25 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't delay, buy today: http://www.kwikmind.com/aquinas/
Maybe I dont understand your posts. In what way does my question not apply to your concept of the soul? Either a soul stores memories or it doesnt.
You still dont specifically state whether you believe in the Thomistic or Augustinian notions of the soul.
Remember--there's no excuse for laziness!
25 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe question of whether it is the soul or the body that stores memories has meaning only when the soul is thought of as a distinct substance from the body (i.e. the Cartesian conception). In the Thomistic view, the soul is essentially a "blueprint" for the body. Memory is a power of the soul but actualised in the body. It is not an either/or situation.
Maybe I dont understand your posts. In what way does my question not apply to your concept of the soul? Either a soul stores memories or it doesnt.
You still dont specifically state whether you believe in the Thomistic or Augustinian notions of the soul.
EDIT: Here's an analogy - consider a RAM chip. Data is stored on the physical RAM chip, but only because the design of the chip allows it to.
As to your second question, what difference does it make what I personally believe?
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI am still convinced that it is an either/or situation. If in the Thomistic view the soul is a "blueprint" then it does not store memories just as a RAM chip blue print would contain no data. After the death of a RAM chip (stick it in the microwave), you can not discover its former contents from the blue print.
The question of whether it is the soul or the body that stores memories has meaning only when the soul is thought of as a distinct substance from the body (i.e. the Cartesian conception). In the Thomistic view, the soul is essentially a "blueprint" for the body. Memory is a power of the soul but actualised in the body. It is not an either/or situation ...[text shortened]... it to.
As to your second question, what difference does it make what I personally believe?
So in the Thomistic view, do the memories still remain after death and if so are they a snapshot of the memories in the brain at the time of death or not?
The word soul does not appear on the page your link took me to. Do you expect me to study all Catholic doctrine to find out one denominations answer to a simple question?
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoes it matter what he expects?
The word soul does not appear on the page your link took me to. Do you expect me to study all Catholic doctrine to find out one denominations answer to a simple question?
*
Our elder Philosophers have generally made use of the Word Soul to signify that Principle whereby a Plant grows, and they called it the vegetative Soul.
Isaac Watts, Logick: or the right use of reason
in the enquiry after truth, I. V.3 §3, 1725
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadCertain blueprints do define the memory (as with ROM chips) - but that's straying.
I am still convinced that it is an either/or situation. If in the Thomistic view the soul is a "blueprint" then it does not store memories just as a RAM chip blue print would contain no data. After the death of a RAM chip (stick it in the microwave), you can not discover its former contents from the blue print.
So in the Thomistic view, do the memories s ...[text shortened]... t me to study all Catholic doctrine to find out one denominations answer to a simple question?
The 'soul' in Thomistic philosophy is a special case (for living beings - including animals and plants) of 'essence' for beings. The essence of a being is, most generally, its definition. What defines a particular human individual is, as I mentioned earlier, his/her DNA plus life experiences plus personality plus memories etc. So, in a sense, the essence of a person will include his/her memories. However, an essence does not really exist unless the being it represents also exists; for human beings, it means that the soul has no real existence without the body and so memories have no real existence without a body. That's why it's not an either/or situation.
The word soul does not appear on the page your link took me to. Do you expect me to study all Catholic doctrine to find out one denominations answer to a simple question?
Church.
And the link was not directed at you - it was directed at BdN.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAlthough it is straying it is important to clarify that a blueprint never stores memory. Memory is a record of things after the construction of an object. If data existed in the design of the ROM chip then that is not memory. Clearly 'blueprint' is not a good parallel for Thomistic philosophy of the 'soul'
Certain blueprints do define the memory (as with ROM chips) - but that's straying.
The 'soul' in Thomistic philosophy is a special case (for living beings - including animals and plants) of 'essence' for beings. The essence of a being is, most generally, its definition. What defines a particular human individual is, as I mentioned earlier, his/her DNA plus life experiences plus personality plus memories etc. So, in a sense, the essence of a person will include his/her memories. However, an essence does not really exist unless the being it represents also exists; for human beings, it means that the soul has no real existence without the body and so memories have no real existence without a body. That's why it's not an either/or situation.
I think you have made it clear that in Thomistic philosophy the soul does contain memories, and the soul is not eternal. Im I right then in saying that Thomistic philosophy cannot be applied by Theists?
