Does Souls Have Gender?

[John Lowell]

JeffCR07,

So you want to let Plato off the hook by comparing him to Parmenides? Isn't that something like saying "beat me again, it feels so good when you stop"?

I think what I'm getting at here is the seemingly incontestable fact that Platonism could never reach the reality expressed in the biblical notion of soul. And, of course, even post-Thomas, he had lots of help from Descarte. At best, a Catholic theological anthropology, properly understood and expressed, is a challenge for the post-Enlightenment world. It is so central to what we are about as Church that conveying it to that veritable sea of unbelief out there seems to me one of the chief tasks of evangelization. After all, if you have no conception of what and who you are in the sight of God, what importance would Catholic moral and social teaching have for you? Everything presupposes a correct anthropology.

John Lowell

[PadreSantiago]

does poster speak english?

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Sex is not what we do, but what we are.

If we strip the human person (body and soul) of who it is [sex], then we commit a very large error. According to Aquinas the soul and exist without the body; however, the body cannot exist without the soul. Therefore, is it the body that defines who a person is 'per se' or is it the immortal soul the defines who a person is 'per se'.

The sexual organs of the human body are proper accidents of the sex of a wholistic person. Aristotle uses the following syllogism to show that just because something is risible (able to laugh) doesn't make that thing rationable. On the contrary, it is because it is rational that it is able to laugh :

Man is risible.
Risible creatures are rational.
Therefore, Man is rational.

NOT:

Man is risible.
Rational creatures are risible.
Therefore, man is rationable.

This syllogism could also be used in this situation, just because the body is male or female doesn't mean that it is the body which is the determining factor of whether or not the wholeistic person is male or female. It is the soul that is male or female and the body is just an accident of that.

Here is a common example that occurs in my life constantly (I live in a dorm with immature college students.):

When a fire alarm sounds it signals that there is a fire. But often the alarm goes off, and yet there is no fire. (due to someone pulling the alarm.) So just because the alarm is sounding doesn't mean the building is on fire.

(now you have to be careful with this example because in the example of the soul and body, both the soul and body point to the same thing: the sex of the person. However, the alarm example isn't the exact same because the alarm could point to a fire or drunk students. However, the underlying principle is the same: The proper accidens of a substances is not the best definition of that substance.

Live well, die holy.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 25 2005, 10:58 PM']JeffCR07,

So you want to let Plato off the hook by comparing him to Parmenides? Isn't that something like saying "beat me again, it feels so good when you stop"? 

I think what I'm getting at here is the seemingly incontestable fact that Platonism could never reach the reality expressed in the biblical notion of soul. And, of course, even post-Thomas, he had lots of help from Descarte. At best, a Catholic theological anthropology, properly understood and expressed, is a challenge for the post-Enlightenment world. It is so central to what we are about as Church that conveying it to that veritable sea of unbelief out there seems to me one of the chief tasks of evangelization. After all, if you have no conception of what and who you are in the sight of God, what importance would Catholic moral and social teaching have for you? Everything presupposes a correct anthropology.

John Lowell
[right][snapback]800582[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

*sigh*

I'm not letting anyone "off the hook" - rather, I'm simply being an unbiased critic of historical philosophy. Rather than expect everyone in history to have a perfect philosophy, I am acknowledging that people make certain philosophical moves for a reason (i.e. in reaction to previous philosophical moves made by others), and thus when I judge their philosophy, I take that into account.

Now, this having been said, I would be careful just how hard you want to bash Platonism. It may not be entirely correct, but 1000 years worth of theologians and christian philosophers [i]did[/i] think that Platonism was adequate to "express the biblical notion of the soul." In fact, the Book of Hebrews is filled with Platonism.

I'm not saying you have to be a Platonist. I'm just saying you have to give proper credit where credit is do, and you are most certainly painting a picture of platonism that sounds more akin to gnosticism than it actually is.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[John Lowell]

JeffCR07,

You missed the smilie at the end of my "off the hook" remark? For God's sake, man, relax. Neither of us is important enough to take himself that seriously.

