soul???

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please state which one you believe and give a basic description. I am sure however that there are even more problematic questions relating to any version you can suggest and not all his questions are specific to one framework.

Personally, I think the Thomistic version is the best one. In this view, the soul is simply the essence (Lat. essentia) of a living being. The essence of a being is what makes it what it is.

EDIT: What might interest non-theists about this account of 'soul' is that one does not need to think that the human soul is immortal. And both animals and plants have souls as well.

EDIT2: In fact, all existent beings have essences. 'Soul' is just a special name for essence in living beings.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Those formulations are also problematic. In fact, all formulations of the mind-body relation are problematic. This is because the relation is inherently mysterious.

Except that these formulations do not hold to a mind-body dichotomy so your point is irrelevant.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Except that these formulations do [b]not hold to a mind-body dichotomy so your point is irrelevant.[/b]

Fair enough. Perhaps what is limited about Thomistic formulations is that they do not really address the mind-body problem.

BTW, what does it mean to assert the essence of something is what makes it what it is? Surely what makes something what it is either the sum of the properties it exhibits, or some key property or properties that it exhibits. It essence is hence either an abstraction of the properties that it has, or of highlighting of various key properties that it has, not something else above and beyond those properties.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
[b]
BTW, what does it mean to assert the essence of something is what makes it what it is?

That reminds me of the idea that god exists irrespective of whether god created man or man created god. Either way, god exists. Personally, i think it's BS.

Perhaps it's all a bit too existential for my small mind, which incidently is not my soul and may not be in my body either.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
That reminds me of the idea that god exists irrespective of whether god created man or man created god. Either way, god exists. Personally, i think it's BS.

Perhaps it's all a bit too existential for my small mind, which incidently is not my soul and may not be in my body either.

But the nature of God would differ depending on the direction of creation.

Is your mind anywhere? Is it where you brain is, or in the location you are consciously processing?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
But the nature of God would differ depending on the direction of creation.

Is your mind anywhere? Is it where you brain is, or in the location you are consciously processing?

Yes, i think thats what i was getting at. Each person would create a different god as they conceive of him, thus there would be as many different gods as there are people, and people's conceptions may change, hence constantly changing gods.

I don't know where my mind is, perhaps it is hovering 3 metres above my head. Who is to say?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Fair enough. Perhaps what is limited about Thomistic formulations is that they do not really address the mind-body problem.

BTW, what does it mean to assert the essence of something is what makes it what it is? Surely what makes something what it is either the sum of the properties it exhibits, or some key property or properties that it exhibits. It ...[text shortened]... ing of various key properties that it has, not something else above and beyond those properties.

Fair enough. Perhaps what is limited about Thomistic formulations is that they do not really address the mind-body problem.

There is no mind-body problem in Thomism because Thomism does not consider the mind to be a different substance from the body. In fact, the mind does not "exist" in the real sense at all. The "mind" is a set of powers that a being possesses by its nature as instantiated in its physical existence. The ability to think and the ability to run stem from the same place.

It essence is hence either an abstraction of the properties that it has, or of highlighting of various key properties that it has, not something else above and beyond those properties.

It is the base or foundation of those properties; it is what those properties are asserted of.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Personally, I think the Thomistic version is the best one. In this view, the soul is simply the essence (Lat. essentia) of a living being. The essence of a being is what makes it what it is.

EDIT: What might interest non-theists about this account of 'soul' is that one does not need to think that the human soul is immortal. And both animals ...[text shortened]... l existent beings have essences. 'Soul' is just a special name for essence in living beings.

Unless I don't really understand your description of the Thomistic version of the soul, then it doesn't really fit with religion.
The time and space factors become very important too as you don't explain what a 'living being' includes. Do you mean from the point of conception to death? Including every living cell? Including non living matter?
Beings have blurred edges over time and space. As I have stated before, beings are divisible, and even combinable. This means that the Thomistic version of the souls allows the same for souls. They are not truly individual items. A plant that reproduces but cuttings for example would all be one soul over countless generations.

Its rather like creationists trying to imbue species with specific properties without realizing the grey margins in the definition.

The problem for religion is that most religions define more than one possible destination for a soul after death. This starts to look rather ridiculous if I say that 91.9% of me is going to heaven and 9.1% to hell.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Fair enough. Perhaps what is limited about Thomistic formulations is that they do not really address the mind-body problem.

There is no mind-body problem in Thomism because Thomism does not consider the mind to be a different substance from the body. In fact, the mind does not "exist" in the real sense at all. The "mind" is a set of powers t ...[text shortened]... is the base or foundation of those properties; it is what those properties are asserted of.[/b]

There is no mind-body problem in Thomism because Thomism does not consider the mind to be a different substance from the body. In fact, the mind does not "exist" in the real sense at all. The "mind" is a set of powers that a being possesses by its nature as instantiated in its physical existence. The ability to think and the ability to run stem from the same place.

