What is the human being?

[Qoeleth]

In Platonic and Patristic Medieval Christian theology, the human being was essentially understood as a soul temporarily in a body (the ‘resurrection of the body’ being understood to refer to a kind of ‘spiritual body’ [an apparent oxymoron], different in quality and nature to the physical body.)

Tertullian, of course, understood the soul as being a kind of ‘highly refined matter’- but that position does not seem to have continued in Christian thought.

In Post-Vatican II theology, it has become fashionable to assert that the human is not simply a soul ‘in’ a body, but a ‘body with a soul’, etc. It is a bit of a cliché to say this is a more ‘Biblical’ or ‘Hebrew’ conception of the human person- but frankly there is no real evidence of that (apart from people asserting it!). Another annoying cliché (revealing a total ignorance of Medieval and Patristic thought) which is found among many modern theology students is that the idea of a ‘soul inside a body’ originates with Descartes. (I must humbly request that no-one offer those clichés here, please, as I am interested in serious opinions.)

Now- the material part of a human body changes every few years. The body may be subject to catastrophic event (loss of limbs, or, less dramatically degeneration due to age), but the ‘identity’ of the soul continues. After we die, it is evident that the body (as such) is not immortal, but returns to the dust from whence it comes.

So- what is the human being?:

1. A soul in a body;
2. A body, which includes a cognitive mechanism or ‘Central Processing Unit’ (brain/soul) as one of its organs;
3. An inseparable fusion of body and soul.

Yes, Option 3 will be the ‘orthodox’ choice favoured by modern theology students, of course. But does it stand real philosophical examination- given that it is pretty obvious that ‘my body’ is not ‘me’- and that the body is at best temporary accommodation for the soul- it will be become frail and degenerate even during life, and then be resolved into elements after death?

Maybe the Medieval and Patristic view of the person as a soul ‘inside’ a body (during one’s mortal life) is more satisfactory?

Thanks for responses.

 

[ffg]

Perhaps a look at ‘why’ the body becomes frail and degenerative unto dust would help with understanding why 3 is not just favored, but correct (if so).

 

[Aloysium]

The body is who you are in relation to the physical universe. The in-relation part is the human soul.
As you read this, consider that the visual images, the words that are formed, the ideas as they exist in time and space, are your brain, the monitor and the underlying structure of the mind, as well as the physical and spiritual dimensions of the universe. They are all rolled into one experience, in all its various appearances, emerging from the contact of the self with what is other to it.
The body and soul are clearly one. One recognizes this in sleep when we generally are not aware, or at least not forming memories.
The way I see it, the existence of the human soul is grounded in God’s relationship with us. He knows and loves us through and through. By His love we are brought into being. Returning His love, we enter into communion with Him in paradise. It is that love which lives on to be united with a glorious body at the resurrection.
Something like that.

 

[ffg]

Perhaps this will help -

Wisdom 1: 12-15 (with a note on 15)

12 Do not court death by your erring way of life,

nor draw to yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.

13 Because God did not make death,

nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living.

14 For he fashioned all things that they might have being,

and the creatures of the world are wholesome;

There is not a destructive drug among them

nor any domain of Hades on earth,

15 For righteousness is undying.*

*** Undying: immortality is not seen as an innate quality of the soul but as a gift of God to the righteous.**

Then Wisdom 1: 16 answers the question about 'who then?'...

The Wicked Reject Immortality and Righteousness Alike

16 It was the wicked who with hands and words invited death,

considered it a friend, and pined for it,

and made a covenant with it,

Because they deserve to be allied with it.

For other footnotes or full context of a wonderful book of the bible -

usccb.org/bible/wisdom/1

 

[Ridgerunner]

It might be related to how we understand “time”. We are “in time”, which is as rigid a track as a railroad line. We don’t quite know what it is to be outside time after death, but we will be outside time. We’ll no longer be bound by the “time track”. We understand we’re to be reunited with our bodies at the end of time, which could be next week or a billion years from now.

But after our souls depart the bodies which are on the timeline, and depart from time as we know it, might it all become a unity which can’t be fathomed by us while we are on the timeline? Might that reunion of soul and body at the end of time be different somehow from regaining a unity resulting from departing from the timeline?

That’s sort of related to the question how will I appear at the end of time or even one second after my death. Will I, as some used to say, appear to be the “ideal age” of 33; Jesus’ age at death? Or might I, to other beings joined to God, appear at all ages simultaneously, thus better revealing the totality of my being? Am I better understood if I am understood both as a child and a man than I would be if understood only as a man? The psychologists, at least, seem to think so. Is that all there is to it, then? Or might it be more profound than the psychologists would guess in their wildest imaginings?

