Soul Gender?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I maintain that, as far as someone is imperfect, he is not fully human. Thus, until we are made perfect in Christ, we are not fully human, and, therefore, not fully male or female. [/quote]

I would disagree wholeheartedly. We derive the dignity of our persons from nothing but our humanity. To tie our humanity to our virtue is to say that one without virtue is without humanity.

Now, while this may be a common way of speaking (ie saying Hitler was inhumane) we do not actually mean this. If we really meant this, we would be forced to assert that one who is dead in sin is devoid of dignity.

However, this is not the case. Our humanity persists in a very real way regardless of the level of our virtue or lack thereof.

A Saint is not more human than a sinner - he is more Divine.


[quote]Your conclusion does not follow from your thesis and seems flawed. The personhood's attributes can only arise from attributes coming from its component parts. There's no magical extra that happens at the union.[/quote]

Incorrect, the ontological change discussed above has the synthesis of body and soul alone as its source. Personhood involves two things which are indeed composite - namely body and soul - but personhood is not actualized in either part before their unification.

To use an analogy, let us use the molecule water:

Water has two composit parts: Hydrogen and Oxygen. Water is not found in hydrogen, nor does it exist in oxygen. Rather, when two atoms of hydrogen are bonded with one atom of oxygen, then, and only then, can we properly say that water exists.

Now, if you are going to try to argue along the lines of making a claim that an "attribute" of water is present in hydrogen, stop. This kind of argument is merely an equivocation, for you are equivocating an attribute with a composite element. No "attribute" of water is present in hydrogen. The hydrogen itself is merely an element of the composite which creates water. An element of the composite is not, in itself, an attribute.

Thus, "water" only exists in the union of hydrogen and oxygen, and cannot be said to be present in any way outside of this union. Similarly, Personhood exists only in the union of body and soul, and cannot be said to be present in any way outside of this union. Moreover, just as no attribute of water exists when hydrogen and oxygen are seperate, and the only thing that exists is the two composite parts, so too is it with Personhood, for no attribute of personhood is existent when the body and the soul are seperated (the only thing that exists is the two composite parts - body and soul).

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Semperviva]

[i]First, the catholic definition of a person is a unity of human body and rational soul. Therefore, anything pertaining to the personhood of an individual cannot be attributed simply to the soul, but must by necessity be attributed to the unity of body and soul which is the person.[/i]

Of course, I do not disagree with this conclusion, and like I said above, if the theory posited in any way contradicts the above, which I don't believe it must, I recognize it cannot be true. However the illustration you employed seems incomplete in this sense: The hydrogen is complete as hydrogen of itself and so is the oxygen. I know you're just trying to illustrate the union of body-soul graphically here. However, this might give a picture of a soul or body as complete in itself. Also it seems here you base your conclusion of the argument based on the [i]analogy[/i] of hydrogen and oxygen, which, your conclusion, while true when comparing the body-soul union to water, might not neccesarily be true in another analogy.

[i]Now, if you are going to try to argue along the lines of making a claim that an "attribute" of water is present in hydrogen, stop. This kind of argument is merely an equivocation, for you are equivocating an attribute with a composite element. No "attribute" of water is present in hydrogen. The hydrogen itself is merely an element of the composite which creates water. An element of the composite is not, in itself, an attribute.[/i]

[i]Thus, "water" only exists in the union of hydrogen and oxygen, and cannot be said to be present in any way outside of this union. Similarly, Personhood exists only in the union of body and soul, and cannot be said to be present in any way outside of this union[/i]. [b]Moreover, just as no attribute of water exists when hydrogen and oxygen are seperate, and the only thing that exists is the two composite parts, so too is it with Personhood, for no attribute of personhood is existent when the body and the soul are seperated (the only thing that exists is the two composite parts - body and soul).[/b]

