Thursday, October 23, 2008
From 10/22: It's all about Soul
For Aristotle, all living things - be they plants, animals, or humans - have a soul, albeit in different forms. Do you think that Aristotle does well in making these distinctions or do you think they leave something to be desired? Certainly, modern biologists still deal with classifications. Might they take issue with some of the lines that Aristotle draws in the proverbial sand, particularly when it comes to defining human beings, or might they more or less agree with Aristotle's analysis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Trying to categorize anything is like trying to capture actual motion in a set of pictures. However many or however few, there will always be moments of time which exist outside the set of photos and, thus, things which are unable to be accurately categorized. I think Aristotle does as well of a job in his classifications as is possible for a person of his time. Another point raised in class which caught my attention, and which was initially raised by group 5, was on the topic of desires. They spoke of desires not always being right- and that sometimes desires can lead to whats wrong or sometimes these desires themselves can be wrong. How can desires be wrong? How can what is natural and innate within us be wrong? What if everything contrary to desires is actually wrong? I think it is only in society (the artificial world) that natural desires can be seen and understood as "wrong." Desires are always right in nature, are they not?
In De Anima, Aristotle categorizes three different types of the soul-nutritive (vegetative), animal, and rational. I think Aristotle does well in distinguishing between these different types of souls, going back to his idea of the "unmoved mover" to do so. Aristotle clearly states the functions of each of the souls, for example: the function of vegetative souls is generation and nourishment. Personally, the idea of the "unmoved mover" helps to better distinguish between the three. A "lower" level of the soul cannot be changed or "moved" itslef, but is used to help, change, or "move" a higher level. For example, a plant on the vegetative level of the soul nourishes itself and cannot be nourished by a higher level of the soul, but is used TO nourish higher levels of the soul such as animal and/or rational. "Moreover, nourishment is affected by the thing nourished, whereas the thing nourished is unaffected by the nourishment-just as matter is affected by the carpenter, who is unaffected by it and merely changes from inactivity to activity." (pp. 416a, lines 35-3) Modern biologists, though, might tke issue with his generalizations of human beings, saying what ultimately moves them is desire. This is a very philisophical approach to the classification, which would leave something to be desired on a scientific level.
What’s the difference between humans and animals? Many people believe that humans are superior and have souls while animals and plants do not. Why should humans be the only ones to be everlasting through the soul? Animals and plants are still living. Animals feel pain and have emotion just as people do. When you scold a dog for peeing on the rug it tucks it tail between its legs and walks away because of shame. When a cat crawls into your lap and starts to purr, isn’t that happiness. Animals deserve more credit than we give them. Chimps can learn sign language, dogs can smell and hear things humans cannot, and most animals will notice a change in weather and know when a storm is coming. Many animals can do things humans can’t, so how are people so superior? Is it possible for everything living to have an energy source within it we call the soul? Maybe people have the wrong idea about the soul.
The battle between human reason and human desire that Aristotle touches on in De Anima was, for me, very reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile. When I realized that, it further blurred the line for me between animal and human. I realized, that we, as a race, are not much better at making decisons then animals. we tend to follow our imediate desires (like animals) in every way that (1) doesn't affect our future financial security (2) doesn't effect our future lively hood. even our future lively hood is sometimes compromised for tobacco, drugs, alcohol and preconscious lifestyles. It seams that our gift of reason has, in most cases, imprisoned us instead of freeing us. for we now come up with reasons for enslaving ourselves in desires, instead of truly reasoning their consequences.
are we better then animals, at their level, or worse off (in terms of happiness)?
Post a Comment