I don’t expect to know the answers to any of that during my earthly life, though it’s a fascinating subject. But I sometimes think the reality is so overwhelming that it dwarfs the thoughts of the most erudite philosophers and theologians.

 

[Vico]

In Platonic and Patristic Medieval Christian theology, the human being was essentially understood as a soul temporarily in a body (the ‘resurrection of the body’ being understood to refer to a kind of ‘spiritual body’ [an apparent oxymoron], different in quality and nature to the physical body.)

Tertullian, of course, understood the soul as being a kind of ‘highly refined matter’- but that position does not seem to have continued in Christian thought.

In Post-Vatican II theology, it has become fashionable to assert that the human is not simply a soul ‘in’ a body, but a ‘body with a soul’, etc. It is a bit of a cliché to say this is a more ‘Biblical’ or ‘Hebrew’ conception of the human person- but frankly there is no real evidence of that (apart from people asserting it!). Another annoying cliché (revealing a total ignorance of Medieval and Patristic thought) which is found among many modern theology students is that the idea of a ‘soul inside a body’ originates with Descartes. (I must humbly request that no-one offer those clichés here, please, as I am interested in serious opinions.)

Now- the material part of a human body changes every few years. The body may be subject to catastrophic event (loss of limbs, or, less dramatically degeneration due to age), but the ‘identity’ of the soul continues. After we die, it is evident that the body (as such) is not immortal, but returns to the dust from whence it comes.

So- what is the human being?:

1. A soul in a body;
2. A body, which includes a cognitive mechanism or ‘Central Processing Unit’ (brain/soul) as one of its organs;
3. An inseparable fusion of body and soul.

Yes, Option 3 will be the ‘orthodox’ choice favoured by modern theology students, of course. But does it stand real philosophical examination- given that it is pretty obvious that ‘my body’ is not ‘me’- and that the body is at best temporary accommodation for the soul- it will be become frail and degenerate even during life, and then be resolved into elements after death?

Maybe the Medieval and Patristic view of the person as a soul ‘inside’ a body (during one’s mortal life) is more satisfactory?

Thanks for responses.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the person is the soul and body together because the soul can exist without the body but not the converse, but being uniquely suited to each other the soul without the body is an incomplete substance. So properly the person exists when the soul and body are united in earthly life and again after the resurrection of the body.

 

[Polycarp1]

Soul and Body

“The Lord formed man of the slime of the earth” – that accounts for his body.

“He breathed into his face the breath of life” – “breath” is the name for the Holy Spirit.

“Let us make man to our image and likeness” – God breathed into man his own image and likeness – a spiritual soul.

Man’s soul, because it is a soul, animates his body, as the soul of a lower animal animates its; but because man’s soul is a spirit, it has the faculties of intellect and will by which it knows and loves as the animal cannot.

The relation of soul and body should not be seen as two separate things, one of which animates the other; but they are combined in one being, man himself.

Frank Sheed - Theology for Beginners

 

[STT]

In Platonic and Patristic Medieval Christian theology, the human being was essentially understood as a soul temporarily in a body (the ‘resurrection of the body’ being understood to refer to a kind of ‘spiritual body’ [an apparent oxymoron], different in quality and nature to the physical body.)

Tertullian, of course, understood the soul as being a kind of ‘highly refined matter’- but that position does not seem to have continued in Christian thought.

In Post-Vatican II theology, it has become fashionable to assert that the human is not simply a soul ‘in’ a body, but a ‘body with a soul’, etc. It is a bit of a cliché to say this is a more ‘Biblical’ or ‘Hebrew’ conception of the human person- but frankly there is no real evidence of that (apart from people asserting it!). Another annoying cliché (revealing a total ignorance of Medieval and Patristic thought) which is found among many modern theology students is that the idea of a ‘soul inside a body’ originates with Descartes. (I must humbly request that no-one offer those clichés here, please, as I am interested in serious opinions.)

Now- the material part of a human body changes every few years. The body may be subject to catastrophic event (loss of limbs, or, less dramatically degeneration due to age), but the ‘identity’ of the soul continues. After we die, it is evident that the body (as such) is not immortal, but returns to the dust from whence it comes.

