Soul Gender?

[Guest JeffCR07]

That makes perfect sense.

So it would be correct to say "female soul" insofar as you mean it in the same way as you mean "human soul" or "rational soul" - ie that it is a soul which a component of a composite being which is rational, human, female, etc. The feminimity, rationality, humanity does not exist in the soul itself, for to assert as such would be to assert that the soul is not a simple substance.


Oh, and relating to the previous question of losing "personhood" upon death of the body:

I maintain that we DO cease to be persons upon death. This is why John Paul the Great specifically noted that even the souls in heaven desperately await the Parousia, because they are not complete, they are not true [i]persons[/i] until they are reunited with the Body.

In many respects, this is a key point in understanding why we put such an emphasis on the Ressurrection of the Body. We get our bodies back because without them we are not complete.

That doesn't mean we cease to be distinct beings, my soul remains the substantial form of my body even if my body has passed away. I will not truly be a [i]human person[/i], though, until my soul is reunited to my body. Until that point, I am just a soul.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 06:05 AM']That makes perfect sense.

So it would be correct to say "female soul" insofar as you mean it in the same way as you mean "human soul" or "rational soul" - ie that it is a soul which a component of a composite being which is rational, human, female, etc. The feminimity, rationality, humanity does not exist in the soul itself, for to assert as such would be to assert that the soul is not a simple substance.
[. . .]
[right][snapback]627210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As I understand the Thomistic / Aristotelian synthesis, the soul is referred to as vegetative, sensate, and rational, and all of the varied operations are included under those three categories. I don't think that Thomas, or even Aristotle, would be comfortable talking about a "female soul" or a "male soul." I know it makes me uncomfortable, and I'm no longer a Thomist.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:12 AM']As I understand the Thomistic / Aristotelian synthesis, the soul is referred to as vegetative, sensate, and rational, and all of the varied operations are included under those three categories.  I don't think that Thomas, or even Aristotle, would be comfortable talking about a "female soul" or a "male soul."  I know it makes me uncomfortable, and I'm no longer a Thomist.
[right][snapback]627212[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are "vegetative," "sensate," and "rational" to be understood as belonging to the soul alone, or are they categories pertaining to the operations of the holymorphic being, and only semantically attributed to the soul?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:05 AM']That makes perfect sense.

Oh, and relating to the previous question of losing "personhood" upon death of the body:

I maintain that we DO cease to be persons upon death. This is why John Paul the Great specifically noted that even the souls in heaven desperately await the Parousia, because they are not complete, they are not true [i]persons[/i] until they are reunited with the Body.

In many respects, this is a key point in understanding why we put such an emphasis on the Ressurrection of the Body. We get our bodies back because without them we are not complete.

That doesn't mean we cease to be distinct beings, my soul remains the substantial form of my body even if my body has passed away. I will not truly be a [i]human person[/i], though, until my soul is reunited to my body. Until that point, I am just a soul.
[right][snapback]627210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

oh. ok. that helps. i was wondering this whole time what he had to say about that question i just diden't know where to find it. so todd did you adopt palamas instead of thomas? just curious...

[scardella]

[b]I think a great deal of the problem that I have with JeffCR07 and Apotheoun's position is that, as I read it, we lose our identity at death.[/b] It is precisely the "accidents" of who I am that makes me different from everyone else. A fundamental part of that identity is the fact that I am male and not female. If sexuality is lost at death, what's to prevent my resurrected body from being a woman's body and all of a sudden, I'm a girl? I sure as heck don't want to spend eternity like that...

I certainly agree w/ JeffCR07's statement that without our bodies, we are not complete. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine existence sans bodies until we've experienced it. Once again, however, if the only thing that persists until we are united w/ the resurrected glorified body is soul, and the soul is fundamentally "simple," then it would seem that it is no longer me. Fundamentally, that would mean that I just took care of my soul and it says "ciao" at death and I'm not that soul.

Therefore, I cannot see how the idea that losing our personhood at death can coexist with the promise of eternal life. Without the persistence of our identity, the promise of eternal life or eternal death is meaningless.

Edited June 29, 2005 by scardella

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 29 2005, 07:05 AM'][b]I think a great deal of the problem that I have with JeffCR07 and Apotheoun's position is that, as I read it, we lose our identity at death.[/b]  It is precisely the "accidents" of who I am that makes me different from everyone else.  Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't see a difference between myself and the instance of my personhood.  A fundamental part of that identity is the fact that I am male and not female.  If sexuality is lost at death, what's to prevent my resurrected body from being a woman's body and all of a sudden, I'm a girl?  I sure as heck don't want to spend eternity like that...

I certainly agree w/ JeffCR07's statement that without our bodies, we are not complete.  It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine existence sans bodies until we've experienced it.  Once again, however, if the only thing that persists until we are united w/ the resurrected glorified body is soul, and the soul is fundamentally "simple," then it would seem that it is no longer me.  Fundamentally, that would mean that I just took care of my soul and it says "ciao" at death and I'm not that soul. 

