Philosophical Psychology I

(Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Class Notes
(Taken at a Pontifical University)

First Lesson:

What is the Place of Psychology in the field of sciences?

In the “old days” Natural Sciences were divided into Logic (required discipline for Philosophy, because it speaks
about the rules of our mind / the laws of reasoning one has to use to arrive at the truth) and Philosophy.

Philosophy was divided into speculative (dealing with the object for the sake of knowledge) and practical (acquired
for the sake of operation) Philosophy.

Speculative Philosophy is divided into three aspects according to the degree of excellence of the object
investigated. This degree is measured by the ability of the object to be separated from a material component / to be
abstracted from matter. This separation exists on two levels: Definition and existence.
Natural Philosophy has the lowest degree of perfection, because it deals with objects
totally dependent on matter both in definition and in existence.
Mathematics have a higher degree of perfection because they deal with objects existing
in material condition but defines the reality of those objects separated from
matter.
Metaphysics have the highest degree of perfection, because they do not depend on
matter and can be taught without matter existing.

Practical Philosophy is divided into Ethics and Art/Poetics ()

Metaphysics is the science of Being. It is divided into

Ontology: talks about Being as Being
Epistemology: deals with our relation to Being
Natural Theology: because Metaphysics have to examine the first causes of Being

Mathematics are concerned with quantified Being. Look at reality from a quantitative point of view

Natural Philosophy investigates the world of nature, the material world. Nature here means the world of beings that
can be recognized by our senses and that move through time and space. Natural Philosophy is divided into
Cosmology: dealing with things that need an external cause of movement
Psychology: dealing with beings that in themselves have the principle of movement
Psychology is the part of Natural Philosophy that deals with beings that are capable of self-motion. The principle
inner cause of movement has been given the name “soul”. So “soul” here is equivalent to the capacity of self-
movement

What is the Object of Psychology?

Object: from lat. obicere: “to put in front of” = the thing put in front of our eyes in order to examine it.

The Object has to be divided into the objectum quod (What are we studying?) and the objectum quo (“Lumen sub
quo”: the light under which we examine the object / the specific point of view).

The objectum quod has to be divided into the material quod (a particular thing investigated in general, that is looked
at from different points of view (quo)) and the formal quod (the specification of that particular thing)

In ancient Philosophy the Material Object of Psychology has been the Soul (1st essay on the soul by Aristotle “
”). The Soul is a principle of life / of organized bodies that potentially have life, of material beings which are
animated. The object of Psychology was every thing that was alive: natural, physical, corporal realities with an
inherent principal of movement (plants, animals, humans).
In St. Thomas’ time the focus of what is the object of Psychology shifted from the soul in general to the human being.
For Thomas the main object of study were humans, while for Aristotle it was the totality of living beings. This limitation
was made complete by modern philosophers, because now the objects of Psychology are human beings exclusively.
While humans are indeed special they still incorporate vegetative and animal aspects. Modern Psychology has as its
object only the conscious or sub-conscious life of human beings (due to Descartes, who made a strong separation
between spirit and matter/dualism of Humans).

From the Material point of view our Objectum Quod is the Human Person (H)
From the Formal point of view our Objectum Quod is the Human Soul (S)

Human Person understood as someone with a soul, someone who has a principle of life.

Acts of Human Persons hint to the faculties/powers/capacities (if I speak it indicates a f/p/c of speech) which again
lead to the source (soul) / principle of Human Life.

Task is to study human acts and f/p/c’s in relation to the soul.

The object of investigation is looked at from four different points of view:

Pre-scientific Psychology: It is purely empirical. It is a kind of knowledge of our
behavior that we ourselves acquire without being Psychologists, a knowledge
gained by observation of everyday life; the aim is practical, one cannot live
without these observations, because they help us to orientate, to improve our acts,
to improve our relationships with others. This knowledge is based on individual
observations, it is linked to an individual, it is not scientific because it does not
have a universal aspect.
Literary Psychology: An analysis of characters by writers which goes deeper than the
observation of everyday life, because it creates archetypes of characters. The aim
is not scientific but aesthetic, the character is immersed in a specific situation, so
again no universal aspect.
Scientific Psychology: The point of view taken by most modern Psychologists
Philosophic Psychology: Approach from a philosophical point of view

Careful: The alternative names “empiric” for “scientific” and “rational” for “philosophic” are wrong, because they imply
that scientific psychology creates a statement “a posteriori”, by making reference to experiences, while philosophical
psychology works “a priori” and has no connection to everyday life.

Second Lesson:

- THE NOTES FOR THIS LESSON ARE NOT MINE AND THEREFORE LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT -

Psychology (object of study = man)

What are we studying? A human person seen from the point of view of someone who possesses a soul.
We are studying what is essential for the human person.
We are looking for how are we acting? What can we do?
Actions - power - SOUL

Difference between scientific and philosophy psychology.

Scientific psychology = empirical psychology (MODERN, not correct)
Philosophy psychology = rational psychology (MODERN, not correct)

Empiric - based on experience, experimental

Rational - something based totally on contemplating/thinking

Empiric - absolutely based exclusively on experience a posteriori

Rational - something completely based on thought a priori

The difference between science and philosophy:

EXPERIENCE AND THINKING

Material differences
Both imply experience and reasoning of such experience

Philosophical psychology is predominantly speculative

Philosophy’s methodology has 2 methods:

Phenomenological
Science of what appears in front of us
Looking for the essence of this, what appears to us
Ontological
Looks at human person as a being
What kind of beings are we?

Aim of philosophical psychology is a theoretical one.

Philosophy of Psychology - old discipline
Scientific Psychology - modern

Both disciplines are studying mobile, corporal being.

How do we act and what capacities for acting do we have?

Scientific psychology tries to understand the human person in all the manifestations of the capacities/characteristics
we have. But it is limited to characteristic accidents. Tries to quantify our actions.

Whereas Philosophical psychology goes a step further. It analyzes acts and powers of human person for a good end -
to arrive to the cause - the first cause (principle).

Science is peripheral in its ambitions.

Philosophical Psychology is much more central - goes to the heart of problem.
Science oftentimes looks at what a person does and not what we are.
Philosophy has a broader regard for the human person.
Philosophical psychology is actually based on public experience; is more observational; more reflective.

This is mainly a course on Thomistic psychology.

History of the term “soul” and its meaning - we can trace its origins (Plato, Aristotle) .
Homer (7th century BC) - human person was unable to perceive itself as totality
Human person was described in two different ways: alive/dead
The terms body and soul were only used when reference was made to dead people.
During someone’s life, there was no distinction made between body/soul. The reality then was one-dimensional (no
distinction made between corporal or spiritual reality) .

Psyche - soul (refers to act of breathing)

Soma - body

Vocabulary for living persons:

Melea - members, parts
Hrios - surface, skin (work indicates boundaries between me and external world)
Demas - structure, figure
Fimos - an organ of emotions, sentiments, passion (linked with will/mind/reason)
Frin - an organ of imagination

Soul - translation of latin word ANIMA

Which in itself takes roots from Greek word which means anemos (wind, breath)
Animus

In homer’s time, we see that fimos dies with the person.

At the moment of death, fimos ceases to exist.

In the 6th century BC psyche assumes fimos.

Before Plato another revolution took place.

Dualistic vision (war between body & soul)

Who is responsible for this?

Orphic tradition/movement. Orphism: We do not know well how it came to exist but it’s clear that in the 6h century BC.

Characteristics of Orphism :
- Understanding of human person is identified with the soul (I am identified with a soul)
- Necessity of ascetic practices (mortification)
- Founder (myth) Orpheus
- Orphism doesn’t care for the body

The soul is seen as a divine reality. This is the focal point of Orphic belief. Belongs to the family of God.
Belief in Demon: A voice which tells us what to do/not to do.
Soul is believed to be active when the body is not.
The activity of soul and body do not go together.
The immortal soul is only the human person.
Body imprisons the soul.
Body is grave/prison.

(Difficulties to describe ourselves as a unified being, soul and body were only applied to dead persons, living persons
had lots of terms, mostly used psyche and organs of our conscious acts on the level of our emotions and our body.
Not yet linked with a principle of life as such. Principle of life (soul) only connected to a dead person. Differentiation
between psyche-soul and fimos. Between 6th and 7th century transfer from fimos to soul happened. Orphism religious
movement, introduction of dualistic version of human being: Body bad, soul caught in there: Important characteristics
of this movement
a.) Soul is interpreted as a divine reality in us. Human person has in itself a principle of live of divine origin. Big novelty
that orphic tradition brings.
b.) Soul is contrary to the body, therefore it is truly itself when the body is asleep, because then we do not have power
over our acting. We are dealing here with a concept of the soul where all human dimensions are not part of what is
the soul
c.) Dualist conception of human being. Marked the occidental civilization. Orphism has seen soul as immortal reality
and body as mortal reality. Soul preexists the body and doesn’t stop existing once body dead. Body is negative reality.
Prison and grave of what the human person is, the soul.)

Third Lesson:

Orphic movement had own mythological explanation for contradiction between soul and body. Explanation tries to
explain why there’s good and bad in our live.
According to orphic tradition, orphic theogonists, the human person came to be like this: The main God Zeus had a
son, Dionysius. The divine world was also inhabited by evil gods (Titans e.g.). Titans killed Dionysius and ate him.
Zeus got angry and killed Titans, burned them up with the rest of his beloved son and threw the ashes down to earth.
From these ashes humans came to be. That’s why there is a tendency towards good and evil at the same time,
because we came out of the ashes that are mixture of what is divine and evil. Fall of the soul under the body was
thought of by Orphists as punishment for original sin. Live on earth should consist in an effort to liberation of ourselves
(souls) from body. Soul has ability to liberate itself in ascetic life, against the body, which is the principle of evil in us.
Mortification of the body, of all that belongs to the carnal dimension. Different practices: Participation in different rites,
being a member of a certain type of life with different ascetic rules. One of the rites characteristic for orphic movement
were ceremonies of initiation during which there was an imitation of killing and dismemberment of dyonisus to bring
back memory of what happened in the beginning. Orphic movement with all theoretical explanations of nature has in
itself a very irrational element. Important element of orphic movement is particular kind of live together with magical
rites.

Characteristic to Orphic religion is Mme. Sikorskis theory of the migration of the soul. Notion that soul has many
different incarnations came to philosophy from religion. It was a priest who gave the ideas to philosophers as such.
Mme S had a moral meaning/significance, because it was explaining a lot of problems we had in order to explain why
evil happens to innocent people. Theory of Migration of Souls explained that. Because in the present life the soul by
means of the body in which is in incarnated has to suffer for the sins committed in previous life. According to the
Orphics we have in this life to suffer exactly the kind of evil we have committed in the previous life. Not a very good
explanation, because it sets in motion an endless chain of bad deeds.

Reward and suffering in the beyond only in a very restricted sense before. With Orphics we have the new idea that
punishment and reward becomes a destiny for every human person/human soul. Orphics brings a new concept of
death/dying. Who knows if living ones aren’t dead and v.v. Here is the idea that death is natural and good and life is
nothing but an exercise in dying. Living is to learn how to die. (Plato will take on an orphic vision of the soul, but will
get out of determinism). End of 6th century in Greece concept of soul as principle of live was already well-established.

First philosophical tradition which is still of the orphic tradition is Pythagorean school. First philosopher who taught
the doctrine of re-incarnation. Soul is constrained to be reincarnated many times because it has to make up for guilt.
For Pyth re-inc. can happen even in animals. Pyth reformed the Orphs essentially in such a way that it was possible to
live this philosophy properly. Change of God, who is a patron both for Pyth and Orphs. Not Dyonisios but Apollo.
Because Apollo was the God to whom mind and science were consecrated. Very important point. Because difference
between orphism as religion and Pyth school is in the means of purification. Understanding of soul similar, means of
purification different. With the Orphs still by means of ritual celebrations, magical chants etc. In Pyth by means of
science, philosophy as the means of purification of soul. Plato and Sokrates will be followers of that. Soul is immortal
for Pyth, pre-exists the body, continues to exist after bucket kicked, body corruptible, incorruptible soul. Body is prison
for soul, therefore soul has to be purified from it. Up to here in line with Orphs. But then means of purification are
changing. Magical site lost. Purification done mainly by science. Pyth school had precise way of life. Movement where
a group of disciples lived together according to particular rules. How was purification of soul done? Different degrees:
1st degree of purification was concerned with music, because Pyths had concept of universe and soul. They saw the
universe as a harmony of numbers. Soul was understood as a harmony in itself. Cleaning or purification in the first
place had to consist in increasing harmony, so music was chosen. Music as such was first element in all the degrees
of the sciences the disciples of Pyth were learning, because acc. to Pyth it lead to the theory of numbers. Sound
coming out of different numbers. So introductory element to numbers and geometry in itself. Novices in Pyth school
had in the first period to listen in silence, without asking question. Was considered most difficult thing to learn. Having
grasped that, they were allowed to ask questions about music, geometry, arithmetic. Then came the time to study the
whole nature of the cosmos. The speaker was behind a carton, teacher was not seen. Students were just hearing the
voice. In a symbolical way this was an expression of the fact that knowledge is most important (anonymity of
contributor, not who, but what!). Letting doctrines out was forbidden, but one disciple obviously talked. Difference to
Orphs in the means of purification of the soul. For the first time we have a term appearing: theoretical
live/contemplative life. Pyth life sought purification in contemplation of truth.

