Soul Gender?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:38 AM']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.
[right][snapback]627363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The identity is in the hylomorphic being, that is, in the single composite being, man.

Your soul continues after your death, and this is your soul, but you are not reducible to your soul. You are your soul and your body together as one being. That is why the resurrection of the body is so vital in Christian doctrine.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 29 2005, 11:38 AM']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.
[right][snapback]627363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Scardella, when I used the term "identity" I did not intend for the word to act as some equivocal synonym for the word "person." In the context in which you are speaking, one's "identity" is one's "person."

When I used the term "identity" in the above, I meant it in a difference sense. It was intended to connotate all traces of my personhood. Thus, my above statement was meant to be understood as saying that, while your person ceases to exist, that person remains identifiable to God through your composite parts.

As an illustration, let us say that you have absolutely huge feet and I am walking in a snowy field. I come across your massive footprints and I can identify that you were here, even though you are not actually present.

This is the manner in which I meant the term "identity" to be understood.


Oh, and by the way, feel free to call me Jeff

not only is it more friendly and personal, but its easier to type!

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:05 AM']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.
[right][snapback]627210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


where? [i]dies domini[/i]? where can I find it?

[Guest JeffCR07]

I can't remember. Todd, you're a walking newadvent.org do you remember where JPII talks about the souls in heaven yearning for their bodies?

[Semperviva]

yeah i looked on newadvent but maybe i just did a bad search- in the work you referenced does he adress the issue of the souls losing identity?

[Apotheoun]

Jeff,

It is most likely in the Pope's allocutions on the theology of the body.

But I base my views on the importance of the union of body and soul more on the teaching of St. Irenaeus found in his fifth book [u]Against Heresies[/u].

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think you're right, I don't have my TOTB stuff with me, but I'll look when I get home.

Appy, are you able to post any of St. Irenaeus' writings on the subject here? I would love to read it.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 12:11 PM']Scardella, when I used the term "identity" I did not intend for the word to act as some equivocal synonym for the word "person." In the context in which you are speaking, one's "identity" is one's "person."

When I used the term "identity" in the above, I meant it in a difference sense. It was intended to connotate all traces of my personhood. Thus, my above statement was meant to be understood as saying that, while your person ceases to exist, that person remains identifiable to God through your composite parts.
[/quote]

By identity, I'm speaking of that "I" or "self" or self-awareness that makes me "me" and not someone else. If that exists in the personhood, then it is destroyed in death. If that exists in the soul, or it [i]is[/i] the soul, then it must have sex, since I wouldn't be myself without my maleness. If that exists in the body (and only a strict materialist would entertain this), then it too is destroyed in death.

The only other possibility is that it really is destroyed in death, and our soul just hangs out in beatific vision, ethereally, without identity, and that identity is "rebuilt", so to speak, at the Resurrection at the end of time. However, that seems far-fetched and doesn't make sense in terms of Purgatory.

To use the computer analogy for what I'm trying to say, it would be equivalent to the following:
The hard drive is the soul. Let's say the hardware is a PowerMac. When the plug is pulled (death), the data is safely still existing. At the end of time, the hard drive is put in a new, glorified computer. HOWEVER, the new computer wouldn't run my software if it is a PC. It would HAVE to be a Macintosh. In the same way, my soul (hard drive/data) wouldn't be compatible with a non-male body (hardware). Thus, my soul is uniquely a male soul. In the interim, that data is uniquely mine and still existing.

If one maintains that the identity (data) is only in the composite, then when the plug is pulled, all data is lost with it. You could then use it in any computer because it doesn't contain the data or identity from one's life. You'd still be starting from scratch, or it would have to be rebuilt from an external backup (God).

Edited June 29, 2005 by scardella

[scardella]

Note: a harddrive is not a complete computer, just like a human person is not complete without a body. I believe I affirmed that a human person is not complete without a body. Otherwise, I'd be a heretic.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]By identity, I'm speaking of that "I" or "self" or self-awareness that makes me "me" and not someone else. If that exists in the personhood, then it is destroyed in death. If that exists in the soul, or it is the soul, then it must have sex, since I wouldn't be myself without my maleness. If that exists in the body (and only a strict materialist would entertain this), then it too is destroyed in death.

The only other possibility is that it really is destroyed in death, and our soul just hangs out in beatific vision, ethereally, without identity, and that identity is "rebuilt", so to speak, at the Resurrection at the end of time. However, that seems far-fetched and doesn't make sense in terms of Purgatory.[/quote]

Your "person" ceases to exist at the moment of death. If need be, your soul, being the form of the body, is purified in purgatory. At the Parousia your perfected soul will be united with your glorified body - thus final [i]theosis[/i].

I am not sure what the difficulty is?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 28 2005, 10:14 PM']Part of the problem here is that some people are confusing the operations of the suppositum (person) with the human soul itself. 

[i]The human soul is a substantial form, and this means that it is completely simple[/i]; 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).
[right][snapback]627030[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

......but [i]why[/i][i] must[/i] the soul be completely simple......i know i asked why a million times before and Jeff thought it wise to give me some Logic lessons, but since taking Aristotilean and Thomistic Logic I think I was just never capable of understanding anything in terms of a syllogism...

