Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

36
Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul) Class Notes (Taken at a Pontifical University) First Lesson: What is the Place of Psychology in the field of sciences? In the “old days” Natural Sciences were divided into Logic (required discipline for Philosophy, because it speaks about the rules of our mind / the laws of reasoning one has to use to arrive at the truth) and Philosophy. Philosophy was divided into speculative (dealing with the object for the sake of knowledge) and practical (acquired for the sake of operation) Philosophy. Speculative Philosophy is divided into three aspects according to the degree of excellence of the object investigated. This degree is measured by the ability of the object to be separated from a material component / to be abstracted from matter. This separation exists on two levels: Definition and existence. Natural Philosophy has the lowest degree of perfection, because it deals with objects totally dependent on matter both in definition and in existence. Mathematics have a higher degree of perfection because they deal with objects existing in material condition but defines the reality of those objects separated from matter. Metaphysics have the highest degree of perfection, because they do not depend on matter and can be taught without matter existing. Practical Philosophy is divided into Ethics and Art/Poetics () Metaphysics is the science of Being. It is divided into Ontology: talks about Being as Being Epistemology: deals with our relation to Being Natural Theology: because Metaphysics have to examine the first causes of Being Mathematics are concerned with quantified Being. Look at reality from a quantitative point of view Natural Philosophy investigates the world of nature, the material world. Nature here means the world of beings that can be recognized by our senses and that move through time and space. Natural Philosophy is divided into Cosmology: dealing with things that need an external cause of movement Psychology: dealing with beings that in themselves have the principle of movement

description

These are the notes from the Philosophical Psychology course from a major Pontifical University. The philosophical point of view of the teacher was the Thomistic school.

Transcript of Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Page 1: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Philosophical Psychology I(Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Class Notes(Taken at a Pontifical University)

First Lesson:

What is the Place of Psychology in the field of sciences?

In the “old days” Natural Sciences were divided into Logic (required discipline for Philosophy, because it speaks

about the rules of our mind / the laws of reasoning one has to use to arrive at the truth) and Philosophy.

Philosophy was divided into speculative (dealing with the object for the sake of knowledge) and practical (acquired

for the sake of operation) Philosophy.

Speculative Philosophy is divided into three aspects according to the degree of excellence of the object

investigated. This degree is measured by the ability of the object to be separated from a material component / to be

abstracted from matter. This separation exists on two levels: Definition and existence.

Natural Philosophy has the lowest degree of perfection, because it deals with objects

totally dependent on matter both in definition and in existence.

Mathematics have a higher degree of perfection because they deal with objects existing

in material condition but defines the reality of those objects separated from

matter.

Metaphysics have the highest degree of perfection, because they do not depend on

matter and can be taught without matter existing.

Practical Philosophy is divided into Ethics and Art/Poetics ()

Metaphysics is the science of Being. It is divided into

Ontology: talks about Being as Being

Epistemology: deals with our relation to Being

Natural Theology: because Metaphysics have to examine the first causes of Being

Mathematics are concerned with quantified Being. Look at reality from a quantitative point of view

Natural Philosophy investigates the world of nature, the material world. Nature here means the world of beings that

can be recognized by our senses and that move through time and space. Natural Philosophy is divided into

Cosmology: dealing with things that need an external cause of movement

Psychology: dealing with beings that in themselves have the principle of movement

Page 2: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Psychology is the part of Natural Philosophy that deals with beings that are capable of self-motion. The principle

inner cause of movement has been given the name “soul”. So “soul” here is equivalent to the capacity of self-

movement

What is the Object of Psychology?

Object: from lat. obicere: “to put in front of” = the thing put in front of our eyes in order to examine it.

The Object has to be divided into the objectum quod (What are we studying?) and the objectum quo (“Lumen sub

quo”: the light under which we examine the object / the specific point of view).

