aristotle.

In that view the soul is the “form” of the body. “Form” is a technical concept deriving from Aristotle. Look up hylomorphism. It will do your head in.

Basically, we see that all the operations and activity in living creatures seems to be coordinated and harmonised by some hidden principle we cannot see, dissect or find under a microscope.

Hence, by reason, we infer the existence of some non-material principle that serves to unite, guide and maintain all these bodily operations. That non-material “thing” is Aristotle’s “soul”.

Creatures capable of free-will and reason are said to have a soul that does not corrupt at death. Death is the separation of body and soul.
Personally I have never been convinced, philosophically, that the latter must be true.
Christians hold it to be true, I believe, more by faith than by a fact of reasoning.

 

[Ignatius]

are soul and spirit the same? can anyone explain the relation to soul spirit and body? Doesn’t the brain animate our body? and give us emotions and thought?

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the soul as follows:
The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality. Clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource. Here’s the link: newadvent.org/cathen/

 

[wiggbuggie]

past few days ive been thinking about the soul and also kinda doubting we have one but a thought came to me. Since God is pure spirit he made us in his image and since he wishes to spend eternity with us we must have a spiritual soul like God cause only material and matter form things die. Things you cannot see live forever the gospel of john is good on this giving a more spiritual approach. rational explanation why we have a soul and its purpose

 

[ynotzap]

past few days ive been thinking about the soul and also kinda doubting we have one but a thought came to me. Since God is pure spirit he made us in his image and since he wishes to spend eternity with us we must have a spiritual soul like God cause only material and matter form things die. Things you cannot see live forever the gospel of john is good on this giving a more spiritual approach. rational explanation why we have a soul and its purpose

The fact that you think and know, and reason are all spiritual actions. Has any scientists discover an idea, a thought? Have they ever discovered truth, or goodness, love or hatred? It is by understanding the nature of knowledge that we come to the existence of the soul. All the mentioned things are only known by man’s intelligence, they are not experienced physically. It’s true that the mind is dependent on the physical things in the mode of existence we live in, but man’s intelligence can act apart from physical things. That’s why we say, that the mind is “extrinsically dependent” on the physical in our present existence in this material world. When we part from this earth, understanding and knowledge is infused into our minds by God, there will be no need to reason, we will intuit knowledge, much like the angels. It is the Spirit that is the cause of the material world, and superior to it. We can transcend to the spiritual world. which many scientists fail to do who are materialists. If they can not sense it, it is not real to them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The fact that you think and know, and reason are all spiritual actions. Has any scientists discover an idea, a thought? Have they ever discovered truth, or goodness, love or hatred? It is by understanding the nature of knowledge that we come to the existence of the soul. All the mentioned things are only known by man’s intelligence, they are not experienced physically. It’s true that the mind is dependent on the physical things in the mode of existence we live in, but man’s intelligence can act apart from physical things. That’s why we say, that the mind is “extrinsically dependent” on the physical in our present existence in this material world. When we part from this earth, understanding and knowledge is infused into our minds by God, there will be no need to reason, we will intuit knowledge, much like the angels. It is the Spirit that is the cause of the material world, and superior to it. We can transcend to the spiritual world. which many scientists fail to do who are materialists. If they can not sense it, it is not real to them.

The big debate with modern science of course is whether “spiritual acts” logically necessitate substantial spiritual faculties.

Memory was once regarded as a substantial,spiritual power or faculty of the soul on a par with free-will and intellect.

Nowadays theologians do not even mention it anymore in this context.
Even in medieval times it was being somewhat back-pedalled on in Philosophy of Man discussions - unlike at the time of Augustine or Aristotle.

The reason?
We have discovered that memories (non-material though they seem to be) are in fact stored in matter and elicited from matter and we do not need to posit “spiritual substance” to explain the faculty as appears to have been the case in times past.
It is now considered more brain than mind it seems.

Of course many scientists (eg E. De Bono) today also contend that even the faculties of Intellect and Free-Will can be explained along material lines.

That would suggest the spiritual intellect is not just “extrinsically dependent” on a corporeal brain to manifest its operations … but is in fact much more identifiable with the material brain itself.

Therefore, by Ockham’s Razor, if it is at all possible that these alleged spiritually substantial powers can be explained by a material cause then we should not so quickly jump to assuming the existence of a more “remote” realm of spiritual substance.

While many such thinkers are “materialists” (who deny the existence of any spiritual substances whatsoever) there are some who do not see this as a necessary corollary of the above. The spiritual soul is still needed to explain unity and purpose of discrete yet harmoniously acting parts in a living creature.

