What is the human soul, and if you know

[Bahman]

from where does your information, and knowledge of what the human soul is, come from.

There is no soul. It is only you that open up at the moment of death and new birth.

 

[Nixbits]

Clem456, it is evident to me (and to some other people, I think) that I exist. But I do not equate existence with the human soul. Pertaps you do. It’s not self-evident to me that anything that is essentially me will endure after the death of my body. If you believe differently, how is it self-evident to you?

Your explanation about why plants and animals don’t have souls confuses me. You used the existence of the soul in your definition of a human, and then asserted that humans are animated in a different way to plants and animals as a way to demonstrate the self-evident existence of the soul. I don’t understand your logic.

 

[clem456]

Clem456, it is evident to me (and to some other people, I think) that I exist. But I do not equate existence with the human soul. Pertaps you do. It’s not self-evident to me that anything that is essentially me will endure after the death of my body. If you believe differently, how is it self-evident to you?

The fact that I did not create myself demonstrates a soul, an animation.

Animation assumes an animator. Before you reject the animator, consider that as you observe above, our carcass will lay and rot someday, we will “die”. If not, we might choose to be animated in our bodies forever, eh? (that’s a whole other discussion)

So then we move and live and have our (human) being through some animator outside ourselves. We don’t bring ourselves into existence. Ultimately, there is a reality (I’d say “person”) that is -not me-. My physical existence did not pop up out of it’s own volition. I did not move myself into a body of my own free will. There is something (someone) that exists, from which, I am animated. The sharing of the animator with the animated is “soul”, which is beyond our mere bodies, since we know that our bodies have not always existed, and will someday die. It’s not so much about what our bodies are, as it is about who the animator is.

Your explanation about why plants and animals don’t have souls confuses me. You used the existence of the soul in your definition of a human, and then asserted that humans are animated in a different way to plants and animals as a way to demonstrate the self-evident existence of the soul. I don’t understand your logic.

I think Catholic theology accepts that animals have souls, but they are not rational souls as in a human soul.
In any case, no other creature is animated to discover his own existence, ponder the meaning of his own existence, search for the origins of existence, seeks to *have a relationship with *that very thing (person) from which it’s animation is given.
Surely it is self-evident that humanity is animated in a way that other beings are not.

You could make a case that a severely handicapped or brain dead human person is not rational. I would propose that person is still possessed of a rational soul but I’m not prepared to defend that.

 

[lmelahn]

from where does your information, and knowledge of what the human soul is, come from.

Hello DNA Rose,

If you are interested in the history of the notion of “soul” (psyche in Greek; anima in Latin), then I could refer you to a number of classical philosophical works.

Probably the first author to speak of the “soul” in a systematic way was Plato, and for that I would suggest the Phaedo, the dialogue that describes Socrates’ death. (Socrates was, as you may recall, condemned to death by the Athenian government for “corrupting the youth;” he had many chances to escape, but chose to endure the sentence of death by taking hemlock.) In it, there is a long discussion about the immortality of the soul. Plato does not have exactly a Christian understanding of the soul: for him, the soul practically “imprisoned” in the body, and death would bring it release. Still, it is worth reading, because he makes some very interesting points (e.g., about the spiritual nature of the human soul).

The other ancient author that I would recommend is Aristotle. He has a treatise on the soul, his De anima (Peri psyches). In that work, he is especially interested in the faculties associated with the soul (intellect, will, sensibility, appetite).

Aristotle ties his theory of the soul with his theory of hylomorphism: every material substance (a “substance” for Aristotle is just one of the “normal” beings that we see every day: trees, insects, stones, men) is composed of an indeterminite, “passive” principle that he calls “hyle” (matter), which is actuated by a determining, “active” principle that he calls “morphe” (form).

The evidence he gives for this is what he calls generation and corruption: when animals die, for example, they stop being animals; however their lifeless bodies remain behind. The “corruption” of the animal and the simultaneous “generation” of the carcass is evidence, he would argue, that an unseen principle (the substantial form of the animal) has passed away, but the indeterminate principle (the prime matter) remains. (Aristotle would also argue that the very fact that there are many members of the each kind, or species, of creature is evidence of an indeterminate principle, the prime matter, that makes that differentiation possible. If there were no matter, he argues, there could be only one of each species.)