The objectum quod has to be divided into the material quod (a particular thing investigated in general, that is looked

at from different points of view (quo)) and the formal quod (the specification of that particular thing)

In ancient Philosophy the Material Object of Psychology has been the Soul (1st essay on the soul by Aristotle “

”). The Soul is a principle of life / of organized bodies that potentially have life, of material beings which are

animated. The object of Psychology was every thing that was alive: natural, physical, corporal realities with an

inherent principal of movement (plants, animals, humans).

In St. Thomas’ time the focus of what is the object of Psychology shifted from the soul in general to the human being.

For Thomas the main object of study were humans, while for Aristotle it was the totality of living beings. This limitation

was made complete by modern philosophers, because now the objects of Psychology are human beings exclusively.

While humans are indeed special they still incorporate vegetative and animal aspects. Modern Psychology has as its

object only the conscious or sub-conscious life of human beings (due to Descartes, who made a strong separation

between spirit and matter/dualism of Humans).

From the Material point of view our Objectum Quod is the Human Person (H)From the Formal point of view our Objectum Quod is the Human Soul (S)

Human Person understood as someone with a soul, someone who has a principle of life.

Acts of Human Persons hint to the faculties/powers/capacities (if I speak it indicates a f/p/c of speech) which again

Page 3: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

lead to the source (soul) / principle of Human Life.

Task is to study human acts and f/p/c’s in relation to the soul.

The object of investigation is looked at from four different points of view:

Pre-scientific Psychology: It is purely empirical. It is a kind of knowledge of our

behavior that we ourselves acquire without being Psychologists, a knowledge

gained by observation of everyday life; the aim is practical, one cannot live

without these observations, because they help us to orientate, to improve our acts,

to improve our relationships with others. This knowledge is based on individual

observations, it is linked to an individual, it is not scientific because it does not

have a universal aspect.

Literary Psychology: An analysis of characters by writers which goes deeper than the

observation of everyday life, because it creates archetypes of characters. The aim

is not scientific but aesthetic, the character is immersed in a specific situation, so

again no universal aspect.

Scientific Psychology: The point of view taken by most modern Psychologists

Philosophic Psychology: Approach from a philosophical point of view

Careful: The alternative names “empiric” for “scientific” and “rational” for “philosophic” are wrong, because they imply

that scientific psychology creates a statement “a posteriori”, by making reference to experiences, while philosophical

psychology works “a priori” and has no connection to everyday life.

Second Lesson:

- THE NOTES FOR THIS LESSON ARE NOT MINE AND THEREFORE LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT -

Psychology (object of study = man)

What are we studying? A human person seen from the point of view of someone who possesses a soul.

We are studying what is essential for the human person.

We are looking for how are we acting? What can we do?

Actions - power - SOUL

Difference between scientific and philosophy psychology.

Scientific psychology = empirical psychology (MODERN, not correct)

Philosophy psychology = rational psychology (MODERN, not correct)

Empiric - based on experience, experimental

Rational - something based totally on contemplating/thinking

Empiric - absolutely based exclusively on experience a posteriori

Page 4: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Rational - something completely based on thought a priori

The difference between science and philosophy:

EXPERIENCE AND THINKING

Material differences

Both imply experience and reasoning of such experience

Philosophical psychology is predominantly speculative

Philosophy’s methodology has 2 methods:

PhenomenologicalScience of what appears in front of us

Looking for the essence of this, what appears to us

OntologicalLooks at human person as a being

What kind of beings are we?

Aim of philosophical psychology is a theoretical one.

Philosophy of Psychology - old discipline

Scientific Psychology - modern

Both disciplines are studying mobile, corporal being.

How do we act and what capacities for acting do we have?

Scientific psychology tries to understand the human person in all the manifestations of the capacities/characteristics

we have. But it is limited to characteristic accidents. Tries to quantify our actions.

Whereas Philosophical psychology goes a step further. It analyzes acts and powers of human person for a good end -

to arrive to the cause - the first cause (principle).

Science is peripheral in its ambitions.

Philosophical Psychology is much more central - goes to the heart of problem.

