Body and Soul (Aquinas 101)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лют 2020
- 🎥, Keep the Aquinas 101 cameras rolling! Donate $5 today: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
A soul is not a ghost in a machine or a mere emergent property. It is not an occult claim or a material reduction-the soul is the form of the body, an animating force that separates the living from the non-living.
In this video, we'll revisit some of the insights from the last video, teasing out implications and advancing insights a bit further.
Body and Soul (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
ua-cam.com/users/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic
To watch other videos with Fr. Gregory, you can check out this playlist! → ua-cam.com/play/PL_kd4Kgq4tP8ncNdsa-ItSdGCR_-jzB7e.html
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
.
Thomism calls Scientism out of darkness. Thomism illuminates, and nobody explains Thomas better online than The Thomistic Institute.
Boom!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
@@ThomisticInstitute🥧
Thank you for the thomistic institute's videos on the soul. Youh have cleared up alot of my doubts regarding the soul. God bless.
Wonderful to hear!
Thank you SO much for ALL of the videos you post! They are such a Blessing!❤️
thank you! i needed extra information about aquinas's idea.
Thank you ALL for this Video! Im reading THe Minds Road to God, as im not an intellect this video gave me "simple" clarity about the soul.
Wonderful to hear!
Very interesting are Saint Thomas thoughts and observations. Indeed. Thank you for this video Brother.
that was very informative indeed, I have never heard it explained like this before, thank you
Our pleasure!
A beautiful video, thanks that explains clearly ensoulment of man! And man having a rational disposition vs.the animal not having same.
Thank you for these wonderful videos!
Our pleasure!
sana all ganito kagaling mag explain
These videos are very inspirational. Thank you! As a Benedictine monk, I would love to start a Benedict 101 series.
You clown
Very good explanation. Thomism is a light for our intellect in this modern world.
Thank you!
Jesus must be the darkness😢😢😢
Neat! The Thomistic conception of life is basically how I understand the biblical anthropology of mankind, but in my case I swap the words "spirit" and "soul". The spirit is what gives all living things - _i.e.,_ humans, animals, plants - life whereas the soul is what specifically gives human beings - and _only_ human beings - the faculties of consciousness, conscience, and reason, among others.
Cool! I am assigned to report this topic at school, and it's just very complicated for me. Thanks for this!
Good! We're glad you found this helpful.
Amazing explanation, Father Gregory!
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
Thanks for this.
It's very helpful.
Thanks for this video. It's very well explained.
Our pleasure!
Thank you so much for this education!
Our pleasure! May the Lord bless you!
Best explanation of soul
Thanks much for this video.
I love these a lot, thank you for making them! Question, will you ever be creating subtitles for these videos? Sometimes I need to slow down and read what was said lol.
We are uploading subtitles to all the videos as we speak. It's just a matter of how long it takes UA-cam to sync the transcriptions. You should start seeing them soon!
Santa Claus is just the Dutch name of Saint Nicolas, who was a historical figure, a 4th century Bishop.
The folklore celebration of his feast has obviously changed a lot of details about him, to an unrecognizable degree.
He boxed Arius in the face at a council once too!
Thanks!!!
Our pleasure!
Amazing!
This video just made me more confused about what a soul is. I think they are operating on several unspoke premisses.
Another theologian said that the Soul is the fusion of the Body and the Spirit. This made a lot more sense to me.
Great! Thanks very much!
Very helpful. Can I suggest you make a video about Free Will and God's omniscience?
Thanks as ever for your great knowledge n skills of delivery! What does a Soul look like in Heaven?
The Soul in traditional "Fundamentalist" theology is akin to something that can be separated out from the body, as in Paul's travel to the third Heaven, or the Spiritual body that can ascend to Heaven. However, Aquinas also addressed to the One Unified Essence of the Universe, Aristotle's "Being-In-Itself". This monistic philosophy of pure Being can be equated to Shankara's Brahman or Pure Consciousness, the Ousia of the Stoics, the One of Plotinus, the Tao. This is experiential but not in a dualistic sense. Access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sounds Choir" and listen to it for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. In due time you will transcend the realm of mind and tap into the Pure Being, (Consciousness) that Aristotle and Aquinas talked about.
