...Aristotle and the Soul Aristotle believed that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing. He believed that the soul was connected to the body, and was not a distinct substance from the body. What Aristotle means by the soul isn’t exactly what we mean by the word today. In most modern religions, such as Hinduism, Judaism, or Christianity, the soul is commonly imagined as an immaterial something that rides around in the body but is capable of existing on its own in a purely spiritual state; perhaps awaiting reunification with the old body or perhaps a way to transfer into a new one. Oddly, that kind of view is in some ways closer to Democritus’s views than Aristotle’s views in that it pictures the body as a kind of machine. What Aristotle...
Words: 303 - Pages: 2
...Aristotle Essay Adnan Ahmad Compare and contrast Aristotle‘s concept of mind with that of Descartes. Introduction In this essay I attempt to show Aristotle’s concept of soul/mind*[1]. Then I compare and contrast it with Descartes’ concept of mind. In order to understand Aristotle’s concepts of mind, I shall consider Aristotle’s De Anima, in which Aristotle mostly concentrates on soul/mind discussion. I will examine the work of Kahn and Sorabji, who both considered Aristotle’s and Descartes’ philosophy in relation to soul and body problem. In order to compare Aristotle’s concept of mind with Descartes’, I am going to introduce Descartes’ most famous philosophical work which involves the question of mind directly, namely hisMeditations. …………………………. …………………………… ………………………………. If we look at Aristotle’s De Anima we can understand that pre-Aristotle thinkers were already concerned with corporeal and incorporeal problems. For example, for Plato soul was an ‘incorporeal’ and immortal thing, but body corporeal and mortal. The first impression we get from reading De Anima is that the mind and body problem was unsolved. Perhaps the resolved problem didn’t satisfy Aristotle. Aristotle claims that an incorporeal thing cannot exist without a corporeal thing. Aristotle’s new theory for solving soul and body problems makes controversial debate among most post-Aristotelian philosophers. Rene Descartes was one of them who rejected the Aristotelian...
Words: 3631 - Pages: 15
...on body and soul identity. (35) The mind-body problem is an ongoing problem in the philosophy concerning the nature of the relationship between the mind, or consciousness, and the physical world. It questions how our mental thoughts are linked to our physical activities. In religion and philosophy, the soul is considered the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, which is often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self. In theology, the soul is further defined as that part of the individual which is thought to survive the death of the body. However, this view point isn’t taken by all. Viewpoints on the soul can be separated into monism, dualism and materialistic views. Aristotle is a monist believing that the body and soul are not linked, whereas Dawkins is a hard materialist believing that biology is the key. Aristotle defined the soul, or psyche, as the ‘first actuality’ of the body and argued against it having a separate existence from the physical body, unlike other philosophers such as Plato. Aristotle’s belief was that the difference between a live body and a corpse is the presence of the soul. When the soul dies, so does the body. In his book, De Anima he stated that “the soul does not exist without a body and yet is not itself a kind of body. For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body.” In Aristotle’s view, full actualisation of a living thing is its soul. The soul is the form and shape of the body. Aristotle argued that...
Words: 1420 - Pages: 6
...According to Aristotle psychology is the branch of science which investigates the soul and its properties. Aristotle thinks of the soul as a general principle of life. In view of this Aristotle's psychology studies all living beings, and not merely those he regards as having minds, human beings. So, in De Anima, he takes it as his task to provide an account of the life activities of plants and animals, alongside those of humans. This conception by Aristotle as substantiated by his subject matter which claims that Aristotle’s psychology is concerned with giving an account of all those activities which are characteristics of living things, puts his theory in sharp contrast to the dualistic conception of the soul by Plato and modern psychology which focuses on conscious and intentional state. Plato, unlike Aristotle had conjectured that man is a composite of soul which is non-physical and a body which is physical. Plato’s psychology has it that the soul pre-existed the body and it continuous to exist at the demise of the body and that the soul has independent existence of the body. Aristotle, bearing the weaknesses of Plato’s psychology in mind, decides to put in his say on psychology. To this end, this essay seeks to examine critically Aristotle’s contribution to psychology. In this attempt, the essay will examine Aristotle’s soul and body relationship, his treatment of the soul from natural science and the fact the soul does not survive the demise of the body. To start with...
