proof from logic alone of the immortal nature of the human soul
#41
(05-13-2012, 02:50 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(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!

:awww:
Reply
#42
(05-12-2012, 09:51 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: 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.

I dunno, the book sounds like it might be a bit "pop"-apologetic piece.  Plato is actually pretty readable, if you give him a shot.  :)
Reply
#43
(05-13-2012, 02:47 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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:

Four is not a being which exists in and of itself; it only exists within another being.  That is the classical demonstration of an accident.
Reply
#44
(05-13-2012, 03:09 AM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 02:47 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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:

Four is not a being which exists in and of itself; it only exists within another being.  That is the classical demonstration of an accident.

The classic definition of an accident is "a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."

When I say "2 + 2 = 4," of what substance is "4" an accident?

"4" as such is an abstraction, that is to say, a pure form, and eternal and true..
Reply
#45
(05-13-2012, 03:27 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 03:09 AM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 02:47 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(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:

Four is not a being which exists in and of itself; it only exists within another being.  That is the classical demonstration of an accident.

The classic definition of an accident is "a property which has no necessary connection to the essence of the thing being described."

When I say "2 + 2 = 4," of what substance is "4" an accident?

"4" as such is an abstraction, that is to say, a pure form, and eternal and true..

I didn't give the classical definition, but rather a demonstration.  In arithmetic, the whole subject deals with the accident of the unit "one."

One is the substantial or essential term which is then quantified as four when one has four ones.
Reply
#46
(05-13-2012, 03:32 AM)yablabo Wrote: I didn't give the classical definition, but rather a demonstration.  In arithmetic, the whole subject deals with the accident of the unit "one."

One is the substantial or essential term which is then quantified as four when one has four ones.

Really now?  Got a source on that one?
Reply
#47
(05-12-2012, 02:47 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 11:09 AM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: OK, I do understand that the human soul is spiritual, I just don't understand why something spiritual can't die, as I've said. How is it that the spiritual soul does not have parts, which could separate and cause death?

The number 4 cannot die.  This particular set of 4 things might be added to, or subtracted from, divided or multiplied, and cease to be 4.  But 4 itself, it goes on.

Or take triangles.  You can draw all sorts of different triangles on a piece of paper.  Now, even though the particular triangles on the paper are different, the human mind/soul can still realize that they have something in common: each triangle still fits a definition of a triangle.  This means that there is an immaterial form of a triangle that does not change with time or substance; because the human soul can comprehend the unchangind and immaterial, it would follow that it too must be immaterial, unchanging, and immortal, because it must have some common "nature" (if you will) with the immaterial unchaning form of the triangle.

And then look at the mortal human body too, in contrast.  Only the human body can comprehend vegetative nature; a soul cannot taste a blueberry, for example.  Yet, blueberries rot away; they are not immaterial and unchanging.  The human body shares this vegetative nature with natural things.  I just came up with this part; hopefully it helps you understand better the immortal nature of teh soul by contrasting it with the mortal nature of the body.
Reply
#48
(05-12-2012, 11:43 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(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

All of that makes sense to me. The bolded part is especially interesting.

What little formation I have in logic is from reading 2 books on Introduction to Philosophy, and this book 'College Apologetics', which is said to have been written for people who don't have philosophy formation. I appreciate your patience with me. I understand that learning logic is a long process even with a teacher, and perhaps not really practical for a middle-aged person without a teacher. What do you think, Nicole?
Reply
#49
(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.

I want to understand this, but I have to admit I don't!  Animals seem to comprehend forms too!  Cats seem to comprehend the form of human, for example. How can you say they don't?
Reply
#50
(05-11-2012, 05:28 PM)Parmandur Wrote: "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".

But the human soul is not eternal, it's created and immortal. In the sense that all forms come from the mind of God, I suppose the human soul is immortal, but strictly speaking, it's not any more eternal than the soul of a rabbit.
Quote: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.

This sounds like an interesting theory, but not a reasonable proof.
Quote:"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.

To me this sounds like re-incarnation doctrine. Might he be talking about instinct?
Quote:"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.

It's just a theory, it doesn't prove anything to me.
Quote:"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."

There's no reason why the form of beauty cannot be destroyed, if God wishes it. Again, this sounds like just a theory. I thought beauty was an accident anyway, like Nicole pointed out the number 4 is an accident.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)