Still in the 6th cent there appears a spiritualistic movement (improper use of term) in regard to comprehension of the
soul. A group of the first philosophers were called naturalists: “What is the first principle (archae)? From where do all
things come?” Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus = Water, Apeiron (infinite and indefinite reality), Air, Fire
(best image that speaks about constant movement). Asking about first causes different answers were given. Answers
are linked to the answers they gave to what is the soul. Soul understood as animating, governing and sustaining our
life. For each of the first philosophers the soul was linked to their element. Soul is internal principle of movement,
prime mover of our live, a principle of movement. They could not speak of immortality of souls, because our principle
of live was just part of a universal principle of live as such. Immortality of soul is always in impersonal terms. On
naturalistic basis it was impossible to conceive an immortal soul, neither a soul in the Orphic tradition. The only one,
who was slightly inclined toward Orphism is Heraclitus (Movement: pantha rhe, tantum fluit). Expresses some
thoughts going beyond his three predecessors. However he identified the nature of the soul with the nature of the
archae (fire). By means of the soul in us is preserved the divine fire. Soul as such is fire. The dryer the soul is, the
more perfect it is, because it is opposed to water. Humidity terminates the soul (Drunkards). Pantha rhe also goes for
the soul: Soul is fire: Has a permanent tendency to escape from us, comes from outside the body, in order to
conserve, we have to breathe, because fire enters us by breathing and leaves us this way. Now we have the simple
elements, which come from the archae. Such an element is not a unity in itself. Naturalistic way of thinking, but still
there’s an Orph influence, because he speaks about/uses words like “death of the soul, extension to infinity”. “Death
of soul” makes no sense if we refer to a bodily element. He tries to speak about something that does not involve
space or extension. When he speaks about such a soul and its life he uses Orph terms. “Life of the mortal one (body)
is the death of immortal one (soul) and v.v.” Heraclitus believed also in some kind of immortality of the soul including
punishment and reward after death.

Parmenides: (Metaphysics, Onthology) For him the main problem is the problem of being as such. Created a certain
crisis important for us. Indication for two different categories of man. Those who are asleep and those who are awake.
Means: Sleepers walk like in a dream, follow the common opinion about reality. People awake follow the path of truth.
Those who are asleep follow an obedience that is wrong. 3 Mistakes of sleepers: Mixing together being and not-being.
Multiplicity of beings, many different things around us. Qualitative differences in the reality around us.
Movement/change/becoming: All that is wrong according to Parmi. Because to him only being exists. Being is, non-
being is not. Being and thinking. When we think we think about being, cannot think about non-being. To think means
to be and v.v.
With him the being is understood in univocal way without its many modalities. He affirms purely abherent: multiplicity
of beings (numerical diversity), qualitative differences and movement. His being is one, unique being. That’s why no
multiplicity. Being is not qualitatively differentiated, it is identical in itself, there is only one unique being identical to
itself. Finally absolutely immobile reality. Unique, identical, immobile reality.

7th century BC: Psyche and Fimos

6th Century BC Psyche -> Soul (former Fimos) center of rational and emotional aspects, appearance of Orphic
movement (religious), dualistic version of human person introduced; Pythagoras and his philosophy of orphic tradition

6th - 5th century BC: Naturalists (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) and a new understanding of the soul, just a part
of principle of nature as such, not divine reality anymore

5th Century BC: (540-470) Heraclitusus (everything flows; first reason is movement); his contemporary is Parmenides,
who is in opposition to Heraclitus (nothing is equal to itself “We can never enter the same river twice”, everything is in
constant change)
Parmi: Negation of multiplicity, Negation of qualitative differences; Negation of movement.

Next has to be an attempt to reconcile Heraclitus and Parmi. Reconciliation is done by different people:
5th to 3rd centuries B.C will constitute the answer to Parmenides:
Democritus (Multiplicity)
Plato (Quality) (influence on Plato: Anaxagoras, Sophists, Socrates)
Aristotle (Movement)

Fourth Lesson:

Democritus: Tried to prove that there is no contradiction in affirming the existence of multiplicity. He introduced
atoms, atomic realities. According to him, we do not need to introduce non-being next to being. It is enough to
introduce the absence of matter (void). The reality as such consists in two things: Small atomic realities and the void
they move in. Atomos: indivisible (greek). Atoms have three qualities: They are not divisible, one in itself, do not have
qualities as such and they are unchanging. In this sense he was with Parmenides, only he turns Parmi’s one universe
into an infinite number of atoms with the same qualities as Parmi’s universe. The qualitative differences should -
according to Democritus - be explained by quantitative answers. Each body is composed of atoms and each body can
have a different number of atoms, the atoms have a different order and sequence and they are differently positioned.
Local motion is explained by the fact that the atoms are changing position in the void. The atomists conception of the
soul in regards to the consequences in psychology. Human body is constituted because of the clash of atoms. Also
the soul consists of atomic realities. Soul is seen by Democritus as the principle / the cause of movement. The atoms
of the soul are of a different nature than the ones that make the body, in the sense that they are lighter and smoother.
Taking up Heraclitusus Democritus says, they are of a fire-nature, because they have in themselves a constant
movement. These atoms are spread throughout the body. Because they are so fire-like, they tend to escape from the
body and they have to be constantly reintegrated / reintroduced into the body. How do they escape? By breathing.
That’s why we stop breathing when we die. So the soul is of the very same nature of the body. The pre-eminence of
the soul over the body is very hard to explain. According to Democritus, responsible for the principals of mind are the
fire-like atoms, too. Here he speaks of a divine reality. He says that the principle of mind is similar to God. He speaks
again about the necessity of taking care for the soul (sounds orphic), by looking for the goods of the soul, not the
goods of the body. All this is one big contradiction, because he speaks about the soul in naturalistic terms. Although it
is not even a personal principle of live, because the atoms of the soul leave and enter us, he says we have to take
care of the soul.

Anaxagoras (5th century): He is the last of the naturalists. He almost discovered the existence of supersensual, non-
material reality. He postulated that the prime cause reality was the nous (intelligence). He said that it is of such a
specific nature that it exists in material reality, but is not mixed with material reality. Something, which is independent
of material reality. Whole reality is material. In this corporal reality there is something that permeates it in every
dimension, but is not mixed with it, is not matter. This intelligence has three functions. The first is to know. It has a
knowledge of all reality. Therefore it can order the realities, can make of it a “cosmos”. Finally it is able to control the
reality, because it is such a great force. Nous is not a composed reality. This is an important characteristic, because
non-composition as such will always be one of the characteristics of a spiritual reality. It is not yet immaterial, but has
similar characteristics. Later he couldn’t make proper use of the nous to explain the events of the universe, went back
to material causes.

In the 5th century going towards the 4th, the Greek thinking takes a different turn in what is the problem of philosophy,
because of the appearance of sophists and Socrates. In the 5th century the Greeks have to adapt to new historical
conditions. Social-political conditions have changed. With these also the main focus in philosophical inquiring has
changed. Up to then for all the philosophers the problem of the nature of the human being wasn’t the main problem.
The main problem was the universe, the cosmos. The first question was the “why” of the universe. In the 5th century
the human person becomes the main object of investigation. Up to then the human person wasn’t really investigated.
It was seen as one of the physical beings creating the totality of the universe. Why? Because philosophy and its
problems are here in progressive way, because our knowledge is also progressive. To make s/thing an object of
scientific investigation we have to be able to grasp it as a unit. Up to the 5th century philosophers were unable to
experience or express a human person as a unity, only in different terms of multiplicity. Human person was unable to
speak about himself in one term. Description of human persons was done in different terms. Humans were a
multiplicity of organs having this or that capacity to act. In the 5th century humans were able to see themselves as
human kind. Once the consciousness of the unity of the human kind was established, humans became the object of
philosophical investigation and you could start to ask what was the unifying principle. The human being took
consciousness of its unity on an individual level progressively. That’s why the philosophical questions were
progressive. In the 5th century we arrive at a higher degree of consciousness in regard to ourselves. This development
of the human reflection (“who are we?”) was influenced by the results of the proper investigation by the individuals but
also by the social-political conditions in Greek at that time. There were new movements. We have a very strong crisis
of aristocracy and therefore the growth of the middle class. We also have the crisis of the ancient set of values. The
traditional values were always linked to being born into a particular social class. In the new society we see the
appearance of a new conviction: Virtue is to be / can be acquired. We are not born virtues. Finally the city states
become open. After the Persian wars they open up to different cultures. This introduces relativistic views to virtues,
different points of view on different matters. Relativism is fostered. Democratic society, by the way. The first
philosophers in the 5th century that made an impact on society were the sophists (from sophizestai: “making a
profession of being inventive and clever”). Sophist is a professional wise-beer. They transferred the philosophical
interest to psychology. They ask questions about human behavior. This is the beginning of the first humanistic period
in the history of ancient philosophy. Sophists had a big success due to the capacity to respond to the needs of the
time, esp. to the young people. The society of that time (middle of 5th century, after the Persian war) had a huge need
for specific preparation for political activity, political life. It is in this field that the sophists offered the proper teaching in
contrast to other philosophers, because for the first time they will ask for money in return for proper teaching. Taking
money was a problem, sophists were denied the name of philosophers by Socrates etc. because philosophy was not
serving any other purpose but the research of truth. The aim of the sophist was making proper disciples able to act
and speak in such a way that they would be able to handle the domestic and public affairs. They aimed at the building
of a new political elite. The teaching of the sophists was aimed at practical things. They taught how to act in such a
way that you were successful in live. Why did they go for practical aims? Because they didn’t believe in the possibility
of the existence of the objective universal truth, therefore also not in the arriving at it. The research for truth wasn’t
something they aimed at. Why? The possible ways of explanation of the principle cause of the universe seemed to
have been exhausted. And all the different results made it difficult to know who was right. Contradicting positions.
Unable to judge who was right. Therefore the natural reaction was mistrust. The sophists had a conception of reality
and collected it with linguistic capacities. Link between reasoning and speaking. We are still moving in the dimension
of matter/physis. Sophists rebelled against proceeding developments in philosophy, which resulted more and more in
the belief that the real world is different from the phenomenal one. Against the “world as it appears to us, in which we
live and the real world”. What is the sense, if human person does not live in real world but in phenomenal world?
Phenomenal world is a world of multiplicity, constant change. They were very close to the division of the universe. In
this case Heraclitusus is right. We are living in a world that is constantly changing. The consequence on the level of
knowledge is evident: The truth doesn’t exist, because everything changes. Therefore language as such is influenced.
Main focus will be linguistic capacities, because reality as such has nothing constant in it, so the main problem is to
gain abilities to rule the others by means of speech, because reality is as you present it. There is no universal
unchanging element, they say. That has an influence on their view on the human person and on ethics. They will
never be able the nature of the human person. Because of that their set of rules and ethics will be flexible. The human
person as a measure. The human person is the measure of what is true and what is not. It is the measuring point of
everything. Different nations have different rules of conduct, even in regard to the most basic events like behavior in
regard to marriage, birth, burial. So the sophists concluded that the rules of conduct are nothing but convention. They
don’t flow from a nature of human person. They come from a kind of social contract. Therefore what is really important
is to be successful in life, to gain influence over the others. There is one answer to the question how you can be
successful. Sophists proposed different systems, gave different answers. First one is the relativistic view of society.
The world as such is for the human person what it appears to be, nothing else. What is true is relative to the
individual, to one person. Truth is relative to a particular person. A second important system is the so-called ethics of
situation. It is based on the fact that the human person is subject to changing emotions. Therefore it is capable to be
drawn into different directions by rhetoric. So the ethics depend on who prevails on the level of rhetoric. The sophists
also produced the first kind of utilitarianism. True is what is of utility for me. Pragmatic aspect of truth. In general the
sophists have seen the human person as a measure but also in biological terms as a part of nature. So later on
(soon), this principle of person as measure degenerated into a principle of “no measure at all”, because of “there is no
truth”, “there is only your truth”, “it is good if it is good for me”.
(When we do not keep a vertical element in our philosophy, we are likely to fall back into the 5th century sophists
“human is a measure”-thing. They at least had the excuse to not have the divine Christian dimension, that we are
about to leave behind today, what with pluralism and other crap).

Virtue was reduced to technical abilities, being able to deal in a sufficient way with private and public affairs.

At the same time Socrates lived. He was also considered a sophist by his contemporaries because of the method of
discussion he used. He used a tricky way in speaking with people. The main difference between him and the sophists
was: He wasn’t teaching for money. And the aim of his teaching was different. He used dialogues. He didn’t write
anything. So his philosophy is to a certain point up to discussion. He used his speech in such a way that the person
he talked thought to be right, only to later get his bottom smacked (verbally). Socrates had a similar attitude towards
the philosophy of nature as the sophists. He believed the results of the philosophers of nature were so contradictory,
that you couldn’t come to any conclusion. Socrates conclusion to this problem was different, though. Sophists said
that the truth does not exist. Socrates said that the science of the cosmos is inaccessible to the human mind. Such
knowledge in regard to what is the nature of the universe/first principle and so on is proper only to God. Finally
according to Socrates, any person who is concerned with that kind of investigation becomes so absorbed that he
forgets himself, which should be the most important point of research.