Therefore, I cannot see how the idea that losing our personhood at death can coexist with the promise of eternal life.  Without the persistence of our identity, the promise of eternal life or eternal death is meaningless.
[right][snapback]627241[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've never asserted that we lose our identity at death, but Catholics are not dualists, we are not Platonists, and so the soul alone is not who we are; instead, we are both our body and our soul together as a single being. This is not just the teaching of Pope John Paul II, it is the teaching of St. Irenaeus and all the early Church Fathers. Man's personhood is a hylomorphic reality.

What I refuse to do is to identify the various operations of the composite being with the soul. Because to do that would be to say that all of the various potencies (material, partially immaterial, and immaterial), are in perfect act at all times, and man then becomes a being in pure act, and that simply is not the case. Consequently, I will not say that there is such a thing as a "female soul" or a "male soul."

To be who you truly are, in the fullest sense of the term, requires the resurrection of the body.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Scardella, Todd and I are not saying that your identity is annihilated upon death. We are saying that your [i]personhood[/i] ceases to be, and that your composite parts exist in an imperfect state in which they yearn for the reunification that will come at the Resurrection.

Edit: Also, please note that this is not like seperating the motherboard from a computer. Your eternal soul still possesses the Beatific Vision even when it is not united with your body.

Edited June 29, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Semperviva]

[i]I answer that, It is an article of faith that Christ was truly dead: hence it is an error against faith to assert anything whereby the truth of Christ's death is destroyed. Accordingly it is said in the Synodal epistle of Cyril [Act. Conc. Ephes. P. I, cap. xxvi]: "If any man does not acknowledge that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh, let him be anathema." Now it belongs to the truth of the death of man or animal that by death the subject ceases to be man or animal; because the death of the man or animal results from the separation of the soul, which is the formal complement of the man or animal. [i]Consequently, to say that Christ was a man during the three days of His death simply and without qualification, is erroneous. Yet it can be said that He was "a dead man" during those three days. [/i]

[i]However, some writers have contended that Christ was a man during those three days, uttering words which are indeed erroneous, yet without intent of error in faith: as Hugh of Saint Victor, who (De Sacram. ii) contended that Christ, during the three days that followed His death, was a man, because he held that the soul is a man: but this is false, as was [b]shown in I, 75, 4]. [/b][/i][i]Likewise the Master of the Sentences (iii, D, 22) held Christ to be a man during the three days of His death for quite another reason. For he believed the union of soul and flesh not to be essential to a man, and that for anything to be a man it suffices if it have a soul and body, whether united or separated: and that this is likewise false is clear both from what has been said in I, 75, 4, and from what has been said above regarding the mode of union (2] , 5). [/i][/I]


Haaha Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of St. Thomas ([i]which has never happened before[/i]), I'm right in there with the erroneous "Hugh of Saint Victor:" What, a material heretic, me?
but wait, hhhhmmm, I, 75, 4 -from the Summa? Where "[b]the soul is a man[/b]" is shown to be false, because, technically I am not saying "[i]the soul is a man[/i]"and this is what he refers to as false

Edited June 29, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:13 AM'][. . .]
Haaha Unless I'm mistaken in my reading of St. Thomas ([i]which has never happened before[/i]), I'm right in there with the erroneous "Hugh of Saint Victor:"  What, a material heretic, me? 
but wait, hhhhmmm,  I, 75, 4 -from the Summa?  Where "[b]the soul is a man[/b]" is shown to be false, because, technically I am not saying "[i]the soul is a man[/i]"and this is what he refers to as false
[right][snapback]627330[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that St. Thomas is using generic "man," i.e., a human being or person.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 10:50 AM']Scardella, Todd and I are not saying that your identity is annihilated upon death. We are saying that your [i]personhood[/i] ceases to be, and that your composite parts exist in an imperfect state in which they yearn for the reunification that will come at the Resurrection.

Edit: Also, please note that this is not like seperating the motherboard from a computer. Your eternal soul still possesses the Beatific Vision even when it is not united with your body.
[right][snapback]627307[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

so, where is the identity "located", for lack of a better term?

If it is in the soul, then the soul must have sex, because sex is part of my identity. If it is in the person, and the personhood ceases to be at death, then my identity no longer exists once I die. If it is in the body, then, too, my identity ceases once I die.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 29 2005, 09:38 AM']so, where is the identity "located", for lack of a better term? 

If it is in the soul, then the soul must have sex, because sex is part of my identity.  If it is in the person, and the personhood ceases to be at death, then my identity no longer exists once I die.  If it is in the body, then, too, my identity ceases once I die.
[right][snapback]627363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The identity is in the hylomorphic being, that is, in the single composite being, man.

Your soul continues after your death, and this is your soul, but you are not reducible to your soul. You are your soul and your body together as one being. That is why the resurrection of the body is so vital in Christian doctrine.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 29 2005, 11:38 AM']so, where is the identity "located", for lack of a better term? 

