S
sidetrack
Guest
I remember when I was very young wondering about whether there’s an afterlife for animals.Years later in a religion class I found out that animals dont have souls.Why though?.
- Status
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
K
Katholish
Guest
Animals do have souls, they just don’t have immaterial souls and hence they do not continue after the death of the animal. Only intellectual beings are immaterial. Animals are not intellectual, hence they do not have immaterial souls.
S
Sonny1954
Guest
When it comes to going to Heaven, to quote Mark Twain: “the other animals have no religion, you know. They’re going to be left out. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.”
L
lemondiesel
Guest
Tell that to the primates who have cognitive ability and the use of tools
O
OvrlapnMagstria
Guest
I know some people who are definitely not intellectual. Do they not have to worry about their afterlife?
More seriously though, how do you distinguish intellectual from non-intellectual? And what is it about the intellect that grants someone an immaterial soul? If, hypothetically, an animal were to be intelligent, would it then have an immaterial soul?
K
Katholish
Guest
Even if a person, through physical disability, cannot exercise their reason, their nature is such as to be rational. It is all a question of nature.I know some people who are definitely not intellectual. Do they not have to worry about their afterlife?
More seriously though, how do you distinguish intellectual from non-intellectual? And what is it about the intellect that grants someone an immaterial soul? If, hypothetically, an animal were to be intelligent, would it then have an immaterial soul?
Intellectual is distinguished from non-intellectual by the ability to comprehend universal ideas, which are abstract from matter. The ideas themselves are immaterial, which is how we know that the being which knows them is also immaterial in some way. If an animal were intelligent, then it would indeed have an immaterial soul. Of course, we would then be forced to alter our definition of man, which currently is “rational animal”, but it is not theoretically impossible that we discover other intelligent life at some point (i.e. alien life).
Lemondiesel,
I would, but they wouldn’t understand me because they are not rational. Some animals have very advanced estimative powers and an ability to be trained, but that does not make them rational anymore than the ability of a parrot to say “hello” makes him fluent in English.
O
OvrlapnMagstria
Guest
Thanks for the reply! However, I think it has brought up more questions than answers.
Furthermore, some abstract thought has been shown in other primates, birds, and even dogs. If I remember correctly, some were able to plan out future actions (which are immaterial). Another example is the “mirror test” in which apes, dogs, dolphins, and others are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. This would seem to require some level of abstraction. Would this mean that these animals do have immaterial souls?
Even if these were not examples of abstract/immaterial ideas, is it possible that some animals still possess immaterial ideas, but we are not able to see that they have them? We do not have the ability to read another animals mind so we don’t know what type of ideas they may be holding. The communication barrier between humans and animals does not allow them to express what they may or may not be thinking.
You seem to be using the words material and immaterial to mean physical and non-physical (you wrote that immaterial ideas are “abstract from matter.”) Does this mean that a material soul possessed by an animal is physical and made out of matter, while a human’s immaterial soul is not? What does an animal’s soul look like? Where is it located? How much does it weigh? Can I bottle it and sell it to some freaky collector? I suppose I am still not sure of what the difference between a material and immaterial soul is, excepting that one is everlasting.
Thank you very much in advance!
I am understanding this as “Even though an individual may not be rational, it is their nature to be rational.” How do we know that this is their nature? Is it their nature because other individuals of the same species posses rationality? If some of a species possesses a quality, does that quality become part of the “nature” of the entire species?
I don’t see the connection of why one’s soul needs to be immaterial in order to possess an immaterial (or abstract) idea. It would seem to me that the ability to hold immaterial ideas depends on the sophistication of one’s brain and education. Can you clarify this?
Furthermore, some abstract thought has been shown in other primates, birds, and even dogs. If I remember correctly, some were able to plan out future actions (which are immaterial). Another example is the “mirror test” in which apes, dogs, dolphins, and others are able to recognize themselves in a mirror. This would seem to require some level of abstraction. Would this mean that these animals do have immaterial souls?
Even if these were not examples of abstract/immaterial ideas, is it possible that some animals still possess immaterial ideas, but we are not able to see that they have them? We do not have the ability to read another animals mind so we don’t know what type of ideas they may be holding. The communication barrier between humans and animals does not allow them to express what they may or may not be thinking.
You seem to be using the words material and immaterial to mean physical and non-physical (you wrote that immaterial ideas are “abstract from matter.”) Does this mean that a material soul possessed by an animal is physical and made out of matter, while a human’s immaterial soul is not? What does an animal’s soul look like? Where is it located? How much does it weigh? Can I bottle it and sell it to some freaky collector?