Thanks dude! 🙏
You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
A living thing can have many souls, one, or none at all. Linguistics is fun! A critique of Aristotle's theory of causes is useful here, especially a reflection upon the teleocentric statements made here in this video. Whereas much is made about the formal cause here, relating it identically to the final cause, aristotle was clear that in human matters, the final cause can be unrelated to the formal. The final cause of a statue can be to worship some god which is not identical with its formal cause, simply being a statue. Aristotle states however that in matters of nature, the formal is identical with the final. The final cause of the oak tree is to express what it means to be an oak tree formally. While this is a tautology, it is a practical one, we all can estimate what it means for an oak tree to "be" an oak tree, formally. The irony I sense here in this description is, the argument laid out here resembles moreso the latter offering of Aristotle, whereas clearly the question of the soul, firmly in the realm of human affairs, is mutable and without an obvious formal answer. Like the statue to the god, the body can represent many different souls, one soul, or none at all.
Thank you for this excellent video! So is the main understanding that separates the Aristotelian model of the soul from the Platonic one the fact that the soul is one with and animates the person by its nature while Plato would say that the soul is merely housed in the body?
That's a good summary. In short, for Plato, the soul is principally to be understood as a subsisting form accidentally related to a body. Sometimes in the Platonic tradition, this is even characterized negatively, as if the soul were imprisoned in the body.
For Aristotle, the soul is principally to be understood as an informing form, substantially related to a body. The human person is body and soul, and though the soul subsists upon separation from the body, it cannot truly be called a human person. For that to be true, the soul must be united to the body as making the human person to be what it is.
Fr. Pine you are a hoot; you're the best. Question: is the breath of life (Genesis) the same as the soul (which I believe it is)? When the soul departs the body, the body remains until interred. What is the Catholic Church's teaching about the body? By the way, I am Orthodox not Catholic. Thanks for answering my question.
Great videos, thank you! But how can immaterial soul/ratio communicate to its lower parts which are material?
St. Thomas would argue that the soul animates the whole body and is present in every part of the body. What is more, it's not the soul that acts or the body that acts, but rather the human person who acts through the soul and in the body. So, the human person, as an ensouled body, operates through the powers of the soul, and those powers have somatic or bodily dimensions to them.
St. Thomas isn't tripped up by a mind/body problem or a soul/body problem. He's not operating in those categories. Rather, the soul operates through its powers, which themselves entail the body. The powers are seated in corporeal organs. Sometimes the powers are circumscribed by the corporeal organs and sometimes not (higher powers of intellect and will). Either way, the human person engages with reality by virtue of the powers of the soul, which are seated in and operate through the body.
Patrick Madrid from Relevant Radio sent me 🙏🏻
I had an aha moment. I am reading Plato's Republic, the divided line.
Not so easy to hold on n grasp all this one,will revisit again?
This is amazing - I love your videos! Do you have any advice for a student trying to discern his vocation (and, incidentally, considering the Dominicans as one of the options)?
Check on these videos, and follow up!
1. ua-cam.com/video/jjSlsDVfrxI/v-deo.html
2. ua-cam.com/video/HAHM0TqqTgs/v-deo.html
3. ua-cam.com/video/kcvKS5GuWRU/v-deo.html
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you, Father! God bless!
@@alexandernorris8189 Cheers!
A soul is the form of the body that which makes us a human being with intellect and will and that makes us distinct and separate from the animal kingdom! Aristotle
What is the difference between soul and spirit? I get confused between the two when I read this passage in the bible:
Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12
The Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma, often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and gives evidence of force in motion. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit (Ex 35:21; Ps 104:29; Mt 12:43; Lu 11:13.) While soul the traditional rendering of the Hebrew word neʹphesh and the Greek word psy·kheʹ,. In examining the way these terms are used in the Bible, it becomes evident that they basically refer to (1) people, (2) animals, or (3) the life that a person or an animal has. (Ge 1:20; 2:7; Nu 31:28; 1Pe 3:20; also ftns.)
www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-glossary/spirit/
www.jw.org/en/library/books/bible-glossary/soul/
I had this same question: ua-cam.com/video/HUO9G9PNv54/v-deo.html
@@dorolsamanthag.3706I don't trust anything for JW!
Thank you, father. So, can I say that human being has two natures, which are immaterial and material natures?
Or saying the substantial union of soul and body is the human nature?
That is a good explanation if you take Aristotelean philosophy as your philosophy, but I think it encounters a lot of problems given our increase understanding of the brain and its relation to much of the things attributed to the soul.
Where is the previous video which he was talking about?
