proof from logic alone of the immortal nature of the human soul
#31
(05-12-2012, 09:04 PM)yablabo Wrote: This is some of the strangest philosophy that I've ever seen, I think.  Are people here equating the number four to a substantial form which would inform primal matter??  The number four is an accident of quantity.  Unity is substantial, quantity of unity is accidental.  So, how again is four a substantial form?

Also, I am really interested now, what IS the certain evidence found in nature that man's soul is immortal?

-- Nicole

Nicole, would you say that rather than requiring divine revelation for belief in the immortal human soul, what's really needed first is belief in God? I think so.
Reply
#32
I think the gist of Parmandur's comment about Plato is that you should read Plato for yourself. I'm going to do that myself one of these days. I hear he's pretty good.      :)
Reply
#33
I thought Aristotle perfected Plato? In any case, if I'm having this much trouble with 'College Apologetics', I doubt Plato or Aristotle would make it any easier.

Grasshopper, what you need is not Plato, but a swift punch to the jaw!  :jabs:
Reply
#34
(05-12-2012, 09:51 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: I thought Aristotle perfected Plato?

So I've heard. Gonna read him one of these days, too. But from what I've heard, he is more difficult and less entertaining than Plato.
Reply
#35
(05-12-2012, 09:43 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 09:04 PM)yablabo Wrote: This is some of the strangest philosophy that I've ever seen, I think.  Are people here equating the number four to a substantial form which would inform primal matter??  The number four is an accident of quantity.  Unity is substantial, quantity of unity is accidental.  So, how again is four a substantial form?

Also, I am really interested now, what IS the certain evidence found in nature that man's soul is immortal?

-- Nicole

Nicole, would you say that rather than requiring divine revelation for belief in the immortal human soul, what's really needed first is belief in God? I think so.

Here is what I am trying to get across:

It is plain that corporal death does not kill the spiritual soul in man.  However, to say that the fact that corporal death does not extinguish the soul of man is the same as saying it can be proved by natural reason with certainty that man has an immortal soul is false.  To know that the soul of man is not killed at some point after corporal death would take a first-hand observation or second-hand information from a credible witness to say that natural reason can prove this with certainty.

Also, I think it can be argued from His Divine Majesty's own words that it is not by necessity that God keeps the human soul in existence after corporal death: "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." [Matthew 10:28]

I have never claimed that it cannot be posited as conjecture nor put forth as probable that the spiritual soul of man lives on after his bodily death, it merely cannot be demonstrated by natural reason ALONE with certainty.  It takes revelation from the One who knows it.

This whole discussion has really been a demonstration in poor formation of one's epistemology or criteriology (i.e. major logic).

-- Nicole
Reply
#36
It's been a while since I've read Plato on this, but didn't he at one point argue that the soul must be immortal because it could apprehend the forms? As I recall, the claim is that since the forms are eternal, a soul with the ability to comprehend the forms must be also be eternal. Of course, this argument fails if you are a nominalist.
Reply
#37
(05-12-2012, 09:40 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 09:11 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 08:44 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: But what about my earlier question about the claim in the book that the human soul must be immortal because it has no parts? Do you know how to explain that to me?

That just means that the soul is not material, but a form.  And forms do not die.

Well, an animal, and a plant has a soul too, but these souls die. How come?

Well, I'm not sure I'd personally be too quick to assert that.  But the traditional basis for saying that is that animals and plants do not have individuality, being non-persons.  As such, "Dog" is immortal, but Fido will die.  So Fido's being a dog is an accident of "Dog," as it were, and "Dog" is neither more nor less for Fido's life or death.  Aristotle, when we come down to brass tacks, thought that about the human soul as well, that the only immortality we have is that of the species, being instantiations of the one form "Man.:  St. Thomas Aquinas, when it comes to human personality, is a Platonist and not an Aristotelian.

(05-12-2012, 09:40 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Parmandur, since you're clearly not a sophist, much less a 'base' one, I'm looking forward to your elaborating on 'It's all in Plato'!  :hello!:

Well, on a less cutesy note, I already did post Plato's arguments on the first page.  And these are good summations of the base on which most people, of any kind, have in fact known that their soul is immortal
Reply
#38
(05-12-2012, 11:57 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It's been a while since I've read Plato on this, but didn't he at one point argue that the soul must be immortal because it could apprehend the forms? As I recall, the claim is that since the forms are eternal, a soul with the ability to comprehend the forms must be also be eternal. Of course, this argument fails if you are a nominalist.

As mentioned, Plato's arguments on the first page of posts.  :grin:

But, for convenience:

"One of the main themes in the Phaedo is the idea that the soul is immortal. Socrates offers four arguments for the soul's immortality:

    "The Cyclical Argument, or Opposites Argument explains that Forms are eternal and unchanging, and as the soul always brings life, then it must not die, and is necessarily "imperishable". As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul must be its indestructible opposite. Plato then suggests the analogy of fire and cold. If the form of cold is imperishable, and fire, its opposite, was within close proximity, it would have to withdraw intact as does the soul during death. This could be likened to the idea of the opposite charges of magnets.

    "The Theory of Recollection explains that we possess some non-empirical knowledge (e.g. The Form of Equality) at birth, implying the soul existed before birth to carry that knowledge. Another account of the theory is found in Plato's Meno, although in that case Socrates implies anamnesis (previous knowledge of everything) whereas he is not so bold in Phaedo.

    "The Affinity Argument, explains that invisible, immortal, and incorporeal things are different from visible, mortal, and corporeal things. Our soul is of the former, while our body is of the latter, so when our bodies die and decay, our soul will continue to live.

    "The Argument from Form of Life, or The Final Argument explains that the Forms, incorporeal and static entities, are the cause of all things in the world, and all things participate in Forms. For example, beautiful things participate in the Form of Beauty; the number four participates in the Form of the Even, etc. The soul, by its very nature, participates in the Form of Life, which means the soul can never die."
Reply
#39
(05-12-2012, 11:43 PM)yablabo Wrote: This whole discussion has really been a demonstration in poor formation of one's epistemology or criteriology (i.e. major logic).

So, explain again how 4 is an accident.  :grin:
Reply
#40
(05-13-2012, 02:46 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:57 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: It's been a while since I've read Plato on this, but didn't he at one point argue that the soul must be immortal because it could apprehend the forms? As I recall, the claim is that since the forms are eternal, a soul with the ability to comprehend the forms must be also be eternal. Of course, this argument fails if you are a nominalist.

As mentioned, Plato's arguments on the first page of posts.  :grin:

You can't expect me to read the the threads to which I contribute!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)