Analysis Of Aristotle's Theory Of The Soul

Aristotle uses his matter/form distinction to answer the question “What is soul?” and explains through his hylomorphic composition (matter, form, the compound of matter and form) to show that the body requires the soul and vice versa. He believes that compounds which are alive, are things that have souls and it is their souls that make them living things. In this essay, I will present Aristotle’s argument of the soul and whether he is successful in arguing for the mutual dependance of soul and body.

In Book II of De Anima, Aristotle seeks to “formulate the most general possible account of soul” (ref). In Aristotle’s account of the soul, he firstly gives a brief account of his theory of matter and form. Of the general classifications of what exists, substance for Aristotle, is a thing which exist completely independently and act from themselves. Substance can also be understood as

For it is not a body, but something which belongs to a body, and for this reason exists in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a kind (414a20ff)”. However, we can be mislead when we speak of “souls” and “bodies” because it can appear as though the soul and body could exist independently, as shown with Plato and Descartes’ work. Despite this factor, Aristotle’s theory rejects the potentiality of the soul as the form of a living organism; for Aristotle, a living thing is primary substance, it is not a union of the primary substance of soul and body. Aristotle also denies the existence of Plato’s realms, and appeals to our senses, claiming it is through the senses that we are able to experience reality. The man problem with this claim is that we cannot offer any evidence to suggest that our senses are completely