1. What is a human spirit in the context od the human soul? 2. When we are baptized, what happens to our human spirit and soul under the Holy Spirit? 3. What does it mean to open one's soul to receive the Holy Spirit?
Given the idea presented I can see why someone might imagine or propose a soul at work within a plant. Some of them display many of the features that a soul is reported to explain - sensing, "desiring", moving, understanding and will. But many of those features are explained by relatively simple mechanical/biomechanical processes in a plant that it doesn't seem hard to picture reproduced in part or in full within a machine or a computer model. And while I don't know that there are similar mechanical/material processes involved in human behaviour I find it very hard to rule out that possibility.
If I try to imagine a way in which someone could recognise a soul at work as distinct from what might (potentially at least) be a material process like one equivalent to that of the Venus Fly trap "choosing" and catching its "preferred" lunch I cannot think of one. apparent
yea I think the mechanical is deeply part of the soul... like I have ADHD, which means I take medication that is basically a chemical that empowers my free will to command my actions more reliably. Makes my actions match my intentions. It's weird to think about when it comes to morality. People might not be able to choose to do good. God must know that and account for it. I mean on the cross Jesus said "forgive them for they know not what they do..." I feel like that "knowing not what we do" is a good chunk of fallen human nature... I mean when we know what we do and choose evil, God won't infringe our freedom, explains why hell exists... and why it's only so black and white after death when we definitively know what we do... and why the angels are so black and white, they know what they do... maybe we're like plants deeper than we think we are, which makes Jesus more humble than we think He is... Jesus gives us Himself, body soul and divinity, in the eucharist... what makes the form of Christ is extended to us... Idk what is real and what isn't because I have a lot of serious mental illness, but I have faith, like I logically think, given my experience with hallucinations and delusions, that believing anything presented to me by my senses is a choice, and I chose to have faith in my logic on that... I choose to believe the sacraments are realest, that Jesus is THE truth, and that I'm capable of apprehending truth and beauty through gift of God. It makes the virtue of faith make more sense to me. Science is supposed to give you truth, and so if it's good science, it also will illuminate you a bit closer to God. But God controls everything, we only are allowed to know so much under our own power. The devil wants us to think that that limit is the limit of existence, that there is no more to life than what we can understand. God helped me get out of that trap by making sure I had zero trust in my understanding and intellectual faculties lol. So yeah I think the mechanical stuff in our biology that paints a picture of God is all part of the mysterious ways we are made in His image. and I exist, I am here to experience my consciousness... my consciousness doesn't need ME here to do anything... if we made a computer the same as a human brain it wouldn't make an "I," it would simulate an "I" but nothing would be awake to it... God works something special and beyond the physical to make us present to Creation. We know stuff. That is a power of the soul. I kind of feel like I get it a little bit.
Thanks. I like this a lot. I wonder, what is the difference/relation between body, soul and spirit. Is spirit different than soul?
Excellent question! Here's a good response: taylormarshall.com/2016/12/spirit-soul-body-just-soul-body.html
From my limited understanding, I think that spirit and soul are different.
Perhaps an argument: What gives life to the soul is the spirit (sanctified grace - Father Harden).
Because there are souls that are dead. If the person goes to hell (God forbid), the soul goes there but with
no spirit (nothing from God is in hell). That soul still retain their faculties (like demons), that is: intelligence, memory and a lock will for bad things.
So, pray tell me, what is the spirit..in relation to body and soul…?
i can see the soul in real life reality
How do modern Thomists respond to what appears to be a fundamental error in Aquinas' thought. In the Summa, he describes the vital activity of a human to be cognition, and then presumes to say that no corporeal organ is responsible for cognition Summa(pars I, Q79, A1, response to objection 4), and that it is through the immaterial nature of the soul that it has intelligence. But we know that there is an organ responsible for cognition. Has there been recent development on this quandary? Thank you!
St. Thomas means that our acts of intellectual cognition i.e., thinking and understanding, do not take place through any corporeal organ, in the way that acts of seeing take place through the eye. We do not think with our brains. The brain is, however, an organ of the cognitive faculty known as the imagination, by which we represent individual objects, i.e., produce images. Thomas maintains that we cannot properly think or understand without the aid of the imagination, which is why damage to the brain impedes it.
"From experience it is clear that he who has already acquired intelligible knowledge through intellectual appearances, is not able actually to consider the knowledge he has unless some phantasm comes to mind. And this is why injury to the organ of imagination [the brain] impedes a man not only in newly understanding something, but also in considering that which he has previously understood, as is clear in the mad.”
