In this passage, when referring to pathe/affections of the soul, Aristotle is talking about emotions, such as pain, fear, desire, and pleasure, and arguably, perception. Whenever we get angry, happy, upset, etc., there is also a simultaneous change in our bodies. Moreover, a pathe of soul is common to that which has soul. This means that attributes of soul are with body. Understanding what this means can be best done in juxtaposition with human activity. For example, when I say that some activity is done that my sister and I do in common, this does not exclude both of us participating in this activity independently. Moreover, if I ask of some activity of another individual, X, whether it is also common to X’s brother or peculiar to X alone, …show more content…
An axe can chop because it has a certain organization. When we say that an axe chops because of its form or organization, however, we do not mean that this form or organization does anything over and above what the composite axe (form and matter) does. Rather, the axe can chop because it has a certain form or organization. The axe can chop because it is arranged this way. Likewise, if one was to read the claim that ‘if an axe had a soul, it would be its ability to chop’ in a certain way, he or she would be lead to think that the soul, like the axe’s ability to chop, does not explain the activities of the body by doing anything over and above what the body does. Akin to the axe organization, the soul/form of a living body is the way that this living body is organized. Moreover, just like all capacities that come from being organized in a certain way, the soul does not explain activities of organized whole by doing anything. Rather, the soul explains perception by explaining how a body, organized in a certain way, (a body that has a soul), can undergo changes that are perception. This is what someone who thinks that the soul is a functionally useful structure or arrangement would have to say about this …show more content…
Since the sailor, the actuality of a ship, and the ship itself are distinct entities in some sense, it is also possible for the sailor to do things, and undergo changes, that the ship does not do or undergo. For example, the sailor can move his arm, and the sailor walk around the ship; the ship does not/cannot do either. Likewise, the ship can undergo changes that the sailor does/cannot. For instance, the ship can lose a plank, and water can splash up against its wooden sides, but this does not also happen to the sailor. The sailor, the actuality of the ship, is distinct from the ship in a way that the organization of the ship is not. This distinction allows the sailor to do/undergo things that are not just a way of referring to what the ship does/undergoes in virtue of having a certain structure. Moreover, if the soul is the actuality of a body in this way, then it will be possible for the soul to do/undergo things that the body cannot do/undergo, and vice versa. For example, the soul can undergo a spiritual change that is becoming aware of an object of perception, and the body and its organs can undergo a straightforward material change. Perceiving, like sailing, will
Melissa is more likely to be attracted to Aristotle’s basic orientation and his view on the soul. Melissa’s mind set leans more towards the scientific thought process when it comes to life and death. Like Aristotle her beliefs are more of the here and now. Making due with the reality put in front of them. Even though Melissa’s thoughts and beliefs mostly come with facts she still has some belief that there is something beyond the body that makes Matthew who he is, Matthew. But with that belief she also thinks without brain function there is no Matthew to save. It is a body with no ability to think and live. So like Aristotle she does think that there is a soul that is a part of our bodies. But without the ability to think then you are not living.
Richard Taylor explained why the body and the mind are one, and why they are not two separate substances. In the article “The Mind as a Function of the Body”, Taylor divides his article in a number of sections and explains clearly why dualism, or the theory that the mind and the body are separate is not conceivable. In one of these sections it is explained in detail the origin of why some philosophers and people believe in dualist metaphysics. As stated by Taylor “when we form an idea of a body or a physical object, what is most likely to come to mind is not some person or animal but something much simpler, such as a stone or a marble”(133). The human has the tendency to believe a physical object as simple, and not containing anything complex. A problem with believing this is that unlike a stone or a marble a human (or an animal) has a brain and the body is composed of living cells (excluding dead skin cells, hair, and nails which are dead cells). The f...
Elizabeth writes a letter to Descartes asking him to explain to her the relationship “there is between the soul, which is immaterial, and the body, which is material” (Margaret A.: p16). She seeks this clarification particularly on the aspect that regardless of how the soul influences the body movements. This question comes following a claim that Descartes had made “regarding the body and the soul” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). He had intimated that the body and the soul exist as single entities and that each has autonomous function. This is found in the philosophy of the dualism. “The function of the brain is to think. The function of the body, on the other hand, is to show movements” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). It is for this reason that Elizabeth wonders then that if the body and the soul are independent, how comes that the soul can cause body movements? She trusted that the great philosopher of the time, Descartes, would have an explanation considering the matter. The body-soul relation was a concept that Elizabeth found impossible to comprehend. “According to what she had already known from the metaphysics back ground is that movement of a physical body could only be effected by the action of another physical body” (Margaret A.: p17). How the soul managed to cause the body movement despite it being immaterial was the mystery that Elizabeth thought that Descartes would solve.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
Aristotle's ethics consist of a form of virtue ethics, in which the ethical action is that which properly complies with virtue(s) by finding the mean within each particular one. Aristotle outlines two types of virtues: moral/character virtues and intellectual virtues. Though similar to, and inspired by, Plato and Socrates’ ethics, Aristotle's ethical account differs in some areas.
