Soul Gender?

[KizlarAgha]

Main Entry: 1gen·der
Pronunciation: 'jen-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gendre, from Middle French genre, gendre, from Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind, gender -- more at KIN
1 a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass
2 a : SEX <the feminine gender> b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

From merriam-webster dictionary

[Semperviva]

[i]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

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

[I]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.
we know that a thing [/i]

You have not thoroughly demonstrated to me that A does not exist outside of B, that attributes of personhood cannot exist outside of personhood. I see no logical reason to assume this. Perhaps I missed this vivid demonstration somewhere along the way with the intrusion of the chemical biology . When I die, my body will contain elements of my personhood, why not my soul tambien? No, my body is not me, it is a [i]corpse[/i], but[i] the body still maintains a semblance of my individual personhood[/i], and so I see no reason to think the soul also reveals some semblance of personhood. Like I said earlier, if I say you are correct in your logic, I lose my identity completely upon death.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

Part of the problem here is that some people are confusing the operations of the suppositum (person) with the human soul itself.

The human soul is a substantial form, and this means that it is completely simple; consequently, the operations of the person (sensitive, appetitive, generative, etc.) are distinct from the soul, because if they were not they would always be in act. In other words, the powers of the composite being (man) must be distinct from the soul which is its substantial form.

Ironically enough, both East and West hold this to be the case with human soul, because while the human soul is the subject of these vital operations, the operations are only accidental perfections, that is, they are accidental powers (potencies) which are distinct from the soul, and which are related properly only to the hylomorphic being (i.e., the person).

Masculinity and femininity are proper only to the composite being (i.e., the human person).

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thank God, I am not alone.

Interesting side-note-question for Todd:

If the soul is a simple substance, can it be said to have attributes at all?

If the answer is "no" then how do we explain the term "rational soul"? Would our reason be nothing more than a potency of the holymorphic being, and, if so, must we admit that a soul which is no longer united to its body is not rational?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 05:36 AM']Thank God, I am not alone.

Interesting side-note-question for Todd:

If the soul is a simple substance, can it be said to have attributes at all?

If the answer is "no" then how do we explain the term "rational soul"? Would our reason be nothing more than a potency of the holymorphic being, and, if so, must we admit that a soul which is no longer united to its body is not rational?
[right][snapback]627201[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The soul is simple, but that doesn't mean that you cannot refer to it as a "human soul," or a "rational soul," or a "sensate soul, etc., but when speaking of the soul in this way it is important to remember that the vital operations of the suppositum are distinct from the soul itself.

Moreover, a Thomist will not identify the soul with the vital operations of the composite being, because (for a Thomist) only God's essence and operations are identical.

[Guest JeffCR07]

That makes perfect sense.

So it would be correct to say "female soul" insofar as you mean it in the same way as you mean "human soul" or "rational soul" - ie that it is a soul which a component of a composite being which is rational, human, female, etc. The feminimity, rationality, humanity does not exist in the soul itself, for to assert as such would be to assert that the soul is not a simple substance.


Oh, and relating to the previous question of losing "personhood" upon death of the body:

I maintain that we DO cease to be persons upon death. This is why John Paul the Great specifically noted that even the souls in heaven desperately await the Parousia, because they are not complete, they are not true [i]persons[/i] until they are reunited with the Body.

In many respects, this is a key point in understanding why we put such an emphasis on the Ressurrection of the Body. We get our bodies back because without them we are not complete.

That doesn't mean we cease to be distinct beings, my soul remains the substantial form of my body even if my body has passed away. I will not truly be a [i]human person[/i], though, until my soul is reunited to my body. Until that point, I am just a soul.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 06:05 AM']That makes perfect sense.

So it would be correct to say "female soul" insofar as you mean it in the same way as you mean "human soul" or "rational soul" - ie that it is a soul which a component of a composite being which is rational, human, female, etc. The feminimity, rationality, humanity does not exist in the soul itself, for to assert as such would be to assert that the soul is not a simple substance.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]627210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As I understand the Thomistic / Aristotelian synthesis, the soul is referred to as vegetative, sensate, and rational, and all of the varied operations are included under those three categories. I don't think that Thomas, or even Aristotle, would be comfortable talking about a "female soul" or a "male soul." I know it makes me uncomfortable, and I'm no longer a Thomist.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:12 AM']As I understand the Thomistic / Aristotelian synthesis, the soul is referred to as vegetative, sensate, and rational, and all of the varied operations are included under those three categories.  I don't think that Thomas, or even Aristotle, would be comfortable talking about a "female soul" or a "male soul."  I know it makes me uncomfortable, and I'm no longer a Thomist.
[right][snapback]627212[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are "vegetative," "sensate," and "rational" to be understood as belonging to the soul alone, or are they categories pertaining to the operations of the holymorphic being, and only semantically attributed to the soul?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:05 AM']That makes perfect sense.

Oh, and relating to the previous question of losing "personhood" upon death of the body:

I maintain that we DO cease to be persons upon death. This is why John Paul the Great specifically noted that even the souls in heaven desperately await the Parousia, because they are not complete, they are not true [i]persons[/i] until they are reunited with the Body.

In many respects, this is a key point in understanding why we put such an emphasis on the Ressurrection of the Body. We get our bodies back because without them we are not complete.

