xSilverPhinx Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308720153' post='2257178'] Hm... I'm really not educated on the finer points of terminology.[/quote] Me niether, though there really are no finer points of terminology so I'm guessing I didn't word my question well...the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29"]dualism[/url] versus non dualism debate pops up frequently and I was wondering if you differentiate between the immaterial mind and a soul... [quote]In general though, I guess I'd lean towards saying that the brain is not the same as the mind or the soul.[/quote]
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1308422783' post='2255632'] Is it possible to prove that humans have souls? I read something recently in the book, why matter matters, where it said that humans must have souls based on the fact we can comprehend universal ideas, such as treeness. Can any one elaborate on this argument? [/quote] Provable? Yep. How.... St. Thomas Aquinas proves and says it better than I can... [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm"]Summa Theologica I:I:75 art. 1-7[/url]
Mr.Cat Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308750666' post='2257242']Provable? Yep. How.... St. Thomas Aquinas proves and says it better than I can... [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm"]Summa Theologica I:I:75 art. 1-7[/url][/quote] I looked, it doesn't cover if the soul is provable. Unless you care to quote it verbatim .
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308773450' post='2257345'] I looked, it doesn't cover if the soul is provable. Unless you care to quote it verbatim . [/quote] Sure it does...Aquinas actually proves there is a soul, not that he says that it is provable.... ST I:I:75:5 [quote]The [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] has no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url]. We may consider this question in two ways. First, from the notion of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] in general; for it belongs to the notion of a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] to be the form of a body. [b]Now, either it is a form by virtue of itself, in its entirety, or by virtue of some part of itself. If by virtue of itself in its entirety, then it is impossible that any part of it should be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url], if by [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] we understand something purely [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potential[/url]: for a form, as such, is an act; and that which is purely [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potentiality[/url] cannot be part of an act, since [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm"]potentiality[/url] is repugnant to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01224a.htm"]actuality[/url] as being opposite thereto. If, however, it be a form by virtue of a part of itself, then we call that part the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url]: and that [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url], which it actualizes first, we call the "primary animate." [/b] Secondly, we may proceed from the specific notion of the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]human[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] inasmuch as it is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url].[b] For it is clear that whatever is received into something is received according to the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm"]condition[/url] of the recipient.[/b] Now a thing is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]known[/url] in as far as its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url] is in the knower. But the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] a thing in its [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm"]nature[/url] absolutely: for instance, it [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knows[/url] a stone absolutely as a stone; and therefore the form of a stone absolutely, as to its proper formal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm"]idea[/url], is in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url]. [b]Therefore the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] itself is an absolute form, and not something composed of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url]. For if the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] were composed of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url], the forms of things would be received into it as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm"]individuals[/url], and so it would only [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07762a.htm"]individual[/url]: just as it happens with the sensitive powers which receive forms in a corporeal organ; since [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] is the principle by which forms are individualized. It follows, therefore, that the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url], and every [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm"]intellectual[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm"]substance[/url] which has [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knowledge[/url] of forms absolutely, is exempt from composition of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10053b.htm"]matter[/url] and [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06137b.htm"]form[/url]. [/b] [/quote] Yep, that about proves it.
Mr.Cat Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308774229' post='2257354']Yep, that about proves it.[/quote]Word salad. No, it doesn't.
Cam42 Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308774336' post='2257357'] Word salad. No, it doesn't. [/quote] I can't say it any better than what Aquinas did. His concept really isn't that hard to follow. So, if you don't want to try, that's fine. I'm ok with it. But because you refuse to see it or accept it doesn't mean that it's not true or correct.