In any case, in living things, that substantial form is given the name psyche or anima, because it is the principle, not only of the unity of the given substance (as in all substance, even inanimate ones), but of its ability to grow and change by itself.

Human beings, who are certainly material beings and are also certainly alive, must, therefore, also be animated by a soul. The human soul, however, has some unique characteristics: whereas animal and plant souls are incapable of acting except through the matter that they actuate, the human soul is capable of doing some things independently of its matter (i.e., the body). Aristotle focuses especially on our intellectual capacities, but the same thing could be said for our capacity to love.

We can, says Aristotle, come up with universally applicable concepts; we can (to use his terminology) “compose and divide,” that is, combine those concepts and make judgments about them. That is activity that even animals (our nearest competitors, so to speak) are incapable of. And it is activity that, as such, is not dependent on our materiality (if it were, our concepts and judgments could not be truly universal).

It is Aristotle’s concept of soul that has had the most success in Christian circles, probably for two reasons: first, Aristotle is more respectful of the body than Plato is (as we saw, Plato regarded the body as the soul’s “prison”); it is easier to work Aristotle’s concept of soul with God’s plan for our bodies (for example, with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body).

Second, Aristotle, even more than Plato, in my opinion, provided a cogent argument for the qualitative difference between sub-human souls and human souls: Plato made reference to the soul’s spiritual character, but it was Aristotle who first discovered a convincing rational argument for that spirituality.

Still, those to works are both good reads, if you are interested.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

How is it not self-evident that you exist?

Those are animated as well. They are not animated in the same way as a human being. A human being is the union of
1)body
2) rational soul

No other creature is animated to discover his own existence, ponder his own existence, search for the origins of existence, seek to have a relationship with that very thing (person) which animates it.

If the human soul, is put into people by God, then is God creating mass murderers and serial killers. Why would God do this?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Hello DNA Rose,

If you are interested in the history of the notion of “soul” (psyche in Greek; anima in Latin), then I could refer you to a number of classical philosophical works.

Probably the first author to speak of the “soul” in a systematic way was Plato, and for that I would suggest the Phaedo, the dialogue that describes Socrates’ death. (Socrates was, as you may recall, condemned to death by the Athenian government for “corrupting the youth;” he had many chances to escape, but chose to endure the sentence of death by taking hemlock.) In it, there is a long discussion about the immortality of the soul. Plato does not have exactly a Christian understanding of the soul: for him, the soul practically “imprisoned” in the body, and death would bring it release. Still, it is worth reading, because he makes some very interesting points (e.g., about the spiritual nature of the human soul).

The other ancient author that I would recommend is Aristotle. He has a treatise on the soul, his De anima (Peri psyches). In that work, he is especially interested in the faculties associated with the soul (intellect, will, sensibility, appetite).

Aristotle ties his theory of the soul with his theory of hylomorphism: every material substance (a “substance” for Aristotle is just one of the “normal” beings that we see every day: trees, insects, stones, men) is composed of an indeterminite, “passive” principle that he calls “hyle” (matter), which is actuated by a determining, “active” principle that he calls “morphe” (form).

The evidence he gives for this is what he calls generation and corruption: when animals die, for example, they stop being animals; however their lifeless bodies remain behind. The “corruption” of the animal and the simultaneous “generation” of the carcass is evidence, he would argue, that an unseen principle (the substantial form of the animal) has passed away, but the indeterminate principle (the prime matter) remains. (Aristotle would also argue that the very fact that there are many members of the each kind, or species, of creature is evidence of an indeterminate principle, the prime matter, that makes that differentiation possible. If there were no matter, he argues, there could be only one of each species.)

In any case, in living things, that substantial form is given the name psyche or anima, because it is the principle, not only of the unity of the given substance (as in all substance, even inanimate ones), but of its ability to grow and change by itself.