Maybe the human soul (more like animals than we previously realised) cannot, by reason alone, be proven eternal (if intellect and free-will can somehow be grounded in matter) except on faith grounds.

Even Aristotle did not clearly seem to believe that human souls can survive death, that I believe has always been a Christian interpretation.

The debate won’t go away, though many (both materialists and Christians) assume it is impossible for Christians to hold to any of the above allegedly materialist principles at all.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The big debate with modern science of course is whether “spiritual acts” logically necessitate substantial spiritual faculties.

Memory was once regarded as a substantial,spiritual power or faculty of the soul on a par with free-will and intellect.

Nowadays theologians do not even mention it anymore in this context.
Even in medieval times it was being somewhat back-pedalled on in Philosophy of Man discussions - unlike at the time of Augustine or Aristotle.

The reason?
We have discovered that memories (non-material though they seem to be) are in fact stored in matter and elicited from matter and we do not need to posit “spiritual substance” to explain the faculty as appears to have been the case in times past.
It is now considered more brain than mind it seems.

Of course many scientists (eg E. De Bono) today also contend that even the faculties of Intellect and Free-Will can be explained along material lines.

That would suggest the spiritual intellect is not just “extrinsically dependent” on a corporeal brain to manifest its operations … but is in fact much more identifiable with the material brain itself.

Therefore, by Ockham’s Razor, if it is at all possible that these alleged spiritually substantial powers can be explained by a material cause then we should not so quickly jump to assuming the existence of a more “remote” realm of spiritual substance.

While many such thinkers are “materialists” (who deny the existence of any spiritual substances whatsoever) there are some who do not see this as a necessary corollary of the above. The spiritual soul is still needed to explain unity and purpose of discrete yet harmoniously acting parts in a living creature.

Maybe the human soul (more like animals than we previously realised) cannot, by reason alone, be proven eternal (if intellect and free-will can somehow be grounded in matter) except on faith grounds.

Even Aristotle did not clearly seem to believe that human souls can survive death, that I believe has always been a Christian interpretation.

The debate won’t go away, though many (both materialists and Christians) assume it is impossible for Christians to hold to any of the above allegedly materialist principles at all.

Thomas Aquinas would have a different view. He cites the soul as the resevoir of memory for ideas and similar intellectual objects , as well as of the intellect and will. There is no proof that the brain is the resevoir of memory, that is speculation. Proof of Aquinas’ position is the immediate judgement at death. How could God condemn or bless us unless we could recall our acts in this life?

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

I wonder how they, the material scientists would approach explaining the three degrees of abstraction, the idea, the mathematical (quantitative) and the metaphysical (qualitative). All human actions have a combination of spirit and matter. It is very logical to even assume that spiritual faculties are necessary to perform spiritual acts. Memory of sense impressions can be easily explained (as referred to by St.Thomas as a white tablet) and science calls it the brain, or a blank CD. But what about the memory of ideas, abstract concepts. Because there is such a union of body and soul, or spirit and matter I can see the possibility of both substances having a mutual effect on the memory, a memory of word, and a memory of the abstract meaning of the word. One employing the animality of human nature,the other of the rationality of human nature. There is a distinct difference between animals and men. Animals have sense memory, but evidently not rational , intelligent memory, or abstract memory. If they did, we could converse with them intelligently. When it comes to explaining the spiritual soul, they don’t have an answer, and looking in the wrong places. This is their hangup, they fail to transcend from matter to spirit. Yet little do they realize that it is this spiritual capability that assures them of what ever success they discover in their empirical endeavors. Even the understanding of human emotion shows this mutual union of body and intellective soul. The sensitive or feeling part of human nature, and the comprehensive part. How do they explain the act of comprehension, they are trying to reduce it all to a material reality, which is to be expected in the materialistic, empirical ideology of our modern world. I think to the best of my memory that the human rational soul has all the abilities of the vegitative(plant life), sentient(animal life) and rational abilities found in humans. I think it is explained in the “grades of beings” as one of the proofs for the existence of God by St. Thomas. And by the way what is their explanation for the concept of the word “meaning”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Thomas Aquinas would have a different view. He cites the soul as the resevoir of memory for ideas and similar intellectual objects , as well as of the intellect and will. There is no proof that the brain is the resevoir of memory, that is speculation.
Linus2nd

Obviously the debate has moved beyond Aquinas and for readily apparent reasons.

