Soul Gender?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='philothea' date='Jun 26 2005, 11:28 AM'] At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are [i]like[/i] the angels in heaven." [Mt 22:30]
[right][snapback]624296[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

...this could imply non-gendered souls...on the other hand, he's just saying there's no [i]marraige[/i], not there's no gender...

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 09:49 AM'][color=purple]
And then I was reading this other article talking about St. Edith Stein which was talking about how Stein was departing from Aquinas view on this:
[/color]
[right][snapback]624260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
...I'm not sure Edith Stein departed from Thomas Aquinas. She translated alot of his works and tried to reconcile modern phenomenology to mediaeval scholastic philosophy and Thomist thought. Where did you find information on her development of Thomas?

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 26 2005, 01:55 PM']...I'm not sure Edith Stein departed from Thomas Aquinas.  She translated alot of his works and tried to reconcile modern phenomenology to mediaeval scholastic philosophy and Thomist thought.  Where did you find information on her development of Thomas?
[right][snapback]624304[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
I think you're right about that. She didn't depart.. that was my bad phrasing. My bad

The article was by Ruth Andreas talking about Edith Stein and the Education of girls: [url="http://www.domesticchurch.us/vocation.htm"]http://www.domesticchurch.us/vocation.htm[/url]. She uses quoest from Essay's on Woman by Edith Stein, translated from the German language by Freda Mary Oben. (Volume Two of the Collected Works of Edith Stein by ICS Publications, 1987). [/color]

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 26 2005, 12:32 PM']You would have to show where the Church's Magisterium has said that there are souls that are "gendered."  I've never heard or read anything that would indicate that that is the case.
[right][snapback]624278[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
If the magisterium has never said anything on it, then are we to assume that it could be either way and there is no way for us to know for sure? In that case, we trust and learn from the saints and scholars musing on this right? That's where I get lost. Maybe the Magisterium has never said anything on it, but the Catholic Encylopedia, Thomas Aquinas (in both ways for and against each of our arguments, it seems) and Edith Stein have. So what are we to conclude?[/color]

[Semperviva]

"Matter then, differs from form in this, that is potential being, [b]form is the 'entelechy' or 'actuality' that renders matter actual[/b]; and the compound is the [b]resulting actual being[/b]"5.

And the resulting actual being is either male or female.

?????????????

Apoth, cam: There [i]is[/i] a correspondance between the form and matter as regards sex determination. The matter is either male or female and you [i]conclude[/i] that which causes the matter to be such is neutral, per Aquinas. [i] He doesn't seem to neccesarily imply this conclusion.[/i] I mean to find out what the nature of this correspondance is, insofar as we can know. I am open to said conclusion if you can demonstrate how it neccesarily follows.

Edited June 26, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:16 AM']"Matter then, differs from form in this, that is potential being, [b]form is the 'entelechy' or 'actuality' that renders matter actual[/b]; and the compound is the [b]resulting actual being[/b]"5.

And the resulting actual being is either male or female.

?????????????
[right][snapback]624314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, the hylomorphic being is male or female.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that, as Apotheoun's first post noted, the problem of this discussion is that it is trying to discuss soul in opposition to and exclusion of the body, when, in fact the very nature of the subject at hand must necessarily avoid doing so.

The soul is a thing of pure spirit, and pure spirit is, by definition without sex. However, each human soul is a creation of God for the purpose of being unified with the body to form a human person. Thus, each and every human soul, in its very being, anticipates the body to which it is intended to be united.

So, it seems that the proper understanding would be put thus: Each human person, who is constituted by a union of body and soul, is either male or female. The soul of a human person, whether male or female, anticipates the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself. Rather, it is the human [i]person[/i], body and soul, which has a given sex.

- Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 02:07 PM'] Each human person, who is constituted by a union of body and soul, is either male or female. The soul of a human person, whether male or female, anticipates the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself.

- Your Brother in Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]624434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So can one soul in no way be distinguished from another? But then isin't the individual person...when seperated from his soul...like neuter? and then not himself or herself...? ( )

[Semperviva]

OK, so each soul HAS some a particular quality, in which it


......[i]anticipates[/i] the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself.......


that seem like a distinguishing quality between a male or female soul, or no?

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that you are arguing in circles. I have never said, nor has Apotheoun, that there is nothing to "distinguish" one soul from another. Rather, we have said that sex is an attribute of a human [i]person[/i], which is a unity of body and soul. A person's sex does not lay only in the body, nor can it be found exclusively in the soul. the sex of a person resides precisely in the unity of body and soul together.

I am sitting here looking at my two guitars (one is a 4-string bass guitar, the other a 6-string acoustic guitar), and I think I can make an analogy our of them:

Just for the sake of the analogy, let us define a musical instrument as "a thing which makes music."

I have in my left hand a set of bass strings and in my right hand a set of acousitc guitar strings. Both the bass guitar and the acoustic guitar need to have the strings put on them.

Without strings, the body of neither my bass guitar nor my acoustic guitar can make music. Therefore, considered in themselves, the guitar bodies are not "musical instruments."

Similarly, without being attached to the body of my bass guitar or my acousitc guitar, neither of the two sets of strings can make music. Therefore, considered in themselves, the guitar strings are not "musical instruments."

Now, the bass strings simply cannot attach to the 6 string acoustic, nor can the acoustic strings attach to the bass.

Thus, it is only when the two guitars are properly strung with their corresponding strings that either can make music. Therefore, it is only in the "union" of each set of strings to their respective guitars that we find a "musical instrument."

It is clear in the above analogy that the bass strings "anticipate" the bass guitar and the acoustic strings "anticipate" the acoustic guitar. However, that does not make the different sets of strings "musical instruments" in themselves - it only makes them different one from the other.