Fifth Lesson:

Division of the human person according to Socrates. Sophists and Socrates have in common the reflection on the
human being. That’s about it. Socrates gives new significance to the problem of the human person, the question “Who
is the human person?”. He responds without any doubt: “The human person is the soul!” Human person = Soul (acc.
to Socrates). He is not the first, though (see Orphics). Why is it important, then? Because nobody before defined the
soul the way he did. How was the soul understood until that time? The soul as such was interpreted in the sense of
some kind of a ghostly appearance, taking existence after the departure of the living person, then lived in some time
in the Hades, then dissolved. Then we have the Orphic version: Soul is a divine element, which is in opposition to the
body, is immortal. In Orphic vision soul does not mean consciousness. Soul as such was active when consciousness
was inactive (sleeping, death). In the first philosophers (naturalists), soul was understood as a part of the principle of
all. Now comes Socrates: He identifies the soul with the consciousness. Before him, nobody did that. The soul is the
particular center of our thinking and ethical activity. It is the reality responsible in us for thinking and acting in an
ethical way. Soul identified as the conscious self. It is a revolution in the understanding of who we are as human
persons. In the Orphic and Pythagorean tradition, the divine reality of the soul had to be purified before it became
independent from the body. It was a reality, which was beyond consciousness. The soul was something introduced in
us, but not part of the human person as such. So there was still something needed to have a correct vision of the soul.
Soul had to be brought down from the heaven to the earth. Socrates did that. He operated the identification of the
supremely precious psyche of divine origin with a center of a personal character. Since Socrates time this vision of the
soul will dominate Western thinking. We do not have any writing by Socrates! Brings up the question, up to where
Socrates is speaking and when Plato takes over. Documentation points towards Socrates, because there’s a certain
eagerness to the sources that is only known to be used by him. Socrates gives ethical and religious overtones to the
meaning of the soul. The concept of the soul we have now is thought to come from the Christian tradition, but
Socrates added the particular Christian tone, that was later only enhanced. He and Plato had great influence on first
Christian thinkers.
Socrates doctrine on the soul was as follows: “Know yourself!” or “Take care of yourself!” When he uses “self” he
does not mean we have to know our name or body. He means the necessity to examine interiorly our own soul. “Take
care” means to know how to properly take care of the soul. He wanted to teach how to know the soul and how to care
for it. According to him the only thing worth doing for humans was taking care of the soul properly. The difference to
the Sophists lies in the measure of human behavior. When Socrates says, the aim of life is to take care or the proper
soul, he also means the examination of the consciousness. Such an examination (knowing and caring for the proper
soul) has to have a certain set of rules. His reality of the soul is in opposition to matter and body. So the soul is a
principle taking part in the divine. It has therefore a dominating role over the body. In us rules something divinely. The
measure of our behavior is not the human person (Sophists), but the measure is God. Reflection of the human being
Sophistic, but he has absolute norms guiding the human behavior. Because of the incapacity to define the human
nature by the Sophists, they degenerated into systems that were empty from the ethical point of view. Socrates claims
superiority, because he was able to identify the essence of the human person. He gives a set of values. Value cannot
consist in something other than that which is good for the soul. The realities, which make the soul what it is supposed
to be, help the soul to arrive at perfection. He wants to arrive at the best soul possible. Happiness consists in
achieving this end, the excellence of the soul. What is this excellence?
Soul is identified, to know it means to bring it to its best by the virtues proper to it. In what consists the good of the
soul? Socrates said: “The virtue as such consists in science and knowledge, whereas vice consists in nothing but
ignorance.” Why is that? If a human person is characterized by the soul and the soul is identified as the conscious
self, aware of proper acting, then the virtue actualizing that can be nothing but the aim of intelligence, which is
knowledge.
What purifies the soul is a theoretical act. The virtue is something, which can be taught. It is a theoretical matter. “No-
one can sin in a voluntary way.” Because evil is ignorance. If you are doing wrong, you do it because you did not
know otherwise. We are doing evil without knowing it is wrong. We are in ignorance of good. Evil is not so much the
matter of will, but the matter of reason. Since the soul is the source of our moral behavior, we can do wrong, but only
due to the soul as a rational factor, in which we do not know the whole situation, all the facts.
Socrates introduces the set of values. The fundamental traditional values were the ones principally linked to the body.
Life, health, beauty, strength etc. Also power, fame, wealth, honors etc. This set of value was proper to the Sophists,
because they perceived the human person mainly in biological terms. Socrates focuses on the soul/reason/thinking
capacities. He says that the values of the human person are the values of the soul, eternal values. The main value is
wisdom or science. He is the first philosopher who tries to look for the essence of all the things, the universal element
in many particular cases under the same name (What is justice, what is beauty and so on.).
His doctrine is not free from problems. Socrates defines the soul not so much in its essence but more in functional
terms. He defines the soul according to what it is able to do, in terms of intellectual power, capacity of knowing. But
even St. Thomas and Aristotle will not arrive at the essential definition of the soul as such, and St. Thomas will say,
that this cannot be done. Socrates speaks about the soul as being a divine element, but we do not know what
Socrates knows by God. It is possible from what we know from Plato that Socrates believed in one personal God, but
it is not sure. He did not try to prove the immortality of the soul. He believed in the existence of the soul after the death
of the human person, but unclear in what form.

Plato was a disciple of Socrates. He organized his doctrine in real psychology. We find a kind of explicit views on the
human soul as such. It is not exposed in systematical way. First systematic writing on the soul will be by Aristotle.
Plato’s philosophy is marked by religious spirit. We find philosophical religious contemplation. But there is also precise
psychological observation. Plato’s metaphysics: The fundamental point of the platonic speculation is the discovering
of another sphere of existence, supra-sensible reality, spiritual dimension of reality that goes beyond physical reality.
In the dialogue titled Phedo (99c-101d) he explains the discovery of another dimension of reality. According to Plato
the search done by the first philosophers (of nature, pre-socs) was done by means of causes, looking for causes. All
the explanations were done in terms of purely mechanical causes. They were postulating water, air, fire etc., but we
saw a contradictory effect. The explanations were not satisfying. According to Plato Anaxagoras (nous/intelligence
which impregnates all mater, but is not mixed with matter) came closest to the truth. But when Anax goes back to the
ways of the ancients, Plato goes ballistic. He asks himself: Those mechanical or physical causes, are they true
principles of reality, or mainly secondary causes, simple means in the hand of another reality which is the prime
mover or prime cause of reality. Maybe the sensitive reality has to be explained by something, which is different from
this reality, unlike before. It seems matter cannot explain itself in terms of matter. Plato uses the language of the sea
(fitting to Greece). “What I have done in my philosophizing was so-called first voyage, following the natural
philosophers, like a first voyage to the sea, using the force of the wind in the sails, without any physical force you have
to exercise. Then the speculations found were not giving any more force. I was in the middle of the sea and the wind
has stopped. Now I have to use my own strength and force to move and make my second voyage.” This image
illustrates a personal input Plato had to contribute to solve the problem. So he postulated his own and arrives at
another reality. He says that the naturalists made no sense, because the sensible reality cannot explain itself
remaining on its own level. It is purely mechanic explanation. For example: “Why is Socrates in prison?” Naturalists
would say: “Because he is made of bones and skin and so on. He uses the physical reality of his body to move into
prison.” Is that a real cause? No. It is purely mechanical and material. Doesn’t explain why. The real cause is a good,
which he perceived as being in the jail. He is in jail, because he judged it to be just and good for him. He did not
accept the offer to go in exile or to be freed. The real cause of this particular situation is not material but something,
which goes beyond matter. Something of ethical character. The same procedure is valid for any other reality.
Mechanical elements are not true causes, but only, sub-causes or means at the service of the true cause. Such a
cause is of non-material character. Real cause is a non material reality which makes this particular thing to be what it
should be. According to Plato these realities are meta-empirical realities. It is necessary to go beyond sense
experience. We have to look at reality by means of our intellectual eyes. We have to look at the true causes of reality
on the intelligible dimension. Intelligible reality means the reality that can be grasped by means of thinking not by
means of senses. Example: We indicate with one word “beautiful” many different things. Why is a thing beautiful?
According to the naturalists the explanation would be the particular physical elements as color, shape. Plato says that
are not the true causes. They are only the means through which the true cause is realized. The true cause is
something intelligible, invisible for our eyes. It is the idea of beauty in itself. The particular individual realities are
beautiful, because they are participating in the idea of beautiful. Plato postulates the existence of another dimension
of the reality. The intelligible reality was nothing else than a postulate we have to admit in order to explain the material
world. Sensorial reality cannot explain itself by itself. If we don’t want to fall into contradiction, we have to say it is
permissible to postulate the existence of another dimension of reality. Second voyage leads to two sides of existence:
The phenomenal world, appearing to our senses, the physical world. On the other hand we have an invisible,
intelligible, metaphenomenal reality. This postulate of Plato was one of the greatest stages in the history of
metaphysic, because the whole western thinking is conditioned by this discovery of a supersensible reality. Everyone
after Plato will have to position himself in regard to that discovery. If you don’t take the position, you have to explain
why. and only from then on you can talk about materialistic philosophies.

How does Plato understand these supersensible realities? How does Plato understand the term “idea”? For Plato the
real cause of the physical cause is the supersensible world of ideas. Idea comes from the Greek eidos, from idein = to
see. When we say idea, we talk about a concept, on object of thought, a mental representation. This has nothing to do
with the idea in Plato’s terms. In Plato’s time the meaning intended was opposed to thought. He thinks of a reality to
which our thinking has to turn to grasp the reality of things, to have a mental conception. A reality of real beings that
we can only reach by means of our mind. For Plato the idea is a being, something that exists, the only true being as
such (all from the ontological point of view). Idea here means the external form, specific shape or later even the
essence of something. Second use of the term “idea” becomes a constant with Plato. He uses idea in the second
meaning, the internal form of the particular reality, the nature, the essence. To him idea means an internal form, a
kind of metaphysical structure. Ontological essence of the phenomenal realities. It is correlated with real being. To
him the world of ideas is the true cause of the material reality.
Main points of Plato’s teachings are not transmitted in writing.
For Plato the world of intelligible ideas is structured. We can identify five different levels.
At the summit Plato postulates what he calls the idea of good/one/unity. It contains the principle of order and measure
and all goodness. As such it is the first formal cause of all that is. On the very same level next to it exists the material
principle. On the level beneath you have the ideas of numbers. Under that follow all the ideas of things that exist. On
that level the main five ideas are being and from that identity, difference, movement and rest. On the level below we
have mathematical beings. And then follows the material world. For Plato these ideas are, they do not become, which
is a Parmenidean approach. They are permanent, unchanging. The material world of Plato sounds more like
Heraclites.
Plato’s understanding of the soul seems to be full of contradictions. He has three different positions on how many
souls the human person has. He says that the human person has one soul, completely indivisible. In the republic he
says, that the human soul has three parts. Intellect, desire and passions. So the soul is divided into rational, irrational,
concupiscible.
Then he talks about one more part, the nourishing soul. How do we get out of this contradiction?
Sixth Lesson:

In Phaedo (one of the most important writings), the human soul is one. In the Republic, he gives the soul three
different parts (rational soul (intellect), irrational soul (desires), concupiscible soul (passions)). On a still lower level we
have the nourishing soul, responsible for the vegetative acts. Contradiction? The discussion of the soul depends on
the nature of the dialogue. In Phaedo he only speaks of one soul, because he only talks about the rational soul. In the
Republic, however, the discussion assumes psychological dimensions. He speaks about the principles of human lives
from the point of view of vital activities and assigns vital principles. So when he divides the soul, he talks about the
faculties we have. In Timaeus the vision of the human person and the soul becomes more physiological. Whenever
Plato touches social or political problems, he gets back to the division and the soul, because he sees similarities in the
person and the society. How the society should be constructed corresponds to the nature of the human person. He
speaks of three different levels of the acts we perform, therefore three different levels of the soul.

What does Plato mean by the term “part”? (three different souls or three different parts of one soul). Part has to be
understood metaphorically. It is not his intention to say, the soul is an extended material reality, divided into three
parts, which are linked to constitute one reality. He is more talking about three different functions. The highest element
to Plato will always be the rational parts (Phaedo), being of divine nature. Irascible and concupiscible seem to be
perishable. But still one is better than the other: One part is more connected to reason than the others. This is the
irrational part. The functions for which the irrational soul is responsible are more perfect than the functions of the
concupiscible part.
Plato’s theory of the physical locations of different vital functions is to be taken in the un-literal sense. The rational part
is located in the brain, the irrational part in the breast (heart), the concupiscible part was, according to Plato located
more below ;-)
Moral seems to be the main reason for there being three parts of the soul according to Plato. Experience shows that
often you know what you should do or you desire to do, but you act in a different way, because the passions are
stronger. So there are three different realities, which are in conflict. Hence Plato’s conclusion. He introduces the
image of the soul as a charioteer steering a wagon with two horses, of which one is good and listens to the
commands and one is bad and does not listen. The charioteer is the rational part of the soul, the good horse is the
rational part, easily led by the reasons. The bad horse is the concupiscible part, that does not listen. According to
Plato, we are not able to say what the soul is, because only God can know that. We can try to explain, what the soul
resembles. For Plato (mythological explanation) in the beginning the soul lived in the world of ideas with the Gods and
was moving in the sphere of that idea like a charioteer with two winged horses. Because of the difficulties with the bad
horse, the human souls often entered into clashes, since the movement was not in harmony. In the ensuing accidents
the horses lost their wings and fell into the bodies.

