What precisely Is the "self"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t believe there is any need for “special enlightenment.” The body and soul are never separated because after we die we are no longer in time or space. We are “in” eternity, i.e. the eternal present! There is no hiatus in any aspect of our existence whether it is the soul, self, mind or body. As you pointed out, we are integrated persons. 🙂
I think that would be wrong. And we certainly could not prove it. Best leave things as they are actually believed and taught. I don’t think this the proper place to bring up ideas like that. Might mess up someone’s faith - and many here are confused enough. 👍
 
*I don’t believe there is any need for “special enlightenment.” The body and soul are never separated because after we die we are no longer in time or space. We are “in” eternity, i.e. the eternal present! There is no hiatus in any aspect of our existence whether it is the soul, self, mind or body. As you pointed out, we are integrated persons. *
Please specify my statements which are contrary to the faith.

Is your idea of “special enlightenment” believed and taught by the Catholic Church?
 
Aquinas does teach substance dualism. It just isn’t the same kind of dualism that Descartes teaches. The intellect is clearly something that is distinct from the body in Aquinas’ teaching.
You are attributing to Thomas something he never taught. He never taught dualism of any sort, He taught, along with Aristotle and the Arab philosophers, that all created substances were single beings composed of two distinct principles, essence and form or potency and act, that could not exist alone. That is not dualism. And to even hint that it is very deceptive reasoning. It is not even a decent analogy. So why make it? 👍
 
I don’t believe there is any need for “special enlightenment.” The body and soul are never separated because after we die we are no longer in time or space. We are “in” eternity, i.e. the eternal present! There is no hiatus in any aspect of our existence whether it is the soul, self, mind or body. As you pointed out, we are integrated persons. 🙂
The CCC teaches that the body and soul are one, but in Judaism the body and soul are separate.
 
Please specify my statements which are contrary to the faith.

Is your idea of “special enlightenment” believed and taught by the Catholic Church?
Please specify my statements which are contrary to the faith.

Is your idea of “special enlightenment” believed and taught by the Catholic Church?
This is the original exchange:

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
You are confusing two states of existence of the Person or Self. Christ was indeed Reserrected in His complete Human and Divine natures in His Divine Person ( Self ).

But when we die our soul is separated from our bodies. During that time the soul exists as an incomplete or unnatural state, since its natural state is as the Form of its particular body. You may argue that it is an incomplete Person, but it would certainly have some " self " awarness, otherwise it would not understand why it was being condemned or rewarded, as the case may be. But perhaps that " self " awarness would be by a special enlightenment provided by Divine action.

But at the last Judgment the body will rise and be reunited with its soul and full Personhood would then be restored and there would be full self awarness. END QUOTE

YOUR RESPONSE
I don’t believe there is any need for “special enlightenment.” The body and soul are never separated because after we die we are no longer in time or space. We are “in” eternity, i.e. the eternal present! There is no hiatus in any aspect of our existence whether it is the soul, self, mind or body. As you pointed out, we are integrated persons.END QUOTE

MY Answer
I did not say you held any position contrary to Faith. However, the Church teaches that our souls are separated from our bodies at death, as was Chris’s human soul upon his death. And to seriously entertain or teach otherwise would indeed be an act contrary to Faith. Your suggestion that this does not happen because we are ( from God’s perspective I suppose you mean) in the " eternal present, " ignores the fact that our bodies are still in the grave ( at least still in the physical universe). Indeed, at that time, our human nature exists in two separate " worlds, " one earthly and one eternal ( as you say ), but still separated.

Indeed, at that time, one cannot properly say that we have a human nature because human nature is defined as the union of body and soul in one actually existing substance. And at death that substance has been burst assunder. It no longer exists, we no longer exist ! Only our souls exist, the body has taken on whatever substantial form (s ) arise from our decaying bodily material, our prime matter.

And I think it is seriously missleading to suggest, even figuratively, that we are not separated from our bodies at death.

I did not imply that the Church ever taught that our souls received " special enlilghtnment " at death so it would have some degree of self consciousness and some knowledge of what was happening. As far as I am aware, the Church teaches nothing on that score. But it does seem reasonable that we would have self knowledge and would certainly know the condition of our souls and what was happening.

And Thomas Aquinas does go somewhat into these questions. To what extent, I don’t recall and am not inclined to look into it at the moment. I do believe he said that, at the very least, we will have knowledge of universals. And it was my suggestion ( a suggestion only ) that God could provide, by way of enlightment, that the soul would be supplied with other knowledge, of its past acts and reasoning, so it would be fully aware of why it was being judged the way it was.