I suppose I am still not sure of what the difference between a material and immaterial soul is, excepting that one is everlasting.Thank you very much in advance!
K
Katholish
Guest
I’ll try my best to address them.
Nature is what makes a thing be the kind of thing it is as opposed to something else. I will use the nature of horse as an example (since man can be tricky). What is “horseness”. What makes a horse be a horse as opposed to some other kind of animal. We naturally begin to look at its features. Horses have 4 legs, breathe air, have eyes, reproduce according to the order of mammals, etc. What is a horse were born with only two legs as some kind of birth defect? Would it still be a horse? Yes, because even though this horse only has two legs, we know it is proper to its nature to have four. We can say that this horse should have had four legs, but that something went wrong and interfered with its normal course of development.
These kinds of aberations and only hinder natural powers. They cannot give powers that are not proper to nature (that would imply a form of evolution resulting in a different species.) Thus, if one member os a species demonstrates a power, that must also belong to the other members of the species by nature.
In order for a knower to know the thing known, the knower must in some way be like the thing known. In other words, to possess knowledge, a being must have a nature which is compatible with that knowledge. What is material simply cannot possess what is immaterial. This is perhaps difficult to provide analogies for, but material things are so unlike immaterial things that they cannot interact in a manner that we are used to speaking of. As long as a brain is purely material, it will never contemplate what is immaterial, no matter how sophisticated it may be.
I know of no science which can truly claim that animals can process universal abstract ideas. Anything which looks like thinking in animals can always be attributed to instinct or the estimative power (which can associate emotions with images amongst other things). Animals also have memory which constantly refines their estimative power.
We have observed animals for quite some time and have never found evidence of rational thought. While perhaps not outside the realm of theoretical possibility, it is outside the realm of practical possibility. It is difficult to imagine any communication barrier being the cause for assuming an animal to be non-rational after millenia of observation.
A strict definition of matter is that which has parts, and thus what is immaterial is that which is simple and uncomposed. In practical terms, thinking of it as physical and non-physical is probably fine.
An animal soul is an “accidental” meaning that it only exists as a kind of organizing attribute of the animal’s body. Immaterial souls are “substantial” souls, meaning that while they are also an organizing principle of a body, they also can exist independently of a body. A substantial soul is something that you could study in theory, but an animal soul is not an actual “thing” but is rather a kind of property of the animal.
As a note of interest, it is because immaterial things have no parts that they cannot die or naturally ceasue to exist. Only things having parts can break down and die. This is why the human soul is immortal and the animal soul is not.
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
I definitely think they do. And from what I know, they are watching over me. Catholics are able to believe this aswell.
O
OvrlapnMagstria
Guest
So if one human has the attribute of tallness, then being tall is human nature? If one human has the attribute of autism, then autism becomes a part of human nature?
It the first paragraph, it seemed that nature was determined by what the majority of the species had; most horses have 4 legs so their nature is to have 4 legs. Yet, in the second paragraph, you state that only one member needs to demonstrate a “power” in order for it to belong to the nature of the species.
I do not agree. The words and images you are looking at on your computer screen right now are immaterial; they do not physically exist. They are immaterial information. Yet they are being stored by a material object. Furthermore, the area of the brain called the prefrontal cortex has been identified as being involved in handling abstract thought (in monkeys no less, in this research.) This shows that the material brain can handle the immaterial.
I disagree again. It is extremely difficult to see evidence of abstract thought when communication is impeded. I’m not even sure that I could confirm abstract thought in another human if I could not speak the same language. I think it is more honest to say that animals might not be capable of abstract thought rather than say that they definitely don’t and therefore don’t have immaterial souls. It would be folly to say that something doesn’t exist when we have barely been able to look in the first place.
It also seems to me that you are saying that an immaterial soul is a requirement for abstract thought. Wouldn’t it still be possible for an immaterial soul to exist, but not demonstrate abstract thought? For example: fuel is required for a fire, but you can have fuel without the fire.
This talk about immaterial souls being linked to intellect seems very theoretical to me. It may be true, but it would need to have some type of observable evidence to back it up. People can spin all types of fanciful theories, but they do not all reflect reality.
B
Brendan
Guest
That is not what is meant by Reason. Computers can make emperical deduction and use tools, but they clearly do not have souls.
What is necessary is Reason.
Reason is the ability to deduce that which is not knowable via emperical evidence.
For example, can a primate deduce the existance of God via the Ontological method?
They can, for example, acknowledge that they exist, but can they Reason what would be missing if they themselves did not exist?
