Aristotle 's On The Soul

6. “If the deathless is indestructible, then the soul, if it is deathless, would also be indestructible? - Necessarily.” (106e-107a)

In the Myth of the Soul, Darrow argues against different conceptions of immortality. One of the arguments that he presents to us is that we have a soul that can survive our death. Darrow argues that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul and questions where the soul stays within our body and when it enters our body. His arguments are to be further evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses as he tries to counter a belief with a long history particularly, in religion.

The form of an object helps clear up its behavior. Aristotle calls the forms of living things “souls,” which are of three kinds: plants, animals, or human beings. Because Aristotle believed that the soul is merely a set of determined features, he didn’t regard the body and the soul as two separate individuals that mysteriously combine to from an organism.

The soul is a non-material substance that somehow has a connection with one’s living body (Weisberg, January 2016). When the body dies, the connection between mind and physical being is broken (Weisberg, January 2016). After death, the body will rot away and parish. However, one’s soul, being a non-material substance, can not be destroyed, and with that, it is possible for a person, rather, a person’s soul and who they are, to live on after death (Weisberg, January

In the Phaedo, Socrates proposes that the soul is immortal. Despite being a seemingly counterintuitive understanding, Socrates offers arguments for the soul’s immortality and expresses his view between the soul, or mind, and the body. Socrates practices reasoning to establish his philosophy on the concept of the soul and all that it necessitates. He rationalizes four theories of the immortality of the soul. The four arguments he establishes are; the opposites argument, also referred to as the cyclical argument, this theory indicates that there is a continuous cycle of life and death, and tries to explain that all forms obtained are eternal and fixed. The second argument is the theory of recollection; this concept suggests that all learning entails remembering knowledge that was already known. The third theory is the argument from affinity; this argument demonstrates that the soul most resembles all of that which is indistinguishable and everlasting and the body echoes that which is perceptible and finite. And though the body may be understood to exist after demise in the form of a corpse by reason of the body’s impermanence, the soul being divine in sequence will outlast the body. The concluding argument is the argument from form of life, this final argument describes that all things participate in the forms. The argument entails that the soul participates in the form of life, so

Liberation here in the visible realm comes from recognizing the hindering function of the body in the soul's search for knowledge. Socrates comments that a soul associated too closely with the

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

In Phaedo, Phaedo presents the conversation between Socrates and his companions through his final hours, regarding one of the most fundamental arguments, Socrates’ argument for the immortality of the soul based on its likeness to the Forms. In what follows the essay will be focusing on the three arguments that Socrates provides for the immortality of the soul, the argument from the opposites, the Recollection Theory and the affinity argument, the analyses of Semmias counter arguments as well as Socrates response to them.

Aristotle has a different view on the make-up of the soul. In Aristotle discussion On the Soul he talks about the kinds of souls possessed by different living things such as plants, animals and, beings. Aristotle then goes on describing the substance that makes up the soul, the first is matter which is not this in its own right, the second is form which makes matter this and the third form is the compound of matter and form. Every living body is a substance and the soul is the actuality of the body. The soul

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

The philosophical thought is that the mind and body are two separate things; with one being able to exist without the other has caused much discussion and debate among philosophers and theologians over the years. René Descartes and Plato, two well-known philosophers, argue that people have a mind or soul, which is somehow connected with the body, but the mind or soul can exist independently from our body. Descartes introduces the mind-body argument while Plato presents the soul-body argument. Although the arguments differ in some ways, Descartes and Plato also have similar opinions on the issue. As a person of faith, there is some difficulty in explaining to a non-believer that when a person dies, the soul does not perish with the body. While siding with Descartes and his belief in a perfect God, this essay seeks to review the issues of dualism and meditation, through the eyes of Descartes and Plato.

Aristotle came to this conclusion because the soul for him means potentiality and actuality. He starts by explaining the three types of substance, the first one been the matter which he describes as potentiality (being alive), secondly the form which he calls first actuality and thirdly is the second actuality which is the matter and form that he says it engages in having action. Aristotle uses the axe as an example to describe the two concepts. The axe needs potentiality to have all materials ready in order to gain an identity. First actuality of the axe is to be properly configured (identity) and its functions to be discover as yet. The second actuality is for the axe to be actually used to cut. The second example that Aristotle uses is the eye because it gains its identity, in which the eye has the capacity of eyesight. He says that the components of the eye are present and it does not mean that the eye will gain its identity, because it does not necessary has to see. This shows that the eye does not have a soul because it depends of the organism. This just means that the eye does not have a soul because what controls it is the body because it is a natural organized body. This is why Aristotle came to this

In this dialogue Socrates and the philosophers explore several arguments for this idea of an immortal soul. These arguments were to illustrate and verify that death is not the dying of body and soul collectively, but when the body dies the soul continues to live on. Socrates offers readers four main arguments: The Cyclical Argument, which is the idea that forms are fixed and external. The soul is the sole purpose of life in this argument, and therefore cannot die and it is also to be seen as virtually never-ending. Next is The Theory of Recollection, which insists that at birth everyone has knowledge that the soul experienced in another life. Meaning that the soul would have had to be existent before birth to bear this said knowledge.

It is also important to say that he also believes the soul is the form of the body in part, because the soul is the organization of the parts the body, the body is matter and it or soul is the form-the actual living body. To reiterate this point Aristotle offers us the example of a corpse and a bronze or wooden hand and states that these are not forms as they “lack the potentiality to perform the function of a hand”.7this would also suggest that once we are dead we undergo a material change which stops function and makes us akin to a statue. Aristotle then goes on to discuss matter which he says is “the matter that is the subject necessarily has a certain sort of nature....fire has a hot and light nature”8. He states that matter is what earlier philosophers focused on and it was how they explained the order of the world. Aristotle however does not believe that this is the way in which we should study nature, he believes we should ask what gives each natural substance its characteristic and we should look at “how each thing has naturally come to be, rather than how it is...then state their causes”9. Therefore he concludes that a prior observational investigation is best and that we should study the form.

As Plato advocates that soul belongs to different order from body, so it cannot be set alongside the body as homogeneous entity. The soul’s penchant is towards another world. It becomes evident, why the senses are envisaged, not as windows but as bars, since so far as the physical nature of man is concerned it is not just a matter of noting, ontologically, the finite character of its existence, but rather one making an ethical and religious value-judgment on this earthly life form the viewpoint of higher destiny. Only when the soul has undergone an inner transformation and been duly prepared for this it can looks at the body in a fresh light, as it were, and so discover as meaningful affinity between soul and body, which serves to orientate man towards the higher reality.