All is speculation Linus, there is no proof that the mind is the reservoir of memory either.
In fact, given advances in science and our understanding of the capabilities of matter … it would seem a violation of Ochkam’s Razor to posit causality in spiritual substance when composite material substance may well be up to the job in any case.

Proof of Aquinas’ position is the immediate judgement at death. How could God condemn or bless us unless we could recall our acts in this life?

Oh dear, you’ve forgotten this is a philosophy Forum, arguments on the basis of faith are hardly going to “prove” intellection and memory are faculties primarily residing in an intellective soul (which is thereby immortal) and merely expressed extrinsically through the material organ.

Philosophically it is an open question, and the tide amongst reasonable and sincere men has been turning against Aquinas’s interpretation of Aristotle it seems

But even in faith terms, it doesn’t matter a hoot what we think or remember does it.
It is what the universe (ie the book of life) “remembers”. Our lives, by causal ripoples, are remembered in the very fabric of the universe, karma if you will.
So even this argument from faith is pretty inconclusive methinks Linus.

Does it matter if philosophy cannot prove the immortality the soul nor man’s difference from the animals on the basis of its alleged completely immaterial intellective powers?

I do not think so.
It is enough that faith tells us of these truths, how they might be explained philosophically may vary. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Why be afraid if Aquinas or even Aristotle didn’t get it quite right.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I wonder how they, the material scientists would approach explaining the three degrees of abstraction, the idea, the mathematical (quantitative) and the metaphysical (qualitative). All human actions have a combination of spirit and matter. It is very logical to even assume that spiritual faculties are necessary to perform spiritual acts. Memory of sense impressions can be easily explained (as referred to by St.Thomas as a white tablet) and science calls it the brain, or a blank CD. But what about the memory of ideas, abstract concepts. Because there is such a union of body and soul, or spirit and matter I can see the possibility of both substances having a mutual effect on the memory, a memory of word, and a memory of the abstract meaning of the word. One employing the animality of human nature,the other of the rationality of human nature. There is a distinct difference between animals and men. Animals have sense memory, but evidently not rational , intelligent memory, or abstract memory. If they did, we could converse with them intelligently. When it comes to explaining the spiritual soul, they don’t have an answer, and looking in the wrong places. This is their hangup, they fail to transcend from matter to spirit. Yet little do they realize that it is this spiritual capability that assures them of what ever success they discover in their empirical endeavors. Even the understanding of human emotion shows this mutual union of body and intellective soul. The sensitive or feeling part of human nature, and the comprehensive part. How do they explain the act of comprehension, they are trying to reduce it all to a material reality, which is to be expected in the materialistic, empirical ideology of our modern world. I think to the best of my memory that the human rational soul has all the abilities of the vegitative(plant life), sentient(animal life) and rational abilities found in humans. I think it is explained in the “grades of beings” as one of the proofs for the existence of God by St. Thomas. And by the way what is their explanation for the concept of the word “meaning”?

Yes, obviously Aquinas’s Philosophy of Man is logical and consistent.
But “consistent with” does not make something necessarily true, only a contender.

 

[ynotzap]

Yes, obviously Aquinas’s Philosophy of Man is logical and consistent.
But “consistent with” does not make something necessarily true, only a contender.

It is also based on Objectivity, careful to avoid subjective thinking. Based on what is outside the mind, which unites thought to reality. After all what makes a thing true, what we think or what we experience, the criterion of all our knowledge which should affect our thinking and not visa-versa. There are universal principles that never change, and neither does their source. Are these principles sensed or are they comprehended from what is experienced? It is interesting to note that even Albert Einstein in his essays “In My Later Years” was actually arriving to the concepts of the three degrees of abstraction already referred to by St. Thomas. As I see it, St.Thomas is logical, and consistent with the truth, and the Catholic Church picked a winner to explain what is and what isn’t regarding reason and Faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Obviously the debate has moved beyond Aquinas and for readily apparent reasons.

All is speculation Linus, there is no proof that the mind is the reservoir of memory either.
In fact, given advances in science and our understanding of the capabilities of matter … it would seem a violation of Ochkam’s Razor to posit causality in spiritual substance when composite material substance may well be up to the job in any case.

Oh dear, you’ve forgotten this is a philosophy Forum, arguments on the basis of faith are hardly going to “prove” intellection and memory are faculties primarily residing in an intellective soul (which is thereby immortal) and merely expressed extrinsically through the material organ.