Can it contemplate the concept of preexistant Knowledge, for example?
That is Reason, and it is the hallmark of the immaterial soul.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
How can an animal have a soul and not have been given a way to know that Jesus is the way to salvation? The animals were not created in the same way humans were, God didn’t say that he was making animals in his own image.
R
roelblomsma
Guest
Why did St. Franciscus call animals “brothers and sisters”.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
Human beings are trained by their mothers during adolecent years. Rationality for humans is greatly influenced on our use of language, which is what seperates us.
Elephants for example mourn the loss of other elephants. Chimps use tools, and sometimes new usuage of tools is picked up in a single generation, and passed on.
A computer doesn’t need to make decisions based on survival.
No because a primate has no purpose for the existence of God. He would have no way of describing it, which requires a language. A primate does however have the cognitive ability to problem solve. “Primitive scientific method” if you will
You are describing Reason that took all of 6000+ years to even develop.
He probably realized that we all have a common ancestor.
D
davidv
Guest
I believe you have this backwards. Our rationality created the languages we use.
Humans are composed immortal soul and body and are unlike any of these other animals.
Animals souls are mortal.
A computer doesn’t need to make decisions based on survival.
No because a primate has no purpose for the existence of God. He would have no way of describing it, which requires a language. A primate does however have the cognitive ability to problem solve. “Primitive scientific method” if you will
You are describing Reason that took all of 6000+ years to even develop.
He probably realized that we all have a common ancestor.
K
Katholish
Guest
Fair question. There is a difference between attributes and powers. I just started using the term without explaining. There is also a difference proper attributes and simple attributes. This gets a little difficult to explain without us having common ground in Aristotle’s 10 categories of being, i.e. substance and accident distinction, etc.
I also didn’t mean to imply that nature was determined by what the majority has. It is something of the opposite, it is nature which determines… Just to be clear. Nature is not simply descriptive. It is not simply that definition of what a thing is, but rather the definition is what describes the nature.
If I am looking at them, they are not immaterial. What I am looking at are physical representations of words. The sense memory only stores the material representation. It is my mind, through a process called abstraction, which sees the underlying immaterial reality of material things. Take for instance the idea of triangle. This idea is immaterial. If I draw a triangle on a chalk board, all I have is an imperfect material presentation. In fact, it is impossible to try to turn the immaterial into material, we can only create material things which have a triangular nature, but are not themselves the nature of triangle.
The brain is necessary for the operation of our immaterial intellect. Man is a body soul composite, and as such is designed to operate in harmony. Just because a physical part of man’s body is involved in the process of thought, does not make it sufficient for thought. I can try to explain that in more depth if need be, but I am trying to condense what normally takes years of classroom time to learn.
So, if you were dropped off in the middle of Paris, not knowing French, your wouldn’t be able to tell that French people are rational? Seeing Notre Dame should be sufficient. There are observable differences in the behavior of rational beings. Humans are the only rational beings that we can observe, though, so it is a little difficult to make comparisons.
An immaterial soul is a requirement for abstract thought, and I am certain that any immaterial being would have to be intellectual and capable of abstract thought, though I have not worked out all of the steps which would be required to have a philosophical proof of that.
The immaterial nature of knowledge seems considerably more obvious I think. That is just the thing, that knowledge and the soul are immaterial have been essentially proven since 400BC and the time of Socrates back near the very birth of philosophy itself. I agree that all kinds of crazy theories are possible, but would point out that Aristotlean epistemology (what we are talking about), is the philosophy which most prides itself on being based on common sense and observation.
B
BlueShadow123
Guest
Instead of asking ‘why don’t they have souls’ how about you ask ‘do they have souls’.
I think many will be surprised to the things the will find out when they are dead. Look into that thread that I posted on here. I left one huge response on it, but I don’t feel like re-typing it out.
I have yet for anybody to answer me about it.
I think many will be surprised to the things the will find out when they are dead. Look into that thread that I posted on here. I left one huge response on it, but I don’t feel like re-typing it out.
I have yet for anybody to answer me about it.
L
LilyM
Guest
He also called inanimate objects like the sun and moon ‘brother’ and ‘sister’. In fact he even called entirely abstract and immaterial things like death, humility and poverty ‘lady’ or ‘sister’.
He was a poet first and foremost. Poets use dramatic licence in this sort of way, it doesn’t mean they intend to express literal beliefs.
He was also intensely aware of the fact that all creation has a bond - for all creation has a common creator or ‘Father’, God. He honoured that bond by calling all creatures his brothers and sisters.
We could, but they simply will not understand.
- Status