One cannot compare the condition of Christ’s two natures upon His death with that of the human soul because his Divinity fully informed His human soul with all the data and intellectual knowledge it needed to " preach " to the dead upon His descent to the " underworld. "

Indeed, at death we are no longer integrated Persons. You seem to disagree. That is where you went wrong. How could we be integrated at death, our Human Personality depends on the actual union of body and soul. But at death this union has been broken. And the Church teaches that this is so. So if the union is broken, how could we be Persons any longer, in the true since of the term? Indeed, Thomas says that upon death our souls are " incomplete substances, " meaning that between of our death and our bodily resurrection our souls exist in an unnatural state because the proper state of the soul is not as a " separated substance " but as the form of the human person - body AND soul.

P.S. You are one of the solid people around here. So I did not intend to upset you. With some around here I might well intend to do just that. Some folks around here are simply insincere and need to be exposed. For them I have little respect and may show it from time to time. Some people here need to be taught a lesson, if that is indeed possible. Not you however.

👍
 
You are attributing to Thomas something he never taught. He never taught dualism of any sort, He taught, along with Aristotle and the Arab philosophers, that all created substances were single beings composed of two distinct principles, essence and form or potency and act, that could not exist alone. That is not dualism. And to even hint that it is very deceptive reasoning. It is not even a decent analogy. So why make it? 👍
jmatthanbrown.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/aquinas-alternative-to-cartesian-dualism/

Before calling me a liar, perhaps you should ask me for my reasons for attributing the term substance dualism to Aquinas.

Aquinas understood the soul to be the substantial form of the body. And since it persists after death, you have substance dualism.
 
This is the original exchange:

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
You are confusing two states of existence of the Person or Self. Christ was indeed Reserrected in His complete Human and Divine natures in His Divine Person ( Self ).

But when we die our soul is separated from our bodies. During that time the soul exists as an incomplete or unnatural state, since its natural state is as the Form of its particular body. You may argue that it is an incomplete Person, but it would certainly have some " self " awarness, otherwise it would not understand why it was being condemned or rewarded, as the case may be. But perhaps that " self " awarness would be by a special enlightenment provided by Divine action.

But at the last Judgment the body will rise and be reunited with its soul and full Personhood would then be restored and there would be full self awareness. END QUOTE

YOUR RESPONSE
I don’t believe there is any need for “special enlightenment.” The body and soul are never separated because after we die we are no longer in time or space. We are “in” eternity, i.e. the eternal present! There is no hiatus in any aspect of our existence whether it is the soul, self, mind or body. As you pointed out, we are integrated persons.END QUOTE

MY Answer
I did not say you held any position contrary to Faith. However, the Church teaches that our souls are separated from our bodies at death, as was Chris’s human soul upon his death. And to seriously entertain or teach otherwise would indeed be an act contrary to Faith. Your suggestion that this does not happen because we are ( from God’s perspective I suppose you mean) in the " eternal present, " ignores the fact that our bodies are still in the grave ( at least still in the physical universe). Indeed, at that time, our human nature exists in two separate " worlds, " one earthly and one eternal ( as you say ), but still separated.

Indeed, at that time, one cannot properly say that we have a human nature because human nature is defined as the union of body and soul in one actually existing substance. And at death that substance has been burst asunder. It no longer exists, we no longer exist ! Only our souls exist, the body has taken on whatever substantial form (s ) arise from our decaying bodily material, our prime matter.

And I think it is seriously missleading to suggest, even figuratively, that we are not separated from our bodies at death.

I did not imply that the Church ever taught that our souls received " special enlilghtnment " at death so it would have some degree of self consciousness and some knowledge of what was happening. As far as I am aware, the Church teaches nothing on that score. But it does seem reasonable that we would have self knowledge and would certainly know the condition of our souls and what was happening.

And Thomas Aquinas does go somewhat into these questions. To what extent, I don’t recall and am not inclined to look into it at the moment. I do believe he said that, at the very least, we will have knowledge of universals. And it was my suggestion ( a suggestion only ) that God could provide, by way of enlightment, that the soul would be supplied with other knowledge, of its past acts and reasoning, so it would be fully aware of why it was being judged the way it was.

One cannot compare the condition of Christ’s two natures upon His death with that of the human soul because his Divinity fully informed His human soul with all the data and intellectual knowledge it needed to " preach " to the dead upon His descent to the " underworld. "

Indeed, at death we are no longer integrated Persons. You seem to disagree. That is where you went wrong. How could we be integrated at death, our Human Personality depends on the actual union of body and soul. But at death this union has been broken. And the Church teaches that this is so. So if the union is broken, how could we be Persons any longer, in the true since of the term? Indeed, Thomas says that upon death our souls are " incomplete substances, " meaning that between of our death and our bodily resurrection our souls exist in an unnatural state because the proper state of the soul is not as a " separated substance " but as the form of the human person - body AND soul.

