7 ms·

Modern physics and biology really do not conflict with the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of the soul but only describe in further detail the opera

Modern physics and biology really do not conflict with the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of the soul but only describe in further detail the operations of the body. The immateriality of the intellect is included there. Aquinas would say it is only the intellect that can understand a universal concept, which is itself immaterial. This is a qualitative, not a quantitative difference from the capabilities of AI. It is really the reductionists who are guilty of 'woo' here.

bloaf 1y ago
I won't deny that there are watered down versions of the Thomistic soul that are agnostic with respect to the physicality or super-naturality of things like digestion, but Aquinas himself is quite clear: > The lowest of the operations of the soul is that which is performed by a corporeal organ, and by virtue of a corporeal quality. Yet this transcends the operation of the corporeal nature; because the movements of bodies are caused by an extrinsic principle, while these operations are from an intrinsic principle; for this is common to all the operations of the soul; since every animate thing, in some way, moves itself. Such is the operation of the "vegetative soul"; for digestion, and what follows, is caused instrumentally by the action of heat, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4). That is to say: we cannot explain things like digestion "naturally" as we would require an "external principle" that does not exist for living things, instead because they "move themselves" they require a super-natural explanation, i.e. the soul. Indeed, Aquinas puts the following as a potential object, which he rebuts > Objection 1: It would seem that the parts of the vegetative soul are not fittingly described—namely, the nutritive, augmentative, and generative. For these are called "natural" forces. But the powers of the soul are above the natural forces. Therefore we should not class the above forces as powers of the soul. > On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 2,4) that the operations of this soul are "generation, the use of food," and (cf. De Anima iii, 9) "growth."
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Thomism is very overrated, people seem to lean on it because it sounds smart, and maybe it was for its time, but it relies entirely on Aristotelianism, and such systematic metaphysical philosophies are only as good as the physics they base themselves on, and Aristotle's physics were garbage (not entirely his fault).
- geye1234 1y ago
  The word 'soul' is used by Aquinas and Aristotle in a very different way from how modern people (from Descartes onward) use it, and this is the cause of an enormous amount of confusion. Edward Feser's book Aquinas is a good starting point for understanding it.
  - bloaf 1y ago
    I am quite familiar with Ed Feser, I refer to his writings often. Indeed, Aquinas is using the soul the way that modern scientists use "dark matter". Except where the modern problem is unexpected rates of universal expansion, Aquinas' problem is vitalism-qua-"why are living things different than non-living things." Once we abandoned vitalism, the conception of the soul must therefore also change. But in my reading of history, there is no clear break; no "before" and "after". Aquinas' definitions and concepts were never really abandoned, the church just retreated from the bailey of "the soul explains all the features of living matter including how it moves around" to the motte of "the soul explains intellect/reason/will since thats the only thing left thats not obviously physical." Indeed, you will see that Aquinas' language suffuses most official Catholic teaching on the soul, even though the official teachings are usually a slightly generalized version of Aquinas's concrete assertions.
    - 90s_dev 1y ago
      > you will see that Aquinas' language suffuses most official Catholic teaching on the soul I wish I could find the document, but about 2 years ago, the Vatican released an official document explaining that Rome had been using certain philosophical traditions, including Thomism, in its official documents and councils for a few hundred years, because it was convenient, yet without making it official to any degree. I was so happy when it came out because it vindicated what I had been telling all my Thomist friends, that Thomism is not official Catholic doctrine.
      - geye1234 1y ago
        https://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/our-patron/popes-st-thomas https://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/our-patron/popes-st-thom... Metaphysics is not some interchangeable bolt-on to theology, like the parts of a vacuum cleaner. If you change metaphysics, you change theology. Nominalism led directly to Protestantism, for example. Hume and Kant led directly to theological modernism (and heavily influenced personalism). Etc.
- svieira 1y ago
  And yet vegetative life stops digesting when the plant dies. The mechanics are all still there, but we can not make them continue. To take an example dear to HN, we can't make the old American Chestnut trees "start" again once they have died.
- EventH- 1y ago
  First, the 'On the contrary...' in the article is not a rebuttal to the specific objection but a quote from an authority (Aristotle) supporting his general position. His specific rebuttal distinguishing the senses of 'natural' is later in that article. Second, the soul is not, on the Aristotelian-Thomistic thesis, a "supernatural" being, as an angel or God would be since (though not material themselves) they properly belong to the material order. So these are natural, not supernatural explanations, which nevertheless go beyond the purely material (corporeal) and so are 'above' them. In the quoted article, he means that these characteristic activites of living things are not simply reducible to those of the material parts themselves, since the living thing possesses the principle of its own organization/growth/reproduction etc. that non-living material does not, so something beyond the non-living 'corporeal' order must be operating.
- agensaequivocum 1y ago
  Aquinas is explaining the formal cause i.e, the soul. The physical particulars of how digestion work would be the agent and material causes. He wouldn't deny that they exist. Modern science erroneously disregards formal and final causality.

