FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768  
769   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   785   786   787   788   789   790   791   792   793   >>   >|  
a material subject. _On the contrary,_ It is said in the book _De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus_ xv: "Nor do we say that there are two souls in one man, as James and other Syrians write; one, animal, by which the body is animated, and which is mingled with the blood; the other, spiritual, which obeys the reason; but we say that it is one and the same soul in man, that both gives life to the body by being united to it, and orders itself by its own reasoning." _I answer that,_ Plato held that there were several souls in one body, distinct even as to organs, to which souls he referred the different vital actions, saying that the nutritive power is in the liver, the concupiscible in the heart, and the power of knowledge in the brain. Which opinion is rejected by Aristotle (De Anima ii, 2), with regard to those parts of the soul which use corporeal organs; for this reason, that in those animals which continue to live when they have been divided in each part are observed the operations of the soul, as sense and appetite. Now this would not be the case if the various principles of the soul's operations were essentially different, and distributed in the various parts of the body. But with regard to the intellectual part, he seems to leave it in doubt whether it be "only logically" distinct from the other parts of the soul, "or also locally." The opinion of Plato might be maintained if, as he held, the soul was supposed to be united to the body, not as its form, but as its motor. For it involves nothing unreasonable that the same movable thing be moved by several motors; and still less if it be moved according to its various parts. If we suppose, however, that the soul is united to the body as its form, it is quite impossible for several essentially different souls to be in one body. This can be made clear by three different reasons. In the first place, an animal would not be absolutely one, in which there were several souls. For nothing is absolutely one except by one form, by which a thing has existence: because a thing has from the same source both existence and unity; and therefore things which are denominated by various forms are not absolutely one; as, for instance, "a white man." If, therefore, man were _living_ by one form, the vegetative soul, and _animal_ by another form, the sensitive soul, and _man_ by another form, the intellectual soul, it would follow that man is not absolutely one. Thus Aristotle argues, _Me
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768  
769   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   785   786   787   788   789   790   791   792   793   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

absolutely

 

animal

 
united
 

regard

 

opinion

 

distinct

 

organs

 
existence
 

intellectual

 

essentially


Aristotle

 

operations

 

reason

 

maintained

 
involves
 

locally

 

unreasonable

 

supposed

 

logically

 

things


denominated

 

source

 
instance
 
argues
 
follow
 

sensitive

 
living
 

vegetative

 
suppose
 
motors

impossible
 

reasons

 
movable
 
spiritual
 

animated

 

mingled

 
orders
 
answer
 

reasoning

 
Syrians

contrary

 

material

 

subject

 

Ecclesiasticis

 

Dogmatibus

 

referred

 
divided
 

continue

 
observed
 

principles