P.S. You are one of the solid people around here. So I did not intend to upset you. With some around here I might well intend to do just that. Some folks around here are simply insincere and need to be exposed. For them I have little respect and may show it from time to time. Some people here need to be taught a lesson, if that is indeed possible. Not you however.
👍
Thanks, Linus. I share your sentiments. 😉

I would just like to add that all Christians believe in the Resurrection. The issue is a question posed and answered in the Catechism:
CCC 1001 When? Definitively “at the last day,” "at the end of the world."557 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ’s Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
I believe the term “at the last day” is not literal but symbolic. Jesus often used imagery to explain things we wouldn’t otherwise understand, like being in the eternal present. As I pointed out, after we die we are no longer in time or space. There are no days or years. Our mortal body certainly decays and is separated from the soul but our resurrected body is a different proposition altogether. There is no time lapse in the Kingdom of God!

At all events, we agree that the self is not affected by any of these events. In life and death we all remain the same persons created in God’s image and redeemed by His love. 🙂
 
You are attributing to Thomas something he never taught. He never taught dualism of any sort, He taught, along with Aristotle and the Arab philosophers, that all created substances were single beings composed of two distinct principles, essence and form or potency and act, that could not exist alone. That is not dualism.** And to even hint that it is very deceptive reasoning**. It is not even a decent analogy. So why make it? 👍
You are saying that my reasoning is deceptive.
 
Linux;10278059 said:
To be precise, I think he said the soul was the substantial form of the Person, the composit, which is the being we call man.

👍

I understand that a “person” is a union of the soul and body. A soul by itself is not a person. But i am not talking about that. I am saying that Aquinas clearly makes a distinction between the intellectual will and the physical biological organ called the brain. They are two separate things proven by the fact that it subsists after the death of the body…

Even if he is not a substance dualist, he is clearly a dualist of some kind.
 
Linusthe2nd;10278116:
I understand that a “person” is a union of the soul and body. A soul by itself is not a person. But i am not talking about that. I am saying that Aquinas clearly makes a distinction between the intellectual will and the physical biological organ called the brain. They are two separate things proven by the fact that it subsists after the death of the body…

Even if he is not a substance dualist, he is clearly a dualist of some kind.
Jesus clearly distinguished the soul from the body: “Do not fear those who kill the body but…”
 
Linux;10279697:
Jesus clearly distinguished the soul from the body: “Do not fear those who kill the body but…”
All that means is that the soul continues to exist. It does not mean soul and soma are a priori separable.

You can remove the HD from a PC, but neither will operate on its own.

ICXC NIKA
 
Aquinas does teach substance dualism. It just isn’t the same kind of dualism that Descartes teaches. The intellect is clearly something that is distinct from the body in Aquinas’ teaching.
No. The Intellect ( immaterial soul and form of the Man ) may exist as a separated form, but Thomas makes it clear that in the separated state the soul is an incomplete substance because its proper mode of existence is as the form of the body. As it exists in the body it is a principle of life and activity of the body. The matter of the body is the second principle of man. These two principles unite as one being, one substance, a particular human being. Man is not a " compound " of two beings or substances, Man is a composite of two principles that make one being, one substance, one human being.

This is not dualism. Certainly Thomas never said it was. Some who came after him may have said it was similar to dualism - BUT THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TAKLING ABOUT !!! 👍

If you would take the trouble to read S.T. Part 1, ques 75-102 you would understand what I have said. 👍
 
“Myself” and “ourselves” distinguish persons from bodies but is that distinction valid? If so why? How would you define the mind?
I would simply say the “self” is the thing that asked your question.
 
Linux;10279697:
Jesus clearly distinguished the soul from the body: “Do not fear those who kill the body but…”
True but that does not imply ontological dualism. Jesus is saying that Man sins through the will by the concent it givs to evil thoughts or deeds. The body and soul are principles of the one being, the one substance, the one Person, the one man. The body cannot exist without the soul and the soul can exist only as an incomplete substance without the body. Neither one can exist without the other in its proper mode of existence.

Therefore Jesus is not implying " dualism " of any sort. You also have to understand that the men he was talking to would never have understood such a distinction. They were not Philosophers. Indeed, even philosophy had to wait for Thomas Aquinas before it could escape the " dualism " of the Greeks and the Neo-Platonists. And it was not until the Church defined the nature of the Soul at the Council of Vienne and Vatican 1 that the " dualism " of man was banished. Of course if the modern world admits of the soul at all it is still in terms of dualism. And even in Catholic philosophical circles it is still present in some works. But not in ST. Thomas himself. 👍
 
The self does include the body but the body is not essential for our survival as persons. “reunited” implies being separated. Otherwise we would disappear until we are resurrected! This certainly conflicts with the Gospel account of what occurred to Jesus after He died on the Cross.
St. Thomas defined " Person " as an actually existing nature. " Person " as applied to man is an acutally existing human nature - an actually existing unit of the principles of body and soul. The Catechism so defines man as a Person.