bloaf 1y ago

I won't deny that there are watered down versions of the Thomistic soul that are agnostic with respect to the physicality or super-naturality of things like digestion, but Aquinas himself is quite clear: > The lowest of the operations of the soul is that which is performed by a corporeal organ, and by virtue of a corporeal quality. Yet this transcends the operation of the corporeal nature; because the movements of bodies are caused by an extrinsic principle, while these operations are from an intrinsic principle; for this is common to all the operations of the soul; since every animate thing, in some way, moves itself. Such is the operation of the "vegetative soul"; for digestion, and what follows, is caused instrumentally by the action of heat, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 4). That is to say: we cannot explain things like digestion "naturally" as we would require an "external principle" that does not exist for living things, instead because they "move themselves" they require a super-natural explanation, i.e. the soul. Indeed, Aquinas puts the following as a potential object, which he rebuts > Objection 1: It would seem that the parts of the vegetative soul are not fittingly described—namely, the nutritive, augmentative, and generative. For these are called "natural" forces. But the powers of the soul are above the natural forces. Therefore we should not class the above forces as powers of the soul. > On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Anima ii, 2,4) that the operations of this soul are "generation, the use of food," and (cf. De Anima iii, 9) "growth."

90s_dev 1y ago
Thomism is very overrated, people seem to lean on it because it sounds smart, and maybe it was for its time, but it relies entirely on Aristotelianism, and such systematic metaphysical philosophies are only as good as the physics they base themselves on, and Aristotle's physics were garbage (not entirely his fault).
geye1234 1y ago
The word 'soul' is used by Aquinas and Aristotle in a very different way from how modern people (from Descartes onward) use it, and this is the cause of an enormous amount of confusion. Edward Feser's book Aquinas is a good starting point for understanding it.
- bloaf 1y ago
  I am quite familiar with Ed Feser, I refer to his writings often. Indeed, Aquinas is using the soul the way that modern scientists use "dark matter". Except where the modern problem is unexpected rates of universal expansion, Aquinas' problem is vitalism-qua-"why are living things different than non-living things." Once we abandoned vitalism, the conception of the soul must therefore also change. But in my reading of history, there is no clear break; no "before" and "after". Aquinas' definitions and concepts were never really abandoned, the church just retreated from the bailey of "the soul explains all the features of living matter including how it moves around" to the motte of "the soul explains intellect/reason/will since thats the only thing left thats not obviously physical." Indeed, you will see that Aquinas' language suffuses most official Catholic teaching on the soul, even though the official teachings are usually a slightly generalized version of Aquinas's concrete assertions.
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    > you will see that Aquinas' language suffuses most official Catholic teaching on the soul I wish I could find the document, but about 2 years ago, the Vatican released an official document explaining that Rome had been using certain philosophical traditions, including Thomism, in its official documents and councils for a few hundred years, because it was convenient, yet without making it official to any degree. I was so happy when it came out because it vindicated what I had been telling all my Thomist friends, that Thomism is not official Catholic doctrine.
    - geye1234 1y ago
      https://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/our-patron/popes-st-thomas https://www.thomasaquinas.edu/about/our-patron/popes-st-thom... Metaphysics is not some interchangeable bolt-on to theology, like the parts of a vacuum cleaner. If you change metaphysics, you change theology. Nominalism led directly to Protestantism, for example. Hume and Kant led directly to theological modernism (and heavily influenced personalism). Etc.
svieira 1y ago
And yet vegetative life stops digesting when the plant dies. The mechanics are all still there, but we can not make them continue. To take an example dear to HN, we can't make the old American Chestnut trees "start" again once they have died.
EventH- 1y ago
First, the 'On the contrary...' in the article is not a rebuttal to the specific objection but a quote from an authority (Aristotle) supporting his general position. His specific rebuttal distinguishing the senses of 'natural' is later in that article. Second, the soul is not, on the Aristotelian-Thomistic thesis, a "supernatural" being, as an angel or God would be since (though not material themselves) they properly belong to the material order. So these are natural, not supernatural explanations, which nevertheless go beyond the purely material (corporeal) and so are 'above' them. In the quoted article, he means that these characteristic activites of living things are not simply reducible to those of the material parts themselves, since the living thing possesses the principle of its own organization/growth/reproduction etc. that non-living material does not, so something beyond the non-living 'corporeal' order must be operating.
agensaequivocum 1y ago
Aquinas is explaining the formal cause i.e, the soul. The physical particulars of how digestion work would be the agent and material causes. He wouldn't deny that they exist. Modern science erroneously disregards formal and final causality.