I don't know about this, though. If I used another anology I could make it work in my favor as you did with the water. Take a screw and a screw-driver. Although seperate and of no use seperatly, one can look at one and see to some degree that it must be actualized in harmony with the other entity, yet it has a mark of its own distinguishing and role. It has signs that show it is incomplete without the other for its true end, or some semblance to the other part, the part in union with its end is enacted, indicating it is made for a particular unity. Perhaps some [i]element of [/i]personhood is indicated in either the body and soul when not taken as a unit, say when the soul leaves the body, before the re-uniting with our glorified bodies. If the body still contains the mark of the person, although it[i] is not[/i] the person. The soul could retain a similar degree of marking of individual personhood, [i]although it also is not the person[/i]. So I am not contradicting the Catholic understanding of person because I am positing that a semblance of the complete personhood which is no longer present remains. Because by your analogy, when one dies one would lose[i] all [/i]identity it seems!

Edited June 28, 2005 by Semperviva

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 27 2005, 09:19 PM']However, this is not the case. Our humanity persists in a very real way regardless of the level of our virtue or lack thereof.

A Saint is not more human than a sinner - he is more Divine.[/quote]

I don't disagree with the first paragraph. The dignity is in being in the image and likeness of God, not the perfection or imperfection of that image. Actually, a saint is both more human and more divine; he's more like Christ, the God-Man.

[quote]Incorrect, the ontological change discussed above has the synthesis of body and soul alone as its source. Personhood involves two things which are indeed composite - namely body and soul - but personhood is not actualized in either part before their unification.

To use an analogy, let us use the molecule water:

Water has two composit parts: Hydrogen and Oxygen. Water is not found in hydrogen, nor does it exist in oxygen. Rather, when two atoms of hydrogen are bonded with one atom of oxygen, then, and only then, can we properly say that water exists.

Now, if you are going to try to argue along the lines of making a claim that an "attribute" of water is present in hydrogen, stop. This kind of argument is merely an equivocation, for you are equivocating an attribute with a composite element. No "attribute" of water is present in hydrogen. The hydrogen itself is merely an element of the composite which creates water. An element of the composite is not, in itself, an attribute.

Thus, "water" only exists in the union of hydrogen and oxygen, and cannot be said to be present in any way outside of this union. Similarly, Personhood exists only in the union of body and soul, and cannot be said to be present in any way outside of this union. Moreover, just as no attribute of water exists when hydrogen and oxygen are seperate, and the only thing that exists is the two composite parts, so too is it with Personhood, for no attribute of personhood is existent when the body and the soul are seperated (the only thing that exists is the two composite parts - body and soul).

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]625806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would say that water's properties, which is the only way we really understand water, arise directly out of pre-existent characteristics of the atoms in question. The way they interact with one another creates different behaviors than each would on their own. However, this is a natural result of the pre-existent behaviors. Hence, while both hydrogen and oxygen are reactive, one tends to release electrons, while the other takes in electrons. Those complementary behaviors lead to a stable molecule in H20. In the same way, the feminine body's attributes and the feminine soul's attributes interact in the union of body and soul to create a female human person.

To put it another way, (not considering surgical alterations here) if there was a body with breasts, uterus, ovaries, etc. you cannot say, "That body may be a man's body." In the same way, if you saw a body with a penis, you cannot say, "That body might be a woman's body." In a more vague sort of sense, if someone's immaterial way of apprehending the world, relating with others, etc. were in a uniquely male fashion, you wouldn't say, "That's a woman's soul" and vice versa. I say the latter for the sake of argument, since we experience the world through our senses. As a result, because a man's body cannot have woman's personhood, and the same for the man's soul, it is proper to speak of a male body and a male soul, as distinct from a female body and a female soul. The result of the union of the soul and body is the human person, which attributes arise from the attributes of the soul and the body. Note that I am not identifying:
the attributes of the soul + the attributes of the body = the attributes of the person

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I would say that water's properties, which is the only way we really understand water, arise directly out of pre-existent characteristics of the atoms in question. The way they interact with one another creates different behaviors than each would on their own. However, this is a natural result of the pre-existent behaviors. Hence, while both hydrogen and oxygen are reactive, one tends to release electrons, while the other takes in electrons. Those complementary behaviors lead to a stable molecule in H20. In the same way, the feminine body's attributes and the feminine soul's attributes interact in the union of body and soul to create a female human person.[/quote]

Again, you equivocate between attributes and elements. To further the water example, an [i]attribute[/i] of water would be its wetness, while the [i]elements[/i] of water are the composite parts. One cannot in any way find the wetness-of-water, or any other attributes of water, in a hydrogen atom or oxygen atom alone. Rather, what you find are the [i]elements[/i] which composite water and their corresponding properties.