Mr.Cat Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308774587' post='2257360']I can't say it any better than what Aquinas did. His concept really isn't that hard to follow. So, if you don't want to try, that's fine. I'm ok with it. But because you refuse to see it or accept it doesn't mean that it's not true or correct.[/quote]No... any rational person will see that its an incoherent string of words that doesn't even approach demonstrating a soul. Next you will tell me aquanis proves that we should execute notorious heretics, please go ahead with that argument...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308774932' post='2257370'] No... any rational person will see that its an incoherent string of words that doesn't even approach demonstrating a soul. Next you will tell me aquanis proves that we should execute notorious heretics, please go ahead with that argument... [/quote] Ok I can get someone not understanding Aquinas fully. People spend years studying the guy. And people can disagree with Aquinas from time to time! Everything that he writes isn't considered to be Gospel. THAT BEING SAID, no one can suggest that St Thomas Aquinas has put together an "incoherent string of words" Anybody suggesting that cannot be taken seriously ever.
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308797001' post='2257513']Ok I can get someone not understanding Aquinas fully. People spend years studying the guy. And people can disagree with Aquinas from time to time! Everything that he writes isn't considered to be Gospel. THAT BEING SAID, no one can suggest that St Thomas Aquinas has put together an "incoherent string of words" Anybody suggesting that cannot be taken seriously ever.[/quote]So you believe this passage clearly and orderly demonstrates a soul, in the meaning that he attributes to it. Since coherent could be argued to mean just that... I have studied the summa theological, it was more than a few years ago, but I am familiar with his work. From what was explained I find his argument to be lacking and unclear. Unless you care to clarify... but then again if it was coherent why would it need clarification? Maybe... Aquanis doesn't prove everything Catholic... and maybe those who thinks he does, shouldn't be taken seriously. Then again, I'm just an atheist who doesn't understand the idiotic ramblings of religion anymore.
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308798306' post='2257515'] So you believe this passage clearly and orderly demonstrates a soul, in the meaning that he attributes to it. Since coherent could be argued to mean just that... I have studied the summa theological, it was more than a few years ago, but I am familiar with his work. From what was explained I find his argument to be lacking and unclear. Unless you care to clarify... but then again if it was coherent why would it need clarification? Maybe... Aquanis doesn't prove everything Catholic... and maybe those who thinks he does, shouldn't be taken seriously. Then again, I'm just an atheist who doesn't understand the idiotic ramblings of religion anymore. [/quote] I believe that it's a little vain to decide if you don't understand a passage by one of the world's greatest thinkers, that it has to be incoherent.
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308798762' post='2257520']I believe that it's a little vain to decide if you don't understand a passage by one of the world's greatest thinkers, that it has to be incoherent.[/quote]I didn't say I didn't understand. Excuse the double negative... So strawman. But I like you're mentality, "if you disagree, you don't understand." Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat
Polsky215 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308750666' post='2257242']<br />Provable? Yep. How....<br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas proves and says it better than I can...<br /><br /><a href='http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>Summa Theologica I:I:75 art. 1-7</a><br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Thanks Silvershinx... something like that, very interesting ill have to go to bed and not get to sleep trying to figure it out... by the way, i do think that reading the Summa in a theology class, like the bible, needs to be done with a catholic expert not an atheist who has presupposed that its wrong. There are some books that only members of the same religion with invested interest ought to teach to people. For example i think that the koran ought to be taught first by a muslim. So to get to my point, having read the summa in a secular theology class is really not sufficient to say you've read it and condemn it... just my opinion. Edited June 23, 2011 by Polsky215
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308799120' post='2257523'] I didn't say I didn't understand. Excuse the double negative... So strawman. But I like you're mentality, "if you disagree, you don't understand." [/quote] You're having a hard time understanding my sentences and they are a lot simpler than Aquinas. Mr. Catholiccat I reject the idea that one of the smartest theologians ever is writing incoherent sentences.
