Thomas Aquinas's Proof of the Soul
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Today we'll explore how Aquinas proved that we have a soul and how his view works better than Rene Descartes's.
___________________________________________________________________________
SOURCES
Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica: www.newadvent....
Question 75
www.newadvent....
___________________________________________________________________________
MY SOCIALS
Discord Server: / discord
TikTok: / sanctus.dominus
___________________________________________________________________________
Comment Feedback!
good stuff brother
@@focus9375 please change your pfp, it's imprudent to put a saint in a meme.
I've heard different explanations of this but never understood it. Your video just made it click for me. Great video!
Great video man! Im writing a essay on this so this video is a blessing
I’m glad i could help !
Great video! Short and sweet. I would enjoy a video addressing ‘The Logical Problem of The Trinity’ (specially the one shown in the UA-cam channel Jake the Muslim Metaphysician). God bless!
Definitely will have to do that one! Thanks for watching 🙏
The LPT has been debunked by Astro.
@@logicus.thomistica Who’s Astro?
@@franciseenc ua-cam.com/video/cNyH4gD8xzQ/v-deo.htmlsi=WI3rZmTCXdx5hzY7
@@franciseenc He was the Jetson's Dog
Just found your channel. Thank you for the wisdom! God Bless
All that this really means is that thoughts and ideas are not material. Something no one was ever confused about. Aquinas and Plato before him were really good at belaboring the obvious. Unfortunately, it has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether or not we have a soul, because a soul is much more than thoughts and ideas, in fact much more than our lives. Our soul is supposed to be an immaterial part of us that continues to live after the death of our bodies. That meaning of the soul is the only reason why the subject of a soul concerns anyone, and this meaning is not addressed at all in anything he said. I'm sorry.
I do believe people have souls, but I don't believe animals or plants have souls. I can't prove it, but I also can't doubt it.
Excellent video! I think this is also a great argument against nominalism. Even if we have a fictional universal, what is the identity between that universal and the external particular? It cannot be another fictional universal, otherwise we would need to explain the identity between that, the first universal, and the external particular. We eventually have to admit a one over many absolute form above these particulars, that is itself not a particular.
Makes a lot of sense. The only two counter-arguments it seems are that our perfect conception of form in the mind are an illusion, an imperfect or incomplete simulation, and not actually the form of the thought-of thing, or that form itself does not exist, which brings into question why matter is apparently able to take forms, even if as small as atoms.
It also calls into question what the identity between this imperfect particular conception in our brain and the external particular that is represents. If it is another particular conception, then what is the identity between that, the first conception, and the external particular it represents. This results in an infinite regress, because one local particular cannot account for the shared identity of the group of particulars. Therefore, there has to be a non-local absolute form that transcends the particulars.
I'm currently reading Aquinas for Beginners by Edward Faser, your videos are a large help.
Great book, i recently read that, and thanks for the feedback!
Nice. Keep going!
Thank you!
Hidden gem of an account
Awesome!💐🙏🏾❤️ Please keep up the good work🎊!! Bravo 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
So if I understood this right, the fact that when I think of a dog and that dog doesn't become real, shows that my mind is immaterial because I'm thinking of an immaterial dog?
It demonstrates that your mind is immaterial as if your brain were purely matter, and if you think of a form, that form and matter would become a material thing being thought of.
Similar to the idea of evolution. Something of a particular species can only produce entitles that are of the same species. If we predicate a fully natural universe, then mental processes should produce only material things, but we observe that concepts do not materialize unless actualized by other material things. The concept of a house is different from an actual house. Hylomorphism is possessing a form (essence) without becoming that thing. The form isn't material in the Hebrew Bible, God was said to make humans in his zelem ( image). It's not an actual image. Instead, maimonides interpret zelem to be essence. Saint john of damascus says that we are a union of body and soul. We are not just our souls, and we aren't just our bodies.
But wouldnt that mean that a computer who has the image of the dog would become a dog? Because computers clearly dont have a soul.....@@SanctusApologetics
@@mathiasrausch7098 It’s different in that it’s a code of 1s and 0s and not an actual form, the computer has no ability also to think abstractly in this case as well, it’s programmed.
Yup, computers don't actually "think" of anything. Even AIs who SIMULATE to understand what a dog is, do nor really understand what is a dog, its just organized data. They don't actually "comprehend" anything.
The example with the red rubber ball is a bit problematic. The matter is shaped into a ball so how can the shape be separated from the matter? The ball is not red. The color is created in our brain. And the bounciness is an effect of certain ways the matter is combined.
Awesome video, I disagree with it but the argument is really creative and thought out
Does Aquinas know about emergent properties?
Great video! If the soul is the person but the mind is not completely the soul does that mean the soul knows something that the mind doesn't? Also, what microphone and what do you use to record your voice?
No, it means the souls has properties that the mind doesn't
In some ways it would appear the soul can exist seperated from the body ut is incomplete. After earthly death the soul appears before God for the Immediate Judgement, after which it will then reside in heaven, hell , or purgatory awaiting the resurrection of its body at the end of time. Just wondering how Aquinas addresses the soul during this period.
He would say it’s possible, but it’s incomplete . Just like when you lose an arm or a leg, your body is incomplete in a sense.
Lovely music what is it
love it!
The last place you would source information on the soul is from a Christian. Ancient Indian scriptures are the authority on the soul, that's where early Greek philosophers and virtually anyone else sourced their knowledge from. Even today, Indian women place a bindi on their forehead representing a soul, their culture is governed by understanding the soul. The Mind, Intellect and Subconscious is a huge topic, best left to the experts.
That is a genetic fallacy. Where the idea comes from have nothing to do with it being true or false
Surprise: Aquinas turns out to be Aristotelian!
A baby doesn't know what a triangle is... therefore a baby does not have a soul...
They still have a rational soul just like someone who is deficient in the mind, the matter of their body is just limited at that moment.
@@SanctusApologetics do you differentiate between rationality and instinct, if so what is your major difference?
@@CaliRaveBoi Rationality is the ability to reason the abstract and know other substances or essences, I would look at instincts as more of a natural reaction which doesn’t always require rationality.
@@SanctusApologetics what do you mean by abstract? intangible ideas, like thoughts
Humans can be reactive vs responding. Crows dropping pebbles into a container to raise the water level is rationality?
Is that what you mean by rationality = forethought?
@@CaliRaveBoi. You can’t rely on material senses to abstract Universals, which means that our soul is of a higher quality. The baby’s soul is what allows it to grow into a rational animal. If you payed attention to the video, he clearly stated that the soul is what gives matter it’s form and characteristics.
Bring this up to Matt Dillahunty then...
why would Matt care about Thomistic metaphysics?
@@Jhostly As people routinely try to use this example from Aquinas for the evidence for a soul, and Matt has shown the logical fallacies within it.
@@corneliusmakin-bird7540such as?
Matt will refuse to believe in his own existence if it in anyway shows as evidence for God.
@@sndpgr I do not see how. He just follows where there is evidence towards something. If you do not like this tactic, then go debate him. 🤷♂️🤷♂️