Plato is the first Philosopher who tired to prove the immortality of the soul. He speaks only about the rational part of
the soul in his argumentation. But in many dialogues and mythological accounts he uses we see that the soul is
pictured as immortal in its totality. Plato’s ethical interest is shown. The rational element has the nature to guide and to
rule, because that is the act proper to the charity, which is steered by the rational part. Imbalance in the human life is
introduced by the concupiscible part. Plato declares that the soul in immortal. In Timotheus he teaches that only the
rational part of the soul is immortal. If the other parts of the soul are mortal they have to be separated from the rational
part. There is a separability of the several part. So they must form two different souls. He doesn’t say so but it is sort
of implied. This is one of the things that are not clear in Plato’s theory of the soul. He retains the immortality of the
soul and it seems probable to him that at least the rational part survives. He wants to prove that now. How? The
important proofs we find in Phaedo are put in the mouth of his master Socrates, who first spoke about the soul as the
center of our human thinking and rational behavior The dialogue takes place in the jail, when Socrates is imprisoned
and about to be executed. The disciples of Socrates wanted to have proof that he is not going to die wholly, that his
soul is going to survive. Plato tries to give proofs through Socrates.

There are four proofs:

First: Plato says the contraries are produced from the contraries (strong to weak, warm to cold etc). Every change
takes place from one opposite to another. It goes in both directions (awake - sleep; sleep - awake). If everything only
went in one direction, all would end after a while and the universe would become one unmoving reality. This proves
the immortality of the soul, because we have to apply to this principle life and death. Therefore here too life has to be
produced by death and vice versa. It is assumed, that from the death of the body the life of the soul is produced.
Criticism: It is based on certain assumptions (eternal process, contraries produce contraries). It hardly satisfies
straight rational thinking. Nothing is said about the condition of the soul in its state of separation from the body. It
doesn’t speak of any kind of conscious remembrance the soul retains after death.
Second: A proof based on the nature of human knowledge. Plato indicates two things. First he points at the fact that
everybody has knowledge of standards/norms, of which we make constant use in our comparative judgments,
judgments of values. But these universal absolute realities of which we make use do not exist in the world we can
know by means of our senses. Therefore we cannot grasp them by means of sensation, so we know them because
we must have “seen” them before our soul has fallen into the body. Secondly he indicates is based on mathematical
education. Plato gives the example of a servant who concludes with correct mathematical answers without ever
having learned math. So he knows math from a previous existence. The proof is based on the process of knowledge
called reminiscence. Criticism: The math thing: By means of a good process of our teachers we were able to come up
with correct answers, just as Plato’s servant was able to, after having been asked questions that led him to the right
answers. Is it a proof for the immortality of the soul? No, it’s best a proof for the pre-existence of the soul before its fall
into the body.
Third: This argument is based on the divine nature (pre-supposed) of the soul. Plato says that the visible things are
composite, therefore subject to decay and death, because they are composed of different elements that can be
divided. The soul can see the invisible intelligible world of the ideas that is unchanging and unperishable. This fact
indicates that the soul has to belong to the same family as those realities. Each idea is simple, indivisible, immaterial,
immortal reality. Given that we know the ideas, our soul has to be similar to them, has to be divine in the sense that it
is simple, indivisible, immaterial and eternal. Criticism: The vision of the universe of Plato and his view of knowledge
have to be accepted for the theory to be valid.
Fourth: One disciple suggests that the soul can be partially immortal in the sense that the soul has certain amount of
energy, which can wear itself out from incarnation to incarnation. Plato asked if the world of ideas and forms was
accepted. Yep! The presence of one idea includes the presence of the contrary one. The world of the ideas is the
formal cause of the physical cause for Plato. Whatever we see here participate in the ideas present in the intelligible
world. Can we admit or accept the existence of a reality with would participate at the same time in two contrary ideas?
Nope! Because the presence of one form will not admit the presence of a contrary one. Fire cannot be cold and warm,
the reality cannot participate in these two ideas which are contrary. How does this apply to the soul. The human soul
is what it is because it participates in the idea of life, therefore it will not admit in itself the presence of the contrary
form, which is death. The soul has for its own essence life. So it excludes by the very fact of the participation in the
idea of life the idea of death. When death approaches, the soul withdraws but does not die. So the soul cannot wear
itself out, because it participates in the idea of life. Death is proper only to the body.

Two other kinds of proofs which Plato gives (Republic, Phaedo).

Republic: A particular thing cannot be destroyed expect through some evil inherent in it. The evils of the soul are
unrighteousness, intemperance, ignorance etc. Those things evidently do not destroy the soul, because we see in our
societies people who act badly and live morally wrong, yet live longer than the just sometimes. So the vices do not
destroy the soul. The soul does not carry in itself a principle of destruction.
Phaedo: Soul as the soul of its own movement. The reason of the proper activity which has in itself the cause of the
proper motion cannot be destroyed. New definition of the soul. Soul is a self-moving principle, therefore life as such.
Whatever is a principle of the proper existence/activity/motion cannot be stopped. Only if you have the source of the
proper motion coming from outside, from an external source it can be stopped. If it is a principle of self-motion, it will
always exist.

Plato has sort of an Orphic vision of the soul, because he strictly separates it from the body. He affirms the reality of
the soul as distinct from the body and its pre-eminence over the body. Stands in the line of psychological dualism.
Philosophy is an art of dying, of escaping from the body, from the evils of the world. Plato defines the soul as self-
initiating motion. When he says that, he indicates, opposing himself to the naturalist vision, that the soul has to be
superior to the body. It cannot be of equal reality as the matter. It has to be of a different nature, cannot be essentially
the same as the material reality. He opposes himself to a certain Pythagorean vision of the soul, claiming or
suggesting that the soul is some kind of epiphenomenal of the body, a harmony that results from the body. The body
is a physical phenomenon, while the soul results from what the body is as a epiphenomenal element, like a harmony
in music is a result of a composition of different notes. Plato says it is not possible that a mere harmony can rule of
what it is a result, what created it. Plato does not, however, deny an interaction between the two ontologically
separated realities, does not deny influence from one on the other, but does not explain how it happens profoundly.
He sees music as an element that helps to live correctly on an ethical level, because music induces harmony. There
is in us a certain influence of hereditary elements (defects of the body, environment). Plato seems to claim the
immortality of the soul not in general, without being able to remember what happened in the present incarnation. He
however believed in the personal immortality of the soul. The soul reincarnating itself retains personal characteristics.
What happens to the human person once we die? The soul reaches the moment of judgment, is naked, presents itself
as it is, without ornaments, only with the vices and virtues. Before the next incarnation, the soul is brought to the place
where different types of life are presented. The soul is free to chose the way in which it wants to live the next
incarnation. The virtue has no patron, it is the soul that chose the life. How to explain that we don’t remember? Once
the soul has chosen on the basis what it knows the life proper to it, it is led to the river of forgetfulness. It has to drink
from the river and it forgets the moment of the choice that was personal and proper to it. Plato tried to explain how to
retain an element of personality from incarnation to incarnation and the personal responsibility we have in our lives.
The Orphics thought the incarnations were effects of what you did in the incarnation before (if you were a killer, you
will be killed). Plato believes that the soul can escape from the chain of reincarnation and so remain in the world of
ideas.

Seventh Lesson:
Aristotle:
Tried to answer the question of change (does it exist or not). Plato gave the answer to the problem of qualitative
difference. Things are what they are in virtue of the participation of the universal idea. According to Aristotle, Plato
wasn’t able to give sufficient explanation how things become. He only indicated a material and formal cause (ideas).
Main problem remaining according to Aristotle was the question of efficient cause, the agent that makes them to be as
they are, that makes them to be. Three important principles of Aristotle: causation in general/theory of a set of notions
of matter and form/theory of a set of notions of act and potency.
Causality: By cause Aristotle indicates the reality that constitutes, structures something, whatever reality it is. Four
causes. Material and formal explain whatever is explained in an intrinsic way. Material: This from out of which
something is made. Formal: Essence of the nature, form shape. Efficient and final explain the reality in a dynamic,
extrinsic way. Efficient: Indicates a particular agent responsible for what a thing is, for its coming into existence. Final:
Purpose towards a thing exists, was made.
Previous philosophers tried to explain reality by means of causes, but never used all four causes.
Theory of hylomorphism: According to Aristotle matter and form are the two causes constituent of being of every
reality. Two components that constitute one reality. Form: Aristotle contradicts Plato. According to Aristotle, the
essences are not constituted by some kind of external realities, as in Plato (ideas). He retains that what a thing is
explained in the terms of his form. He interprets the term form as Plato did: The nature of the given reality. Every form
is not given to a thing from outside but is pulled out from the potentiality of matter, in virtue of an adequate agent
cause. There is no world of ideas, separate from matter, as in Plato. The form is not added from outside the matter.
Form is not that what exists, as for Plato. Form is rather a co-principle of something, it is that through which something
exists (but not that what exists). Matter as a principle correlative to form. Aristotle believes in eternity. According to
him the matter cannot exist in a pure state as such. It cannot exist without the form. Whatever exists, each material
reality, exists under a particular form. Matter has no character of its own. It is not a reality. Matter is a co-principle, too.
It is that through which things exist (but not that what exists). Matter is an undetermined principle of corporal reality,
but determinable. Form is the determining principle, that accounts for a particular thing what it is. Neither matter nor
form are things that can exist by themselves. To be a complete entity, the matter must be compounded with the form.
Physical beings always have matter and form -> Synolon. Everything that exists is a synolon, a composite of material
and formal principle. Aristotle’s explanation of how things exist is called hylomorphism. Aristotle’s position is not
materialistic, because he does not talk about matter exclusively, but makes its existence dependent on form. Matter
and form are necessary to understand out of what each being is mode.
Notion of act and potency: According to Aristotle, change in the physical world consists in the fact that from the
matter under the influence of an agent cause, form is being extracted. Change is the change of form that happens in a
certain amount of a particular matter under the influence of the agent cause. For Aristotle change means
transformation, going from one form to another. The notion of potency for Aristotle linked with the notion of matter.
Matter invokes potency in the sense of a capacity to assume or receive different forms. Prime matter does not exist. It
is absolutely formless, indefinite reality without quality or quantity. It is a certain potentiality. The corporal things
actually only exist under certain forms. Potency invokes capacity of receiving forms and it also invokes passivity.
Potentially prime matter can assume every form, but actually it is nothing. Before becoming anything, prime matter
has to receive the form.
Matter can assume or receive different forms under the influence of different agent causes. What a particular thing
becomes depends on the agent cause working on it. Example: A piece of wood can become different things under the
influence of different agent causes. Fire turns it to ashes, in the hand of a carpenter it can become a table.
The act is linked with form in the way potentiality is linked to matter. Form is in itself intrinsically a limit that
determinates a matter in its continuous becoming or changing. It is putting a limit to matter’s infinite possibilities of
becoming. It stabilizes the matter, it diversifies it as an ordered totality, a whole. Act, actuality, actualization comes
from the Greek term “entelechy” (this, that possesses in itself a term/an end). It indicates an original meaning of the
word act. Form is what brings with itself a limit, brings determination. The Latin translation of “entelechy” “actus”
underlines another aspect of what is important in the process of change and becoming. It indicates an activity. The
form as act in reference to the Latin word points out that form in its determination of matter, depends on the agent
cause, the acting cause. Forms exist in matter potentially. They do not exist actually, until there is a sufficient agent
cause, some active potency, to pull them out of the potentiality of matter. A particular corporal reality cannot be
actualized at the same time by two contrary forms.
Act being a limit: The matter receives with the act also a limit to what it can become. To inform a particular kind of
matter means to de-terminate it, to put the limits, finish it, make it a whole accomplished reality. That is what happens
under the influence of the form. In order to be and remain essentially what it is a particular reality cannot overcome
certain limits given to it by the form. If these limits are overcome, it means that the particular matter will change the
form and the proper limits of becoming. Or: We are what we are in virtue of a particular form we have. This form
defines us, makes us what we are and limits us in what we can do. Example: We can be heated up by the sun up to a
certain degree and only undergo accidental change. But if we are exposed to excessive heat, we start so smoke, look
funny, smell weird and finally undergo a substantial change. So our being human limits the amount of, i. e. heat we
can take before we become something else.

[Is Aristotle’s position materialistic? (Forms are induced from matter in virtue of efficient causes which in general are
also material realities) According to Aristotle his God (unmoved mover, pure act) has no relation with the world,
doesn’t even know it. To Aristotle God only knows its own reality.]

