What is a "soul"

[WTSherman]

I have a copy of “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” by his holiness Pope John Paul at the second council.

A soul to me is any human being born since the ancient Jews who is able to find God and feel His love.

 

[sw85]

The soul is simply the ontological form of the human person. Another way of understanding it is “substantial unity.” Thus my arm is not an entity separate from my leg; they are both parts of the same entity (“me”). It is this unity that keeps me constant even as the matter in my body changes throughout the course of my life. This is emphatically *not *the Cartesian ghost-in-the-machine. The soul is not really a thing separate from the body; they are rather different ways of understanding the same thing. This is sort of similar how “goodness” and “being” are convertible in Thomist metaphysics, i.e., they refer to the same thing, but the terms themselves imply different ways of understanding that same thing.

You are right to note that the “soul” and the body are really inseparable. They are. What we mean when we say the soul goes here or there after death is that God unnaturally (or rather supernaturally) preserves the immaterial elements of the form of the human person (i.e., the intellect and will) from perishing when the body dies. They are supposed to perish, after all, when the body dies; the intellect and will cannot survive without the body, short of divine intervention. The state of the soul after death is thus somewhat akin to a severed hand which is kept artificially alive by being stored in a jar of preservative fluid and induced to occasional movement and twitching by electrical signals. If this seems like a radically amputated mode of being, that’s because it is; not for nothing do Catholics say the dead earnestly await the Resurrection.

The proper term for the understanding of the soul is hylemorphic dualism. Edward Feser had some good blog posts on the topic you can look up.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

That is strange. I have had quite a lot of benefits of education (PhD in Astrophysics) and I still believe in the soul & the Truths of the Catholic Church.

 

[fred_conty]

What about all the doctors who insist on there being some natural explanation for a NDE?

The doctors don’t know everything and that isn’t a slam against the doctors.
They admit that they too are dumbfounded over some medical events in their patients.

But nonone knows exactly when the soul actually leaves the body.
There are cases of apparent death in which the victims wake up in the morgue or even in the hearse going to the cemetary. Obviously in these cases the soul did not yet leave the body.

NDE could be explained in the same way. What looked like death wasn’t. Even tho the heart stops, that is not yet death since many of the other organs are still alive. How much of the body has to be dead before actual death occurs is unknown. This is the reason a priest should always be called even after the person dies. The priest can still give the person the annointing which has the power to forgive his sins if he were sorry for them before his death in an imperfect way. It is important if you are catholic to call one as soon as possible in those circumstances since we really don’t know when the soul leaves.

NDE dosen’t necessarily mean that the soul had to leave the body for this to happen.
Saints have had a similiar happening in bilocation and in their mystical experiences.
Some of them have even explained these events as feeling like their soul left their body.
But of course we know it didn’t.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[levinas12]

I grew up Roman catholic and therefore have a sense of the meaning of the word “soul” as used and taught to RC’s like myself. However, now that I have had certain benefits of education, I am wondering if the word really has any real meaning. Here is my logic:

1. It appears to me that the word “soul” is more or less understood as a sort of “ghost” within the human body, namely, the state, I believe, was described by Decartes, a duality of mind and body.

2.The problem, however, with this concept is that it doesn’t match up with reality because my personality, my memories, my rational functioning are all related to the physical body. I have a mode of behavior, for example, which I call my personality and it can be controlled or affected by chemicals or disease processes. Alzheimer patients, for example, are not the same “person” (if you will) post disease as they were pre-disease.

3… It seems to me, therefore, that the term “soul” really has no referent in reality. I submit that there is no “ghost in the machine”. Who can offer convincing proof that the human personality survives death when it cannot survive a lobotomy, for example?

“Soul” was originally a technical term from ancient Greek philosophy (particularly Aristotle). It was a “form”, a “look”, in Greek, an “eidos” that defined a class of beings, i.e., living beings. “Soul” was not an entity in its own right; rather, it was shorthand for a host of “abilities” that living beings have, e.g., vegitativemetabolism (in modern parlance),

 

[levinas12]

:

… It appears to me that the word “soul” is more or less understood as a sort of “ghost” within the human body, namely, the state, I believe, was described by Decartes, a duality of mind and body.

