Soul Gender?

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 07:00 AM']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."[/quote]

I'm not sure if I can agree with that. My first reaction is that the [b]will[/b] is the "ultimate internal principal" and that the soul contains the will, memories, and other immaterial portions of my identity.

[quote]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.[/quote]

This came up in a live conversation yesterday evening. Additionally there is hormonal screwy-ness that can phunk up sexual identity in the body. However, we say that the body is the image of the person. Therefore, if the person has sexuality, then its image must have sexuality, even if it is an imperfect image of that sexuality. Presumably our glorified bodies would not have these sorts of problems.

[quote]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.[/quote]

see above.

[quote]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
[right][snapback]628117[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are taking sex to be a simple thing. I'm taking sex to be a composite thing. I think that's where the real difference is. We're probably looking at the same thing from opposite sides.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 30 2005, 08:48 AM'][. . .]

Therefore, if the person has sexuality, then its image must have sexuality, even if it is an imperfect image of that sexuality.  Presumably our glorified bodies would not have these sorts of problems.
[right][snapback]628282[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The glorified body is perfect, and as such it will have no defects. Defects are a result of the fall, and the redemption is the reversal of the fall and all the consequences that flow from it.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:55 AM']The glorified body is perfect, and as such it will have no defects.  Defects are a result of the fall, and the redemption is the reversal of the fall and all the consequences that flow from it.
[right][snapback]628288[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Agreed.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I'm not sure if I can agree with that. My first reaction is that the will is the "ultimate internal principal" and that the soul contains the will, memories, and other immaterial portions of my identity. [/quote]

That is the definition of the soul as it is understood by Aquinas, the Scholastics, and most philosophers in the Western Tradition. If you think them wrong, there is little that I will be able to do to persuade you.

I do not believe, nor do they, that thinking and feeling are derivative of willing. If these faculties do not have willing as their internal principle, then willing is not the ultimate internal principle. The true ultimate internal principle is what they, and I, would call the soul.

[quote]we say that the body is the image of the person. Therefore, if the person has sexuality, then its image must have sexuality, even if it is an imperfect image of that sexuality. Presumably our glorified bodies would not have these sorts of problems.[/quote]

This is like making the argument that because a man is made in the image of God, and the man is in a state of sin, then God must be in a state of sin.

Moreover, your first premise equivocates. When we say that "the body is the image of the person" we mean that "the visible part of the person is what we call the body." However, your later arguments interpret the saying as meaning "whatever pertains to the person is visible in the body."

This is clearly not the case, however, as the soul pertains to the person but is not itself visible in the body.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]You are taking sex to be a simple thing. I'm taking sex to be a composite thing. I think that's where the real difference is.[/quote]

Indeed, to assert that sex is a composite thing is to assert that "some of" what makes sex is in the body and that "some of" what makes sex is in the soul. This is simply not the case. The soul is a simple substance and, as such, cannot contain within itself composites, such as sex is said to be given your argumentation.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 07:00 AM']To answer your first question:

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

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the soul as follows:

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
[right][snapback]628117[/snapback][/right]

[/quote]

[i]Kopascetic, grazie[/i]

Edited June 30, 2005 by Semperviva

[Guest JeffCR07]

prego

[scardella]

I sort of skipped over the Irenaeus quote and just looked at your conclusion before...

According to that Irenaus quote, what is the difference between the soul and the spirit? That is different than we've been saying the general structure of man's nature is...

What we've been saying is:
union of (soul + body) yields a complete human person.

Apparently what he's saying is:
union of (soul + body + spirit) yields a complete human person.

If this human spirit is an immaterial reality that is part of the human person, and if it contains the other immaterial stuff that makes up me, (memories, sense of humor, etc.), then I'm willing to accept that the soul = will and is simple.

However, 2 things:
1. I'm not convinced that this immaterial spirit exists alongside the soul.
2. Even if I were, I still maintain that sexuality is a composite reality, as is the personhood. The sexuality is made up of the union of physical components of the body and the spiritual/immaterial components in the soul or spirit. If you read through my arguments, there is an appropriate sexual characteristics in the body and in the soul or spirit which exist as long as that component exists. Because one can say "This is a man's body," one can say, therefore, it is a male body. Because one can say "This is a man's soul" one can say it is a male soul. Thus our sexuality and our humanity are not perfected until our soul and body are perfect at the Resurrection.

Edited June 30, 2005 by scardella

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Even if I were, I still maintain that sexuality is a composite reality, as is the personhood. The sexuality is made up of the union of physical components of the body and the spiritual/immaterial components in the soul or spirit. If you read through my arguments, there is an appropriate sexual characteristics in the body and in the soul or spirit which exist as long as that component exists. Because one can say "This is a man's body," one can say, therefore, it is a male body. Because one can say "This is a man's soul" one can say it is a male soul. Thus our sexuality and our humanity are not perfected until our soul and body are perfect at the Resurrection.[/quote]

Your ordinary language analysis is incorrect in its methodology, as you are trying to force common usage into metaphysical reality rather than understand that common usage in the light of understood metaphysical truth.

In ordinary language we do indeed use the phrases "this is a man's body" and "this is a male body" as interchangable. However, this is not because the two are metaphysically equivalent, but rather, it is because common language does not call for a philosophically accurate distinction.

In fact, we are wrong to say "this is a male body" if by this phrase we mean that some composite part of the sex "male" exists in the body in and of itself.

We are free to say "this is a male body" if by this phrase we mean that "this is a body belonging to a male person."