Psychology for Aristotle is a study of the soul. For him it is a part of philosophy of nature. A investigates psychological
phenomena in which the soul manifests itself in different writings. Of main importance for us is “De Anima”. Linked
with that is a collection of shorter works like the writing of sense and the object of senses and another one of memory
and recollection. “De Anima” is the first systematic writing that exposes the nature of the soul as such. The writings on
the senses and on the memory consist of empirical data. He investigates how the phenomena come to the soul and
body. In “De Anima” Aristotle introduces a new question. He asks if there are certain acts only proper to the soul or if
all psychological states (acts proper to the soul, vital acts) are necessarily the acts of matter (body) and the soul. To
Aristotle the objects of psychology are plants, animals and human persons, because psychology is broad in terms,
especially in modern terms. “De Anima” is first ordered discussion about the soul as a principle of life and its
manifestations.
Aristotle’s concept of the soul: Aristotelian physics does not only inquire into the nature in general and its principles,
but also animate realities without rational capacities and with rational capacities. What is for Aristotle the element that
introduces the difference what is animate and what is inanimate. Those two dimensions are differentiated because
they posses a principle that gives them life, this principle is the soul. The demarcation line in the physical world is
between living and non-living beings.
What is the nature of the soul? Aristotle expresses the essence of the soul in categories according to his own physical
doctrine. He defines soul by saying that the living bodies have life but they are not life (difference between being alive
and being life).
So what is life? Second book of “De Anima”, first chapter, 412a and 412b. “It is necessary that the soul is a form of a
natural body potentially having life” and “Soul is a form of a natural body having organs”.
Soul as such is a form of a natural body potentially having life or a form of a natural body having organs. Soul
essentially being a form: Aristotle puts himself in the middle between the Pre-Socratic and Platonic vision of the soul.
Pre-Socratics saw soul as physical principle, soul was reduced to an aspect of matter. In the Platonic view of the soul
we have another extreme because the soul is dualistically opposed to matter in general and body in particular.
Aristotle is in the middle, unites both views into a higher synthesis. According to him Pre-Socratics are right in saying
that the soul is something intrinsically united with the body, but Plato is also right in saying that the soul has some kind
of ideal nature. This enables Aristotle to see in the soul the form or an act of the body. It is an intelligible element, not
reduced to material. Substance is essentially inseparable, possesses a unity, proper to living organism, a unity that
says that matter and form, body and soul are inseparable. The substantial union between material and formal element
is not problematic, does not pose a question for Aristotle. To him it was natural and did not need any particular
discussion. However, he doesn’t consider the questions to be meaningless. He answers the questions, but does so
quickly. The fact that for Aristotle the unity of body and soul is evident does not mean that body and soul are identical.
For St. Thomas one of the main problems will be the unity of body and soul. He will retain the problem of the unity of
the body and the soul.
Aristotle couldn’t ignore Plato’s transcendental immaterial reality. Plato was right saying that there is speculative
thinking in us, a knowledge of immaterial realities. According to A the possibility of knowing such realities implies the
existence in us of certain reality, which retains a similarity with these eternal unchangeable world. He postulated the
existence of a different kind of a form than he speaks about in his metaphysics, as a price for retaining his philosophy.
He says “there is no doubt that the soul is not separable from the body, or at least certain of its part are not if its by
nature divisible. Nothing prevents that there are some separable parts because they are not forms of any bodily reality
at all. With respect to the mind nothing is clear. It would seem that it is a different kind of soul…”
Some separable parts? Contradiction to his own metaphysics of hylomorphism!

Eighth Lesson:

Aristotle divides all that exists into animated and inanimated. Animated has principle of live in it (soul). Nature of the
soul is explained in terms of his hylomorphic theory. Reality composed of matter and form. Definitions in 2nd book of
de anima: Soul is the actuality of the natural body having organs or potentially having life.
What can we say about the second part of that definition? For Aristotle having organs or potentially having life is the
same. The form is the principle that shows itself by means of different vital activities. The soul therefore has a
fundamental relation to the matter. Soul is a form of a natural body potentially having life. In order to act, the soul
needs a well-structured body. Without such a body the soul cannot express itself by means of the vital acts. In order
to have life, the body has to accomplish minimal conditions for the soul to be active.
This definition is linked to the analysis of the soul following in Aristotle, because it characteristic for him to link the
definition of the soul to the form and the organs. Aristotle gives us an explanation of life or soul in fashion of its
capacities.
Difference between Aristotle and Plato. Plato divided the soul into three parts, rational, irrational and concupiscible,
because of the human behavior with its contradictions. Plato divides because of ethics. Aristotle divides according to
the analysis of the essential vital functions of the human beings, not ethical behavior
Operations inseparable from life can be differentiated into three groups:
1) Phenomena of the vegetative character: birth, nutrition, growth, reproduction
2) Phenomena of the sensorial character: Sensorial perception, local movement
3) Phenomena of intellectual character: Knowledge, choice.

Aristotle says we have to conclude that there are three different principles of life responsible for these vital actions:
vegetative soul, sentient soul and rational or intellectual soul.

Vegetative life reveals itself by nutrition growth and reproduction. All living organisms have those capacities. But
animals have in addition the sensorial perception. Finally humans have in addition the abstract thinking and the
rational thinking. Broadest vital act is the one in which all the living beings share, the acts of vegetative character.
According to Aristotle there is between the different kinds of souls a hierarchy. The rational pre-suppose sensorial that
pre-suppose vegetative. The higher vital acts always pre-suppose the existence of the lower capacities. Why?
Teleology! Nutrition and growth serve the higher vital actions (sensorial perception and thinking). Still the beings with
the higher and more vital operations only have one soul. The question if we have three souls or one soul that is
divisible remains unsolved for Aristotle.

Aristotle speaks about the vegetative principle of life first, because it is the broadest dimension of life, pre-supposed to
everything that lives and a condition for having higher vital or intellectual powers. The vegetative soul is the most
elementary principle of life, manifesting itself by means of three operations: Nutrition, growth and reproduction. What
can be said about these acts of vegetative life? When Aristotle speaks about nutrition he says, that in the act of
nutrition three components are involved, that which is nourished, that by which it is nourished and that what nourishes
(which is the soul). Why the soul, because that which is nourished is already the body, and the second element is the
food. The notion of food here has an essential link to life. We cannot speak about food without the soul. Nourishment
is a notion reserved for living bodies. You do not nourish a car with petrol, you fill it up. The food (that by which it is
nourished) is nourishing under the control of the soul, which brings us to the second act proper to all living things,
which is growth. Why? Aristotle objects to those who want to account for growth saying it can be explained purely
mechanical or material. He says growth is a constraint pattern of development, a well ordered development, not a
simple addition of one matter to another which makes a being to become bigger. The source of such a constraint
pattern of development obviously is the soul. Growth in the organisms proceeds along structured paths. Happens
along structured ways and it is an act which has a finality, an end-oriented act. Explain growth without taking into
account something that organizes it, it would follow that if you add to the fire a little wood, the fire will be small, if you
add a lot of wood, the fire will be big. In materialistic terms the growth of living organisms would always be appropriate
to the amount of nourishment it receives. Organism grows and develops and acquires perfections up to the point of
max from where it starts to decline. There is a relation between growth and nutrition, but not proportionate, as in the
fire-example. According to Aristotle, all organisms grow and develop according to well established finalities, maturity
and decay. This cannot be explained without a principle that coordinates these acts: a soul, the first principle of the
act of growth. The last vital act of the vegetative life is reproduction. According to Aristotle this is the final goal of every
form of life, which has its limit in time. A final aim of life, for each living being which is temporarily finite, which is not
eternal. Why? Because each being is made for eternity, even the most elementary have this tendency to go beyond
the barriers of death. For any living thing, which has reached a normal maturity, which is not handicapped, most
natural act is to produce another one like itself, in order to give some satisfaction to the tendency to live eternally.
Material finite realities cannot partake in what is eternal, cannot have uninterrupted existence, and recreation is the
only way for them to make this seem possible. A specifically equal thing like themselves is produced, in which
existence goes on.
The next level of live is the sentient soul. The acts proper to this second level of live are sensorial perception, some
kind of sensorial appetite and local movement. Existence of another soul is postulated, because these acts are so
different. Sensorial soul. Capacity of sensorial reception is for Aristotle the demarcation line between animals and
plants. Sensorial perception defines animals. They have to have sensorial perception in order to live. It is the most
important vital function for animals. These beings have to navigate in their environment to get the proper nourishment
and therefore have to sense. Teleology! Movement and sensation are needed for the animals, so they can gain
nourishment.
Sensorial perception: Most important and most characteristic for animal life: Some of A’s predecessors tried to explain
sensation as a kind of passion or alteration, where a similar was submitting itself to a similar. Aristotle explains the act
of sensorial perception with the hylomorphical change, the changes in general in the universe, the change as
transformation. Has to be explained with act and potency. According to A we have a power in potency, in capacity of
receiving sensations. Our organs are like a wood which is in capacity to be burned, but does not burn until it comes
into contact with fire. This can turn into the act of sensation with the contact of an sensible object. A sensitive capacity
can be actualized when the faculty comes into contact with the sensorial qualities of our physical world. What has the
power of sensation is potentially similar/like what the perceived object is actually. Means that at the beginning of the
process of sensation or being actualized, we have to dissimilar realities, which at the end become identical. Means
that we have the principles dissimilarity, similarity and identity: An organ is changed or affected in the act of sensation.
It is a change that takes place in the organ of sensation. The sensation is an alteration, which for A is a particular case
of interaction between two agents (in the physical world and sensual organs), which correspond to each other, are
suitable to one another. There is a hylomorphical model of alteration according to which the change is explained as
acquisition gaining another form, acquisition of a form by something, which is able to do it, is able to receive such a
form. Consequently whatever is changed is by force a reality, that is able to be changed in such a way. Aristotle
recognizes the specific forms of sensorial perception, well defined capacities in changing subjects, the one who
senses. In order to sense you have to have well defined capacities. The change consists in the fact that the capacity
which is able to change (in potency towards the well defined change) under the influence of the defined object is
made like such a thing, is made like the object which makes an impact on it. Being made similar or identical or
becoming like the agent affecting the sensorial organ means not a process of assimilation of the some kind in the act
of nourishment, where the form is destroyed and the matter assimilated. Here only the form is assimilated. A says that
sense is what has the power of receiving into itself the sensible forms of things without the matter. Example: It is like
the act of making an impression of a seal ring in wax. The result is a form of the seal in the wax, not the seal-ring
itself. Subject can perceive a given object only if it has the capacities required to receive such an object, only if such
an object acts upon the capacities by informing them, giving them the form it has. The subject becomes isomorphic
with the object, has the same form. We have five external senses to which qualities of the physical world correspond.
Actualization of the capacity of the senses he calls sensation. Our senses do not fail, when the grasp the objects
proper to them.
There are common sensibles, things we can come to know by means than more than one sense, i.e. we can feel or
see or even hear movement.
We also have an internal sense that Aristotle calls the common sense (not in the meaning we use). It is in a non-
specific sense, a sense that acts in non-specific way, therefore common. It is an internal sense that has no external
organ to use in order to operate. Its only organ is the brain. Common sense is responsible for three different realities
in us.
It is a capacity we have of sensing our own sensations. Our sight does not know that it sees. The first awareness of
perception is due to common sense. It is a root in which external senses are grounded. Without common sense
external senses would not have meaning.
We can form a unity out of different sense impressions of one thing. Ex.: my perception of the rose is not “I sense the
rose”, but I perceive it because the rose is a unified reality, which I sense through color, smell, touch. These elements
are coming to me un-unified and are unified by the common sense.
It also makes an act of discrimination. Sight can only discriminate in colors, not in sweet and red. This capacity
belongs to the common sense.

Two more internal senses:

Imagination comes from sensation and consists in producing images of realities we sense.
Memory consists in preserving these images.

Sensitive appetite is a consequence of sensation. According to A, if a living being has capacity of sensing the reality, it
also has to have appetite, because it belongs to the genera of desire, passion, wish. All animals have at least one
kind on sensorial capacity, which is touch. Whoever has that has also the capacity of feeling pleasure or pain. So the
animal with the touch capacity knows pleasure or pain, the animal will have in itself created the desire for pleasure or
the aversion of pain.

Local movement is the logical consequence of sensorial perception and desire, because the desire or aversion
generated by sensation will make us move toward or withdraw from.