Words: 963 - Pages: 4
...The Soul The concept of the soul is an integral point of concern in the writings of both Plato and Aristotle. Plato views the soul as beyond the body, something that must be released from the grip of mortality. Despite being the student of Plato, Aristotle has his own line of reasoning in regards to the soul, tying the existence of the soul to the existence of life. I will endeavor to show the differences between their thoughts on the soul and its purpose in their philosophical ideology, with the purpose of explaining how Aristotle’s beliefs on the matter of the soul are preferable. One of Plato’s clearest exposition on the soul occurs during the recounting of the death of Socrates, wherein Socrates tells of how “the wise man will want to be ever with him who is better than himself” and further that “the real philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die” (Plato). These statements on death will serve as an opening for the rest the Plato’s theories on the soul; the idea that for true knowledge to be grasped, the soul must be freed from the prison of the body. Plato argues that the soul, as an immortal expression of being, is capable of existing beyond the mortal world. He asserts that the body is a detriment to the pursuit of pure knowledge, that it “is a source of endless trouble to us…” (Plato), leading to the idea that purity can only be achieved once the soul is freed. One of the arguments Plato employs as his reasoning for the idea of the Soul being...
Words: 1173 - Pages: 5
...Philosophy 2500 – Jaden Phan – 7:45 – 9:00 am. The clues of mental phenomena and its mystery Philosophy of human persons is always a difficult question for humankinds. We are the highest form of animals equipped with supreme functions. We not only have soul which is the principle of life, but we are also believed to have mind or consciousness which is much more functional, divine and peculiar to the soul. But often times, we are unaware of what we are having and how our body operates in our daily life. Therefore, many philosophers, psychologists, religionists or even mathematicians, and sciences have been actively trying to define the nature, attributes and affections of our brain/soul. There are many different views and perspectives on the soul and the mind-body problem, such as materialism, physicalism, dualism, mysterianism and so on… So, how exactly do we understand humankinds, and all living beings as a whole? How exactly do we understand our own self? Do both material and immaterial parts exist? If so, how do they relate to each other? Although most of these questions have convincing answers, I believe we are still in the mystery of defining the true nature of mental phenomena. (1) Thomas Nagel said that: “Conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon. It occurs at many levels of animal life, though we cannot be sure of its presence in the simpler organisms...” His main thesis is that fundamentally an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something...
Words: 2479 - Pages: 10
...The soul (psyche) is the structure of the body - its function and organization. This was the word Greeks gave to the animator, the living force in a living being. For Aristotle the psyche controlled reproduction, movement and perception. In contrast Aristotle regarded reason (nous) as the highest form of rationality. He believed that the ‘unmoved mover’ of the universe was a cosmic nous. Aristotle thought that the soul is the Form of the body. The soul is simply the sum total of the operations of a human being. Aristotle believed that there exists a hierarchy of living things – plants only have a vegetative soul, animals are above plants because they have appetites, humans are above animals because it has the power of reason. Aristotle tries to explain his understanding of the distinction between the body and the soul using the analogy of an axe. If an axe were a living thing then its body would be made of wood and metal. However, its soul would be the thing which made it an axe i.e. its capacity to chop. If it lost its ability to chop it would cease to be an axe – it would simply be wood and metal. Another illustration he uses is the eye. If the eye were an animal, sight would have to be its soul. When the eye no longer sees then it is an eye in name only. Likewise, a dead animal is only an animal in name only – it has the same body but it has lost its soul. What is important for Aristotle is the end purpose of something – an axe chops, an eye sees, an animal...
