xSilverPhinx Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308695237' post='2257001'] I've heard most of the arguments in a basic form. I think that assuming a soul allows a pretty good counter to those. Establishing the reasonableness of a soul is a different subject. [/quote] Just to clarify: so you would say that the soul necessarily needs mind/brain dualism in order to exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308699772' post='2257066'] Just to clarify: so you would say that the soul necessarily needs mind/brain dualism in order to exist? [/quote] Can you explain what you mean a bit further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308700449' post='2257071'] Can you explain what you mean a bit further? [/quote] Am I correct in assuming that for your conception of a soul to exist, then mind and brain must necessarily be separate (dualism) where the mind is immaterial? In contrast, what would be a soul in religious terms in the situation where mind and brain are one and the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308719312' post='2257174'] Am I correct in assuming that for your conception of a soul to exist, then mind and brain must necessarily be separate (dualism) where the mind is immaterial? In contrast, what would be a soul in religious terms in the situation where mind and brain are one and the same? [/quote] Hm... I'm really not educated on the finer points of terminology. In general though, I guess I'd lean towards saying that the brain is not the same as the mind or the soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSoG Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308610305' post='2256531'] Classically the faculty of memory was attributed to the Soul, and therefore it indicates the existence of such a reality. [/quote] If this happens to be true then my Soul has EXTREMELY bad memory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308720153' post='2257178'] Hm... I'm really not educated on the finer points of terminology.[/quote] Me niether, though there really are no finer points of terminology so I'm guessing I didn't word my question well...the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29"]dualism[/url] versus non dualism debate pops up frequently and I was wondering if you differentiate between the immaterial mind and a soul... [quote]In general though, I guess I'd lean towards saying that the brain is not the same as the mind or the soul.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1308422783' post='2255632'] Is it possible to prove that humans have souls? I read something recently in the book, why matter matters, where it said that humans must have souls based on the fact we can comprehend universal ideas, such as treeness. Can any one elaborate on this argument? [/quote] Provable? Yep. How.... St. Thomas Aquinas proves and says it better than I can... [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm"]Summa Theologica I:I:75 art. 1-7[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308750666' post='2257242']Provable? Yep. How.... St. Thomas Aquinas proves and says it better than I can... [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm"]Summa Theologica I:I:75 art. 1-7[/url][/quote] I looked, it doesn't cover if the soul is provable. Unless you care to quote it verbatim . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308773450' post='2257345'] I looked, it doesn't cover if the soul is provable. Unless you care to quote it verbatim . [/quote] Sure it does...Aquinas actually proves there is a soul, not that he says that it is provable.... ST I:I:75:5 [quote]The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] has no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url]. We may consider this question in two ways. First, from the notion of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] in general; for it belongs to the notion of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] to be the form of a body. [b]Now, either it is a form by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url], if by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] we understand something purely [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potential[/url]: for a form, as such, is an act; and that which is purely [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potentiality[/url] cannot be part of an act, since [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potentiality[/url] is repugnant to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01224a.htm"]actuality[/url] as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url]: and that [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url], which it actualizes first, we call the "primary animate." [/b] Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]human[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] inasmuch as it is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url].[b] For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm"]condition[/url] of the recipient.[/b] Now a thing is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]known[/url] in as far as its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url] is in the knower. But the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] a thing in its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm"]nature[/url] absolutely: for instance, it [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm"]idea[/url], is in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url]. [b]Therefore the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url]. For if the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] were composed of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url], the forms of things would be received into it as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm"]individuals[/url], and so it would only [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm"]individual[/url]: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url], and every [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm"]substance[/url] which has [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knowledge[/url] of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url]. [/b] [/quote] Yep, that about proves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308774229' post='2257354']Yep, that about proves it.[/quote]Word salad. No, it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308774336' post='2257357'] Word salad. No, it doesn't. [/quote] I can't say it any better than what Aquinas did. His concept really isn't that hard to follow. So, if you don't want to try, that's fine. I'm ok with it. But because you refuse to see it or accept it doesn't mean that it's not true or correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308774587' post='2257360']I can't say it any better than what Aquinas did. His concept really isn't that hard to follow. So, if you don't want to try, that's fine. I'm ok with it. But because you refuse to see it or accept it doesn't mean that it's not true or correct.[/quote]No... any rational person will see that its an incoherent string of words that doesn't even approach demonstrating a soul. Next you will tell me aquanis proves that we should execute notorious heretics, please go ahead with that argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308774932' post='2257370'] No... any rational person will see that its an incoherent string of words that doesn't even approach demonstrating a soul. Next you will tell me aquanis proves that we should execute notorious heretics, please go ahead with that argument... [/quote] Ok I can get someone not understanding Aquinas fully. People spend years studying the guy. And people can disagree with Aquinas from time to time! Everything that he writes isn't considered to be Gospel. THAT BEING SAID, no one can suggest that St Thomas Aquinas has put together an "incoherent string of words" Anybody suggesting that cannot be taken seriously ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308797001' post='2257513']Ok I can get someone not understanding Aquinas fully. People spend years studying the guy. And people can disagree with Aquinas from time to time! Everything that he writes isn't considered to be Gospel. THAT BEING SAID, no one can suggest that St Thomas Aquinas has put together an "incoherent string of words" Anybody suggesting that cannot be taken seriously ever.[/quote]So you believe this passage clearly and orderly demonstrates a soul, in the meaning that he attributes to it. Since coherent could be argued to mean just that... I have studied the summa theological, it was more than a few years ago, but I am familiar with his work. From what was explained I find his argument to be lacking and unclear. Unless you care to clarify... but then again if it was coherent why would it need clarification? Maybe... Aquanis doesn't prove everything Catholic... and maybe those who thinks he does, shouldn't be taken seriously. Then again, I'm just an atheist who doesn't understand the idiotic ramblings of religion anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308798306' post='2257515'] So you believe this passage clearly and orderly demonstrates a soul, in the meaning that he attributes to it. Since coherent could be argued to mean just that... I have studied the summa theological, it was more than a few years ago, but I am familiar with his work. From what was explained I find his argument to be lacking and unclear. Unless you care to clarify... but then again if it was coherent why would it need clarification? Maybe... Aquanis doesn't prove everything Catholic... and maybe those who thinks he does, shouldn't be taken seriously. Then again, I'm just an atheist who doesn't understand the idiotic ramblings of religion anymore. [/quote] I believe that it's a little vain to decide if you don't understand a passage by one of the world's greatest thinkers, that it has to be incoherent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now