In its separated state the soul is no longer a Person, at least not a complete person. It can’t be because in the separated state it is what Thomas calls an incomplete substance. It won’t be complete again until the general resurrection.
At the general resurrection, we become persons again when our souls and bodies are once again reunited.
God made us in His spiritual image and likeness. His essential nature is spiritual not corporeal. Jesus said “God is Spirit”… Resurrection is a privilege not a necessity.
What has this got to do with the issue at hand? 👍

I would also disagree on another point. The essential nature of Jesus Christ is two fold, human and divine in the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity. And we are told by the Church that it is only the Second Person that assumed a human nature. So we need to be very careful how we speak of these things. 👍
 
St. Thomas defined " Person " as an actually existing nature. " Person " as applied to man is an acutally existing human nature - an actually existing unit of the principles of body and soul. The Catechism so defines man as a Person.

In its separated state the soul is no longer a Person, at least not a complete person. It can’t be because in the separated state it is what Thomas calls an incomplete substance. It won’t be complete again until the general resurrection.
At the general resurrection, we become persons again when our souls and bodies are once again reunited.
After death there is no time lapse…
I would also disagree on another point. The essential nature of Jesus Christ is two fold, human and divine in the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity. And we are told by the Church that it is only the Second Person that assumed a human nature. So we need to be very careful how we speak of these things.
The Son of God was not human before the Incarnation…

Jesus Himself said God is Spirit.
 
After death there is no time lapse…
Not sure what you are saying or implying here.
The Son of God was not human before the Incarnation…
Jesus Himself said God is Spirit.
I would agree, what has that got to do with what we have been discussing.

Back to Self : It is not a concept used by St. Thomas or the 13th century Scholastics. It seems to be a concept first developed by Lock. Below is part of a treatise from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the subject. The whole article is too long to include.
The physical constituents of personality
A man’s personality is that of which he has cognizance under the concept of “self”. It is that entity, substantial, permanent, unitary, which is the subject of all the states and acts that constitute his complete life. An appeal to self-consciousness shows us that there is such a subject, of which thought, will, and feeling are modifications. It is substantial, i.e. not one or all of the changing states but the reality underlying them, for our self-consciousness testifies that, besides perceiving the thought, it has immediate perception in the same act of the subject to whom the thought belongs. Just as no motion can be apprehended without some sort of apprehension of the object moved, so the perception of thought carries with it perception of the thinker. The changing states are recognized as determinations of the “self”, and the very concept of a determination involves the presence of something determined, something not itself a determination, i.e. a substance. It is permanent, in that though one may say, “I am completely changed”, when referring to a former state, still one knows that the “I” in question is still the same numerically and essentially, though with certain superadded differences.

This permanence is evident from a consideration of our mental processes. Every act of intellectual memory implies a recognition of the fact that I, thinking now, am the “self” as the one who had the experience which is being recalled. My former experiences are referred to something which has not passed as they have passed, to my own self or personality. From this permanence springs the consciousness of self as a unitary principle. The one to whom all the variations of state belong is perceived as an entity complete in itself and distinguished from all others. Unity of consciousness does not constitute but manifests unity of being. The physical principle of this permanence and unity is the simple, spiritual, unchanging substance of the rational soul. This does not mean, however, that the soul is identical with the personal self. There are recognized as modifications of the self not merely acts of thought and volition, but also sensations, of which the immediate subject is the animated body. Even in its own peculiar sphere the soul works in conjunction with the body; intellectual reasoning is accompanied and conditioned by sensory images. A man’s personality, then, consists physically of soul and body. Of these the body is what is termed in scholastic language the “matter” the determinable principle, the soul is the “form”, the determining principle. The soul is not merely the seat of the chief functions of man — thought and will; it also determines the nature and functioning of the body. To its permanence is due the abiding unity of the whole personality in spite of the constant disintegration and rebuilding of the body. Though not therefore the only constituent of personality, the soul is its formal principle. Finally, for the complete constitution of personality this compositum must exist in such a way as to be “subsistent” (see PERSON). "

Also, it is not a term used in the Catechism. 🙂

"
 
I would simply say the “self” is the thing that asked your question.
See my latest response to Tornery. It is not a Scholastic term and it is not used in the Catechism. Appears to have been first used by John Lock. Not saying its good, bad, indifferent, true, or false. But from that time it has been used by many different schools of thought, including some Neo-Thomist philosophers. But it is not used by traditional Thomists since Thomas never used the term himself. The closest he came was in his definition of Person - a human nature that actually existed. And the Church adopted his definition in defining the Person of Jesus Christ as two natures in One Person. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top