- Thomas Aquinas.
Hello I have a question. A human being is composed of soul and body right? Why do people experience death is soul and body needs each other? Is it just because that the soul abandons the body?
Mens sano in Corpore Sana! A healthy mind in a healthy body. St Thomas Aquainas
@Fr. Ambrose Little, do angels have souls?
Are there any Thomistic responses to modern biology? DNA would seem to fulfil many function played by the soul - although not the higher faculties of will and intellect.
Is it more accurate then to say the human soul is a substance or a subsistent thing?
Amen
Hey, brother, would you please add a Turkish translation to the videos? Greetings from your Catholic brothers in Turkey. ^_^
I love philosophy
We're glad to hear it, and we hope these videos help! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
This is what I believe please someone let me know if I am wrong.
What I am is a spirit living in a material body, because I am a spirit I have free will, i.e. God has given me the ability to programme my own soul, so my mind and body work to create a real soul. My soul is real because it is created by a freely acting spirit.
Question:
Do u have sources or names of the philosophers.
Would be very helpful.
Thanks
There are any number of online resources explaining the terms of Aristotle. The Catholic Encyclopedia is available online free of charge. Unsurprisingly it has articles on Aristotle and on the technical language used by Father Pine.
The Thomistic Institute also has courses with readings which would allow you to read the original works, which are being referenced. This would be the best place to look to understand Thomas' thought, naturally.
When it comes to substance and accidents, is the soul the substance and the body is the accident?
The only work of Aristotle I have read to completion is the Categories. From this, I was wondering if human sex is a Quality or is it part of Substance?
On one hand, it seems better to say that someone IS a man rather than to say that someone is a human with maleness added. With most qualities, one can imagine increasing/decreasing/adding/removing that quality from a person, but, with sex, this cannot be done since it is integral to the whole body. Perhaps there is some kind of distinction between "accidental qualities" and "essential qualities" that rebuts this, but I don't know.
On the other hand, if sex is part of substance, the highest most specific answer to what someone is, their substance, would be "a man" or "a woman." We would then refer to a man soul and a woman soul, but we do not do this. Bringing this up makes me wonder about how two different forms or souls of the same natural kind can have differences and what "makes a soul to be the kind of soul it is." It seems unfitting and contrary to Christian teaching to hypothesize a kind of meta-soul that does for souls what souls do for bodies, and then to be stuck in an infinite regress.
Perhaps related to this is some confusion about the distinctions between form, essence, and genus. In my mind, each is a way of answering "what is this thing?" A human is in the genus "human," has a human soul or form, his soul is in the genus "human souls," and all of this entails having a certain essence common to all humans. So in the fourfold division framework of the beginning part of the Categories, a genus is "predicated of and not present in," an essence is "present in and not predicated of," and probably that division scheme is improperly applied to forms that are the forms of material beings since they are not complete substances? I'm not really sure how much this fourfold division was considered by Aquinas, though I do know he gave a derivation of the ten categories.
(On the other hand, maybe a form is "neither present in nor predicated of" if that form is some immaterial primary substance like a mathematical object such as a particular topological space (and do we still use the word "form" here despite it being different from "matter and form?"). I think this is right even though the idea of a mathematical object can be present in minds, i.e. I think there is a distinction between the object and the idea of the object despite the object itself already being abstract.)
Thank you for the videos and your time!
This is a great question, and it has been debated among Thomists in the 20th century. You might read Edith Stein's essays on Woman for an interesting take on the matter.
A typical response is that what it means to be a human person, taken in the abstract, does not immediately connote maleness or femaleness. A human person, on Boethius's definition, is a rational animal. Rationality entails immateriality, and is thus not necessarily sexed. To be an animal entails being sexed for the purpose of procreation and education of children. When considering matter in the abstract (abstracting from this this or that parcel of matter), humanity or human nature doesn't give indication as to male or female. This is something that is worked out at the level of particular or what St. Thomas calls signate matter.
The philosophical category to which sex pertains is not settled doctrine. The philosophical tradition inherited by St. Thomas allows for certain accidents that issue immediately from the substance (called properties), an example being risibility or the capacity for humor. This, he thinks, is a property or proper accident issuing from rationality. The instances of these that I have heard described usually issue from the form, which in this case, is the soul with its powers of intellect and will. In the case of sex, it would have to issue from the body, which stands on the side of matter.