Human beings, who are certainly material beings and are also certainly alive, must, therefore, also be animated by a soul. The human soul, however, has some unique characteristics: whereas animal and plant souls are incapable of acting except through the matter that they actuate, the human soul is capable of doing some things independently of its matter (i.e., the body). Aristotle focuses especially on our intellectual capacities, but the same thing could be said for our capacity to love.

We can, says Aristotle, come up with universally applicable concepts; we can (to use his terminology) “compose and divide,” that is, combine those concepts and make judgments about them. That is activity that even animals (our nearest competitors, so to speak) are incapable of. And it is activity that, as such, is not dependent on our materiality (if it were, our concepts and judgments could not be truly universal).

It is Aristotle’s concept of soul that has had the most success in Christian circles, probably for two reasons: first, Aristotle is more respectful of the body than Plato is (as we saw, Plato regarded the body as the soul’s “prison”); it is easier to work Aristotle’s concept of soul with God’s plan for our bodies (for example, with the doctrine of the resurrection of the body).

Second, Aristotle, even more than Plato, in my opinion, provided a cogent argument for the qualitative difference between sub-human souls and human souls: Plato made reference to the soul’s spiritual character, but it was Aristotle who first discovered a convincing rational argument for that spirituality.

Still, those to works are both good reads, if you are interested.

So you are saying that the soul, is a creation of the creative writing ability of Plato, and Aristotle, and since they were Greek, then the soul is installed in people by Zeus, or maybe Apollo if Zeus is really busy with Athena on that particular day.

Well I did say that the soul is a product of a writer…

So, could be.

 

[clem456]

If the human soul, is put into people by God, then is God creating mass murderers and serial killers. Why would God do this?

Because God loves and the nature of love is to create.
God creates good. Human beings choose evil.

You could ask the same question of each parent of a mass murderer.
“Why did you give birth to a mass murderer?”

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

The fact that I did not create myself demonstrates a soul, an animation.

Animation assumes an animator. Before you reject the animator, consider that as you observe above, our carcass will lay and rot someday, we will “die”. If not, we might choose to be animated in our bodies forever, eh? (that’s a whole other discussion)

So then we move and live and have our (human) being through some animator outside ourselves. We don’t bring ourselves into existence. Ultimately, there is a reality (I’d say “person”) that is -not me-. My physical existence did not pop up out of it’s own volition. I did not move myself into a body of my own free will. There is something (someone) that exists, from which, I am animated. The sharing of the animator with the animated is “soul”, which is beyond our mere bodies, since we know that our bodies have not always existed, and will someday die. It’s not so much about what our bodies are, as it is about who the animator is.

I think Catholic theology accepts that animals have souls, but they are not rational souls as in a human soul.
In any case, no other creature is animated to discover his own existence, ponder the meaning of his own existence, search for the origins of existence, seeks to *have a relationship with *that very thing (person) from which it’s animation is given.
Surely it is self-evident that humanity is animated in a way that other beings are not.

You could make a case that a severely handicapped or brain dead human person is not rational. I would propose that person is still possessed of a rational soul but I’m not prepared to defend that.

Clem, you do know that you were created by your Mother and Father I presume?

Can you please confirm this?

 

[Aloysium]

A nice evasion, and absolutely no substance.

Answers like that, are why evolution is legal, and taught in schools.

You must be more efficient.

And intelligent.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Because God loves and the nature of love is to create.
God creates good. Human beings choose evil.

You could ask the same question of each parent of a mass murderer.
“Why did you give birth to a mass murderer?”

So God is putting evil souls in serial killers then. Would not all people be good, if God personally installed their soul.

 

[clem456]

So God is putting evil souls in serial killers then. Would not all people be good, if God personally installed their soul.

Same answer. God creates people. He creates us good and gives us the gift of life. People have free will.
Are you free to choose to kill a man tonight? Yes. Are you free to choose a good action as well? Yes

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Same answer. God creates people. He creates us good and gives us the gift of life. People have free will.
Are you free to choose to kill a man tonight? Yes. Are you free to choose a good action as well? Yes

But where do the multitudes of definitions of the soul that are found here, come from. I went to Catholic school for eight years, and the soul was never mentioned once, in theology class. I actually learned more about evolution in Catholic school, than I did about souls.