Now to characterize as Plato bashing and as a denigration of the contribution of Platonic philosophy to the understanding of our faith a simple allusion to the fact that Plato's particular conception of the soul formed the basis for the modern day understanding of soul-as-person goes a bridge too far in my view. And I'm by no means sure that 1000 years of theologians were all that comfortable with the suitability of Platonism's giving expression either to the biblical notion of "soul" or to much else of Christian belief. The theologians simply used what was then available to them philosophically in the hope both of explaining the faith and of achieving dialogue with the larger intellectual community. Had it been otherwise, given all that time, perhaps their formulations would have been considered definitive, eh? No, my concern here is not as much with Plato as it is with what's been fashioned from him.

Yours In The Holy Trinity,

John Lowell

Edited November 27, 2005 by John Lowell

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:07 PM']JeffCR07,

You missed the smilie at the end of my "off the hook" remark? For God's sake, man, relax. Neither of us is important enough to take himself that seriously. 

Now to characterize as Plato bashing and as a denigration of the contribution of Platonic philosophy to the understanding of our faith a simple allusion to the fact that Plato's particular conception of  the soul formed the basis for the modern day understanding of soul-as-person goes a bridge too far in my view. And I'm by no means sure that 1000 years of theologians were all that comfortable with the suitability of Platonism's giving expression either to the biblical notion of "soul" or to much else of Christian belief. The theologians simply used what was then available to them philosophically in the hope both of explaining the faith and of achieving dialogue with the larger intellectual community. Had it been otherwise, given all that time, perhaps their formulations would have been considered definitive, eh? No, my concern here is not as much with Plato as it is with what's been fashioned from him. 

Yours In The Holy Trinity,

John Lowell
[right][snapback]801875[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I apologize for missing the smilie - its been a long couple days and I hope you can forgive my lack of humor

Anyways, by way of response, I think the last sentence of your response is very telling. You are correct to say that many people have used Plato to untrue ends, but when, as Bertrand Russell points out, you are the footnote of all philosophy, I can't imagine that [i]not[/i] being inevitable.

Moreover, much of what is true and good - even the definition of the soul - also was fashioned from Plato. For example, the Neoplatonics saw no disagreement between the Platonic and Aristotelian theories of Forms. For them, the soul [i]was[/i] the form of the body, in a very Aristotelian way, [i]and[/i] the Forms existed in addition as entirely seperate. They simply made a distinction between form-in-matter and form-in-itself (indeed, keeping this in mind might very well [i]help[/i] christian philosophy). In addition, regarding your notion that there were simply no other suitable philosophical systems from which Christian philosophers might draw, I must thoroughly disagree: Platonism was one among a great, great many. If you disagree, I would be more than happy to discuss why.

Regardless, my intent is not to patronize, nor to give a lesson in history of philosophy. Rather, my point is simply that many people give Plato, Platonism, and philosophies which draw heavily on Plato a bad rap. With this in mind, if someone wishes to remark negatively concerning the aforementioned, I would be very interested to discuss what uniquely Platonic notion is found to stand in such opposition to the Catholic Faith.

And again, if I appear too serious, forgive me

Yours in Christ,

Jeff

Edited November 28, 2005 by JeffCR07

[journeyman]

Jeff and John . . . have you thought about a Philosophy 101 thread - Philosophy through the ages for those who have managed to avoid it during their entire lives . . . There are some unspoken assumptions both of you are making, based I suspect on your having studied the subject, that leave the illiterate (me) unable to follow.

Maybe Philosophy for Dummies?

[Guest JeffCR07]

hahaha, well I don't think I've got the time to put forth a systematized account of the history of philosophical thought, but I'd be more than happy to answer any questions (or enter into friendly discussion/dialectic) with anyone who is interested. Feel free to make the thread. :