Ninth Lesson

Last part of Aristotle’s philosophy of the human person; his understanding of the rational soul. He postulates the
existence of a principle of live, which is the rational soul, different from vegetative and sensitive soul. Capacities of
abstract thinking and will-power constitute vital operations justifying the introduction of a new principle of life which is
the rational soul. Without it we cannot be what we are.
His first investigation of the mind appears in the first chapters of “De Anima”. 4th + 5th chapter of the 3rd book. Well
known in history of philosophy, but often interpreted terribly wrong. Aristotle approaches the nature of thinking on the
basis of hylomorphical analysis. Thinking involves the reception of intelligible form by suitable intellectual faculty.
Thinking consists in minds being informed to receiving a form. So an act of thinking occurs whenever a suitably
prepared mind is made like its object. A subject has the capacity needed for receiving the intelligible form of a given
object. The object acts upon the capacity by informing it. as a result we have an act of knowledge. The subject
becomes isomorphic with the object known. What does it mean that the thinkers mind and its object become
isomorphic? Here, in this case, Aristotle points out that becoming isomorphic does not mean that the knower becomes
one with a hylomorphical reality of the known object. He does not take upon himself the reality of the object in the
hylomorphical form (matter + form) but only the form. His analysis of a change that takes place in an act of knowledge
bring Aristotle to the indication of some more problems: The intellective act is analogical to the act of sensorial
perception, insofar as it is a reception or assimilation of intelligible forms, just as in the act of perception. But it differs
profoundly from the act of perception because such an act is not mixed with the body or a corporal element. “What
differentiates the rational part of the soul and how can thinking take place?” If thinking is like perceiving it must be
either a process in which the soul is acted upon by what is capable of being taught (as the impact of the external
object in perception), or we are speaking about a process different from perception but with analogies. The rational
part of the soul has to be capable of receiving the form of the object. In other terms it must be potentially identical with
its object without being the object. The mind has to be related to what is thinkable in the same as the sensual organs
are related or correspondent to the possible objects of our sensorial acts. There is nothing, which isn’t a possible
object of our thinking. All the realities are possible objects of our thinking. Therefore we have to conclude that the
rational soul (the part by which it thinks) has to have a pure reality, no mixture with bodily elements. We are speaking
about a pure form here, something that goes beyond the hylo-theory. Why? Because an admixture of matter, the fact
that it would work by means of material organs would limit the souls possibilities to know. This part by means of which
we think cannot have a nature of its own and it cannot be mixed with material elements. But a reality like the rational
soul doesn’t have anything in it that limits it. This part of our soul has no nature of its known and it has only a certain
capacity. It has no nature of its own other than having a certain capacity, being in capacity towards all. What we call
thought is not a real thing before it thinks. Thinking/thought: By thought I mean that by which the soul thinks and
judges. Such a thing is a pure capacity. So before it comes to the act of thought it isn’t a real thing. Important
observation: When we look at (observe) the organs of sensorial perception we notice an important distinction between
how they work and how our mind works. When senses and mind are exposed to something extreme: if our sight is
exposed to an stimulus which is too strong (sun), such an organ, after being exposed to act in an intensive way,
becomes weakened for a certain time. So what we see is being inversed by our mind, same as the mind is getting
used to hard thinking. Proves that our mind does not function by means of physical organs. The thinking part of the
soul is a pure potentiality (1st point of the argument). Another problem: The intellectual knowledge is by Aristotle
explained in functions of the metaphysical potentiality of potency and act (passing from potency to act). Thinking is
passing from potency to act. At the same time the senses only grasp concepts. These forms are contained in potency
in the sensations, or in what is the final product of our senses. In this image we have, which is the form of an object
and we form in our sensorial apprehension of reality, are contained potentially intelligible forms, the basis for making a
concept (“an apple” not “the apple”). Two kinds of potentialities: Mind with capacity to think, the potentiality to express
the ideas. On the other hand we have the object that can work on mind and is contained in potential images. This
twofold potentiality would be actualized by creating a concept, receiving a form. The form contained in the images
becomes intelligibly in act only when it is grasped by the intellect. On the level of intellect we have the soul with the
capacity of thinking which is a pure potentiality. On the other side we have the images, the forms of the things in
singular characteristics. Those forms/images exactly are the potential object, the object which has to make an impact
on the part of the soul which thinks. This is another potentiality added to the one that the senses have in the presence
of reality. So Aristotle postulates another reality. He makes a distinction between the mind that makes all things
(potential intellect or intellect as potential) and the mind that becomes all things (active intellect or intellect as act). 5th
chapter: “We always find in the act of change or in forming certain factor which are indispensable. A matter which is
potentially all the particulars, which can become all different things, and a cause which is productive, it makes what is
possible out of this matter. These elements must be present in the change, which is an act of thinking. The matter
does not take the form itself, it depends on the agent cause. In the act of thinking we have this situation. The mind will
not become populated by ideas out of itself. Thought is what it is by virtue of becoming all things. In itself it is pure
potentiality.” It is like prime matter which is able to assume all the forms. “In fact thought is what it is by virtue of
becoming all things while there is another which is what it is by virtue of making all the things.” This is a sort of a
positive state like light. In order for the intellect to see what is potentially there we need enlightenment, something,
which will bring the images out of darkness. That’s why he says “there is another which is what it is by virtue of
making all things.” This later is called agent intellect. Thinking of thought in the “another/as light” way is
impassible/immutable, unmixed and separated. Thought is separable impassible unmixed. It is in essential part
activity. It is the unique reality, which in true terms is immortal and eternal. Here the agent intellect (the
“another/light/mind which makes all things”) acts as an efficient cause, it brings out of the potential the actuality, to
become adequate to the soul, to be brought to the level of existence that makes it intelligible. This second kind of
mind (makes all things) is an active state, while the other is pure potentiality. This kind of light is in the soul. In another
part he says this intellect comes from the outside and it is the only divine reality in us. It is in the soul but comes from
outside. It comes from outside: It seems that it stays in the soul all live long. It cannot be reduced to the body. By its
nature it transcends the sensible realities. In us there is a spiritual element. It has a divine nature, but is not God. But
it has exactly the divine characteristics: It is not undergoing change, it is always in act and it is unmixed with the body.
Thought seems to be an independent substance implanted within us and seems to be incapable of being destroyed. If
it could be destroyed it would be under the influence of old age. Old people seem to think in a less efficient manner
sometimes. Does this not prove that the efficient cause/active intellect is destructible? No! The decline in cognitive
capacities is due to deterioration of our senses. If the old man could have perfect senses, there would be no problem
to think properly. The mind, which makes all the things is not linked with the body and does not decay with it. The
decline is due to the vehicle of thought, which are the senses. If you are drunk and therefore have less proper
sensations, you think improperly, too. Soul does not decline, is not affected by old age.

Dualism between body and soul is destroyed, because the soul in itself is always essentially linked with the matter.
Human person has regained its substantial unity.

How is this part “mind, which makes all things”) of the soul created? Aristotle says: “Having the rational capacities is
due to being a member of a particular society or a member of a particular race, in other words being Greek.” So the
mind, which makes all things is the property that Greeks have. So the rational soul is given to a certain race.
Insufficient explanation.

Psychology of the moral act: Socrates reduced virtue to science and knowledge. Refused that evil could be done
voluntarily. Plato saw the contradictory elements, that we can chose evil, even if we know what’s good. Aristotle tried
to overcome the intellectualistic interpretation of moral act. Being the realist he was, he defined virtue as a knowledge
of the good, but not only that. It is also actualization or carrying out/doing it. He clarifies what should be understood by
involuntary and voluntary actions. Involuntary actions are carried out by cohersion or ignorance of circumstances.
Voluntary are those actions of which the principle resides in the person that acts. After that he includes among
voluntary actions those, which are performed out of anger, desire and calls voluntary the action of children and even
those of animals, where no thinking is involved. He does that from the point of view that the principle of act was in
them, not forced on them. He here seems to lose the understanding of circumstances. To him voluntary and
spontaneous acts suddenly are equal. They are not non-voluntary, but neither voluntary, they are spontaneous.
Human act analyzed further: Besides being voluntary (principle in acting person) they are also determined there is
another principle, the fact that they are determined by choice, which is essentially connected with virtue. Choice is
proper to adults, cannot be exercised by children or animals, but only by persons that reason and reflect on the
actions that depend on them. This kind of reflection on our own acts he calls deliberation. According to him children
cannot make the choice because they are not able to deliberate. Deliberation is concerned with the quality of different
actions. It conserves the actions from the point of the means. Choice acts with respect to the final goal. It consists in
rejecting all the means that are inadequate and choosing what we judge as the best means for achieving a particular
goal. The object of deliberation and choice is the same. In both cases we are talking about the means of reaching a
particular goal. The mind presents in deliberation many means, choice is picking the best. Aristotle denies that choice
can be identified with the will, because will sees only the ends, while choice and deliberations are about the means of
achieving such a goal. Choice concerns the means, while the will concerns the ends. Final problem is introduced
here: What is the nature of this “choice” of the ends? What is the nature of this will? Problem is that we always want
good. But is it the truly good or the apparently good? What is good? How do we judge that what we want is really
good? There’s a difference between good and good. What is wished fore is good in an unqualified true way or good
for the particular person. Take as a model a virtuous man. The one who is able to judge correctly is the one who is
virtuous. But who is the virtuous person? The one who already chose real good. So what he says is “in order to
become good you have to be good.” Most of the people judge on the basis of pleasure. So what is the source of
pleasure is good, but it is the pleasure that is misleading in most of the cases.

Tenth Lesson:

St. Thomas:
There are similarities in Thomas and Aristotle, but they are not identical.
Main concepts: St. Thomas assumes the point of view that there is a variety of substances, being is not a monolithical
reality. He divides into substantial and accidental realities. Something can exist divided into ten categories, everything
that exists can exist according to ten different ways of being. Out of these ten categories, one is called substance
(exists on its own), the others are accidents (exist in another). There are nine accidents, nine accidental ways of
existence: quality, quantity, relation; where, when, possession, position; action, passion. These are linked to the
changes a being can undergo. Two different ways of movement or change: Substantial and accidental. According to
Thomas each material substance is composed of matter and form. Hylomorphical composition. Prime matter is pure
potentiality, substantial form is the first act. First act means the principle, which is placing a particular material reality
in its specific way of being. It determines the essence of the reality. Prime matter cannot exist without any form. For
Aristotle prime matter was an eternal reality. for St. Thomas it is created and cannot exist by itself. Whatever came to
be was created with the form. It always comes to be under a specific form. Aristotles hylo. comp. is restricted by
Thomas to corporal realities, to the physical world. Bonaventura claimed that hylo is proper to immaterial finite beings,
too. Thomas says: “Nope!” Immaterial beings like angels are not composed that way. Why? Thomas considered
angels as something that can be proved rationally, because the existence of these beings is demanded if we look at
the hierarchical order of being. There is a certain ontological graduation, a hierarchy. We see low forms of existence,
which are inorganic substances, then we have organic vegetative forms, sensitive animal forms, the rational human
person, which has soul and body. Then we have an infinite pure act, which is God. In the world of corporal substances
we see graduation, no big leaps. But the human person on top of the physical crated world, the gap between him and
God is too big. Material finite to infinite spiritual reality. There has to be an intermediate being, beings which have
something proper to the most high and the human person. Angels: Finitely created, but spiritual immaterial
existences. For Thomas matter always means a quantified reality. In no case was he able to attribute hylomorphical
composition to angels. As a consequence he would say, that each spiritual finite being is a species of its own,
because it only has form, which is specifying principle. In his time, other philosophers attributed a composition of
matter and form to spiritual beings, because they had a different understanding of matter as Thomas. The other
theologians did not understand the matter as being linked with the necessity of being quantified, but simply as a
capacity to change (mutability). Bonaventura understands material principle in this terms, not as a need for quantity
shaped by form, but simply as capacity for change. He says that it is necessary to admit hylomorphical composition
for the whole of reality, because if we deny it to the created spiritual world, then those realities become simple not
composed, therefore equal to God, who alone is pure act. Thomas answer to that: matter and form are not the final
co-principles of the whole reality. According to Thomas beyond hylo. comp. proper to the corporal world, there is
another more fundamental composition/distinction proper to the whole of the created reality, corporal and spiritual.
The angles have no matter, true, but they have potentiality. The most fundamental distinction throughout all of
creation is between act and potency. So, the angles have no material element but potential element. For Thomas form
does not always mean actuality, can be simple potentiality. This is because of another distinction Thomas introduces
and was absent in Aristotle. Every finite being exists because of an act of existence. We have a distinction between
substance, something which has a being, while existence is this in virtue of which a substance is called a being. This
notion is the core of Aristotles metaphysics. For Thomas the ultimate notion of the metaphysics is not the one of
matter and form, but an act of being, of existence. It was a discovery within the field of metaphysics, within the field of
being. We have a very dynamic conception of being. There is a difference between the things which are and the
principle in virtue of which they are (esse and ens). When we try to define ens/entity, we see it is a composition;
Thomas says “that what is” (it quod est). Two aspects: it quod and est: That what and is. An essence and an
existence. Existence points out to an act, the highest act, in virtue of which the essence becomes a reality. It is an
ultimate act which causes something to be. Aristotle did not see that. For him the being was always considered as a
substance, as “ens”. There is no hylo. comp. in the spiritual substances, because the essence of the corporal beings
is composed of matter and form, while the essence of immaterial beings is simple reality, only form, no composition.
Since even immaterial beings have to be actualized by an act of being, they are not simple, but composed, although
the composition is not hylomorphical, but of essence and act of existence. So they are not equal to God. They have
existence, but they are not existence themselves. So the lack of absolute simplicity is a characteristic of all of creation.
Only God has absolute simplicity. Actuality and potentiality are two elements we find in each created reality. It is the
composition that runs throughout creation. All substances are composed of at least two elements. One of which is in
relation to the other like potency towards act; not like matter and form. The act of being is what Thomas calls the most
perfect and highest element in whatever exists. To such an act every form is in potency. The form is the principle,
which determines the essence, what the being is. What actualizes the essence is the existence. In the intellectual
substances we have only one composition act/potency. In the material substances we have a double composition
act/potency, because first we see that the material principle stands as potentiality towards the formal principle, which
is actualizing; and the essence stands a potentiality towards the act of existence. Existence is neither matter nor form
and it is neither the essence nor even a part of those beings. It is an act which brings into existence the essence,
actualizes it. This means that in this light the essence is not the highest ontological perfections in order of being,
because it is an act of existence, according to Thomas. Still it has a high perfection, because it is an element of a
finite being, which is of absolute necessity. There is nothing that exists that does not have an essence. Relationship
between essence and existence in finite beings: It is compared to the receiver (essence) and received (existence).
Each being participates in the act of existence (God) according to its own capacities. The more capacities a being
has, the bigger a receiver it is, the more it will receive, it will participate in the act of existence. So the essence
determines to what degree something participates in the act of existence. Thomas also indicates a distinction between
essence and existence. On an ontological level these are two different realities. Acceptable? Depends on how you
understand “real” distinction. If it is between two things as separated from another in isolated realities, then it is not the
case with essence and existence. They cannot exist as separate realities. Thomas means the distinction between two
metaphysical principles. The essence is something else but cannot exist without existence. And existence always has
to be within a substance. In God there is no difference between essence and existence, because the act of existing is
the very essence of God.