True…

 

[clem456]

But where do the multitudes of definitions of the soul that are found here, come from. I went to Catholic school for eight years, and the soul was never mentioned once, in theology class. I actually learned more about evolution in Catholic school, than I did about souls.

True…

I’m sorry to hear that. Doesn’t seem right.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I’m sorry to hear that. Doesn’t seem right.

I learned about evolution in the fifth grade, from Sister Mary, who became the principle. The teachings of Jesus were first and foremost, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were everywhere, but no souls. I almost criticized Sister Mary when she explained evolution to the class, as I knew of the issue between God and evolution. Now however I see that the school, was told what to teach, as the Pope now believes in evolution, this it is part of Catholic teaching.

 

[clem456]

I learned about evolution in the fifth grade, from Sister Mary, who became the principle. The teachings of Jesus were first and foremost, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were everywhere, but no souls. I almost criticized Sister Mary when she explained evolution to the class, as I knew of the issue between God and evolution. Now however I see that the school, was told what to teach, as the Pope now believes in evolution, this it is part of Catholic teaching.

That’s a whoooooole 'nother discussion there…

 

[John_Martin]

I learned about evolution in the fifth grade, from Sister Mary, who became the principle. The teachings of Jesus were first and foremost, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit were everywhere, but no souls. I almost criticized Sister Mary when she explained evolution to the class, as I knew of the issue between God and evolution. Now however I see that the school, was told what to teach, as the Pope now believes in evolution, this it is part of Catholic teaching.

If you would like to see the tracks left by your soul, your words above are evidence of your soul (you cannot experience your soul directly, but only see the trail it leaves).
You wrote those words in less than six minutes after reading the previous post. probably much less. So the question is, how did you have all the right words you wanted and so fast?

Your soul is the animator of your body, arms, legs, eyes, ears, and brain. It knows your body intimately, every heartbeat, every nerve firing to make the heartbeat. And knows every memory, and every set of neurons needed to be fired for specific memories, and to create imaginations of events in your thinking.
Almost instantly, on reading the earlier post, your soul wanted Sister Mary and fifth grade to be in your conscious imagination, and how she taught evolution. Your soul wanted to have the outside world know about her and so the words you wrote began to appear in your thoughts, and perhaps on your keyboard at the same time as in your thoughts.

The words appeared in rapid fire, making full sense as you thought and typed. That is because your body (your brain) was being “moved” by your soul and your brain did not have to start from scratch picking letters and words and phrases and sentences and try to construct an understandable paragraph. It was all there in an instant without thinking.

That is your soul, out of sight, out of mind, but moving your conscious thoughts to Sister Mary. This is the trail your soul leaves for you to “see it” - watch as words and images come to your conscious thought. And your soul also learns from images and words that come from outside you - which is how we learn about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and about our souls.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

If you would like to see the tracks left by your soul, your words above are evidence of your soul (you cannot experience your soul directly, but only see the trail it leaves).
You wrote those words in less than six minutes after reading the previous post. probably much less. So the question is, how did you have all the right words you wanted and so fast?

Your soul is the animator of your body, arms, legs, eyes, ears, and brain. It knows your body intimately, every heartbeat, every nerve firing to make the heartbeat. And knows every memory, and every set of neurons needed to be fired for specific memories, and to create imaginations of events in your thinking.
Almost instantly, on reading the earlier post, your soul wanted Sister Mary and fifth grade to be in your conscious imagination, and how she taught evolution. Your soul wanted to have the outside world know about her and so the words you wrote began to appear in your thoughts, and perhaps on your keyboard at the same time as in your thoughts.

The words appeared in rapid fire, making full sense as you thought and typed. That is because your body (your brain) was being “moved” by your soul and your brain did not have to start from scratch picking letters and words and phrases and sentences and try to construct an understandable paragraph. It was all there in an instant without thinking.

That is your soul, out of sight, out of mind, but moving your conscious thoughts to Sister Mary. This is the trail your soul leaves for you to “see it” - watch as words and images come to your conscious thought. And your soul also learns from images and words that come from outside you - which is how we learn about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and about our souls.