So then why is there the need to add any supernatural connotation to this thing you call a soul (such that it ascends, descends, (or whatever) to another spiritual place when you die) then within the Thomism framework when our ability to think is merely a function of our physical body? (just as it is with cats and dogs etc...) and again, in what way is this supernatural entity subject to the effects of physical influence such as drugs, trauma, disease, etc... that can dramatically alter our states of thinking/ personality (trying to avoid usage of the word *mind* here lest you strike back with only..."but I just said a mind doesn't exist" )...if it is totally immune to such, then exactly what is this soul we all should have?...what part does it play in our lives or even afterlives (when it behaves independantly of our sense of *us* or *me*)?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Fair enough. Perhaps what is limited about Thomistic formulations is that they do not really address the mind-body problem.

There is no mind-body problem in Thomism because Thomism does not consider the mind to be a different substance from the body. In fact, the mind does not "exist" in the real sense at all. The "mind" is a set of powers t ...[text shortened]... is the base or foundation of those properties; it is what those properties are asserted of.[/b]

So, the essense of a painting is not in the details of the paint applied, but in the nature of the canvass the paint is applied to?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Unless I don't really understand your description of the Thomistic version of the soul, then it doesn't really fit with religion.
The time and space factors become very important too as you don't explain what a 'living being' includes. Do you mean from the point of conception to death? Including every living cell? Including non living matter?
Beings hav ...[text shortened]... ts to look rather ridiculous if I say that 91.9% of me is going to heaven and 9.1% to hell.

Unless I don't really understand your description of the Thomistic version of the soul, then it doesn't really fit with religion.

It fits (i.e. is compatible) with religion -- but does not require or presume it.

The time and space factors become very important too as you don't explain what a 'living being' includes.

Neither do most biologists.

As I have stated before, beings are divisible, and even combinable. This means that the Thomistic version of the souls allows the same for souls.

No, it doesn't. If you think about what an essence is, you'll see that the concept of divisibility does not apply to it. Sure, a being may be defined in terms of its components (and hence, the essence would also refer to those components) -- but that doesn't mean the essence is divisible. It's not that the essence of a being is a combination of the essences of its components.

Originally posted by Agerg
So then why is there the need to add any supernatural connotation to this thing you call a soul (such that it ascends, descends, (or whatever) to another spiritual place when you die) then within the Thomism framework when our ability to think is merely a function of our physical body? (just as it is with cats and dogs etc...) and again, in what way is this su ...[text shortened]... even afterlives (when it behaves independantly of our sense of [b]*us* or *me*)?[/b]

As I said earlier, the Thomistic conception of the soul (to the best of my knowledge) does not require a supernatural connotation. Aquinas himself probably goes to it on the strength of Revelation -- but I'll need to check.

... when our ability to think is merely a function of our physical body?

I didn't say it was "merely" that.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So, the essense of a painting is not in the details of the paint applied, but in the nature of the canvass the paint is applied to?

Huh?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The time and space factors become very important too as you don't explain what a 'living being' includes.
Neither do most biologists.

And yet it is essential to do so before making far reaching claims (as creationists are discovering when making claims about species and even life.)
The 'essence' of my 'being' is not only changing constantly by also divisible and combinable (organ transplants etc).

No, it doesn't. If you think about what an essence is, you'll see that the concept of divisibility does not apply to it.
No I don't see it.

Sure, a being may be defined in terms of its components (and hence, the essence would also refer to those components) -- but that doesn't mean the essence is divisible. It's not that the essence of a being is a combination of the essences of its components.
Is a soul an entity then or just a continuous 'essence' permeating all life? Can you count souls? Do twins share a soul? If you get an organ transplant do you acquire part of the soul of the donor.
This is where I claim that it conflicts with most religions as they specifically include:
1. The concept that souls are countable, unique to specific beings and have different destinations after death.
2. The concept that consciousness is part of the soul (not the case with your Thomistic view.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is a soul an entity then or just a continuous 'essence' permeating all life? Can you count souls? Do twins share a soul? If you get an organ transplant do you acquire part of the soul of the donor.

The soul is not an entity in the Thomistic view. It is not a "continuous essence" (whatever that means) permeating all life. Each distinct living being has a soul.

You can count souls just as you count living creatures.

The question of whether twins "share" a soul (soul is not just DNA) is still being debated. My personal view is -- yes, they do share a soul in the pre-twinning phase.

If you get an organ transplant then, in general, you don't acquire "part of the soul" of the donor. Neither the donor nor the recepient has undergone any change that fundamentally defines them as a whole new being.


EDIT: A thought experiment to help you grasp the notion of 'essence' better. The essence of a dinosaur, basically, is its "dinosaurhood". Essence is what is common to a dinosaur in a book and one that really existed 65 million years ago; what is different is that one exists and the other does not. All beings are basically essences that exist.