Moreover, even if you wish to argue by analogy further and look at the case of liquid hydrogen or liquid oxygen, one cannot claim that this wetness is an attribute of water present in the composite element, because you are talking about the wetness-of-hydrogen, rather than the wetness-of-water.

Reiterating the point made by the analogy, attributes of personhood cannot be present outside of personhood, only the composite elements of personhood can be present. Masculinity and Feminimity, or sex, is an attribute of personhood. Therefore, sex does not exist outside of personhood, and thus sex cannot be found in any degree outside of personhood.

[quote]To put it another way, (not considering surgical alterations here) if there was a body with breasts, uterus, ovaries, etc. you cannot say, "That body may be a man's body." In the same way, if you saw a body with a penis, you cannot say, "That body might be a woman's body." In a more vague sort of sense, if someone's immaterial way of apprehending the world, relating with others, etc. were in a uniquely male fashion, you wouldn't say, "That's a woman's soul" and vice versa. I say the latter for the sake of argument, since we experience the world through our senses. As a result, because a man's body cannot have woman's personhood, and the same for the man's soul, it is proper to speak of a male body and a male soul, as distinct from a female body and a female soul. The result of the union of the soul and body is the human person, which attributes arise from the attributes of the soul and the body. Note that I am not identifying:
the attributes of the soul + the attributes of the body = the attributes of the person[/quote]

Again, the last two sentences of your argument equivocate. Attributes are not elements, and, as such, they do not draw upon other attributes as their source, as elements do. Thus your logic is flawed.

Moreover, I find it interesting that you explicitly exclude surgical alterations and birth defects from your discussion.

You say that I look at a body with male sex organs and say "this is a male body" because there are attributes of masculinity which reside in the physical body alone.

I say that I look at a body with male sex organs and say "this is a male body" because the vast majority of males who I have met have had those same sex organs, and thus there is [i]prima facie[/i] reason to conclude that the body belongs to a male person.

Lets see whose argument holds up to logical scrutiny:

Imagine a person who is drugged by some evil men, taken to a lab, and who, while sleeping, has his genital organs changed such that even upon careful inspection, he clearly has a "female body."

Now, your argument logically necessitates that we conclude that this person is no longer of the masculine sex, as he once was, because the attributes of one's person (such as one's sex) are built from the attributes of the composite parts. The attributes of one of the two composite parts have fundamentally changed in this scenario, and, therefore, we must conclude that the attributes built from those composite attributes (like sex) must have changed as well.

[i]My[/i] argument allows me to say that, despite this evil deed done to the man, he remains just that - a man. Perhaps a man with serious issues, but a man nonetheless .

This is true because, according to the theory I have posited, the attribute of sex is entirely the product of the union of body and soul, and it is the act of synthesis between the two that "causes" sex, not the elements which are synthesized. Thus, we can maintain that, while the elements may change in their particular properties (such as the body switching genital organs, body fat, hip-bone size, etc), the sex remains unharmed.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2005, 12:30 PM']Again, you equivocate between attributes and elements. To further the water example, an [i]attribute[/i] of water would be its wetness, while the [i]elements[/i] of water are the composite parts. One cannot in any way find the wetness-of-water, or any other attributes of water, in a hydrogen atom or oxygen atom alone. Rather, what you find are the [i]elements[/i] which composite water and their corresponding properties.[/quote]