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

....[i]whhhhhhhhhyy???[/i] i will believe you if you tell me why this must be........please, please, please no logic

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 03:46 PM']Your "person" ceases to exist at the moment of death. If need be, your soul, being the form of the body, is purified in purgatory. At the Parousia your perfected soul will be united with your glorified body - thus final [i]theosis[/i].

I am not sure what the difficulty is?
[right][snapback]627727[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The difficulty is this:
where does that "data" go when you die? Does it disappear? If yes, then I must vehemently disagree.

[Apotheoun]

Is the soul a complete man without the body? Is the body a complete man without the soul?

A man who says "yes" to the first question is a Platonist and not a Catholic. A man who says "yes" to the second question is a materialist and not a Catholic.

As St. Irenaeus said:

[quote]Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God. Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, [i]but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God[/i]. For this reason does the apostle declare, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect," terming those persons "perfect" who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms "spiritual," they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, [i]and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual[/i].

[i]For if any one take away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God[/i]. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God's] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, [i]and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God[/i]. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect.

Thus also, [i]if any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man[/i].

For that flesh which has been moulded is not a perfect man in itself, [i]but the body of a man, and part of a man[/i]. Neither is the soul itself, [i]considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man[/i]. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; [i]but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man[/i]. And for this cause does the apostle, explaining himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a spiritual man; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, "Now the God of peace sanctify you perfect (perfectos); and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." Now what was his object in praying that these three -- that is, soul, body, and spirit -- might be preserved to the coming of the Lord, [i]unless he was aware of the [future] reintegration and union of the three, and [that they should be heirs of] one and the same salvation[/i]? For this cause also he declares that those are "the perfect" who present unto the Lord the three [component parts] without offence.

Those, then, are the perfect who have had the Spirit of God remaining in them, [i]and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless[/i], holding fast the faith of God, that is, that faith which is [directed] towards God, and maintaining righteous dealings with respect to their neighbours.

Whence also he says, that this handiwork is "the temple of God," thus declaring: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man, therefore, will defile the temple of God, him will God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are."

Here he manifestly declares the body to be the temple in which the Spirit dwells. As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. He spake this, however," it is said, "of the temple of His body." And not only does he (the apostle) acknowledge our bodies to be a temple, but even the temple of Christ, saying thus to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot?" He speaks these things, not in reference to some other spiritual man; for a being of such a nature could have nothing to do with an harlot: but he declares "our body," that is, the flesh which continues in sanctity and purity, to be "the members of Christ;" but that when it becomes one with an harlot, it becomes the members of an harlot. And for this reason he said, "If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy."

How then is it not the utmost blasphemy to allege, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, do not partake of salvation, but are reduced to perdition? Also, that our bodies are raised not from their own substance, but by the power of God, he says to the Corinthians, "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. But God hath both raised up the Lord, and shall raise us up by His own power." [St. Irenaeus, [u]Adversus Haereses[/u], Book V, Chap. 6, Nos. 1-2][/quote]

Man is not simply his soul; insteadl, he is a single being composed of both body and soul, and so one without the other is incomplete.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 29 2005, 04:19 PM']......but [i]why[/i][i] must[/i] the soul be completely simple......i know i asked why a million times before and Jeff thought it wise to give me some Logic lessons, but since taking Aristotilean and Thomistic Logic I think I was just never capable of understanding anything in terms of a syllogism...

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

  ....[i]whhhhhhhhhyy???[/i]  i will believe you if you tell me why this must be........please, please, please no logic
[right][snapback]627755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To answer your first question:

[i]Why must the soul be completely simple?[/i]

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the soul as follows: [quote]The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.[/quote]

This ultimate principle can be either composite (complex) or simple. If the soul is composite, then it could be broken down into its composites, which would be more simple than the soul. If this is the case, then these simple composites would be "the ultimate internal principle(s) by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."

However, this is precisely the definition of the soul. Ergo, whatever the soul is, it must necessarily be simple. We know this [i]a priori[/i]


To answer your second question:

[i]Why are masculinity and feminimity proper only to the human being (i.e. the human person)?[/i]

There are three options:

1.) Sex is proper to the body
2.) Sex is proper to the soul
3.) Sex is proper to the human person (ie the polymorphic being who is a soul/body composite).

1.) That sex is not proper to the body: I

f it were proper to the body, we would be able to "locate" what aspect of the body contains the sex of the individual. However, this is not the case. As we have previously discussed, sex is not located in the genital organs, nor in bone structure, nor in percentage body fat, etc, for all of these things can change without altering the sex of the person. Moreover, it has been argued by some that sex resides in the DNA. If sex =did reside in DNA, then there would only be two possible chomosonal combinations, one to correspond to each sex, namely, XX and XY. However, this is not the case, as it is well know that some people are born with Klinefelter Syndrome, or an XXY chomosomal composition. Moreover, others have been known to have an XXXY or an XXYY makeup. Thus, sex does not reside in the DNA, and therefore not in the body.

2.) That sex is not proper to the soul:

If it were proper to the soul, then the soul would be a composite. It is clear that the soul is not reducible to simply sex. Therefore, if sex were proper to the soul, then the soul would contain both sex and something else (namely, the animating principle). Thus, the soul would be a composite of sex and animating principle. But the soul is not composite. Consequently, sex is not proper to the soul.

3.) If sex is not proper to either the soul or the body, as shown above, then sex must be proper to the human person, or the composite of soul and body.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

Thanks Todd. Irenaeus rocks my world.