You say, "Your soul is the animator of your body, arms, legs, eyes, ears, and brain. It knows your body intimately, every heartbeat, every nerve firing to make the heartbeat. And knows every memory, and every set of neurons needed to be fired for specific memories, and to create imaginations of events in your thinking. "

Fine, you are very descript, now from where did this information come, this is the question.

 

[John_Martin]

You say, "Your soul is the animator of your body, arms, legs, eyes, ears, and brain. It knows your body intimately, every heartbeat, every nerve firing to make the heartbeat. And knows every memory, and every set of neurons needed to be fired for specific memories, and to create imaginations of events in your thinking. "

Fine, you are very descript, now from where did this information come, this is the question.

If you are looking for an in-depth description, you can perhaps find the best here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeAnima.htm
This is Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, so that you will have a fully Catholic education on your own soul, if you also then look into your own thoughts and actions and see that what he is saying is actually happening within you. It is tremendously good news that you will relish if you learn from him. You sound like you have the determination to want to know what is really real. Read it and compare it with what is going on in you. It is very difficult work, but you seem like you could do it.

If you are looking for where the soul got its information on knowing how to move your body and knowing precisely how to move it - Your soul learned over your developmental years, taking in your sense experiences, understanding what was experience and understanding its body and how it experienced, and at various ages of maturity began moving it in rational ways rather than reactionary ways (virtuous action rather than actions of appetite fulfillment). It learned over time what its appetites were and also what was virtuous (rationally good). And your body began moving in rational activity. The two primary powers of the soul are intellect and will - it is the place of understanding what is, recognizing what is good and desiring (willing) only what it recognizes as good (and here it moves the body to unite to what is good).

Anyway, I am not sure which information your question was pointing to.

 

[foghorn_leghorn]

If you are looking for an in-depth description, you can perhaps find the best here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeAnima.htm
This is Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, so that you will have a fully Catholic education on your own soul, if you also then look into your own thoughts and actions and see that what he is saying is actually happening within you. It is tremendously good news that you will relish if you learn from him. You sound like you have the determination to want to know what is really real. Read it and compare it with what is going on in you. It is very difficult work, but you seem like you could do it.

If you are looking for where the soul got its information on knowing how to move your body and knowing precisely how to move it - Your soul learned over your developmental years, taking in your sense experiences, understanding what was experience and understanding its body and how it experienced, and at various ages of maturity began moving it in rational ways rather than reactionary ways (virtuous action rather than actions of appetite fulfillment). It learned over time what its appetites were and also what was virtuous (rationally good). And your body began moving in rational activity. The two primary powers of the soul are intellect and will - it is the place of understanding what is, recognizing what is good and desiring (willing) only what it recognizes as good (and here it moves the body to unite to what is good).

Anyway, I am not sure which information your question was pointing to.

Ok, but lets watch the roadrunner first… youtube.com/watch?v=qWdFIXn2Mdo

 

[Neoplatonist]

If you are looking for an in-depth description, you can perhaps find the best here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeAnima.htm
This is Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, so that you will have a fully Catholic education on your own soul, if you also then look into your own thoughts and actions and see that what he is saying is actually happening within you. It is tremendously good news that you will relish if you learn from him. You sound like you have the determination to want to know what is really real. Read it and compare it with what is going on in you. It is very difficult work, but you seem like you could do it.

If you are looking for where the soul got its information on knowing how to move your body and knowing precisely how to move it - Your soul learned over your developmental years, taking in your sense experiences, understanding what was experience and understanding its body and how it experienced, and at various ages of maturity began moving it in rational ways rather than reactionary ways (virtuous action rather than actions of appetite fulfillment). It learned over time what its appetites were and also what was virtuous (rationally good). And your body began moving in rational activity. The two primary powers of the soul are intellect and will - it is the place of understanding what is, recognizing what is good and desiring (willing) only what it recognizes as good (and here it moves the body to unite to what is good).

Anyway, I am not sure which information your question was pointing to.

Ack! Just because an explanation accords with what “seems” to be happening does not provide adequate foundation. Ptolemaic solar system, the luminiferous aether, and so on… What is the basis for you saying that wills and appetites are in the “soul” rather than (just) the mind?