Thomas admits substances and accidents in reality. These words indicate the fundamental ways of existence in
reality. Whatever exists does so under substance and accidents. To Thomas the substance is that in which the
accidents are inherent (substantia: substare = to stand beneath. A reality which stands beneath another reality.”).
Essential meaning is another one, coming from subsistere: the capacity for existing by itself.

Distinction between essence and substance: Essence is what determines a things way of being; indicates that a thing,
if it would exist, would exist like that (rational animal). Substance is a certain manner of being which is actually
subsisting. Substance is something more than essence.

Accidents are multiplied perfection of substantial realities. Accidents by themselves are the reality to whose essence it
is proper to be in something else. Accidents by their essence can not exist, have to be in something else, which
becomes their subject.

Classification of different accidents: Two ways

First: One which is done according to the way in which different accidents affect the substance. From this point of
view we have three groups: First those accidents which affect substance intrinsically (quantity, quality, relation),
second those which affect a substance extrinsically (where, when, position, possession), third those accidents which
affect the substance partially intrinsically and partially extrinsically (action, passion).
Second: Four groups:
First, the accidents, which belong to the species, which directly come from the essence of whatever reality it is. They
are common qualities to a specific kind of a being. Qualities, which each individual belonging to a particular species
has to have. In order to be a human person we have to have qualities.
Second we have the accidents, which are inseparable from a certain individual (heights, weight, color).
Third we have accidents, which are separable from the individual, like the realities that affect the individual only in a
transient way.
Fourth we have accidents that affect an individual under the influence of the external agent, being submitted to the
actions of the others. Being sick is caused in me by an external agent.

Act of being always belongs to the substance, not the accidents. Substance is formed by the essence and different
accidents, which belong to it. The act of exist belongs to the essence. Matter form accidents separately do not have
an act of existence.

There is the problem of the passive and active potency and the first and the second act, corresponding to them.
Potentiality is a capacity to receive an act, to be actualized. That is the meaning we assign to a passive potency,
which is potentiality in its proper sense. Corresponding to that is the first act, the form, which actualizes this
potentiality. The active potency is a capacity to act, to produce something. Corresponding to that is the second act, an
act accomplished.

We can distinguish three levels between passive potency and corresponding act.
First: Prime matter and substantial form: Prime matter is in potency to receive a form that turns it into something
concrete.
Second: Substance and accident. All substances are in passive potency to be perfectioned/actualized by accidents
Third: Essence and act of being. Essence is in potency to receive the act of being.
Active potency and the act corresponding to it is the capacity to produce something. Active potency is sometimes
simply called a power. The act corresponding to this active potency is action or activity. It is called a second act.
Second acts are operations and the corresponding powers are accidents. The active powers are accidental realities,
which belong to the species (first of the four groups: inseparable from the species).
From the point of view of origin the active powers are the accidents that belong to the species, qualities that are
inseparable from the species! The second act can be action or quality. When the operation is transitive, we speak
about action, when the act is immanent, we speak about qualities.

Eleventh Lesson:

Thomistic Psychology:
Parts of the Summa are to be analyzed, will show us the way in which Thomas is discussing the human nature. How
does he proceed?
Aristotle, when writing on psychological problems, treated the problems in a broad sense. His psychology talked about
the souls of plants, animals and humans. Thomas is not interested in plants or animals. For him the object proper to
psychology is only the human person. His point is much more anthropological. His psychological discussion is in three
works: “Disputed questions on the soul” was written in Rome in 1255 + 1256. It consists of 21 questions where
Thomas deals with questions later developed in Summa. “A commentary on Aristotle’s ‘On the soul’”, 1267 +
1268. In this work there is a lot of detailed analysis of Aristotle. In the “Summa” (1268, pt1; 1271-72, pt.2; 72 until
death, pt.3, left unfinished) his position is expressed in the easiest, most accessible and fullest way.
Summa (Preface) is written for students, therefore it is a work that is meant to be easy:
No useless questions! No unordered presentation of subjects! No unnecessary repetitions!

Summa contains three parts. In the first Thomas speaks about God and creations (descending order). In the second
part Thomas speaks about the human person from the point of view of the way we behave and act. In the third part
Thomas speaks about incarnation and the life of Christ. It is presented how everything that is created descends from
God (pt1) and has to return to God. How? By living our life in a Christian way (pt2). The way, which leads us back to
God is Christ and the sacraments (pt3).

Structure of the Summa: I, I-II, II-II, III

1st part (I):

- Existence of theology (1)
- God and his perfections: Does he exist? (2), How does he exist? (3-16), How does he
operate? (4-26)
- Procession of Divine persons: Origin of each person (27), relations between them (28),
three persons as one being (29)
- Creation: God as the first cause (44), Creation - what it means (45), duration in time
(46)
- Distinction of creatures (47-102): in general (47), in particular (48-102): Good and evil
(48-49), Corporeal and spiritual creatures (50-102): angels (50-64), absolutely corporeal
(65 - 74), composite (75-102): Nature (75-89), production of the human person (90-102)
- How God governs the things (103-119)

2nd part (I-II, II-II):

I-II
- Purpose of human existence (1-5)
- Human acts/operations: Intrinsic principles of human acts (6-89): Powers/faculties and
corresponding acts (6-48), Habits (49-89): Habits in general (49-54), Habits in
particular (55-89): Virtues (good) (55-70): in themselves (55-67): Essence (55), Subject
(56), Division: Intellectual (57), Moral (58-61), Theological (62); Causes (63),
Properties (64-67), Matters connected with virtues (68-70): Gifts of the Holy Spirit (68),
beatitudes (69), fruits of the Holy Spirit (70), Vices (71-89): In themselves (71),
Distinction (72-73), Subject (74), Causes (75-84), Effects (85-89); Extrinsic principles
of human acts: God (90-114): Law (90-108), Grace (109-113), Devil (114)
II-II
- Theological virtues (1-46): Faith (1-16), Hope (17-22), Love (23-46)
- Cardinal Virtues (47-170): Prudence (47-56), Justice (57-122), Fortitude (123-140),
Temperance (141-170)
- Acts specific to certain men: Gifts (171-178), Active and contemplative life and the acts
proper to them (179-182), Diversity of states of life and different perfections linked
with these (183-189)

3rd part (III):

- Incarnation (1-27)
- Life, death, resurrection of Christ (28-59)
- Sacraments (60-90)
- Resurrection and life everlasting (91-99)

We will look at I, qq 75-89 and I-II qq 1-48

I, qq 75-89: Nature of the human person. Being theological, the work does not have an ascending aspect like
Aristotle. He speaks about a being that has a body and a soul in its proper making. Human person is a composite of
spirit and matter. Thomas looks at the soul, particularly its essence, powers and operations. Essence (75-76): Soul in
itself (75) and as united with the body (76). Powers (77-83): In general (77), in particular (78-83): Vegetative and
sensitive powers (78) as a preambula to the intellectual powers, intellectual powers (79), appetitive powers (80-83): In
general (80), In particular: Sensitive appetite (81), Intellectual appetite/will (82-83). Operations (84-89; I-II, 57; I-II, 49-
89)): Corresponding to intellectual powers (I, 84-89; I-II, 57): Intellectual acts -> How the soul knows when it is united
with the body (84-88): Bodies (84-86), Itself (87), Immaterial spiritual realities (88), or separated from the body (89),
Intellectual habits (I-II, 57); Corresponding to appetitive powers (I-II, 6-89): Appetitive acts (I-II, 6-48): Acts proper to
the human person (6-21): In general, voluntary/non-voluntary (6-7), In particular (8-48): From will (8-17), Good and
evil (18-20), Consequences (21); Common to human person and animal, passions (22-48): In general (22-25), In
particular (26-49): Concupiscible (26-39): Love, Hatred, Desire, Delight, Sorrow, Pain; Iratible (40-49): Hope, Despair,
Fear, Courage, Anger; Appetitive habits (I-II, 49-89): General (49-54), Virtues/good (55-70), Vices/bad (71-89)

Look at I, q 18.3 if you have the time, see what are the elements in virtue of which St. Thomas is making a division of
all living reality in three dimensions.

Twelfth Lesson

The nature of the soul, its essence, in Thomas:

We see an independence of Thomas from Aristotle and also a difference. Thomas follows closely, but always retains
his independence. Already the presentation of the problem is different from Aristotle, because Thomas does not follow
the ascending order of Aristotle. Aristotle speaks about vegetative, sensual and rational soul and treats them equally.
Thomas looks at the problem from the Christian point of view and therefore starts his discussion with the notion that
the soul is spiritual and created. The discussion goes immediately to “What is the human soul?” not “What are the
different kinds of souls?”.
Question 75: “What belongs to the essence of the human soul?” Seven important questions
Is the soul a body or not?
Is the human soul a subsistent reality?
Is the animal’s?
What is the composition of the human person (soul and body)?
Is the soul composed of matter and form? Is it simple?
Is it corruptible?
Is the human soul of the same kind as the souls of the angels?
Answer: The soul is a material, substantial, simple reality.

Definition of soul in Thomas in the 1st article of question 75:

Premise: Looking for the nature of the soul we have to presume that the soul is defined as the 1st principle of life. We
call living things animated = “Having a soul”; things that do not live inanimate = “Having no soul”. Smart, because no-
one would object to the division of things into animate and inanimate. And the soul is, what makes the difference! So
the soul is connecting us with life, is the principle of life.

What do we mean by life?

Two different points yet compatible points of view: Metaphysical and scientific
Metaphysical: Abstract definition. Life as such is an abstract term. Life is an act of being typical of the living
things (from vegetative to human). What do we do? We live! Life is an abstract term coming from an act of life. Life is
a specifial act of being proper to a group of beings. The act of being is proper also to non-animate beings. Whatever
exists has an act of being.
Scientific: Properly speaking we cannot give a definition for life, because what is proper to the positive sciences is
not so much the study of life in itself as an abstract act, but the operations of being that are proper to life. The vital
operations are examined and expressed in mathematical formulas. From this point of view, the biological sciences
give only reduced information in regard to what life is, because they study not “the life” but the vital operations, by
means of which we can detect life. Definition of vital operations: Self-regulated chemical processes on the molecular
scale of the organism that preserves through time and generations a genetic continuity.
Self-regulated chemical processes on the molecular scale: In order to speak about the living beings, the first thing
characterizing them is the fact that they are a center of constant chemical reactions. The reactions are of a particular
kind. They do not happen on a microscopic scale, but on the molecular scale, which is impossible to see without
special instruments. Also, such chemical reactions are happening under conditions, which are distant from equilibrium
and they can not be reduced to the laws of neutrons. They are happening on the basis of feedback, not action-
reaction. Means: If we join two cylinders with gases, which have their own characteristics and temperatures, we know
that the result is another kind of gas with a temperature resulting from the two previous ones. It is an equilibrium
between the first initial stages. The result is a particular state of equilibrium, stability. Initial conditions were different.
The third state is a stability of the system. We have identical temperature. The stability is a stability of the maximum
disorder, because we have complete disorder of the initial gases, we do not know which is what. We have another
reality representing a condition of a molecular chaos. Such a situation of living in equilibrium with this what is joined
with us, is something which is not proper to life. Chemical processes proper to life take place in a state distant from
equilibrium. It is true that living beings are the physical systems capable of exchanging energy with the proper
environment. Yet the exchange of energy with the environment happens in such a way that the living organism is able
to retain its own stability without passing to the state of equilibrium with the proper environment, i.e.: average
temperature. The living organism has the ability to maintain stability during the exchange of energy. The living
organism maintains a maximum of inner order. Death of the individual means the state of thermodynamic equilibrium,
loosing the capacity of keeping yourself in a stable condition.
This stability implies a presence of a system of self-regulation, because the stability is only possible because life is
characterized by a process of self-regulation of the chemical processes. The exchange of the energy between living
organism and environment does not happen in terms of action-reaction. Self-regulation is linked to complex
structures, which are supposed to maintain the individual, the reproduction, the species. The self-regulating process
consists in a hierarchy pf processes inside the living organism. Some parts of the higher level of the organism check
operation of lower levels of the organism. That’s why we speak of organism, because where the higher level controls
the lower, the lower elements become tools for a good used by a higher element. Tool = Organ. Organism is exactly
this coordinated being, having a capacity of self-regulation. The organs regulate the functions of cells, which become
the tools of the organs, the cells regulate the molecular stuff in the cells themselves. So one becomes the tool of
operation for others = Organism.
This process goes in two ways. The organs do not only regulate, but v.v. There is a mutual interaction on the different
levels of organization of the totality. It is kind of a circular reaction, not linear, or a kind of retroaction. Life from this
point of view is characterized by this particular important sophisticated capacity of self-regulation. The vital operations
are the self-regulated processes of the molecular scale to stabilize individual and species. The self-regulation-capacity
is replaced by a notion of the capacity to perform an immanent act.

