De Anima moves away from the more general considerations of being and becoming that we have been dealing with and focuses on the nature of living beings. How does Aristotle categorize the different types of soul? Is his understanding of the relationship between the body and soul consistent with his metaphysics? Do you, personally, find anything surprising here? Which insights do you take to be the most important and why? Clue us in to what you're thinking.
4 comments:
I find it interesting that some philosophers thought the soul was made of different elements or of all of them. I have never had thought like this, what the soul is made of? My first impression of this idea was confusion. The thought of the soul being made of fire just seemed silly to me. But then I thought why not. Who am I to say what the soul is and what the soul is not? For some reason this idea sparked some thought in me. To be a philosopher you really need to have an open mind. I thought I had an open mind but then again I never thought the soul was made of the elements. I’m not saying I agree with this or disagree, I’m just saying that this idea has never crossed my mind. What the soul is made of? This is a difficult question, and something I will not fully understand. All I’m trying to say I guess I respect them for thinking outside the box.
In De Anima, Aristotle categorizes the soul into three different levels. He states plants as having the lowest level of soul, animals other than human beings as having a higher level, and human beings as having on the greatest level of soul due to their ability for reason. According to Aristotle, the human soul is based on our biological nature a human beings, and our unique capacity for emotions and thought. “We must maintain, further, that the soul is also the cause of the living body as the original source of local movement. The power of locomotion is not found, however, in all living things. But change of quality and change of quantity are also due to the soul. Sensation is held to be a qualitative alteration, and nothing except what has soul in it is capable of sensation.” Aristotle’s ideas about the relationship between body and soul are consistent with the metaphysics. In De Anima, Aristotle states that the body is developed before the soul, which coincides with the metaphysics’ idea that the soul consists of the substance that created it; not the quantity of the body which is the main focus of society today. Aristotle concludes: “The problem might also be raised, what is that which unifies the elements into a soul? The elements correspond, it would appear, to the matter; what unites them, whatever it is, is the supremely important factor.” Like the metaphysics, Aristotle focus’ on the final cause, instead of the individual parts and individuality.
I liked how in the beginning he talked about how there is no way for the soul to act or be acted on without the body... there is a necessary balance between the two- that they cannot exist without each other... can they? Does soul exist before finding a shell of a body (hence Aristotle's depiction of knowledge as retrieving things we already know?)?
Fort things to exist... they cannot be only material, nor can they be just a definition- but a combination of the two (ex:for a "house" to exist...)
Later- when he talks about "respiration as the characteristic mark of life"... currently- this is not the case, as there is such a heated ethical battle about life- those in permanent vegetative states, they continue to breathe...
I had never thought of what the soul was made of... is it air, fire etc? I don't know what my soul is made out of. And after the list of men and their beliefs... I wonder if there actually is a definition- can we ever know? and isn't each man, in his own way right about his idea of "soul?"
I thought the last part of Part 2 was extremely interesting- as it focused on the derivatives of select words- such as fire and breathing.
I think I agree with the idea that the soul is the cause of a living body. I think this is interesting- yet I cannot define soul...
And is there, really, such thing as absolute right and absolute wrong- as in Part 3 Book 3, when he writes about "true and false" ... I understand that fact does exist- but as far as opinions go- based on the different backgrounds of everybody- can not two people look and experience the same thing but still have true- and factual experiences even if they contradict each other?
There was a lot of content in this reading- picking out specifics was difficult... I think my mind is still digesting this all...
I found the three levels of the soul to be the most interesting aspect of this reading. This logically makes sense. Plants would have the lowest soul, as they cannot be aware of their surroundings. Animals, on the contrary, have the ability to understand their surroundings. yet it is interesting to point out that since Aristotle, we have learned that animals have the ability to reason too. So what would that say about the third level of the soul? If a bonobo notices it is easier to steal a banana from the person with its backed turn, it shows that the bonobo is aware of our level of consciousness at that given time.
It is interesting how scientific research has proven some of the early great thinkers wrong. it only leads to more questions for us to ask.
Post a Comment