If it is in the soul, then the soul must have sex, because sex is part of my identity.  If it is in the person, and the personhood ceases to be at death, then my identity no longer exists once I die.  If it is in the body, then, too, my identity ceases once I die.
[right][snapback]627363[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Scardella, when I used the term "identity" I did not intend for the word to act as some equivocal synonym for the word "person." In the context in which you are speaking, one's "identity" is one's "person."

When I used the term "identity" in the above, I meant it in a difference sense. It was intended to connotate all traces of my personhood. Thus, my above statement was meant to be understood as saying that, while your person ceases to exist, that person remains identifiable to God through your composite parts.

As an illustration, let us say that you have absolutely huge feet and I am walking in a snowy field. I come across your massive footprints and I can identify that you were here, even though you are not actually present.

This is the manner in which I meant the term "identity" to be understood.


Oh, and by the way, feel free to call me Jeff

not only is it more friendly and personal, but its easier to type!

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 08:05 AM']I maintain that we DO cease to be persons upon death. This is why John Paul the Great specifically noted that even the souls in heaven desperately await the Parousia, because they are not complete, they are not true [i]persons[/i] until they are reunited with the Body.
[right][snapback]627210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


where? [i]dies domini[/i]? where can I find it?

[Guest JeffCR07]

I can't remember. Todd, you're a walking newadvent.org do you remember where JPII talks about the souls in heaven yearning for their bodies?

[Semperviva]

yeah i looked on newadvent but maybe i just did a bad search- in the work you referenced does he adress the issue of the souls losing identity?

[Apotheoun]

Jeff,

It is most likely in the Pope's allocutions on the theology of the body.

But I base my views on the importance of the union of body and soul more on the teaching of St. Irenaeus found in his fifth book [u]Against Heresies[/u].

[Guest JeffCR07]

I think you're right, I don't have my TOTB stuff with me, but I'll look when I get home.

Appy, are you able to post any of St. Irenaeus' writings on the subject here? I would love to read it.

[scardella]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 12:11 PM']Scardella, when I used the term "identity" I did not intend for the word to act as some equivocal synonym for the word "person." In the context in which you are speaking, one's "identity" is one's "person."

When I used the term "identity" in the above, I meant it in a difference sense. It was intended to connotate all traces of my personhood. Thus, my above statement was meant to be understood as saying that, while your person ceases to exist, that person remains identifiable to God through your composite parts.
[/quote]

By identity, I'm speaking of that "I" or "self" or self-awareness that makes me "me" and not someone else. If that exists in the personhood, then it is destroyed in death. If that exists in the soul, or it [i]is[/i] the soul, then it must have sex, since I wouldn't be myself without my maleness. If that exists in the body (and only a strict materialist would entertain this), then it too is destroyed in death.

The only other possibility is that it really is destroyed in death, and our soul just hangs out in beatific vision, ethereally, without identity, and that identity is "rebuilt", so to speak, at the Resurrection at the end of time. However, that seems far-fetched and doesn't make sense in terms of Purgatory.

To use the computer analogy for what I'm trying to say, it would be equivalent to the following:
The hard drive is the soul. Let's say the hardware is a PowerMac. When the plug is pulled (death), the data is safely still existing. At the end of time, the hard drive is put in a new, glorified computer. HOWEVER, the new computer wouldn't run my software if it is a PC. It would HAVE to be a Macintosh. In the same way, my soul (hard drive/data) wouldn't be compatible with a non-male body (hardware). Thus, my soul is uniquely a male soul. In the interim, that data is uniquely mine and still existing.

If one maintains that the identity (data) is only in the composite, then when the plug is pulled, all data is lost with it. You could then use it in any computer because it doesn't contain the data or identity from one's life. You'd still be starting from scratch, or it would have to be rebuilt from an external backup (God).

Edited June 29, 2005 by scardella

[scardella]

Note: a harddrive is not a complete computer, just like a human person is not complete without a body. I believe I affirmed that a human person is not complete without a body. Otherwise, I'd be a heretic.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]By identity, I'm speaking of that "I" or "self" or self-awareness that makes me "me" and not someone else. If that exists in the personhood, then it is destroyed in death. If that exists in the soul, or it is the soul, then it must have sex, since I wouldn't be myself without my maleness. If that exists in the body (and only a strict materialist would entertain this), then it too is destroyed in death.

The only other possibility is that it really is destroyed in death, and our soul just hangs out in beatific vision, ethereally, without identity, and that identity is "rebuilt", so to speak, at the Resurrection at the end of time. However, that seems far-fetched and doesn't make sense in terms of Purgatory.[/quote]

Your "person" ceases to exist at the moment of death. If need be, your soul, being the form of the body, is purified in purgatory. At the Parousia your perfected soul will be united with your glorified body - thus final [i]theosis[/i].

I am not sure what the difficulty is?