… my personality, my memories, my rational functioning are all related to the physical body. I have a mode of behavior, for example, which I call my personality and it can be controlled or affected by chemicals or disease processes. Alzheimer patients, for example, are not the same “person” (if you will) post disease as they were pre-disease.

Who can offer convincing proof that the human personality survives death when it cannot survive a lobotomy, for example?

What Descartes meant by “soul” is not what Aristotle meant by “soul”. For Aristotle, “soul” was not a “res”, a “thing”, an “entity”. It was rather shorthand for a number of “abilities” that describe what living beings “do”, e.g., in the case of animals, metabolism, perception, self-motion; in the case of human beings, all of the animal “abilities”, plus special human “activities” such as conversation, science, art, yes, even philosophy.

Abilities are not things, not entities. But they are real nonetheless.

I agree that the abilities of a human being cannot naturally survive the death of the human body. A supernatural intervention is required for this to happen. But if you already believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, this is not an impossible leap.

Also, just a footnote. Aristotle’s “soul” is to be distinguished from the Christian notion of “person”. All human beings share the same Aristotelian “soul” which is their “form” (even though, for Aristotle, the “form” is not separate from the concrete substance, the tode ti, the “this” being, such as “John” or “Sally”)

For Aristotle, “John” or “Sally” have the same “form” - with their “difference” (individuality) being “attributable” to their “matter”.

Now the Christian notion of “person” has come on the philosophical scene. Unlike “form”, the “person” is not shareable. The person is “unique”,“incommunicable”, a singularity outside species and genus - in precisely this way, “person” is inexplicable - because “person” is not a “what” but a “who”. But a “who” we immediately perceive, i.e., the “who” is not a construct.

 

[WillP]

What Descartes meant by “soul” is not what Aristotle meant by “soul”. For Aristotle, “soul” was not a “res”, a “thing”, an “entity”. It was rather shorthand for a number of “abilities” that describe what living beings “do”, e.g., in the case of animals, metabolism, perception, self-motion; in the case of human beings, all of the animal “abilities”, plus special human “activities” such as conversation, science, art, yes, even philosophy.

An “ability” is not a thing, an entity. But there is still reality to an ability.

I agree that the abilities of a human being cannot naturally survive the death of the human body. A supernatural intervention is required for this to happen. But if you already believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, this is not an impossible leap.

Also, just a footnote. Aristotle’s “soul” is to be distinguished from the Christian notion of “person”. All human beings share the same Aristotelian “soul” which is their “form” (even though, for Aristotle, the “form” is not separate from the concrete substance, the tode ti, the “this” being, such as “John” or “Sally”)

For Aristotle, “John” or “Sally” have the same “form” - with their “difference” (individuality) being “attributable” to their “matter”.

Now the Christian notion of “person” has come on the philosophical scene. Unlike “form”, the “person” is not shareable. The person is “unique”,“incommunicable”, a singularity outside species and genus - in precisely this way, “person” is inexplicable - because “person” is not a “what” but a “who”. But a “who” we immediately perceive, i.e., the “who” is not a construct.

A friend of mine is a Taoist. He believes that all of existence is united in a “oneness”. Hence, we actually are all made out of the same stuff and united with reality.

Isn’t that pretty much what it seems like if we are to believe in the happening of “the big bang”?

 

[levinas12]

A friend of mine is a Taoist. He believes that all of existence is united in a “oneness”. Hence, we actually are all made out of the same stuff and united with reality.

Isn’t that pretty much what it seems like if we are to believe in the happening of “the big bang”?

In the really old days of philosophy, the Pre-Socratics for instance, there was a push to find the fundamental unity of being (e.g., Thales thought it was “water” but not ordinary water).