You misunderstand my argument. The attributes of the composite must derive in some way from the attributes of the source elements. The wetness of water arises from the fact that water is liquid (at room temp). The reason water is liquid at room temperature is that it is highly polar (and requires more kinetic energy/heat to have the molecules range freely). The reason it is highly polar is because of the particular arrangement of electron shells in Oxygen and Hydrogen. [b]Thus, to put it (somewhat) simply, the wetness of water comes from the particular properties of Hydrogen reacting with the particular properties of Oxygen to create a unique property of water not present in either oxygen or hydrogen.[/b] I'm not trying to say that the person (union of body and soul) is the sum of the properties of body and the properties of the soul. I'm saying that the unique properties of a person arise out of the pre-existent (but not necessarily the same) properties of its component parts. [b]The properties of a composite don't materialize out of thin air.[/b] Is that somewhat clear? In the same way, the human person...

[quote]Reiterating the point made by the analogy, attributes of personhood cannot be present outside of personhood, only the composite elements of personhood can be present. Masculinity and Feminimity, or sex, is an attribute of personhood. Therefore, sex does not exist outside of personhood, and thus sex cannot be found in any degree outside of personhood.
Again, the last two sentences of your argument equivocate. Attributes are not elements, and, as such, they do not draw upon other attributes as their source, as elements do. Thus your logic is flawed.

Moreover, I find it interesting that you explicitly exclude surgical alterations and birth defects from your discussion.[/quote]

Why? It is a defect, just as is lacking an arm or being developmentally disabled. Deviations from the norm don't invalidate that there is a norm.

[quote]Lets see whose argument holds up to logical scrutiny:

Imagine a person who is drugged by some evil men, taken to a lab, and who, while sleeping, has his genital organs changed such that even upon careful inspection, he clearly has a "female body."

Now, your argument logically necessitates that we conclude that this person is no longer of the masculine sex, as he once was, because the attributes of one's person (such as one's sex) are built from the attributes of the composite parts. The attributes of one of the two composite parts have fundamentally changed in this scenario, and, therefore, we must conclude that the attributes built from those composite attributes (like sex) must have changed as well.[/quote]

The fact that a person's body has been artificially altered does not change the fact that it is what it is. We can not give a woman the ability to produce sperm nor can we give a man the ability to bear children. The appearance isn't what is important. To even be able to begin to argue, you'd have to do some sort of gene therapy to change DNA, and have working genitalia of the wrong sex, all without killing the person. I posit that such a thing is not possible.

[quote][i]My[/i] argument allows me to say that, despite this evil deed done to the man, he remains just that - a man. Perhaps a man with serious issues, but a man nonetheless  .
[/quote]

Ok, I don't see why my view is opposed to that either.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2005, 12:30 PM']Again, you equivocate between attributes and elements. To further the water example, an [i]attribute[/i] of water would be its wetness, while the [i]elements[/i] of water are the composite parts. One cannot in any way find the wetness-of-water, or any other attributes of water, in a hydrogen atom or oxygen atom alone. Rather, what you find are the [i]elements[/i] which composite water and their corresponding properties.

Moreover, even if you wish to argue by analogy further and look at the case of liquid hydrogen or liquid oxygen, one cannot claim that this wetness is an attribute of water present in the composite element, because you are talking about the wetness-of-hydrogen, rather than the wetness-of-water.

Reiterating the point made by the analogy, attributes of personhood cannot be present outside of personhood, only the composite elements of personhood can be present. Masculinity and Feminimity, or sex, is an attribute of personhood. Therefore, sex does not exist outside of personhood, and thus sex cannot be found in any degree outside of personhood.
Again, the last two sentences of your argument equivocate. Attributes are not elements, and, as such, they do not draw upon other attributes as their source, as elements do. Thus your logic is flawed.

Moreover, I find it interesting that you explicitly exclude surgical alterations and birth defects from your discussion.

You say that I look at a body with male sex organs and say "this is a male body" because there are attributes of masculinity which reside in the physical body alone.

I say that I look at a body with male sex organs and  say "this is a male body" because the vast majority of males who I have met  have had those same sex organs, and thus there is [i]prima facie[/i] reason to conclude that the body belongs to a male person.

