These Forms were perfect and unchanging. Everything else in existence took various qualities from the Forms and used them to create their own shapes and purposes. There was one Form, however, that stood above all the rest. The Form of the Good. This is where Aristotle, Plato’s kindred student, related his idea of God to.
Plato believed that everything we see true and around us is tangible since nothing exists in the world of the senses is lasting. Plato’s point is that we can never have true knowledge of anything that belong to the world of senses and tangible. We can have true knowledge of only those things that could be understood with our reason and investigation. Plato’s obsession with eternal forms or true ‘ideas’ let to complete ignorance of changes in nature. He turned his back to the sensory world and shut his eyes to everything we see around.
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.
Plato (in Phaedo) and Aristotle (in De Anima) present two fundamentally different conceptions of the soul. Through an analysis of their frameworks and genre, and whether their methods are plausible, it can be concluded that Aristotle's formulation of the soul is more compelling than that of Plato. According to Plato, the body and the soul are separate entities. The soul is capable of existing before life of the body and after death of the body and it is constant, unchanging and non-physical (invisible). The soul resembles what is divine, immortal, and always remaining true to itself.
The body is an instrument of perception to the soul. The body without the soul is just a corpse. Plato’s claim that a person should not be judged for their gender, that the gender of the body that the soul inhabits has no effect on the ultimate purpose. The soul is immateriality and immortality according to Plato. Plato gives three arguments regarding the soul: the cyclical process of the soul, the post-existence, pre-existence and the soul not composed of parts.
For him the spirit and the body belong to different worlds: the spirit to the “unchanging realities…or universals or eternal ideas.” and the body to the sensible world. In turn, the soul being related to a world of higher calling and truths exists the body after death and leaves the sensible world behind, proving the existence of the immortality of the soul. Also, Plato argues for the immortality of the soul by claiming that only composite things can be destroyed. The soul is not composite because it is simple—a concept that cannot be further broken down and examined. Hick shows how Plato's logic is flawed... ... middle of paper ... ...the body affect the way we interpret the world, but this does not stand in conflict with the existence of the indivisible notion of the soul.
Essence is what provides the shape or form or purpose to matter. Essence is “perfect,” “complete,” but it has no substance, no solidity.This theory was dubbed Hylomorphism, and Aristotle applied this to a soul, but he uses terms like matter (body) and form (soul
Or is nature, which is only matter and space, the wall that separates the gods from mortals. Motivated by an animosity towards theological belief, Lucretius seems to take a much more scientific approach. However, human mortality is productive of tranquility of mind; if death is loss of consciousness through the dissolution of the body and the soul into its component atoms, then there is nothing to fear in death. Death is nothing to us, since the perception of good and evil requires sentience but death is the privation of sentience; this liberates a person to enjoy finite existence without the distraction of the yearning for immortality and fear of possible suffering in the next life. Likewise, the fact that the gods have no interest in human affairs frees one from the fear of the gods in this life.
Because this soul is the organizing principle of the body it is involved in the Resurrection as well, bridging the gap between the material and spiritual worlds. However, I disagree with Nichols’ assessment, instead choosing the side of materialism where an immaterial soul does not exist. Nichols has named his position “the soul as subject-in-relation,” which he categorizes as holistic dualism (Death and the Afterlife, 129). This viewpoint attempts to blend modern scientific and traditional theological beliefs into one comprehensive view of the human soul. In this view, he defines the soul as “the subject of personal consciousness (or personal identity),” the home of one’s mind and will (Death and the Afterlife, 129).
Earlier in Republic, Socrates posits his Theory of Forms, the belief that metaphysical “forms,” or conceptions, constitute reality itself. In Book V, he refers to “distinguishing the idea from the objects which participate in the idea.” Socrates further argues that there are two distinct worlds—a visible one and an intelligible one. For an individual to perceive the intelligible world of Forms, the pursuit of philosophy, which is the love of wisdom, is necessary. Therefore, the shadows on the wall represent the distortions and opinions of the true essence of something. Also, prior to the allegory, Socrates had claimed that until philosophy and philosophers govern, “cities will never have rest from their evils.” Employing the city as an analogy for the soul, Socrates asserts that a just soul is one ruled by reason, the wisdom-loving part.