Words: 602 - Pages: 3
... Date: When it comes to the theories about the soul, no one comes close to the right thing than two ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle, they both had strong beliefs about the soul and body. They both had different views on the idea of soul and body, Plato’s way of viewing this was that the soul was one of the most important and yet single parts of a person which had its core values in the moral concept with ideas, he also believed in the afterlife of a being. But this was not the case with Aristotle, who was more interested in the world as a physical structure and its forces that came with it, he was more observant in his theories which were different from Plato’s view that was basically based on the mere functions of the physical things and their performance. In Plato’s philosophy, he was more of a dualist and totally believed in the entity of body and soul and that the two were separate (Schofield, M. (Ed.), 2013). He stated that the soul was just but immaterial and was the property of the world and its many forms, and that it was given to man and ever since it has been trying to return to the world of forms. He explained I that the soul so not mortal and it would never change in any way. In Aristotle views, he tried to show that the body and soul were two and dependent parts that were found in human beings, they both worked together and supported each other, in other words, his views...
Words: 455 - Pages: 2
...Philosophy Dr. Mahoney Aristotle: De Anima The Potential the Know the World Aristotle, throughout his work in De Anima, tries to explain how we perceive and know objects external to us—not within the confines of our body. Aristotle continuously debates the process of perceiving an object with the use of the five senses, and how we understand the object past its’ simple form and gain knowledge of its function. Aristotle is saying that there is a connection between our consciousness and the external object in question, and this is how we understand and know the external object. To understand an object, Aristotle says there is two critical parts of our soul that are separate but combined help us know the object: the perceptive and the intellective (428b30). We use our perceptive power to understand the material and the form of an object, but our intellect is what helps us really know the object and its function. Aristotle devotes a great deal of De Anima to discussing the perceptive power, and its dependence on a bodily form. Aristotle says that we use the five senses to perceive objects; it is not just one perceptive tool such as the eye, but the whole body. “What is true of a part must, indeed, be understood with reference to the whole of a living thing’s body, since the part of perception bears the same relationship to its bodily part as the whole perception bears to the whole body insofar as it is a perceptive body” (412 b20). According to Aristotle, perception occurs when...
Words: 868 - Pages: 4
...Nicomachean Ethics By: Mikah Friesen In this paper, I will reconstruct Aristotle's arguments in Book 2, chapter 5 of his Nicomachean Ethics. In this chapter, Aristotle tries to determine what a virtue is and continues as follows. He assumes that virtue is something in the soul and that there are only three kinds of things in the soul. He then gives several lesser arguments intended to show that virtue is not equal with the first two of the three kinds of things in the soul. He then concludes that virtue is identical with the third kind of thing in the soul. I will argue that Aristotle's arguments in this chapter are, with only minor changes noted below, effective. Aristotle begins this chapter by saying that "we must inquire into what virtue is" (1105b19) and at its end states that virtue is a state (1106a12). So the summary of the whole theory is: Virtue is a state. In the first paragraph, Aristotle makes the resulting dispute that sets his approach for the rest of the chapter. (1) Things found in the soul are of only three types: emotions, capacities, and characteristics. (Evidence, 1105b19-20) (2) Virtue is a kind of thing found in the soul. (Implied or complete evidence) Therefore, (3) virtue is a passion, a capacity, or a state. (1105b20-21) Aristotle here only obviously declares (1) and (3) (and note that he gestures that (3) is an assumption that he draws ("since" . . . "must be", 1105b19 and 20)). But (2) is a clear...
Words: 1123 - Pages: 5
...Human Function Aristotle thinks that the life that is the optimal way of pursuing happiness is the life of rational activity in accordance to virtue. He arrives at this conclusion in his book the Nicomachean Ethics. There Aristotle says that it is by surveying human beings and determining what they are and what their function is that we will better be able to determine how they should behave and how they will be happy. Aristotle believes that the good of man can be defined by determining the function proper to man. Function is activity that leads to certain goods. Aristotle brings up the saddle maker, whose function is making saddles and the flute player whose good or function is making music. All professions have some type of function. One example that we are more familiarize with would be a...