Lets see whose argument holds up to logical scrutiny:

Imagine a person who is drugged by some evil men, taken to a lab, and who, while sleeping, has his genital organs changed such that even upon careful inspection, he clearly has a "female body."

Now, your argument logically necessitates that we conclude that this person is no longer of the masculine sex, as he once was, because the attributes of one's person (such as one's sex) are built from the attributes of the composite parts. The attributes of one of the two composite parts have fundamentally changed in this scenario, and, therefore, we must conclude that the attributes built from those composite attributes (like sex) must have changed as well.

[i]My[/i] argument allows me to say that, despite this evil deed done to the man, he remains just that - a man. Perhaps a man with serious issues, but a man nonetheless  .

This is true because, according to the theory I have posited, the attribute of sex is entirely the product of the union of body and soul, and it is the act of synthesis between the two that "causes" sex, not the elements which are synthesized. Thus, we can maintain that, while the elements may change in their particular properties (such as the body switching genital organs, body fat, hip-bone size, etc), the sex remains unharmed.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]626248[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


wow, it takes one scary person to think up an example like this: haha- i don't wanna think about it- i'd rather just lose an argument than think about this scenario, lol...ha-or maybe not...

[Semperviva]

[i]Reiterating the point made by the analogy, attributes of personhood cannot be present outside of personhood, only the composite elements of personhood can be present. Masculinity and Feminimity, or sex, is an attribute of personhood.[/i]


why must this follow from the above....

[b]Therefore, sex does not exist outside of personhood,[/b]

why?

[b]and thus sex cannot be found in any degree outside of personhood.[/b]

why?

Edited June 28, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 28 2005, 01:21 PM']You misunderstand my argument.  The attributes of the composite must derive in some way from the attributes of the source elements.  The wetness of water arises from the fact that water is liquid (at room temp).  The reason water is liquid at room temperature is that it is highly polar (and requires more kinetic energy/heat to have the molecules range freely).  The reason it is highly polar is because of the particular arrangement of electron shells in Oxygen and Hydrogen.  [b]Thus, to put it (somewhat) simply, the wetness of water comes from the particular properties of Hydrogen reacting with the particular properties of Oxygen to create a unique property of water not present in either oxygen or hydrogen.[/b]  I'm not trying to say that the person (union of body and soul) is the sum of the properties of body and the properties of the soul.  I'm saying that the unique properties of a person arise out of the pre-existent (but not necessarily the same) properties of its component parts.  [b]The properties of a composite don't materialize out of thin air.[/b]  Is that somewhat clear?  In the same way, the human person...
Why? It is a defect, just as is lacking an arm or being developmentally disabled.  Deviations from the norm don't invalidate that there is a norm.
[b]The fact that a person's body has been artificially altered does not change the fact that it is what it is.[/b]  [i]We can not give a woman the ability to produce sperm nor can we give a man the ability to bear children.  The appearance isn't what is important.  To even be able to begin to argue, you'd have to do some sort of gene therapy to change DNA, and have working genitalia of the wrong sex, all without killing the person.  I posit that such a thing is not possible.[/i]
Ok, I don't see why my view is opposed to that either.
[right][snapback]626314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

def. thinkin the same thing here...
...when did we stop speaking english here, lol


like he said up there...the body may look like something but its DNA genes hormones or whatever are still gonna be man or woman, so there, lol...

[Guest JeffCR07]

oy veigh, this is getting a bit ridiculous, now you are arguing that certain attributes of my personhood are found in my [i]DNA[/i]?

But seriously, let me address a few points here:

[quote]Thus, to put it (somewhat) simply, the wetness of water comes from the particular properties of Hydrogen reacting with the particular properties of Oxygen to create a unique property of water not present in either oxygen or hydrogen. I'm not trying to say that the person (union of body and soul) is the sum of the properties of body and the properties of the soul. I'm saying that the unique properties of a person arise out of the pre-existent (but not necessarily the same) properties of its component parts. The properties of a composite don't materialize out of thin air. Is that somewhat clear? In the same way, the human person...[/quote]

hmm, I see it a bit differently. I would say that the soul and the body, which are the composite elements, do not possess the attributes or parts of the attributes of personhood, but rather, contain within themselves the [i]potentiality[/i] to express those attributes under certain circumstances.

