Critically compare Aristotle’s and Richard Dawkins’ views 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 the soul is not a substance like matter because matter can be many different things, but what gives matter its shape and function is its Form. By suggesting that the soul is the Form of the body, Aristotle means that the soul gives form to the matter which is the body.

In just the same way that a marble statue is physically a block