Also is the Thomistic 'soul' the sum of all essences throughout a beings life or does it also have a time component, ie changing with time as the being does. I would have to assume no 2 as the Thomistic soul is clearly divisible and continuous in nature as every living cell of your body contains a bit of soul whether it remains a part of your body or not, and this includes children, which would include a mixing of souls. I really dont see the need for a word soul at all in the Thomistic sense as it is can never have a trully precise meaning as it is based on the word 'life' which also lacks a precise meaning.
26 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI just realised that the Christian position is not that the soul is eternal, but that it is immortal. Small but crucial difference.
Although it is straying it is important to clarify that a blueprint never stores memory. Memory is a record of things after the construction of an object. If data existed in the design of the ROM chip then that is not memory. Clearly 'blueprint' is not a good parallel for Thomistic philosophy of the 'soul'
[b]The 'soul' in Thomistic philosophy is a spe cise meaning as it is based on the word 'life' which also lacks a precise meaning.[/b]
Anyhow, you're right that the Thomistic (actually, the Aristotelian) position does not require that the soul be immortal (it was never clear whether Aristotle believed in an immortal individual soul). St. Thomas himself argues for the immortality of the soul, but I'll need to revisit that argument before I speak of it.
I think your idea of the "divisibility" of the soul is wrong. Our DNA (and indeed, our kids'😉 tells us something that is essential to our being - but so does our workplace, our possessions, our creative outputs etc. Essence is not DNA - identical twins do not share an essence. Essence is the definition of an individual being.
the Thomistic soul is clearly divisible and continuous in nature as every living cell of your body contains a bit of soul ... it is based on the word 'life' which also lacks a precise meaning.
Do you see the irony here?
That we can't precisely define something doesn't mean it doesn't have one, or that we cannot, in general, tell when it's true.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI understood from you previous posts that the Thomistic soul could not exist without the body. Doesnt this imply it is not immortal?
[b]I just realised that the Christian position is not that the soul is eternal, but that it is immortal. Small but crucial difference.
I think your idea of the "divisibility" of the soul is wrong. Our DNA (and indeed, our kids'😉 tells us something that is essential to our being - but so does our workplace, our possessions, our creative outputs etc.
If the Thomistic soul is based on the definition of life then it must be divisible as life is divisible. In fact life can be combined as well. For example you can break a plant into two parts and both parts will be living plants.
Essence is not DNA - identical twins do not share an essence. Essence is the definition of an individual being.
Herein lies the problem. There is no such thing as a distinct 'individual being'. It is an indistinct term. Identical twins start off as a single cell. At some point in thier development they seperate. Their 'essence' must divide. There is no hard and fast border between life and non-life and between one living 'being' and another. DNA can divide and combine.
That we can't precisely define something doesn't mean it doesn't have one, or that we cannot, in general, tell when it's true.
Actually in the case of life, it does mean that something doesnt have one. It is merely a classification and not a thing that exists or can be possesed.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, I would think that they are very much the ones that CAN use it. They have a God to raise the dead and give the soul a new body within which to continue existing. They therefore do not require it to be able to continue existing all on its own.
Im I right then in saying that Thomistic philosophy cannot be applied by Theists?
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by JadeMantisBingo!
Actually, I would think that they are very much the ones that CAN use it. They have a God to raise the dead and give the soul a new body within which to continue existing. They therefore do not require it to be able to continue existing all on its own.
There is truth to what both of you say. As twitehead points out, it cannot generally be applied to all forms of spirituality (I'm using the general term 'spirituality' rather than 'theism' in particular); e.g. those that require the soul to "ascend" to a new plane of existence etc. But, as you point out, belief systems that believe in the resurrection of the body (as Christianity does) can use the framework.
(Given that we were talking about Thomism, it should've been obvious that it was compatible with Christianity... 😉)
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by ZaserNo, it's not. The question presumes a Cartesian (or even Platonic) conception of "soul". In the Aristotelian/Thomistic view, the question contains a category error.
Hold it. I beleive we have gotten off topic. The question is "does the soul store memories?" It's a yes or no answer.
26 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadOriginal ? above
I would like to know from people who think that such a thing exists, whether human memories are recorded with the soul. I know that the human brain stores memory. I know that that memory can be erased or lost during a persons lifetime, sometimes, in the case of cirtain diseases, a large part of the memory is lost. When a person dies, does the soul contai ...[text shortened]... ifferent from our conciousness then why would we have any incentive to get our soul into heaven?