This is an important distinction because in the first meaning the body is deriving some of its masculinity from itself, while in the second it is deriving its masculinity wholly from the person.

The question here is this: The body is called male by virtue of....

Your claim is, essentially, that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it contains some aspect of masculinity within itself, and the part that is "missing" is provided by the soul.

My claim is that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it belongs to a male person.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 03:19 PM']Your claim is, essentially, that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it contains some aspect of masculinity within itself, and the part that is "missing" is provided by the soul.

My claim is that the body is called male by virtue of the fact that it belongs to a male person.
[right][snapback]628596[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Is there a problem with that?
[i]Pun unintentional, but appreciated[/i]

Edited July 1, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:54 AM'][. . .]
According to that Irenaus quote, what is the difference between the soul and the spirit?  That is different than we've been saying the general structure of man's nature is...

What we've been saying is:
union of (soul + body) yields a complete human person.

Apparently what he's saying is:
union of (soul + body + spirit) yields a complete human person.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]628413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is important to understand the teaching of the early Fathers on the tripartite existence of man, especially as it is exemplified in the doctrine of St. Irenaeus. For St. Irenaeus "natural" man is composed of body and soul, and this is man as he exists after the fall, devoid of God's vivifying energy. In other words, "natural" man is man after the original sin, and not as he was in the very beginning in the Garden. In the very beginning man was created in the image of God, and moreover, he possessed the Spirit of God and was in the divine likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]). But when Adam fell into sin the divine Spirit was withdrawn from man, and consequently his likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God was deformed and he was no longer in communion with God.

Now in the fullness of time the eternal Logos became incarnate, and in becoming man He restored the divine Spirit that had been lost in the fall, and man once again received the likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God, which he had in the beginning.

Thus, in St. Irenaeus' anthropology, man is naturally composed of body and soul, but through the gift of grace received in the sacrament of Baptism man becomes supernatural, i.e., he receives the gift of the divine life and energy and is divinized in the process. The supernaturally restored man is composed of body, soul, and the divine vivifying Spirit.

[Semperviva]

[i]Thus, in St. Irenaeus' anthropology, man is naturally composed of body and soul, but through the gift of grace received in the sacrament of Baptism man becomes supernatural, i.e., he receives the gift of the divine life and energy and is divinized in the process. The supernaturally restored man is composed of body, soul, and the divine vivifying Spirit. [/i]

...wow, that stuff rocks...makes me wanna go Eastern, LOL,[color=orange][i] "take me back to Constantinople..."[/i][/color] haha...Iranaeus is John's disciple, correctamente ? or no...

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:27 AM']It is important to understand the teaching of the early Fathers on the tripartite existence of man, especially as it is exemplified in the doctrine of St. Irenaeus.  For St. Irenaeus "natural" man is composed of body and soul, and this is man as he exists after the fall, devoid of God's vivifying energy.  In other words, "natural" man is man after the original sin, and not as he was in the very beginning in the Garden.  In the very beginning man was created in the image of God, and moreover, he possessed the Spirit of God and was in the divine likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]). But when Adam fell into sin the divine Spirit was withdrawn from man, and consequently his likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God was deformed and he was no longer in communion with God.

Now in the fullness of time the eternal Logos became incarnate, and in becoming man He restored the divine Spirit that had been lost in the fall, and man once again received the likeness ([i]omoiosis[/i]) to God, which he had in the beginning. 

Thus, in St. Irenaeus' anthropology, man is naturally composed of body and soul, but through the gift of grace received in the sacrament of Baptism man becomes supernatural, i.e., he receives the gift of the divine life and energy and is divinized in the process.  The supernaturally restored man is composed of body, soul, and the divine vivifying Spirit.
[right][snapback]629331[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok, so he's talking about the Holy Spirit. Rock on! It still leaves us with disagreement in the main course of things, though.

Edited July 1, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:54 AM'][. . .]
However, 2 things: 
1. I'm not convinced that this immaterial spirit exists alongside the soul.
2. Even if I were, I still maintain that sexuality is a composite reality, as is the personhood.  The sexuality is made up of the union of physical components of the body and the spiritual/immaterial components in the soul or spirit.  If you read through my arguments, there is an appropriate sexual characteristics in the body and in the soul or spirit which exist as long as that component exists.  Because one can say "This is a man's body," one can say, therefore, it is a male body.  Because one can say "This is a man's soul" one can say it is a male soul.  Thus our sexuality and our humanity are not perfected until our soul and body are perfect at the Resurrection.
[right][snapback]628413[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
1. The Spirit in the teaching of the early Fathers is the indwelling Holy Spirit.
2. The soul is the substantial form of the human person and as such it is simple. Moreover, in the Western theological tradition if you identify the soul with the operations of the composite being (man), you are basically saying that man is God, and not by grace but by nature. In the Western tradition only God's essence and operations are identical.

[scardella]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:41 AM']1.  The Spirit in the teaching of the early Fathers is the indwelling Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

I misunderstood Irenaeus. I thought he was talking about some sort of natural human spirit apart from the soul. See my earlier post.

[quote]2.  The soul is the substantial form of the human person and as such it is simple.  Moreover, in the Western theological tradition if you identify the soul with the operations of the composite being (man), you are basically saying that man is God, and not by grace but by nature.  In the Western tradition only God's essence and operations are identical.
[right][snapback]629344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't understand your argument. You're saying that something I've said implies that man would somehow be God? Does this have anything to do w/ what I said about the soul containing memories, etc.?