Now, since the matter differs in the case of men and women, one might argue that the soul (which is neither male nor female) is individuated by the matter, both as this or that human person and as male or female. The question remains, how then does one account for differences in the souls of men and women? Without falling into crass stereotypes, how we account for the fact that many men and women think and feel differently about life?
Here, we've raised more questions than we've answered, but I suspect that sex is accidental (perhaps a quality), that it is bound up with matter, that it has spiritual resonance in the human organism, and that it modalizes the individual expression of the human person in such a way that sex transposes what it means to be a human person into one of two distinct registers, while still retaining the integrity of the philosophical kind.
So when the body dies, what happens to the soul, or does the body and soul die at the same time, both sustaining each other?
Love all the work you guys do! I have a few questions about the issue of one soul or multiple souls. 1) The soul, as a form, makes man to be what he is. We say that man is the rational animal. But wouldn't this imply that he is an animal, giving him an animal soul? Or is this definition of man an imperfect one? 2) Tangentially related, if man is a rational animal, is it also proper to say that man is a rational, sensing plant? This seems kind of silly, but perhaps that's because I'm thinking too much in terms of biological taxonomy. 3) An objection to Aquinas' argument about the unicity of the soul: there are some unconscious vegetative powers that seem not to be hindered by the intellectual powers. For example, my body will continue to digest food in my stomach (self-nutrition) and to grow (growth). Neither of these powers are hindered by the fact that I am currently reasoning about philosophy (intellect). Thus, it seems that I can have a vegetative soul and a rational soul, no?
Excellent question!
1. The definition comes from the form (rational) and the proximate genus (animal). So, the Boethian definition doesn't denote multiplicity of souls per se. The properly animal and vegetative powers are contained virtually in the rational soul, thus retaining in the human person the full range of activities proper to lower life forms.
2. As for the rational sensing plant, my instinct is to say now. Rationally is immaterial. It names the form. The animality piece accounts for the body. Thus, rational animal captures the highest immaterial and the highest material constituents of the human person, whereas if one were to call man a rational sensing plant, one would lose, at best, speak very improperly, and at worst, lose the sense of the material constituent.
3. That's a great point. I don't think St. Augustine or St. Thomas were saying that all the activities of the soul observe this norm, but only those that require attention or intention. So, the fact that some powers operative in different orders conflict is sufficient to prove. He doesn't need to show that it is the case for every combination of powers. Here's a version of the argument in the treatise on the passions: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-iaiiae-q-37#FSQ37A1THEP1
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you for your reply! Your replies to questions 1 and 2 are spot on. But I'm not sure I'm totally satisfied on question 3. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but it seems like (at least in the respondeo of article 1) St. Thomas takes the unicity of the soul as a premise, instead proving it as a conclusion. So, I still question whether there exists both a material soul that governs certain unconscious actions of the body and a rational soul that governs the conscious ones. For instance, a person in cerebral death may continue to breathe and his other organs may function normally, but his body (presumably) cannot return consciousness. Why is this not evidence that his body has been severed from a rational soul and is only supported by a material soul?
@@wardjaeger8954 Way to drill down. Okay, I think the more fundamental consideration for St. Thomas is that the form makes a thing to be what it is. If there were multiple substantial forms informing the same matter, then a thing would be multiple things simultaneously, which gets absurd (cf. Principle of Non-Contradiction). The intentio animae argument shows the problem of having nested forms in the same substance, but at root, St. Thomas is concerned with the integrity, coherence, unity, and interiority of the substance itself. I think that he would argue though that when the soul of a human person separates from the body, then a corporeal form follows in its wake. So, the substance would change from that of a human person to that of a corpse.
Also, St. Thomas had a view of ensoulment that evidences further his understanding on the matter. (Trigger warning: We are not espousing this theory; we are just expositing St. Thomas). St. Thomas was concerned that the matter in early stages of embryonic development was inapt for receiving the infusion of a human soul. So, he taught, the matter receives a succession of forms (corporeal form, plant soul, animal soul) antecedent to the infusion of the human soul. So, those are some heuristics for understanding him better . . .
@@ThomisticInstitute Ah, now I see. Just to recap: The human person is a single thing, and thus he can only have one substantial form, which is the rational soul. This is corroborated by the fact that sometimes the powers of the soul conflict with one another, as a result of the single soul having one intention. On the other hand, if he had multiple substantial souls, he would be multiple things, which just isn't true in our experience of human beings. This was the point I was missing in my objection. So in my example, the body is no longer a human person, assuming the rational soul has been severed from it. And since matter still requires a form to remain actual, it then takes on a mere corporeal form (or perhaps, I speculate, some sort of material soul, since normal bodily functions persist). Thank you for clearing that up for me!