Philosophically it is an open question, and the tide amongst reasonable and sincere men has been turning against Aquinas’s interpretation of Aristotle it seems

But even in faith terms, it doesn’t matter a hoot what we think or remember does it.
It is what the universe (ie the book of life) “remembers”. Our lives, by causal ripoples, are remembered in the very fabric of the universe, karma if you will.
So even this argument from faith is pretty inconclusive methinks Linus.

Does it matter if philosophy cannot prove the immortality the soul nor man’s difference from the animals on the basis of its alleged completely immaterial intellective powers?

I do not think so.
It is enough that faith tells us of these truths, how they might be explained philosophically may vary. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Why be afraid if Aquinas or even Aristotle didn’t get it quite right.

Neither philosophy nor science can contradict the clear doctrines of faith. The fact is that God can hardly pass judgement over us if we cannot remember our past acts. What would be the point of that?

Thank you for you enlightened and charitable response.

Linus2nd

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It seems pretty clear to me that the soul is transparently a “God of the Gaps” kind of construct. Historically, we had no idea how the body did things like:

1. Reasoned
2. Stored memories
3. Processed sensory (name removed by moderator)ut
4. Made choices

Moreover, these activities seemed too far removed from other phenomenon that they must occupy an entirely different metaphysical category. It was out of this ignorance that the concept of a soul arose.

However, now we have actual evidence that casts doubt on the necessity of postulating a spiritual source for those sorts of activities. Specifically, brain damage can impair all of those activities and we can selectively affect different processes by manipulating the brain in certain ways. In addition, whenever someone exhibits impairment in those abilities and we look at their brain, we find damage that explains the impairment. On top of that, we can “see” our brain doing things like processing (name removed by moderator)ut, remembering things, and reasoning with technologies like MRI.

This isn’t “proof there is no soul!” but it does suggest that we can reasonably hypothesize that the brain is actually responsible for those things, i.e. we don’t need to invoke a soul to get a complete explanation for them. I personally believe that the case for the “brain only” hypothesis will only get stronger as our understanding of the brain improves.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems pretty clear to me that the soul is transparently a “God of the Gaps” kind of construct. Historically, we had no idea how the body did things like:

You are welcome to your opinion but hurling insults against historic and reasoned arguments only displays your prejudice, it does not provide an opposing argument…

1. Reasoned
2. Stored memories
3. Processed sensory (name removed by moderator)ut
4. Made choices

Of these four only #3 is a function strictly of the brain. Opinion is divided on # 2. However it is the opinion of Aquinas that the soul retains primary memories such as ideas and concepts. I personally think it retains all types of memories. It is difficult to see how a material substance could retain memories of any type.

Moreover, these activities seemed too far removed from other phenomenon that they must occupy an entirely different metaphysical category. It was out of this ignorance that the concept of a soul arose.

Insulting the opinion of others is against the rules. Besides the men who pioneered these arguments were anything but ignorant. It is too bad we don’t have their like today.

But of course men have known since early Old Testament times that men have a rational soul. It was recorded in the Book of Genesis. You can try to disprove the story of Genesis but people have been trying to do that since the 17th century and haven’t succeeded yet.

However, now we have actual evidence that casts doubt on the necessity of postulating a spiritual source for those sorts of activities.

In certain materialist, skeptical circles that is true. But that is to be expected.

Specifically, brain damage can impair all of those activities and we can selectively affect different processes by manipulating the brain in certain ways. In addition, whenever someone exhibits impairment in those abilities and we look at their brain, we find damage that explains the impairment. On top of that, we can “see” our brain doing things like processing (name removed by moderator)ut, remembering things, and reasoning with technologies like MRI.

The early Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas and those following him were well aware that the soul used the brain, that does not mean that the brain is the source of immaterial activities such as reasoning, remembering, willing.

And of course immaterial activities are halted or impared by accidents or disease. But the soul still possesses immaterial powers. But since it depends on the brain to function properly, any damage to the brain will limit the display of those powers. The powers are still present but they cannot act.

It is no argument against the immaterial powers of the soul that we can " see " the brain react to intellectual activity. The soul depends on the body, including the brain, and the body and the brain depend on the soul. In fact the soul directs all the bodies activities, not merely its intellectual activities.,

This isn’t “proof there is no soul!” but it does suggest that we can reasonably hypothesize that the brain is actually responsible for those things, i.e. we don’t need to invoke a soul to get a complete explanation for them. I personally believe that the case for the “brain only” hypothesis will only get stronger as our understanding of the brain improves.

Well, good luck.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

here, souls speak to souls
how to describe who describes?
ah, reality

 

[Aloysium]

souls rooted in love,
known to God eternally,
we’re so far from home.