Aristotle's Conception Of The Soul

the soul and a body structure. The soul will never die and never change when the physical body

Similar to the teachings of his mentor, Plato, Aristotle’s philosophy finds its answers to major questions from the perspective of the teleological worldview. In the very first sentence of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle introduces his teleological world view by asserting that every activity is aimed at a telos, or end, and how men move from potency to act. Aristotle then proceeds to outline his argument using the Teleological approach as he tries to answer the question: “what is happiness?” However, he answers it not by explaining what happiness is, but rather how to attain it and live “the good life”.

In this paper I will be discussing the tripartite (three parts) of the soul that Socrates discussed in chapter 6 of Plato’s Republic, and I will compare and contrast them to that of Aristotle and Anthony Kenny. In Plato’s Republic the three parts of the soul consist of the rational, spirited and, desire. In this dialogue the three parts of the soul go hand and hand with three parts of a just society.

Now, Aristotle believes that we have a tendency to think that we can only define a human by its matter, but Aristotle says that this is because we have a poverty of imagination. In the same way, we cannot define a form, say a human, by an accidental composite, we can neither define the form by matter. Aristotle believes that “a strict definition will be not of man, but of the human soul, the form of man. The definition will make no mention of his matter” (Lear, 283.) He is saying that the bones, flesh, muscles, tendons, skin, etc., have no impact on the form. The essence of the human being is the human soul. This does get cloudy, but Aristotle gives an example to make it easier to understand. Aristotle say that “in the case of

Socrates believes that the soul is not always for what is good. This is when the complexities of moral psychology become an important issue. That is found in Plato's mature moral theory.

Aristotle questions if the body and soul are both independent things. He claims that if affections of the soul can be separated, then the soul and body are separable. He stresses that we should think of the soul as being similar to the body. Aristotle believes that not any soul can be matched with any body. For example, an animal’s soul cannot go in a human body because they have different

One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.

“Fight it, take the pain, ignite it. Loose enough to breathe fine and tie it to a tree tell it you belong to me this ain’t a noose this is a leash and I have news for you you must obey me”.

a material account, but we can see that we still cannot identify material account independently of the soul, because even though human beings are constituted from other than flesh and bones, if they possess soul, then their material account does not matter. For these reasons, I can conclude that functionalism cannot be adequate to clarify the relation between soul and body, too. Burnyeat also thinks that functionalism cannot be adequate, because Aristotle has some points which contradict with functionalism. For instance, as I mentioned above, functionalism provide psychological explanation holistically with the material account. Even though form has a primary role, it still presupposes material necessity, because given soul needs a body. However,

“The union of soul and body is not an amalgamation between two mutually external terms, subject and object, brought about by arbitrary decree. It is enacted at every instant in the movement of existence.”

The soul is a complex thing, it can be described or characterized in a number of things, and everyone has their own understanding of what exactly the soul is. The soul can be who you are as a person- your being, or it could simply just be an aspect of your being; and some don’t believe in the existence of the soul at all. Phaedo, Aristotle, and Locke all believe that the soul does in fact exist. However, they believe in the soul in varying degrees because they each understand the soul as something different, giving it different characteristics.

Aristotle spent much of his time writing about the subjects he studied. He wrote 200 treaties on several subjects, although only 31 have survived. An example of one of his most famous treatises is "On the Soul." Here, he states the soul is the essence of any living thing. Aristotle determined that all living organisms have a soul. He believed that the body and the soul were one, and when the body died, so did the soul. Through his continued use of the scientific method, he altered many other fields of knowledge. By using this method, he became the first person to develop a system of reasoning. Aristotle was a student of Plato, although he disagreed with many of his theories. He was educated for 20 years at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he

This soul is the most basic soul, the nutritive soul. The nutritive soul can grow, decay, nurture themselves, and strives for reproduction in it’s final stages. Then, if you add two triangles together you have a square. This can be seen as the animal soul. The animal is a nutritive soul, as well as a perceptive soul.

Plato has interest many readers with the work of a philosopher by the name of Socrates. Because of Plato, Socrates lived on generations after his time. A topic of Socrates that I plan to discuss is the ideal of “an immortal soul”. Although there are various works and dialogues about this topic it is found to be best explained in The Phaedo. I plan to unwrap Platos ideal of the soul and the kinds of reality associated with it. It is fair to say that the mind may wonder when one dies, but what exactly happens to the beloved soul; the giver of life often thought of as the very essence of life, does it live on beyond the body, or does it die with it? Does are body control the soul, or does the soul control the body?

Given this account, the application of the same hylomorphic ideal to living things sees them as compo- sites of matter and soul (which is the form of a being). The soul, so understood, is inseparable but distinct from the body, and acts as an inner principle of change2 of the subject towards other objects and itself. In that, it has to be active in order to produce acts that are formal and material change (De Anima, Book II, 1).