Thus, I would argue not that Hydrogen has within it a "part" or a "degree" of water's wetness, but rather that hydrogen has within it the potentiality to produce wetness under certain circumstances.

In the same way I would say that the soul has in it the potentiality to express a given sex under a certain circumstance. That circumstance is the action of unifying soul and body.

[quote][quote]Reiterating the point made by the analogy, attributes of personhood cannot be present outside of personhood, only the composite elements of personhood can be present. Masculinity and Feminimity, or sex, is an attribute of personhood.[/quote]


why must this follow from the above....

Therefore, sex does not exist outside of personhood,

why?

and thus sex cannot be found in any degree outside of personhood.

why?[/quote]

Because it is basic logic. Yay logic!

Here is the form:

1.) A's do not exist outside of C
2.) B is an A
3.) Therefore, B does not exist outside of C

So, if [attributes of personhood] A's do not exist outside of [Personhood] C, and [sex] B is an [attribute of personhood] A, then we must conclude that [sex] B does not exist outside of [Personhood] C.

Now, lets look at the second one:

1.) Either B exists outside C or it does not
2.) B does not exist outside of C
3.) Therefore if something exists outside of C, it is not B

So, we know that either [sex] B exists outside of [Personhood] C or it does not. From the above we know that [sex] B does not exist outside of [Personhood] C. Therefore, if something exists outside of [Personhood] C, that thing is not [sex] B.

Now, if we know that a thing existing outside of personhood is not sex, then we know that sex does not exist in any degree outside of personhood.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Just a general question before we start the next round of the slugfest:

For what reason are you two so set on determining that the soul has a given sex? It seems to me that absolutely no new dignity or insight is gained in moving sex from the human person to the human soul, especially when, as I have argued above, you can hold that once the person (unity of body and soul) is created, this has ontological effects on the soul and the body?

It just seems wierd that you want so desperately to draw a line between male and female souls

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2005, 02:59 PM']Just a general question before we start the next round of the slugfest:

For what reason are you two so set on determining that the soul has a given sex? It seems to me that absolutely no new dignity or insight is gained in moving sex from the human person to the human soul, especially when, as I have argued above, you can hold that once the person (unity of body and soul) is created, this has ontological effects on the soul and the body?

It just seems wierd that you want so desperately to draw a line between male and female souls
[right][snapback]626457[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If I sound desperate, it's not intentional. I'm just trying to see things as they are. Your arguments haven't convinced me. Being in a real debate helps me flesh out my thought much better than if I were trying to flesh it out on my own. Socrates would be proud.

Additionally, it's wonderfully good mental exercise. I don't think either side has dealt a death blow to the other's argument. I still think we're effectively thinking the same thing but with different terminology.

It has also been mentioned that it has post-mortem consequences. It would seem that your interpretation would mean that in between our death and our resurrected bodies at the end of time, that we temporarily lose our sexuality completely. For that matter, if our personhood depends on the union of soul and body, both our arguments would imply that we cease to be human persons in between our death and the end of time. That, however should be discussed in a different thread.

Did I mention I'm stubborn and can be argumentative?

[scardella]

Oh, and I hadn't seen any sort of teaching on the subject before. If there are some philosophers or theologians or whatnot that have waxed eloquent on the point, I'd love to hear what they had to say.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 28 2005, 04:31 PM']
It has also been mentioned that it has post-mortem consequences.  It would seem that your interpretation would mean that in between our death and our resurrected bodies at the end of time, that we temporarily lose our sexuality completely.  For that matter, if our personhood depends on the union of soul and body, both our arguments would imply that we cease to be human persons in between our death and the end of time.  That, however should be discussed in a different thread.
[right][snapback]626567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Exactly my thought. If I take what Jeff says as true it seems I would lose [i]all[/i] identity upon my soul's departure from my body when I die, or, as Scardella phrased it, cease to be a person. Also, I disagree with that logic bit up there Jeff, but I don't have time to figure what is wrong with it since I'm at work.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 28 2005, 08:08 PM']Also, I disagree with that logic bit up there Jeff, but I don't have time to figure what is wrong with it since I'm at work.
[right][snapback]626681[/snapback][/right]
[/quote][color=purple]