@@wardjaeger8954 That's exactly it!
This sounds like a description of an operating system. Is there anyone trying to map Thomist understandings into modern neuroscience?
A materialist understanding would say that the form of the body is caused by DNA, the epigonome, and then a bunch of other factors that might be encapsulated as “the computational process occurring within the brain.”
From that angle, the claim that we have only one soul seems to map roughly onto the idea that there’s only one computational process driving the body. Yes, people can get distracted but that doesn’t usually stop us from breathing or beating our hearts. I think you can still say there is only one soul even if it is composed of smaller souls, right? This would be like a stack of operating systems, some of which handle lower level operations, and the outermost one acting as an integration point for the rest.
The ancient and medieval paradigm of body-soul has been replaced by a modern paradigm structure-function.
Have you compared this to the sheath model used by eastern religions ?
Actually the body animates the body, and in turn the body animates the "soul", or what we would rather call the consciousness of placeness, of embodiment. Modern experiments in neurotechnology demonstrate that when a patient's body is manipulated via stimulation from the device (chemical or electrical), the patient feels as if they are the source of the movement. To be clear, the functions of the body gave animation to the conscious experience of embodiment, not the other way around. Seems that Aquinas had the fact of the matter perfectly inverted!
What's the difference between the Soul and the Spirit
So does this mean there is no such things as spiritual possession?
If only one soul animates one body
And they are not transmissible from onn matter to another
I prefer the Alchemy of Body (Flesh), Mind (Soul), and Spirit (God)~ Not all have Spirit and Jesus said, You must have the Holy Spirit to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; and the Apostle mention the Baptism of the Holy Spirit often enough to understand it's a process separate from the Flesh and Mind~
Yes, I understand why Presidents and CEO's have drivers, I become so engrossed in thought I'm not even paying attention to my other actions, just going through the motions while deeply focused on my Thought~
I think it's a real pity no distinction is made between soul and spirit and also that this has led to a lot of misunderstanding i.e. man as a 'ghost in a body'. You have a body, you have a spirit but you ARE a soul...
So is this different front the soul leaving the body?? Per say to go to heaven?? I know the Bible refers to a living soul / breathing.
ATC to pilot, “how many souls on board ?”
Why would Christ's body and blood still be united with His divinity if Mass was offered on Holy Saturday? Isn't death a separation of body and soul? Wouldn't His divinity be united with His soul but not His body since it was dead?
Honest question that I'm struggling with. I see assertions that His divinity remained united with both His flesh and soul, but no reasons why.
Plants and minerals have a type of soul, a spirit. and humans would have 3 types of souls (nefesh, ruaj and neshama).
if the soul is the form of the body, does that mean if i lose my leg in a car accident my soul has been injured? or if i work in a coal mine and breath in coal dust all day, and my lungs deteriorate, my soul has been injured? if not, what's wrong with my statement.
Your environmental, in the widest possible sense, is everything about you except your own existence. This includes your five (or possibly more) senses. Is your “soul” just an old word for something we now refer to as “the environment”, as if there is only one environment which we all share?
It sounds like it entirely begs the question. If a sole accounts, for the fact that this thing is alive, you have still only inductively created the concept out of thin air.
Does Christ have a soul like other human beings do? Or did Him being the Incarnate Logos negate having a soul like we do?
I have been searching for answers. There are saints which have been named to be in heaven.
Do you know about this?
If so please clarify as I have not read not one Apostle being in heaven after the Ressurection.
3:58 So how does this apply to, say, a sufficiently advanced Artificial Intelligence? Is it conceivable that an AI (such as an android) could be considered "ensouled" if it, to all observers, appeared to "act" and "will" like a living thing?
It's hard to imagine with today's technology, but it seems like it may be possible in the Not too distant future. I'm just wondering if this theology allows for it...
Love these videos! I'm subscribed now. :)
The key word here is "appeared". For something to count as ensouled, it has to perform acts of reason and will, not simply appear to perform them. A polygon with millions of sides appears to be a circle to sensory observers, but it is nevertheless not in itself a circle.
@@legron121 "it has to perform acts of reason and will, not simply appear to perform them."
Well, that is the million dollar question. How do you really know?