Today, the big emphasis is on difference. “Being” has become unbearably “plural”.

Monism has fallen out of fashion.

 

[yppop]

A friend of mine is a Taoist. He believes that all of existence is united in a “oneness”. Hence, we actually are all made out of the same stuff and united with reality.

Isn’t that pretty much what it seems like if we are to believe in the happening of “the big bang”?

Since space, matter, energy, and time emerged with the big bang (according to the “scientific” interpretation) what is your guess regarding the nature of the “same stuff” from which we are made??

Yppop

 

[Polecat_Smith]

This is my first post, and I’m not a theologian, but it appears that you’re not satisfied with the answers you’re getting, so I’d like to offer my thoughts on the matter.

The “soul,” as some of the earlier posters have already said, is the principal of operation for a living being. How I understand that is this: When we say that something is “alive,” what we are really doing is describing how it operates. Living beings have certain ways that they function—for example, they consume resources (i.e. eat), eliminate waste, procreate, respond to their environment, etc.

Every living being, whether plant, animal, or human, has a soul, though not all souls are alike. The human soul also includes functions such as consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. Moreover, each person, in addition to the functions they have in common with other living beings, have certain ways that they alone function, which means that each person has their own “principal of operation” that makes them distinct from all other people. Therefore, each one has their own soul.

A principal of operation that is performed by an object is distinct from the object that performs it. This is a critical point. The principal can be perceived, understood, and applied, even without the object being present. This is how most of science works. We observe certain objects in certain environments, deduce the principals behind their behavior, then use those principals in the abstract—sometimes to predict how other similar objects will behave, and other times to deduce things about phenomena that bear little, if any, direct relationship to the original objects observed.

In the engineering field (where I work), we normally proceed in the opposite direction. We see what we want to do, establish a function to do it, then build the physical system to perform the function. If I establish a certain function that I need performed, write up a “functional specification” of some sort, and give that specification to two designers, each may end up with a system that looks quite different from the other. One designer may, for example, build a hard-wired electronic circuit, while the other may use a computer and implement most of the logic in software—but both objects will perform the same function. How would this be possible if the function has no meaning or existence distinct from the objects themselves?

In short, the soul operates the body, but it is *not *the body and can exist without the body being present. It is therefore possible that the soul can survive the death of the body, as long as there is someone who can perceive it, understand it, and cause it to be executed some how. We would take this “someone” to be God.

We don’t know exactly how this happens; it may be beyond our capacity to understand, but I think we can see a shadow of how it might happen in our own memories (since we were made in God’s “image and likeness”). My mother, for example, passed away years ago, and I can remember many things about her—how she talked and laughed, how she smiled—but what I can remember is only a tiny fraction of what I saw of her, and what I saw was an even more tiny fraction of what made her who and what was. My finite human mind probably could not even begin to comprehend the totality of her “operating principal.” God, on the other hand is perfectly capable of doing that.

In summary, every living being (obviously) has some principal of operation, and the “soul” is defined as that principal, therefore, every living being (obviously) has a soul. Further, since the soul is distinct from the body, it’s possible that it can exist separate from the body, as long as someone (i.e. God) makes that happen.

As for proof that the human soul does survive death, I don’t think anyone can give you that. There’s no logical principal that I know of which says the human soul *must *survive death. We don’t *have *to exist at all. We exist (and survive death) simply because God wills it. The Church teaches that there are some things we can know about God, and His plans for us, by our reason alone, but other things which we can only know through Divine revelation.

Hope this helps.

 

[greylorn]

I grew up Roman catholic and therefore have a sense of the meaning of the word “soul” as used and taught to RC’s like myself. However, now that I have had certain benefits of education, I am wondering if the word really has any real meaning. Here is my logic:

1. It appears to me that the word “soul” is more or less understood as a sort of “ghost” within the human body, namely, the state, I believe, was described by Decartes, a duality of mind and body.