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802147' post='2257548']You're having a hard time understanding my sentences and they are a lot simpler than Aquinas. [/quote]No... I'm not. But please pretend whatever you like. If you choose to answer my posts, rather than finding half-witty retorts, please be welcome. [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802147' post='2257548']Mr. Catholiccat I reject the idea that one of the smartest theologians ever is writing incoherent sentences.[/quote]In my personal opinion, theologians are not worth much. But just so we are clear, what did Aquanis supposedly call his work on his death bed? Do you know? Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308802585' post='2257553'] No... I'm not. But please pretend whatever you like. If you choose to answer my posts, rather than finding half-witty retorts, please be welcome. In my personal opinion, theologians are not worth much. But just so we are clear, what did Aquanis supposedly call his work on his death bed? Do you know? [/quote] I prefer to call his work what the Church considers it. And the Church considers Summa Theologica to be one of the most profound theological writings ever. To suggest that even one sentence is poorly crafted or "incoherent" is quite honestly ridiculous.
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802874' post='2257555']I prefer to call his work what the Church considers it. And the Church considers Summa Theologica to be one of the most profound theological writings ever. To suggest that even one sentence is poorly crafted or "incoherent" is quite honestly ridiculous.[/quote]I'm an atheist, I don't care what you're church considers it. But I like how you're defense of the summa is very familiar to Muslims defending the Quran. So you're blind faith, inability to address my posts, or failure demonstrate a soul... is quite honestly ridiculous. At least in context... To answer my own question. He called his work straw. So the greatest and irreproachable work of theology the church has to offer is... straw. Am I surprised? No. Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat
4588686 Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308699772' post='2257066'] Just to clarify: so you would say that the soul necessarily needs mind/brain dualism in order to exist? [/quote] Neither Catholicism nor Islam are dependent on substance or property dualism in their conceptions of the soul. At least by my reading of the Aquinas and Ghazali. Remember that dualism for formulated hundreds of years after both religions came into existance and became philosophically sophisticated.
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308803083' post='2257559'] I'm an atheist, I don't care what you're church considers it. But I like how you're defense of the summa is very familiar to Muslims defending the Quran. So you're blind faith, inability to address my posts, or failure demonstrate a soul... is quite honestly ridiculous. At least in context... To answer my own question. He called his work straw. So the greatest and irreproachable work of theology the church has to offer is... straw. Am I surprised? No. [/quote] I don't care if you're an atheist, Catholic, muslim or Amway rep. I have yet to even come close to supporting the validity of Aquinas's arguments.(though it doesn't take much for me to do so) I do not care if you put much stock in any theologians. But Aquinas isn't your run of the mill theologians. Much of the doctrines and teachings in our Church are based on Aquinas and Augustine. My point with you is that with that kind of street cred, no one has the right to call his writings incoherent rambling. Disagree with him? sure! Disrespect him? You look like an arse
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308803694' post='2257573']I don't care if you're an atheist, Catholic, muslim or Amway rep. I have yet to even come close to supporting the validity of Aquinas's arguments. I do not care if you put much stock in any theologians. But Aquinas isn't your run of the mill theologians. Much of the doctrines and teachings in our Church are based on Aquinas and Augustine. My point with you is that with that kind of street cred, no one has the right to call his writings incoherent rambling. Disagree with him? sure! Disrespect him? You look like an arse[/quote]So you are making an appeal to authority, an informal logic fallacy. Why is it that you can't defend his position? Why can't you address my posts? Why can't you admit that Aquanis isn't always the best... Aquanis argued that notorious heretics should be put to death. So will you be getting the stake ready or would you agree that respect isn't always warranted? But... I hate to break it to you, there are plenty of Catholic theologians and philosophers who have said worse of Aquanis. I guess their just arses too... everyone is arses that disagree with you. Right? Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308803912' post='2257578'] So you are making an appeal to authority, an informal logic fallacy. Why is it that you can't defend his position? Why can't you address my posts? Why can't you admit that Aquanis isn't always the best... Aquanis argued that notorious heretics should be put to death. So will you be getting the stake ready or would you agree that respect isn't always warranted? But... I hate to break it to you, there are plenty of Catholic theologians and philosophers who have said worse of Aquanis. I guess their just arses too... everyone is arses that disagree with you. Right? [/quote] Give me one quote from a legitimate theologian or philosopher who called Aquinas's writing "incoherent ramblings" just one
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now