In Plato’s dialogue, the Phaedo, Socrates gives an account of the immortality of the soul. Socrates does this through a series of arguments. He argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of his execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper focuses on Socrates 's first argument for immortality of the human soul, his counter arguments to Cebes and Simmias ' arguments, and an explanation as to why Socrates first argument for the immorality of the soul does not succeed in establishing that the soul is immortal.
Courageous and admirable with noble qualities defines a heroine. In Aristotle’s Poetics he describes a tragic hero as a character who is larger than life and through fate and a flaw they destroy themselves. Additionally, Aristotle states excessive pride is the hubris of a tragic hero. The hero is very self-involved; they are blind to their surroundings and commit a tragic action. A tragedy describes a story that evokes sadness and awe, something larger than life. Furthermore, a tragedy of a play results in the destruction of a hero, evoking catharsis and feelings of pity and fear among the audience. Aristotle states, "It should, moreover, imitate actions which excite pity and fear, this being the distinctive mark of tragic imitation." (18) For a tragedy to arouse fear, the audience believes similar fate might happen to them and the sight of the suffering of others arouses pity. A tragedy's plot includes peripeteia, anagnorisis, hamartia and catharsis. Using Aristotle’s criteria, both characters in Oedipus The King and The Medea share similar qualities that define a tragic hero such as being of noble birth, having excessive pride, and making poor choices. They both gain recognition through their downfall and the audience feels pity and fear.
In Plato’s Republic Book IV, Socrates sets out to convince Glaucon that a person acts with three different parts of the soul, rather than with the soul as a whole. He does this by presenting Glaucon with a variety of situations in which parts of the soul may conflict with one another, and therefore not acting together. Socrates describes the three parts of the soul as the rational part, or that which makes decisions, the appetitive part, or that which desires, and the spirited part, or that which gets angry (436a).
For Descartes, these are mind and body, and for Plato they are body and soul. Aristotle, in contrast, believes in a singular being where both body and soul are connected. For myself, a Christian who believes in the existence of a life after death, Aristotle 's theory creates an obvious negation. While I could agree with the levels of the soul argument, I cannot agree with the body and soul being one and the same for the simple reason that I do not believe that when the body dies, everything dies. I believe something is left over. What that something is, where it goes and what its purpose is, I may not know for certain, but to believe otherwise would not create a better life for me. Believing the soul lives on beyond the body creates an inner desire to seek morality and goodness, and it is in that endeavor that one creates a “better” life. Similarly, it is intuition that leads me to reject Descartes ' argument because my best judgment would tell me not to believe that everything I know, all that I sense, is a figment of my mind. I cannot know if such a thing is true or false, but far too many questions are raised by such an explanation. For myself, neither Aristotle nor Descartes provide an adequate understanding into the nature of the
...wever, the only aspect I agree with is the structure of the soul. I adamantly disagree that the soul had past lives and is just merely remembering things in this current lifetime. I recognize that the body does need a source to move it and that source must be energy. If the soul is immortal and energy, (by the laws of thermodynamics) cannot be destroyed, perhaps energy and soul are synonymous and there is no such thing as soul, but mere energy in our bodies. I also don’t believe that what a plant has, whatever it is, can be defined as a soul as Aristotle claims. In whomever or whatever a soul dwells, that entity must be aware of its existence, and I don’t think plants know it’s alive. I also agree with Augustine that the soul genuinely desires happiness and that happiness is only the truth. A soul wouldn’t desire that which is false, if happiness is a natural good thing as Plato holds, then of course the soul desires that which is good. And since that which is good is true, I must agree that our soul desires that true thing-or being.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
Aristotle's Theory of the Soul in the De Anima centres on the kinds of souls possessed by different kinds of living things, distinguished by their different operations. He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible. Aristotle uses his familiar matter/form distinction to answer the question “What is soul?” he says that there are three sorts of substance which are matter, form and the compound of the matter and form. Aristotle is interested in compounds that are alive. These - plants and animals - are the things that have souls. Their souls are what make them living things. Aristotle also argues that the mind is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal by “Saying that something has a soul just means that it is alive”
Aristotle made contributions to logic, physics, biology, medicine, and agriculture. He redesigned most, if not all, areas of knowledge he studied. Later in life he became the “Father of logic” and was the first to develop a formalized way of reasoning. Aristotle was a greek philosopher who founded formal logic, pioneered zoology, founded his own school, and classified the various branches of philosophy.
There are distinct differences between the theories outlined within Aristotle’s Poetics and Bharata’s The Nāṭyaśāstra which both attempt to elaborate upon the audience relationship and the phenomenon produced relating to the theatrical experience. However, despite the dissimilarities there are components of catharsis and rasa that share common elements and ideas surrounding the creation and the effects of these experiences. Aristotle contends the cathartic nature of tragedy aids in purgation of emotion, however ultimately limiting it to the powers of tragedy as only creating this, where, contrarily, The Nāṭyaśāstra outlines the power any actor has in creating bhāva, leading to rasa. Whilst both theories do have common attributes in their aims of heightening an audience experience, it is the differentiating that outcomes that greatly affect their overall influence.