Here are my thoughts about what might be wrong with it – but I am no philosopher so they could be completely unsound arguments:

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2005, 04:54 PM']In the same way I would say that [i][b]the soul has in it the potentiality to express a given sex under a certain circumstance[/b].[/i]That circumstance is the action of unifying soul and body

Because it is basic logic. Yay logic!   
Here is the form:

1.) A's do not exist outside of C
2.) B is an A
3.) Therefore, B does not exist outside of C

So, if [attributes of personhood] A's do not exist outside of [Personhood] C, and [sex] B is an [attribute of personhood] A, then we must conclude that [sex] B does not exist outside of [Personhood] C. [right][snapback]626452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 28 2005, 04:54 PM']Now, lets look at the second one:

1.) Either B exists outside C or it does not
2.) B does not exist outside of C
3.) Therefore if something exists outside of C, it is not B

So, we know that either [sex] B exists outside of [Personhood] C or it does not. From the above we know that [sex] B does not exist outside of [Personhood] C. Therefore, if something exists outside of [Personhood] C, that thing is not [sex] B.
[right][snapback]626452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You said that "the soul has in it the potentiality to express a given sex under a certain circumstance". The potentiality of expressing sex might not necessarily just be the unifying act of soul and body, although, I think we'd all agree with you, that is indeed what makes personhood.

You could find fault with B possibly. We’re assuming that sex is merely an attribute of personhood, instead of being an attribute of both the soul and the body in some weird way. Also 1.) could be an incomplete contrast. You're counting on the existence of an almost exclusive duality - that an attribute of personhood (who we are now) exists only within personhood or without personhood...

There can be another option besides existing outside C or not. B could exist outside C, inside C, or both outside and inside C. In other words, the sex could exist within personhood, outside of personhood, or both in and out of personhood (like the XY gene of a male's DNA, coding the potentiality to do everything we bodily associate with being a male, the "sex"/"gender"/whatever of a soul in heaven apart from its body, and a living person).

For a biblical support of sex existing in the body or the soul, apart from their union:
[quote]Genesis 2:7 – The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, so man became a living being.[/quote]
God didn’t form a “body” out of the clay, he formed a man, specifically in contrast to later in the chapter when he builds up “a woman” showing that that association can exist before the soul was joined to it “blew into his nostrils the breath of life”. And therefore, leaving the potentiality that a sex association can exist after the soul departs as well.

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 28 2005, 06:31 PM'] It has also been mentioned that it has post-mortem consequences.  It would seem that your interpretation would mean that in between our death and our resurrected bodies at the end of time, that we temporarily lose our sexuality completely.  For that matter, if our personhood depends on the union of soul and body, both our arguments would imply that we cease to be human persons in between our death and the end of time.  That, however should be discussed in a different thread.[right][snapback]626567[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree…I started thinking about the same thing. Although, not to cause trouble, but I think it’s completely pertinent in this discussion seeing as it’s one of the underlying reasons why the topic is being discussed [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]I was looking in the Catechism for something close to this topic and I found this passage among other things:

[quote] 370. In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.[/quote]
Which, how I read it, could either mean:

1. God, as pure spirit, has no sexual differentiation but such differentiation [i]is[/i] possible

or

2. God is a pure spirit and in pure spirit there is no place for differences between the sexes. Although, insomuch as a person in full personhood could reflect God through motherhood/fatherhood/husband/wife, that sexual distinction is only corporal OR only with the union of body and soul.

...which leads us to that quandry about US after we die. Are we sexless in heaven, only to regain that attribute after the union of body and soul at the end of time? Or are we still left with something along the lines of that attribute in heaven? [/color]