Words: 598 - Pages: 3
...Tristan Yarbrough PHI 101-802 Unit 1: Reflection Paper Due March 6th, 2017 Page 1 I. Aristotle Aristotle believed that the soul and body aren’t separable, your soul is the structure of the body. The soul runs throughout the whole body, it is the function of the body it is what it does for your body. It controls your movement, perception, and reproduction. He believed the soul and body were two different aspects of the same thing. Aristotle didn’t believe in reincarnation, he believed that the soul was the form of the body and could not exist without it. He believed while you were living on earth your soul was the form and the body was matter, together it was considered a compound. Your soul ran...
Words: 1634 - Pages: 7
...Nature, Knowledge, and Being Aristotle was a realist and a scientific thinker. He dealt with attempting to explain the world around him, using evidence that could be derived from the senses. Unlike his predecessors, Aristotle organized his thought more collectively. He described the being, relating to both living things and inanimate objects, as the state of essential substance, one definite characteristic. According to Aristotle, that being is changed by any number of things, including growth, modification, destruction, quality, even negation. In addition to that beings in Aristotle's theory can be primary while still having secondary caracteristics to describe the “that”(i.e. What is that? A baby deer”. Unlike plato where a being is refered to as a “form” and “this”. Aristotle's view on knowledge, and the attainment of such wisdom, also differed from his predecessors. In addition to that his views on the soul were very different from those that came before him. Aristotle believed that the soul was a part of the body's make up that did not live on after death. However, he beleieved that the soul was the essence of the being that is created through the living experiences of that human. For example, a good person would be said to have a good soul, and after death the good soul does not move on to a paradise called heaven, but it rather dies along with the body. According to our notes and Aristotle's text on the soul (psuchē),” the soul is the form of the body's matter...
Words: 1411 - Pages: 6
...or after while physicia means physical which refers to the works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity (Statile, et al. 2006). Therefore, it is literally after physics. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the understanding and the explanation of the fundamentals of Nature of being and the world (Statile, et al. 2006). It seeks to investigate the principles of reality; state of things as they exist and whether or not they are observable or comprehensible. Aristoterian hylomorphism Aristotelian hylomorphism is a philosophical theory that was developed by Aristotle, which analyzes substances into matter and form. Aristotle theory seeks to understand the inherent quality in matter that a substance conceives as forms (Statile, et al. 2006). Aristotle’s hylomorphism theory, therefore, seeks to relate matter and form, soul and body and substantial form, accidental form and prime matter. This theory has given rise to many debates by scholars as according to this theory; it is workable especially in proximate and non proximate matter. According to the definition of matter and form hylomorphism theory, is not workable with regards to body and soul. Matter and form According to Aristotle, the fundamental question is not “Is X matter?” but rather “what is the matter of X?” (Statile, et al. 2006). Aristotle, therefore, defines the matter of X as its constituents. According to Aristotle hylomorphism theory, something can be matter without being physical. The theory...
Words: 2589 - Pages: 11
...I. THE THEORY OF THE IDEAS AND PLATO’S ONTOLOGY I. 1. The ontological dualism The theory of the Ideas is the base of Plato’s philosophy: the Ideas are not only the real objects ontologically speaking, but they are the authentically objects of knowledge epistemologically speaking. From the point of view of ethics and politics, they are the foundation of the right behaviour, and anthropologically speaking they are the base of Plato’s dualism and they even allow him demonstrate the immortality of the soul. Plato defends a clear ontological dualism in which there are two types of realities or worlds: the sensible world and the intelligible world or, as he calls it, the world of the Ideas. The Sensible World is the world of individual realities, and so is multiple and constantly changing, is the world of generation and destruction; is the realm of the sensible, material, temporal and space things. On the contrary, the Intelligible World is the world of the universal, eternal and invisible realities called Ideas (or "Forms"), which are immutable and do not change because they are not material, temporal or space. Ideas can be understood and known; they are the authentic reality. The Ideas or Forms are not just concepts or psychic events of our minds; they do exist as objective and independent beings out of our consciences. They are also the origin of sensible things, but although they are the authentic beings, Plato, unlike Parmenides of Elea, do not completely...
Words: 11604 - Pages: 47