That doesn't mean we cease to be distinct beings, my soul remains the substantial form of my body even if my body has passed away. I will not truly be a [i]human person[/i], though, until my soul is reunited to my body. Until that point, I am just a soul.
[right][snapback]627210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

oh. ok. that helps. i was wondering this whole time what he had to say about that question i just diden't know where to find it. so todd did you adopt palamas instead of thomas? just curious...

[scardella]

[b]I think a great deal of the problem that I have with JeffCR07 and Apotheoun's position is that, as I read it, we lose our identity at death.[/b] It is precisely the "accidents" of who I am that makes me different from everyone else. A fundamental part of that identity is the fact that I am male and not female. If sexuality is lost at death, what's to prevent my resurrected body from being a woman's body and all of a sudden, I'm a girl? I sure as heck don't want to spend eternity like that...

I certainly agree w/ JeffCR07's statement that without our bodies, we are not complete. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine existence sans bodies until we've experienced it. Once again, however, if the only thing that persists until we are united w/ the resurrected glorified body is soul, and the soul is fundamentally "simple," then it would seem that it is no longer me. Fundamentally, that would mean that I just took care of my soul and it says "ciao" at death and I'm not that soul.

Therefore, I cannot see how the idea that losing our personhood at death can coexist with the promise of eternal life. Without the persistence of our identity, the promise of eternal life or eternal death is meaningless.

Edited June 29, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 29 2005, 07:05 AM'][b]I think a great deal of the problem that I have with JeffCR07 and Apotheoun's position is that, as I read it, we lose our identity at death.[/b]  It is precisely the "accidents" of who I am that makes me different from everyone else.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't see a difference between myself and the instance of my personhood.  A fundamental part of that identity is the fact that I am male and not female.  If sexuality is lost at death, what's to prevent my resurrected body from being a woman's body and all of a sudden, I'm a girl?  I sure as heck don't want to spend eternity like that...

I certainly agree w/ JeffCR07's statement that without our bodies, we are not complete.  It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine existence sans bodies until we've experienced it.  Once again, however, if the only thing that persists until we are united w/ the resurrected glorified body is soul, and the soul is fundamentally "simple," then it would seem that it is no longer me.  Fundamentally, that would mean that I just took care of my soul and it says "ciao" at death and I'm not that soul. 

Therefore, I cannot see how the idea that losing our personhood at death can coexist with the promise of eternal life.  Without the persistence of our identity, the promise of eternal life or eternal death is meaningless.
[right][snapback]627241[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've never asserted that we lose our identity at death, but Catholics are not dualists, we are not Platonists, and so the soul alone is not who we are; instead, we are both our body and our soul together as a single being. This is not just the teaching of Pope John Paul II, it is the teaching of St. Irenaeus and all the early Church Fathers. Man's personhood is a hylomorphic reality.

What I refuse to do is to identify the various operations of the composite being with the soul. Because to do that would be to say that all of the various potencies (material, partially immaterial, and immaterial), are in perfect act at all times, and man then becomes a being in pure act, and that simply is not the case. Consequently, I will not say that there is such a thing as a "female soul" or a "male soul."

To be who you truly are, in the fullest sense of the term, requires the resurrection of the body.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Scardella, Todd and I are not saying that your identity is annihilated upon death. We are saying that your [i]personhood[/i] ceases to be, and that your composite parts exist in an imperfect state in which they yearn for the reunification that will come at the Resurrection.

Edit: Also, please note that this is not like seperating the motherboard from a computer. Your eternal soul still possesses the Beatific Vision even when it is not united with your body.

Edited June 29, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Semperviva]

[i]I answer that, It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal epistle of Cyril [Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: "If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be anathema." Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal. [i]Consequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man" during those three days. [/i]

[i]However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was [b]shown in I, 75, 4]. [/b][/i][i]Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in I, 75, 4, and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (2] , 5). [/i][/I]


Haaha Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of St. Thomas ([i]which has never happened before[/i]), I'm right in there with the erroneous "Hugh of Saint Victor:" What, a material heretic, me?
but wait, hhhhmmm, I, 75, 4 -from the Summa? Where "[b]the soul is a man[/b]" is shown to be false, because, technically I am not saying "[i]the soul is a man[/i]"and this is what he refers to as false

Edited June 29, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:13 AM'][. . .]
Haaha Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of St. Thomas ([i]which has never happened before[/i]), I'm right in there with the erroneous "Hugh of Saint Victor:"  What, a material heretic, me? 
but wait, hhhhmmm,  I, 75, 4 -from the Summa?  Where "[b]the soul is a man[/b]" is shown to be false, because, technically I am not saying "[i]the soul is a man[/i]"and this is what he refers to as false
[right][snapback]627330[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that St. Thomas is using generic "man," i.e., a human being or person.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 10:50 AM']Scardella, Todd and I are not saying that your identity is annihilated upon death. We are saying that your [i]personhood[/i] ceases to be, and that your composite parts exist in an imperfect state in which they yearn for the reunification that will come at the Resurrection.

Edit: Also, please note that this is not like seperating the motherboard from a computer. Your eternal soul still possesses the Beatific Vision even when it is not united with your body.
[right][snapback]627307[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

so, where is the identity "located", for lack of a better term?

If it is in the soul, then the soul must have sex, because sex is part of my identity. If it is in the person, and the personhood ceases to be at death, then my identity no longer exists once I die. If it is in the body, then, too, my identity ceases once I die.