If we roughly equate the strings to the human soul and the stringless-bodies to the physical human form, we can see that, while the souls (strings) anticipate the sex (the musical instrument), it is only in the union of soul and physical form that the sex is actualized.

Moreover, we can see by analysis of the bass strings that it [i]will[/i] correspond to a particular type of musical instrument, which is different from the musical instrument anticipated by the acoustic strings. However, considered alone, neither sets of strings constitutes an actual musical instrument.

Hopefully this analogy works at least to get the point across - a human soul, while anticipating its human body cannot be said to have a given sex, despite the differences between one soul and another, because sex exists only in the union of body and soul.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 03:00 PM'] I have never said, nor has Apotheoun, that there is nothing to "distinguish" one soul from another.

Hopefully this analogy works at least to get the point across - a human soul, while anticipating its human body cannot be said to have a given sex, despite the differences between one soul and another, because sex exists only in the union of body and soul.

[right][snapback]624540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Forgive my incoherence. I just don't know how to ask my questions.

yes, it helps...but i was not disputing that at all...i just meant you have different strings on a bass then on an acoustic

[Guest JeffCR07]

Yes, it seems perfectly logical to assert that one person's soul is different in some respects than another person's soul. All souls share certain things in common, all human souls share even more in common, but each soul is unique to itself.

[Snowcatpa]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 04:07 PM']So, it seems that the proper understanding would be put thus: Each human person, who is constituted by a union of body and soul, is either male or female. The soul of a human person, whether male or female, anticipates the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself. Rather, it is the human [i]person[/i], body and soul, which has a given sex.
[right][snapback]624434[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 26 2005, 04:25 PM']OK, so each soul HAS some a particular quality, in which it
......[i]anticipates[/i] the particular sex of the body though the sex of the person cannot be found within the soul itself.......
that seem like a distinguishing quality between a male or female soul, or no?
[right][snapback]624464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 05:00 PM']It seems to me that you are arguing in circles. I have never said, nor has Apotheoun, that there is nothing to "distinguish" one soul from another. Rather, we have said that sex is an attribute of a human [i]person[/i], which is a unity of body and soul. A person's sex does not lay only in the body, nor can it be found exclusively in the soul. the sex of a person resides precisely in the unity of body and soul together.[right][snapback]624540[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 26 2005, 05:23 PM']Yes, it seems perfectly logical to assert that one person's soul is different in some respects than another person's soul. All souls share certain things in common, all human souls share even more in common, but each soul is unique to itself.
[right][snapback]624564[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[color=purple]
I always love your analogies, Jeff. You should make a book of them one day to help the rest of us I think what Semperviva [and myself!] are more specifically asking then is, since there are different male and female souls, anticipated through the connection with the body, each "unique to itself", to what extent can we discuss these different souls? Are there differences between them?

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:15 AM']"Masculine Soul" or "Feminine Soul" what is the full meaning of this...and as we are ensouled bodies, embodied souls, body-soul composites, etc etc what is the relationship between the bodies gender and the soul...does the soul overcome gender, transcend it?  Does a masculine or feminine soul have differnences?
[right][snapback]624208[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The relationship between the body's gender and soul has been answered...but what about the differences between the gendered souls?

Thanks [/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:50 PM'][color=purple]
The relationship between the body's gender and soul has been answered...but what about the differences between the gendered souls?

Thanks  [/color]
[right][snapback]625021[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The soul and the body coming into being simultaneously, and it is the hylomorphic being that has sexual properties. The soul has no sexual distinction (or gender, to misuse the word).

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]To the extent that the soul anticipates the particular sex of the body, can it not then be considered a gendered soul? (and I still do'nt think I'm on your page with the terminology...cause you say that saying that is misusing the word). [/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 10:59 PM'][color=purple]To the extent that the soul anticipates the particular sex of the body, can it not then be considered a gendered soul? (and I still do'nt think I'm on your page with the terminology...cause you say that saying that is misusing the word). [/color]
[right][snapback]625031[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The soul in itself has no sexual characteristics, it is an immaterial spiritual reality. The soul is created simultaneously with the matter that it informs, thus it is the hyplomorphic composite that has sexual properties, and the soul.

[Apotheoun]

Feminism began the trend of using the word "gender" as if it were the equivalent of sex. I don't subscribe to their views on the use of the word.

[quote]Gender:  a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass.[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

The word "table" in Spanish is feminine, while in French it is masculine. So although the word "table" in these two languages has gender, it is quite clear that tables do not have sex.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]That's interesting... then how do you describe what I would call "gendered" characteristics. The use of the words feminine and masculine themselves are indicative of assigning a gender to something and not a sex.

A "masculine action", for example, might be let's say, a protective action, like when a brother guards his little sister from the ravages of a killer Viking!!! , but... the action of protecting is abstracted...it isn't having sex, nor is assigning it the word masculine it based on any linguistic case agreements. (and Females can be protective too). It's purely about the action being associated with a particular sex (gendered) even though it itself does not have sex.

Do you reject the abstraction of sexual characteristics away from the corporal realm? If so, how do you describe such characteristics or components (obviously not capable of having sex themselves) that are merely being attributed to a sexed being? [/color]

Edited June 27, 2005 by Snowcatpa

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 26 2005, 11:24 PM'][color=purple]That's interesting... then how do you describe what I would call "gendered" characteristics. The use of the words feminine and masculine themselves are indicative of assigning a gender to something and not a sex.
[right][snapback]625060[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Normally, you are talking about sexual characteristics. Almost fixating upon them at certain times.