If you drew a circle on a piece of paper, free-hand, the circle might not be a mathematically perfect circle. But is it still a "circle" for all intents and purposes?
If you had a polygon with millions of sides, it would seem to approximate a circle so closely that you'd hardly know the difference, unless you examined the edge with a microscope. At what point are we splitting hairs here?
Is it necessary for an "ensouled" being to be biological, or it is possible for them to have a synthetic body? If the former, is that not just another form of materialism?
I'm just posing the question. I'm not trying to argue. I would genuinely like to know.
Do any non-human animals have any sort of soul?
I wish there is Augustinian Insitute too hehe
Man does not have a soul, man is a soul. Add the spirit (breath of life) and man becomes a living soul.
Honest Q: Do microorganisms (e.g. bacteria) have irrational, probably mortal souls? Microbiology may not have been very advanced in the 1100s-1200s (was Aquinas aware of bacteria?), but judging by your statement on plants, I also recongise that bacteria reproduce & move to some extent. Animals by their mere existence bless God & give Him glory (cf. CCC 2416)
Not meant to be a gotcha statement
-The Vatican 2 documents explained :
Without understanding the following you will never be able to understand the documents. I will list here, what the documents consist of, by name and by title. But you will never find the list of these names inside the documents this is deliberate. For the purpose of concealment. But what you will find in every paragraph of every page the “definition” of the terms listed. Therefore the Vatican two documents consist of “definition” only:
Without understanding the following you will never be able to understand the documents. I will list here, what the documents consist of, by name and by title. But you will never find the list of these names inside the documents this is deliberate. For the purpose of concealment. But what you will find in every paragraph of every page the “definition” of the terms listed. Therefore the Vatican two documents consist of “definition” only:
1) Indifferentism
2) Syncretism and Synthesis
3) Immanent
4) Transcendentalism
5) Individualism
6) Existentialism, naturalism
7) Stoicism
8) Pantheism
9) Evolution
10) The Sciences such as historian sociology psychology critic…
If you look up Saint Pope Pius 10 Encyclical
“ Pascendi Dominici Gregis” you will find he new about Vatican 2 and wrote a detailed comprehensive explanation of Vatican 2, listing in detail more than half of the items above listed, and he even explains, in example, how it is meant to diminish Jesus Christ and the one true church and desecrate all seven sacraments and to leave the door open for more of modernism and Progressive changes in the future. He is not alone !!! Pius 10 on the Errors of Modernism, Pius 9 his Syllabus of Errors and Pope Gregory 16 in his Encyclical “Mirari Vos” see #19 on the waldensians,the Beghards,the Wycliffites, and all the popes condemned the documents of Vatican 2 and the Synod of Pistoia and warned the faithful with excommunication, anathema if you don't reject the Vatican two documents, and church, and embrace the one true traditional Catholic Church, the depository of faith, before the end of your life.
As you examine these terms and then read the Vatican two documents you can clearly see the “definition” of all the above listed terms, but not the terms themselves, and the evil,and that it is no longer Catholic but a new religion that will lead you straight to hell !!!
Then what are we to do you ask ?
If you are a true Traditional Catholic then you are supposed to do what the Blessed Virgin Mary told us to do in these evil times, that she described at Fatima, in the third Secret. Not the fake phony Third Secret that John Paul II falsified and Rewritten, along with the fake Lucia !!! But the real true Third Secret of Fatima. You are also to do what the Blessed Virgin Mary told us to do at La Salette, France and again at Our Lady of Good Success, who described in great detail what is to happen to the Catholic church at the end of the 20th century and she was 100% right !!!
What do we do then ? what did she say to
do ? She said to say the Traditional Rosary, not the rosary of John Paul II, the Traditional Rosary 15 decades everyday or 5 decades on Monday, 5 decades on Tuesday, and 5 decades, on Wednesday. Since the Mass is the greatest prayer of all !!! you get the Saint Andrews missile (and no other missile) but the St Andrews missile, and you say Mass every Sunday (you're not able to consecrate) but you can still say the prayers of the Mass !!! From only the Saint Andrew's missile. You can say the rosary, the Seven Sorrows of Mary, the Stations of the Cross, all at home. Have nothing to do with today's fake Catholic Church!!! NOTHING !!! This means all Vatican 2 priests and parishioners also the sspx, sspv, cmri, fssps… It will be a mortal sin and send you straight to hell if you go to any of these groups who support and embrace “Invincible ignorance” and also “baptism of desire and blood” that the Traditional Catholic church teaches against !!! this is heresy !!! and these groups, the sspx and others Embrace these heresies !!! along with using the St Joseph's missile (THIS IS A condemned missile) if anyone, even the Pope, tells you that it's not a condemned missile they are - A - Liar !! don't believe them, they're a liar and a Heretic !!! Heretics will send you to Hell !!!