So- what is the human being?:

1. A soul in a body;
2. A body, which includes a cognitive mechanism or ‘Central Processing Unit’ (brain/soul) as one of its organs;
3. An inseparable fusion of body and soul.

Yes, Option 3 will be the ‘orthodox’ choice favoured by modern theology students, of course. But does it stand real philosophical examination- given that it is pretty obvious that ‘my body’ is not ‘me’- and that the body is at best temporary accommodation for the soul- it will be become frail and degenerate even during life, and then be resolved into elements after death?

Maybe the Medieval and Patristic view of the person as a soul ‘inside’ a body (during one’s mortal life) is more satisfactory?

Thanks for responses.

I don’t think that (1) is a viable option. I don’t think if you could distinguish between (2) and (3) so the rest is just matter of belief. Lets expand this a little:

1. Soul is the experiencer, intellect and person in this case. The body is just like a home which grants sensory data to the soul. The problem with this view is that you cannot explain some sort of malfunction in the person which is the result of brain damage only.
2. A body in this case define the person as a whole. There are neurological processes are going on in the brain. These processes lead to a specific physical states, either conscious state, such as thought, or unconscious state, such as memory. We know that what we call identity is formed in left part of our brain. The right part of brain is responsible for our consciousness. There is a nice [talk](There is a nice talk on TED which explain the two part of brain very well.) on TED which explain the two part of brain very well. Any malfunction can be explained as a disturbance in the brain. The problem of life after death is little hard in this view. The person in this view has layers of matters lets say, to my understanding, which the outer layer is mostly active in this life. The person get ride of the first layer upon the death and the second layer starts functioning afterward.
3. An inseparable body and soul defines the person as a whole. Soul in this case defines the identity. The rest of human functions are based on collaboration between body and soul. Any malfunction can be explained as a disturbance in the system as a whole. The person loses its identity, memory, knowledge upon death so a new body should be created in order to grant the missed properties after death.

I think that is good to start the discussion.

 

[Qoeleth]

I don’t think that (1) is a viable option. I don’t think if you could distinguish between (2) and (3) so the rest is just matter of belief. Lets expand this a little:

1. Soul is the experiencer, intellect and person in this case. The body is just like a home which grants sensory data to the soul. The problem with this view is that you cannot explain some sort of malfunction in the person which is the result of brain damage only.
2. A body in this case define the person as a whole. There are neurological processes are going on in the brain. These processes lead to a specific physical states, either conscious state, such as thought, or unconscious state, such as memory. We know that what we call identity is formed in left part of our brain. The right part of brain is responsible for our consciousness. There is a nice [talk](There is a nice talk on TED which explain the two part of brain very well.) on TED which explain the two part of brain very well. Any malfunction can be explained as a disturbance in the brain. The problem of life after death is little hard in this view. The person in this view has layers of matters lets say, to my understanding, which the outer layer is mostly active in this life. The person get ride of the first layer upon the death and the second layer starts functioning afterward.
3. An inseparable body and soul defines the person as a whole. Soul in this case defines the identity. The rest of human functions are based on collaboration between body and soul. Any malfunction can be explained as a disturbance in the system as a whole. The person loses its identity, memory, knowledge upon death so a new body should be created in order to grant the missed properties after death.

I think that is good to start the discussion.

In regard to a problem in 1), is the relationship of the spiritual soul to the physical brain. If a physical change were made which affected the brain (i.e. parts were removed, or ‘aggression’ hormones injected), the character of the person’s ‘soul’ would seem to change. So- can the soul be truly non-physical in this case?

 

[Qoeleth]

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that the person is the soul and body together because the soul can exist without the body but not the converse, but being uniquely suited to each other the soul without the body is an incomplete substance. So properly the person exists when the soul and body are united in earthly life and again after the resurrection of the body.

I wonder if the ‘reunion’ is with the ‘same’ body?

Imagine a person born with a severe physical disability. The disabled body is the only body they have ever known or had.

In the reunion- will they be provided with a different body. And if so, will their ‘identity’ be altered?

If the activity of the soul is in Paradise is the Beatific Vision (the timeless, mental contemplation of God), would the resurrected ‘body’ be some kind of non-temporal, non-spatial ‘something’- but totally different to what we normally understand as a physical ‘body’?

 

[STT]

In regard to a problem in 1), is the relationship of the spiritual soul to the physical brain. If a physical change were made which affected the brain (i.e. parts were removed, or ‘aggression’ hormones injected), the character of the person’s ‘soul’ would seem to change. So- can the soul be truly non-physical in this case?

