Monday, October 15, 2007
On the Soul
With Aristotle's essay, "On the Soul," we are presented with a new dimension of his thinking--that of what it means to be alive. We are asked to think through the analogy: soul:body <=> aristotle-shape:bronze, which pulls the physics and the discussion of form and matter into the question of the soul. What is the Soul? What problems and challenges does it present to you as a reader and as a thinker?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I am especially struck by a notion of Professor Schwab's in his lecture notes. He writes, "The form has to constantly overcome that resistance in maintaining that body alive." I thought this was interesting because it reminded me of one of the more vivid paradigms in "On the Soul" where Aristotle says we should not need to ask "whether the wax and the impression are one" (166). I like this because I have often thought about what it means to be the "actor" and what it means to be acted upon. Why should we not ask what the difference between these things is?
As it's stated in Aristotles "On the Soul" the soul is "the actuality of a natural body" (106). The reason why we don't ask the difference according to Aristotle "that which is most properly spoken of is the actuality"(106). He states that certain parts of the soul can't be separated from the body, while actuality is in some of these parts.
The body is a prison house for the soul, according to the lecture; this was fascinating to me because it reminds me of someone who wants to get out of their comfort zone and express themselves but they're trapped. I wasnt quite clear about his SQ: What is the realm of being the soul belongs to, and what does that imply for our souls?
Aristotle's "On the Soul" and "Physics" are closely intertwined through casuality and the four causes. Aristotle writes "It has been stated in general what the soul is; for it is substance, that corresponding to the principle of a thing. And this is what it is for it to be what it was for a body of such a kind." (166). Can anybody categorize this statement into one of the four causes?
great question, golnaz. anyone?
Aristotle says "For it is surely better not to say that the soul pities, learns, or thinks, but that the man does these with his soul; and this not because the movement takes place in it, but because sometimes it reaches as far as it..."(164) I found this passage to indicate that the soul and the body are not actually two separate things, but actually two parts of the same whole, which is the man. They may perform some different functions, but they also perform some "movements" together. To me, this also relates to what Professor Schwab was talking about today in lecture, about how Aristotle's view is neither dualistic nor monistic.
A piece of bronze is only a piece of bronze until a sculptor gives it a shape, in this case one of Aristotle. This shape gives it life and makes it much more meaningful. Similarly, a body is not alive and has no meaning until it is equipped with a soul. The soul gives life but I am confused because while there are qualifications to being living, i.e. nourishment, and intellect, what exactly is it that the soul gives to the body?
Professor Schwab's discussion on the hylomorphic conception of the soul was especially intersting. Hylo means matter and morphic means form, so it is the form-matter concept of the soul. The question that we must ask is "What is the matter to that form?" In other words, what is the essence of a being. In nature, there are many kinds of THINGS which are subdivided into different FORMS or KINDS. For example, water has three different forms: it could be solid, liquid, or gas, but in essence, it is always two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. So my analysis of this would be, when asked the question "What is the MATTER to that FORM" would be WATER is the matter to the FORM (solid, liquid, or gas)
And because I was supposed to do this last week:
Essence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as
a.) Being, existence, viewed as a fact or as a property possessed by something.
b.) Something that is; an existence, entity.
Those were the two best definitions but neither really answer the philosophical question of "What IS the soul." Comments?
One definition of the soul is that it is the enlivening force of the body. However, it is particularly difficult to define due to the unique nature of the relationship between the soul and the body. While the body is not truly alive without a soul, the soul also cannot fully exist without the body. They must exist in tandem to actualize and fulfill Aristotle's definition of "alive;" one without the other is reduced to either potential or incompleteness. Neither can be completely separated from the other, either literally or in thought and philosophy, which can engender problems for the thinker/student who attempts to definitively clarify the idea of the soul. (Like us, haha.) Simple definitions, such as the one above or statements to the effect of, "The soul is the essence of life" do not suffice as an explanation of the soul.
This dilemma also addresses the difficulty of asking the difficulty of asking the difference between the "actor and the "acted upon"--it is impossible to define one without incorporating the other; they are innately intertwined and must be studied in conjunction.
The soul is what makes life, life. It is not, to me, something trapped inside the body, but something in a "symbiotic" (the soul isn't biological, but i mean that they need each other) relationship with the body.
In lecture i remember professor schwab saying that In Aristotle's description of the soul he determines the function of the "soul" for each kind of being(specifically). There is not really one description of a soul unless you're only talking about human beings because not everything has reason or perception.However i believe that most of the "Soul" functions for Aristotle involve the "body" making it harder to distinguish the roles of either more difficult.
some great questions and thoughts on the relationship between the body and the soul. it seems like some of you have developed your own understandings of what aristotle's model of soul/body/life might look like. as you can read in the core reader, page 29-30 on "comprehending definitions," definitions (like of the soul that we are struggling with) present not ease and understanding but debate and responses that have lasted (especially in the case of really great thinkers) over two thousand years!! remember what aristotle himself says on page 195 lines 29-35 about the way in which the "unaffectedness" of sense-perception is not the same as the "unaffectedness" of the intellect...
p.s. with that, let's try to approach the difficult matter of the intellect, which we have not yet really touched in these postings. how is it anyways that the intellect is found in the soul?
The soul was described as being "the first principle of animal life", meaning any living thing, especially living animals. In a way with the analogy of the soul:body to aristotle-shape:bronze, it seems like the soul gives shape to the body, the soul gives form to the body, matter. The soul must then tie in with the four causes, which is a different way of thinking for the modern reader.
I agree with Stephanie. The soul and body are both two separate things, but they are dependent upon each other. The body is nothing without the soul and the soul is nothing without the body.
The soul is that potential form that gives life to body. Aristotle states that "in most cases the soul is not affected nor does it act apart from the body." This sounds really confusing to me. I am unclear as to how it is that the soul can act in part with the body, but is not affected by it.
Post a Comment