2.The problem, however, with this concept is that it doesn’t match up with reality because my personality, my memories, my rational functioning are all related to the physical body. I have a mode of behavior, for example, which I call my personality and it can be controlled or affected by chemicals or disease processes. Alzheimer patients, for example, are not the same “person” (if you will) post disease as they were pre-disease.

3… It seems to me, therefore, that the term “soul” really has no referent in reality. I submit that there is no “ghost in the machine”. Who can offer convincing proof that the human personality survives death when it cannot survive a lobotomy, for example?

Your questions and points are excellent. How could they be otherwise, inasmuch as they mirrored the same questions I asked, for much the same set of reasons, 50 years ago? They all have answers, but those answers will not be highly regarded because they do not fit into either conventional scientific or religious thinking. They are based upon a complete rethinking of the ancient belief that one thing can be the cause of anything else.

I think that you would be well-advised to peruse Descartes’ ideas in depth and detail. They are as logical as possible, especially given what he had to work with, and on the certainty of what can be known there is no one better. You might also appreciate a philosophy book from the sixties or thereabouts, The Ghost in the Machine by Arthur Koestler. Finally, the lobotomy issue you noted in your section 3 is specifically addressed in an old novel, The Soul of Anna Klane.

Given the focus of your questions, there is a good chance that you will find all or some of these references interesting. If so, there are several more modern books which you will value the more for a bit of preliminary philosophical grounding.

Good luck!

Oh— and to answer your questions about the “soul”— There is plenty of evidence that some components of the human mind persist after death, at least for awhile. (c.f. Human Personality and the Survival of Bodily Death, by F.W.H. Meyers.)

The problem lies in the traditional definition of soul as a “spirit,” an entity outside of or removed from the physical universe. This ancient definition precludes the evidence from being taken seriously.

The problem of credibility, and others, are eliminated if the soul is re-evaluated in the context of modern physics understanding, ideas which were unavailable to early Christian thinkers.

For example: Define the soul as the equivalent of what physicists call a “Maxwellian Demon.” (Wikipedia will help if you’ve not had a course in thermodynamics.) In other words, the “soul” is an entity capable of violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with impunity. At the most fundamental of levels that is the only thing that the soul needs to do.

This simple definition of properties eliminates all the problems with Descartes’ theory, and allows at least a theoretical possibility of its interaction with the brain,

This all probably comes across as a bit arcane, but I have a book which explains it in simplified, mostly everyday terms for the few who might be interested.

 

[Bravo_6]

The soul is what gives life to humans.Firstly,its essential structure forbids dissolution by death.Death is a disintegration of parts.Only composite things can die.yet the soul is not composite.Its power of immaterial thought proves its independence of matter.It cannot be touched by chemistry.

So basically you deny consciousness after death or rather expiration?The soul whilst in a state of union with the body operates by using the faculties of the body.If the sense instruments are incapacitated,the soul can no longer operate adequately whilst united to the body.But once released from the body,its intelligence and will and power to love at once assert themselves.

Hydrogen and oxygen unite to form a drop of water.They can operate as water only whilst united.Hydrogen is there,but it cannot operate as hydrogen until released from the union.Soul and body make one human being.And both elements must be fit to co-operate in a bodily human being.

The soul cannot operate separately as a distinct unit whilst still united.But once released,it can operate independently every bit as much as hydrogen when released from its essential union with oxygen to form water.

 

[GEddie]

The soul is what gives life to humans.Firstly,its essential structure forbids dissolution by death.Death is a disintegration of parts.Only composite things can die.yet the soul is not composite.Its power of immaterial thought proves its independence of matter.It cannot be touched by chemistry.

So basically you deny consciousness after death or rather expiration?The soul whilst in a state of union with the body operates by using the faculties of the body.If the sense instruments are incapacitated,the soul can no longer operate adequately whilst united to the body.But once released from the body,its intelligence and will and power to love at once assert themselves.