Well, that is the problem in this view. The soul is non-physical and is experiencer and have properties such as, identity and intellect so this view cannot answer the question you raised since character of a person is an attribute of soul and it shouldn’t change when the brain is affected.

 

[GEddie]

The body **is **“you”. Just as much as your “soul.”

“You” are not a ghost in a machine; you are a breathing mind, a thinking body.

Your mind makes you “you” , but your body makes you somebody.

Some say that we are not our bodies because our bodies are unstable due to death. But the mind, as normally understood, isn’t that much more stable. It goes from nonexistent, to empty (at birth), to rapidly filling with knowledge, much in the same way as human bodies conceive and grow. And, tragically the mind can become diminished by head injury, illness or aging.

While the human mind is a dimension of the spiritual soul, it remains unclear how much if any of it could be expressed in a “bodiless” state. All mental activity we can envision requires the services of a human body.

So I’d say:

“The human being is a breathing soul/mind; and likewise a thinking body.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[Qoeleth]

The body **is **“you”. Just as much as your “soul.”

“You” are not a ghost in a machine; you are a breathing mind, a thinking body.

Your mind makes you “you” , but your body makes you somebody.

Some say that we are not our bodies because our bodies are unstable due to death. But the mind, as normally understood, isn’t that much more stable. It goes from nonexistent, to empty (at birth), to rapidly filling with knowledge, much in the same way as human bodies conceive and grow. And, tragically the mind can become diminished by head injury, illness or aging.

While the human mind is a dimension of the spiritual soul, it remains unclear how much if any of it could be expressed in a “bodiless” state. All mental activity we can envision requires the services of a human body.

So I’d say:

“The human being is a breathing soul/mind; and likewise a thinking body.”

ICXC NIKA

Yes, the mind does seem to be also perishable and alterable, like the body (due to aging, injury, and, obviously, death).

So- would you see the entity which has immortal (i.e. that will enjoy the ‘next life’) is something different altogether (a soul- separate both from the mind or the body)?

Or are the mind and body somehow ‘reconstituted’ in the next world?

But, outside of time and space, what could a ‘body’ possibly do or be?

 

[GEddie]

Yes, the mind does seem to be also perishable and alterable, like the body (due to aging, injury, and, obviously, death).

So- would you see the entity which has immortal (i.e. that will enjoy the ‘next life’) is something different altogether (a soul- separate both from the mind or the body)?

No; as without the mind **or **the body, nothing of the ‘human being’ we know (either as ourself or another) can be said to exist!

As well speak of the Cheshire Cat remaining once the cat **and **the smile have both been done away with.

Or are the mind and body somehow ‘reconstituted’ in the next world?

That is the only possibility if “the human being” has any trans-death being at all!

But, outside of time and space, what could a ‘body’ possibly do or be?

Good question, but unanswerable, as our only experience of “body” is our dear old earthy ‘corpus humanum.’

But Scripture is adamant that there will be a body, and in some form therefore also a mind. We therefore must simply exercise faith in the creator of the Scriptures and designer of bodyhood.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vico]

I wonder if the ‘reunion’ is with the ‘same’ body?

Imagine a person born with a severe physical disability. The disabled body is the only body they have ever known or had.

In the reunion- will they be provided with a different body. And if so, will their ‘identity’ be altered?

If the activity of the soul is in Paradise is the Beatific Vision (the timeless, mental contemplation of God), would the resurrected ‘body’ be some kind of non-temporal, non-spatial ‘something’- but totally different to what we normally understand as a physical ‘body’?

For the faithful departed it is a glorified body. Mark 14
58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and within three days I will build another not made with hands.’”

 

[GEddie]

If the activity of the soul is in Paradise is the Beatific Vision (the timeless, mental contemplation of God), would the resurrected ‘body’ be some kind of non-temporal, non-spatial ‘something’- but totally different to what we normally understand as a physical ‘body’?

No need for the word ‘body’ in quotes.

The Resurrectional Body – or pneumatikon soma, to use the Pauline expression (it’s all Greek to me!!) is a BODY. A corpus humanum.

If you stood next to such a body, you’d have no doubt whatsoever that you were seeing a live human being’s body; just as our LORD’s friends didn’t know Him in the Resurrection, but knew they were seeing a human body.

Of course, there are deep differences owing to being free from collinear time and therefore entropy, just as the embryo is not the fetus is not the newborn is not the child is not the full–length corpus humanum, despite all of them being the same embodiment.

ICXC NIKA