You say your prayers at home, you stay at home, and you say your prayers at home, the Traditional prayers of the church and you say them every day. You read the Bible the Catholic Bible and no other since all other Bibles have been Rewritten with attacks againt Mary !!! and study the lives of the Saints of the church, and stay away from newly written or revised books on the market today !!! Don't buy any books on the market after 1960 !!!!
What about confession and all that ? You confess your sins to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost using the prayers in the St Andrews missile, in the confessional which is in the back of the book, or you say one of the seven penitential Psalms along with the act of contrition. That's your confession, at home where you are safe both in body and soul !! For baptism you do the same at home with the proper, Matter, Form and Intent !!!
But whatever you do have nothing to do with the Vatican 2 Church sspx, sspv, fssp…. even if it's empty do not go in it !!! Judgment day is almost here.
P.S.- the Most Holy Family Monastery is a good resource me and my colleagues have kept a close eye on them for over 20 years I highly recommend them.
God Love You
If a corpse isn’t technically human because it no longer has it’s human soul, then why do we still respect it as human? (I think it’s good we do respect corpses, but I thought we did so because it’s human). Additionally, isn’t it dualistic to think that a corpse is not human because the soul has left it? Don’t we always say it’s a composite whole?
Lol saying that this isn't something Occult is ironic. Considering etymologicaly something occult means some truth which is hidden. So its very Occult, which is why it's so great
The soul is that which you are and which is so obvious in some sense that most people look right past it. It is your very existence itself. That which illuminates all other “things” in your experience. Material is more occult than soul
Did st. Thomas affirm that I have a soul?
Yes.
Just some minor questions if you have the time. Im sure you may get these questions often so sorry if its treading familiar grounds.
1. Are types of souls (vegetative, Intelligent, or sensory) changing? or is it how that soul interacts with the body that gives it that distinction. If a dog gains the same intellect and cognitive awareness as an average human would he still have a sensory soul?
2. do dogs go to heaven, if there souls arnt immortal?
3. what does the soul do that our physical body does not (i.e our brain)?
Good questions! Have you checked out these two videos. They begin answering your questions . . .
1. ua-cam.com/video/NTSQPDOn0xc/v-deo.html
2. ua-cam.com/video/UnpycBrUB3U/v-deo.html
Without supporting the words with the verses from the Bible, the differentiation and definition of flesh, soul, and spirit will be clear as mud…… I am a Berean.
These videos are hard is there easier way to read Aquinas
If the body has no value without a soul then why do we venerate dead bodies and worship relics
so, the whole argument is a begging the question logical fallacy plus a lil bit of equivocation from greek plus words' juggling :) well done, "philosophers" :)
I would think any pragmatic individual would argue that a severed human hand is very much human matter! Did I hear that right?! A human corpse is just matter, not human?
Enjoyed the video but will trust in a posteriori Neuroscience over a priori arguments
"In the doctrine of the Catholic Church not only does Nature in its individual and several parts inculcate and illustrate moral lessons, but Nature in its entirety is like a magnificent symphony proclaiming the praises of God. Thus creation becomes a many-tongued choir, and the elements, plants, animals, man himself, intone together, in union with the angels, the praises of their Creator. In perhaps the oldest inspired poem we read of the music of the spheres, " The stars praising me together, the sons of God making glad melody " (Job xxviii. 7)." quoted from " The Religion of Shakespeare" by Henry Sebastian Bowden of The Oratory. Today with the advent of computers math has been able to visibly reveal through renderings of the Mandelbrot set the infinitely (literally) majestic repetitive nature of what the concepts of math have discovered. These images are also found in nature. Google the Mandelbrot set and see for yourself how the beauty of nature in fractals such as snowflakes and fern leaves is accounted for by the mind of God revealing His infinite beauty through our God given ability to recognize His plan.
:)
Cheers, Hope!
The biological theory of evolution does not use Aquinas’s terminology, e.g., a notion of soul.
Evolution is highly overrated...
@@mauijttewaal Such a valuation of those that “rate” the evolution would have been highly underrated...