Hydrogen and oxygen unite to form a drop of water.They can operate as water only whilst united.Hydrogen is there,but it cannot operate as hydrogen until released from the union.Soul and body make one human being.And both elements must be fit to co-operate in a bodily human being.

The soul cannot operate separately as a distinct unit whilst still united.But once released,it can operate independently every bit as much as hydrogen when released from its essential union with oxygen to form water.

The difficulty in your description is that there is no necessity for hydrogen to exist as water; it’s natural state is as the uncombined gas H[sub]2[/sub]; and there are numerous locales in the universe where it exists without forming water because the c

 

[GEddie]

The soul is what gives life to humans.Firstly,its essential structure forbids dissolution by death.Death is a disintegration of parts.Only composite things can die.yet the soul is not composite.Its power of immaterial thought proves its independence of matter.It cannot be touched by chemistry.

So basically you deny consciousness after death or rather expiration?The soul whilst in a state of union with the body operates by using the faculties of the body.If the sense instruments are incapacitated,the soul can no longer operate adequately whilst united to the body.But once released from the body,its intelligence and will and power to love at once assert themselves.

Hydrogen and oxygen unite to form a drop of water.They can operate as water only whilst united.Hydrogen is there,but it cannot operate as hydrogen until released from the union.Soul and body make one human being.And both elements must be fit to co-operate in a bodily human being.

The soul cannot operate separately as a distinct unit whilst still united.But once released,it can operate independently every bit as much as hydrogen when released from its essential union with oxygen to form water.

The difficulty in your description is that there is no necessity for hydrogen to exist as water; it’s natural state is as the uncombined gas H[sub]2[/sub]; and there are numerous locales in the universe where it exists without forming water because the conditions are not met.

The human soul, however, is designed and grown to fill a human body, and would be in a disabled state torn from it.

ICXC NIKA

 

[pgnat1]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

If you are unaware of all the teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject, explore the Catechism on the link I provided.

:compcoff:

 

[JimG]

The soul is simply the ontological form of the human person. Another way of understanding it is “substantial unity.” Thus my arm is not an entity separate from my leg; they are both parts of the same entity (“me”). It is this unity that keeps me constant even as the matter in my body changes throughout the course of my life. This is emphatically *not *the Cartesian ghost-in-the-machine. The soul is not really a thing separate from the body; they are rather different ways of understanding the same thing. This is sort of similar how “goodness” and “being” are convertible in Thomist metaphysics, i.e., they refer to the same thing, but the terms themselves imply different ways of understanding that same thing.

You are right to note that the “soul” and the body are really inseparable. They are. What we mean when we say the soul goes here or there after death is that God unnaturally (or rather supernaturally) preserves the immaterial elements of the form of the human person (i.e., the intellect and will) from perishing when the body dies. They are supposed to perish, after all, when the body dies; the intellect and will cannot survive without the body, short of divine intervention. The state of the soul after death is thus somewhat akin to a severed hand which is kept artificially alive by being stored in a jar of preservative fluid and induced to occasional movement and twitching by electrical signals. If this seems like a radically amputated mode of being, that’s because it is; not for nothing do Catholics say the dead earnestly await the Resurrection.

The proper term for the understanding of the soul is hylemorphic dualism. Edward Feser had some good blog posts on the topic you can look up.

Yes, this is the best explanation yet. It is too bad that hylomorphic dualism is not much taught or explained any longer in the schools, since it is the basis for the Catholic understanding of soul.

I especially like your point about substantial unity. Throughout all our lives, from childhood to old age, we are aware of being one person, a unity, an individual who persists through time, even as every molecule of our body changes. I don’t even have the same body–the same material–now that I had as a child, and yet I’m aware of being the same person.

The Church considers the soul to be an immaterial substance, actually having no extension in space or time–that’s why it persists as a unity–while also being substantially united to our body. It’s not dualism. It’s two substances–one material, one spiritual, united so intimately that only death can rip the soul from the body.