From a metaphysical point of view (in comparison to the scientific point of view):
Life is a transcendent perfection of an act of being, proper to certain beings, which are by their essence able to
determine levels of proper behavior. Life is an act of being proper to those beings with the capacity of partial or total
self-determination, or beings capable to perform immanent acts, or of those things able to move themselves. Living
beings are those physical (and spiritual) substances manifesting intrinsic finality. We can see this in the actions they
perform, because they are able to modify their behavior in view of satisfaction of determined aims. This is a capacity
of changing behavior in order to reach a determined aim. This can be done in conscious or unconscious way. Not
each living organism performs such processes of self-determination in a conscious way. There is a significant
difference in what way such self-determination happens in sub-human beings and in the human person. With the vital
acts, the first finality is surviving, reproduction, retaining the continuity of the individual existence and the existence of
the species. In the sub-human kingdoms, these aims occupy the highest pace in the natural aims. All other finalities
are subordinated or instrumental to these aims. The intermediate aims/ends can always change place without the
awareness of the animal. For example: Animals have a fear of fire, because it is dangerous and deadly. But there also
is the natural drive to satisfy hunger, because it helps to survive. An animal would not try to overcome the barrier of
fire to get food. But when the hunger becomes a deadly threat, the main aim becomes life, so the hierarchy of
operations changes and the animal might jump through fire to get a snack.
In the human being the capacity of change is present, but additionally we have an awareness of natural goals. We
also have a freedom that the animals do not have. We can know our natural goals and we are free in one way or the
other to achieve goals. We might even sacrifice our own life in order to safe the life of someone else and do this
consciously.
In the living beings there are different levels of how we can determine our own behavior. Thomas speaks about
different levels of life, using the principle of immanence or self-regulation. In order to determine the levels of life and
their perfection, we have to look at three different components of acts and see what kind of influence we can have on
them. The three components of an immanent action: In the first place the end (towards which we move) moves the
agent, the principle agent is that which acts through its form (the principle of movement), and sometimes … does not
more than execute the action.

Beginning from the lowest level up to the highest, the ability to being moved by itself is growing. On the first level of
live the determination of self-regulation can only be exercised in reference to doing or not doing something, not in
regard to the form in which it is done, not in regards to the end toward such an act is directed. -> Vegetative forms of
life.
On the second level we find a higher level of self-determination, because animals can determine both the execution of
the vital act (doing or not doing) and the form of doing it, but not the proper goals -> Animal forms of life. Animals can
apprehend by sensorial perception and can thus change the form of the way in which they behave. But they cannot
change the purpose of the vital operations.
On the third level of life self-determination can be exercised in regard to the purpose as well. We have different
degrees of immanence. Once we have a process of self-regulation only in regard to the executive acts, we speak
about vegetative life, add the form of the execution and you have sensorial, animal life; finally when self-regulation
can be exercised in regard to the end, we have human life.

These three levels of life are characterized by certain things, about which Thomas speaks.
Third level is characterized by that the ends are known and voluntarily chosen. We have a consciousness of the goals
and we can voluntarily change them. This capacity of knowing the goals and the proper behavior and choosing them
in a free way makes that a particular object becomes an intentional goal, something towards which we tend in a
knowing and voluntary way. They become values for us. Such a goal, knowingly pursued, will define the form and
execution of our acts. From this point if view this kind of behavior is determined by the fact that we have intellectual
capacities and will. We are able to know the forms of the other realities.
Second level is given to those beings by nature. It cannot be chosen in voluntary and conscious way. But it can be
changed unconsciously, involuntarily. The goal is instinctively pursued. Feelings of pain modify the form and the
execution of acts. The modification of the behavior can be done in virtue of sensorial knowledge, through which the
animals receive the forms of the other beings.
First level beings cannot be enriched in its form or nature like that. They have an innate natural goal, involuntarily and
unconsciously present. They cannot change the way they behave. They can only influence in regard to performing or
not performing an act.
So Thomas means a certain degree of the capacity to perform immanent acts, a capacity for partial or total self-
regulation, when he talks about living beings.

About the soul:

First from the notion of the soul in general: “It belongs to the nature of the soul to be the form of the body.”
Secondly not in general but in specific: “We can say that it is an intellectual or rational reality.”
General notion can be applied to plants and animals, too. Specifically it is only applicable to human beings.
Speaking about the human soul, he indicates one important characteristic. Essentially the human soul is immaterial.
This means on the one hand incorporeal and on the other hand subsistent. Incorporeal means that it is not a body,
not a material element but a formal element in whatever is alive. Immaterial also means subsistent, not intrinsically
dependent on the body. It is able to exist independently from the material component, from the body. So it is not a
form in the sense that Aristotle meant. Because the act of being belongs to the soul.

FINAL EXAM

Question: What is philosophical philosophy? Where does the term come from and what are the Formal and Material
objects of it?

Answer:
**Philosophical Psychology is a natural science, which is speculative
**Philosophical Psychology seeks a metaphysical understanding of the human person, both in its essence
and its powers, acts and habits.
**Psychology is part of natural philosophy and focuses on the soul and its relation to the body. Investigates
the problems of life.
**The term for philosophical psychology originates from the Greek psyche (soul) and logos (reason/the study
of).
**Etymologically, it indicates “something which is thrown in front of something.”
**It is the study of the soul and has the living person as its material object.
**Philosophical Psychology has the essence of the human person as its formal object.

Question: What is the nature of the human being in the Orphic Tradition?

Answer:

**The Orphics believed that when Dionysius was killed in battle with the Titans that Zeus burned them and
scattered their ashes over the earth.
**It is from these ashes that man took their form.
**The Orphics also held that the mortal body was a prison and that the soul was continually seeking to return
to the Divine.
**The human soul is of Divine origin and can leave the body and exists before and after the body.
**Human person was the principle called “soul” not the body.
(Soul fell into the body)
**Dualistic conception of the human being. Means the human being is composed of 2 opposite elements.
Soul, incorruptible and corruptible body.
**The Orphics further thought that the soul and the conscious were two different parts.
**Their reasoning for this separation was that when the body slept that the conscious did too. **The soul,
however, was liberated when the body slept.
**Overall, the Orphics thought that life was a preparation for death and so they struggled to liberate the soul
through ascetics.
**Soul aso called “demon” in positive sense. Inner voice. (Socrates had a very strong inner voice.)
**Orphism believed in transmigration - Metampsychosis.
**Not from religion do we learn about re-incarnation, but from this philosophy.
Plato wrote
**The soul had to come back for what we had done during this life. Live through what we had done to
someone else.
**In early Greek thinking (before 6th cent.), we already saw the idea of paying back errors or receiving a
reward,
**Saw sin as penalty - some imperfection.

Question: What are the similarities and differences in the conception of the human person according to the Sophists
and Socrates?

Answer:
**Socrates used many of the logical ticks that the Sophists developed to pursue the truth. **Socrates wanted
his students to obtain a genuine self-knowledge and actively pursue truth, justice and life.
**He wanted them to see the illusions of the world, instead of create them like the Sophists. Socrates,
further, held that the unexamined life was not worth living.
**Socrates believed that the soul was identified with the conscious and that it was the source of all of our
moral acts.
**The measure for the soul was God and those evils committed by a person are done so out of ignorance.
**The perfect soul is gained by virtue as formed by science and knowledge.
**It is the soul, as such, that makes use of the body and rules it.

**The Sophists were "philosophers" that taught for a fee.

**They often focused on the most popular topics and, with the young politicians, taught them how to sway a
crowd to their view and prove any proof.
**It is apparent that the truth for the Sophists was not one of the highest priorities.
**For the Sophists the measure of everything is the human person. This notion is developed in Phaedo
(relativism), Gorgias (Ethics of Situaiton) and Phaedrus (utilitarianism) as well as the idea that reality is just
an appearance.
**Overall, the Sophists thought that the world had no aim or direction.
**Socrates. Sometimes mistaken as a Sophists because of his way of questioning.
**He would ask questions, like ‘what is justice’. Made himself look stupid which ffrightened others.
**For Socrates, aim was not success, but research of truth.
**Sophist and Socrates: both have reflection on human being. Sophists made conclusions about man
without considering essence of man.
**Socrates considers essence: What is a man? Human person is the soul (anima).

Question: Discuss the immortality of the soul and its proofs in Plato.

Answer:
***Plato develped six proofs for the immortality of the soul, four of which come from Phaedo and the other
two which come from the Republic and Phaedrus.
→The first proof, to begin with, is that contraries are produced from opposite contraries, ie. light and
darkness and darkness and light. In this way, there is life and death and death and life.
→Secondly, the soul pre-existed and is immortal. We have a knowledge of things before we were born. We
could only know these things from our past existence. Detractors held that this only proved that the soul pre-
existed, not that it was also immortal.
→Thirdly, similar knows similar. The nature of the soul is similar to God. It understands things that are not
seen, ie. ideas and forms. These things cannot decay and so neither can the soul. Detractors said that this
proved that the soul was immortal, but they said that it wears out.
→Fourth, contigent being participates in absolute being. The soul is life and life cannot admit the principle of
death, it excludes it. Therefore, the soul is immortal and can't wear out.
→Fifth, the soul cannot be destroyed by anything internal or by an eternal evil touching us. For example,
those who have ignorance or drunkenness can live a long time in spite of being evil and, yet, the soul is not
destroyed by whatever is in it that is externally bad.
→Lastly, the soul is the source of movement, the principle movement of the body is the soul and it is self-
moving. The soul, therefore, cannot stop moving.
**Overall, the problem with this argument is that there is no real proof of the immortality of the soul.

Question: Tripartition of the soul in Plato and Aristotle: explain the fundament of each divisions and its characteristics.

Answer:
**Plato has three distinct souls that are found within all people.
 →They are the rational soul (intellect/mind) Discerns what is right/wrong; true/false and in charge of making
decisions. For Plato this soul is immortal: charioteer w/two mortal horses
→ and the irrational soul, which is divided into two parts,
a. irascible soul: heart and the desires.
b. concupisible soul: found in the bowels and is the passions
**Our feelings are mostly deferred in the face of rational pursuits, especially to achieve a degree
**concupisible souls, one of which is good and the other that is bad.

**Aristotle believed that each person had parts of each soul.

**He held that the soul is formal, efficient and the final cause of the existence of an organism.
**Aristotle developed the vegetative, sensible and rational souls.
→The vegetative soul deals with nutrition, reproduction and growth.
→The sensible soul is found in animals (and perhaps plants) and accounts for their perception of
features of their surroundings and move in response to this stimuli.
→The rational soul is in human beings and permits representation and thought

Question: How did Aquinas describe the soul? Questions 75 through 77? Indicate and explain essential
characteristics of the soul in St. Thomas.

Answer:
St. Thomas believed that the soul is immaterial and is the 1st principle by which we live. It is the form of the body and
is capable of existing by itself. The nature, powers and acts of the soul all work in harmony with the body and require
the body to operate. The proper action, thus, of the soul is life and so the body itself rquires the soul to operate it.
Importantly, the soul does not contain matter but it distinguishes between living and non-living beings. There is also
no way to destroy the soul.

Question: What are the genera of the powers to each power of the soul? What are the acts proper to all those
species? What are the objects proper to all those powers? Indicate the nature and division of the powers of the soul
in St. Thomas.

Answer:

St. Thomas developed three ways to distinguish powers:

→1) orders, grades of cosmic life; (vegetative, sensitive, rational powers)
→2) genders, divisions in orders; and
→3) species, division within genders.

The orders of the soul are the vegatative, sensative and rational powers. The vegatative power of
the soul, in terms of gender, has the object of the body and acts to give life to the body.
The vegatative power is the lowest dignity of the three powers of the soul and has the acts of nutrition,
reproduction and growth.

The sensative power apprehends through the five senses and provides data to the brain to figure out the specifics and
the bigger picture of things. The powers are taste, smell, touch, hearing and sight. When things enter through the
senses they don't lose their individual material make up. Sight is the highest act of the sensative power because it
can apprehend the object without changing it or loosing its material properties. The internal power coming from this is
the imagination and makes the transition to the highest power of the soul. The four internal operations of the
sensative power are 1) common sense, 2) imagination, 3) discrimination and 4) memory. Together these form the
passive intellect.

The intellect is the highest power of the soul. It is made up of the possible intellect and agent intellect, which is
memory intellection and reasoning. It is in this power that man is like unto God. The degree of intellect, thus, is in
direct proportion to its knowledge of the Universal Being.