The only soul which we can really study is our own. Scientists may or may not be given to introspection, but philosophers must be. One can try to study through observation of one’s one mind and intellect (faculties of the soul), and try to decide whether in fact every thought, every word, every paper written, every conclusion reached, is the result of material forces only. Or did “I” have something to do with it?

 

[Abba]

It’s two substances–one material, one spiritual, united so intimately that only death can rip the soul from the body.

Actually, I know that the soul can separate from the body while the body remains alive and the soul returns to the body after a little excursion. Much like what happened with John the apostle and the Blessed who in spirit went to the house where Mary lived with John in Turkey.

 

[GEddie]

Actually, I know that the soul can separate from the body while the body remains alive and the soul returns to the body after a little excursion. Much like what happened with John the apostle and the Blessed who in spirit went to the house where Mary lived with John in Turkey.

Actually, no. Among other things, the human soul is body’s life; and so full separation results in human death.

However, as the human soul does not per se occupy space or time, such can be given experiences without in fact “leaving the body”.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Abba]

Actually, no. Among other things, the human soul is body’s life; and so full separation results in human death.

However, as the human soul does not per se occupy space or time, such can be given experiences without in fact “leaving the body”.

ICXC NIKA

What exactly do you mean by that the human body does not occupy space or time? The soul is here on earth in space and time, sinning and living and hopefully growing in sanctify. Allow me to tell exactly what I have in mind. It is probably the first time ever that such a mystery (?) is written about in the internet and so here it goes. There I was minding my own business, I had just put the children to sleep and I prayed my evening prayers and started resting and going to sleep. I sensed a presence enter my home (I was living in the middle of nowhere in fourteen acres of farm country) by the front door and I opened by eyes. I became attentive to noise, in case it was a robber but no noise. Then a spirit attached itself to my soul and took my soul and went through the front door and down the winding dirt road and finally to a little piece of land near the river. I was taken to the borders of a hole that had been dug and at the bottom of the whole there were a lot of ancient gold coins. From there, I was taken to another area nearby and the same. After that, I was taken back through the winding roads and through the front door of my little house and back to my body. I thought about what had happened and prayed and went to sleep.

The next day, I went to speak with some of my neighbors and pious Catholics, and started to them what happened. What they said surprised me, as I had never heard of such a thing nor thought that it could happen. They were familiar and said that it has happened to a very few people (including one about a hundred years back who lived in the area) and that what has been left there was given to me. They told me that the person that buried those treasures is in purgatory and that when I take the treasures out I would help release the soul of the person. They described my experience, better than I did and with better details. They were indeed familiar with the experience.

I, of course, recognizing my ignorance went to speak with a priest. I asked him what that was etc… He told me that “That’s the way it is.” The priest was familiar with this experience. He told me to take out the treasures and remember the poor. He told me to have a Mass given for the job and to not let any demons scare me and that that is all they can do. He said that the demons will make a lot of wind and noises but to keep going if they did and not to pay attention to them. He said the demons will try to scare me so I would not take the treasures out. This same priest actually prayed for the job during a Mass I attended. I suppose these are spiritual mysteries that the Church does not advertise as not all are ready to receive. I asked the priest to participate just for the mere adventure of the enterprise and he said that he couldn’t as people would talk.

I checked the area with a metal detector and a gold detector and it was pulling and beeping. I bought the land, but, I had to return to the USA. Maybe, someday I will try to take those treasures out.

This is the reason I think that the soul can leave the body.

 

[JimG]

Actually, I know that the soul can separate from the body while the body remains alive and the soul returns to the body after a little excursion. Much like what happened with John the apostle and the Blessed who in spirit went to the house where Mary lived with John in Turkey.

The experience you describe may be a supernatural occurrence, it may be a private revelation, but it is not an instance of the soul separating itself from the body. When the soul separates from the body, that is death. The body does not live without the soul.

And yes, it is true, the soul, since it is a spirit, does not have extension in space or time. It is united to the body, and like any spiritual being we can say that it is where it acts. And it acts in space and time as the life principle of the body, while not occupying space or time.