Science oftentimes looks at what a person does and not what we are.

Philosophy has a broader regard for the human person.

Philosophical psychology is actually based on public experience; is more observational; more reflective.

This is mainly a course on Thomistic psychology.

History of the term “soul” and its meaning - we can trace its origins (Plato, Aristotle) .

Homer (7th century BC) - human person was unable to perceive itself as totality

Page 5: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Human person was described in two different ways: alive/dead

The terms body and soul were only used when reference was made to dead people.

During someone’s life, there was no distinction made between body/soul. The reality then was one-dimensional (no

distinction made between corporal or spiritual reality) .

Psyche - soul (refers to act of breathing)

Soma - body

Vocabulary for living persons:

Melea - members, parts

Hrios - surface, skin (work indicates boundaries between me and external world)

Demas - structure, figure

Fimos - an organ of emotions, sentiments, passion (linked with will/mind/reason)

Frin - an organ of imagination

Soul - translation of latin word ANIMA

Which in itself takes roots from Greek word which means anemos (wind, breath)

Animus

In homer’s time, we see that fimos dies with the person.

At the moment of death, fimos ceases to exist.

In the 6th century BC psyche assumes fimos.

Before Plato another revolution took place.

Dualistic vision (war between body & soul)

Who is responsible for this?

Orphic tradition/movement. Orphism: We do not know well how it came to exist but it’s clear that in the 6h century BC.

Characteristics of Orphism :

- Understanding of human person is identified with the soul (I am identified with a soul)

- Necessity of ascetic practices (mortification)

- Founder (myth) Orpheus

- Orphism doesn’t care for the body

The soul is seen as a divine reality. This is the focal point of Orphic belief. Belongs to the family of God.

Belief in Demon: A voice which tells us what to do/not to do.

Soul is believed to be active when the body is not.

The activity of soul and body do not go together.

The immortal soul is only the human person.

Body imprisons the soul.

Page 6: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Body is grave/prison.

(Difficulties to describe ourselves as a unified being, soul and body were only applied to dead persons, living persons

had lots of terms, mostly used psyche and organs of our conscious acts on the level of our emotions and our body.

Not yet linked with a principle of life as such. Principle of life (soul) only connected to a dead person. Differentiation

between psyche-soul and fimos. Between 6th and 7th century transfer from fimos to soul happened. Orphism religious

movement, introduction of dualistic version of human being: Body bad, soul caught in there: Important characteristics

of this movement

a.) Soul is interpreted as a divine reality in us. Human person has in itself a principle of live of divine origin. Big novelty

that orphic tradition brings.

b.) Soul is contrary to the body, therefore it is truly itself when the body is asleep, because then we do not have power

over our acting. We are dealing here with a concept of the soul where all human dimensions are not part of what is

the soul

c.) Dualist conception of human being. Marked the occidental civilization. Orphism has seen soul as immortal reality

and body as mortal reality. Soul preexists the body and doesn’t stop existing once body dead. Body is negative reality.

Prison and grave of what the human person is, the soul.)

Third Lesson:

Orphic movement had own mythological explanation for contradiction between soul and body. Explanation tries to

explain why there’s good and bad in our live.

According to orphic tradition, orphic theogonists, the human person came to be like this: The main God Zeus had a

son, Dionysius. The divine world was also inhabited by evil gods (Titans e.g.). Titans killed Dionysius and ate him.

Zeus got angry and killed Titans, burned them up with the rest of his beloved son and threw the ashes down to earth.

From these ashes humans came to be. That’s why there is a tendency towards good and evil at the same time,

because we came out of the ashes that are mixture of what is divine and evil. Fall of the soul under the body was

thought of by Orphists as punishment for original sin. Live on earth should consist in an effort to liberation of ourselves

(souls) from body. Soul has ability to liberate itself in ascetic life, against the body, which is the principle of evil in us.

Mortification of the body, of all that belongs to the carnal dimension. Different practices: Participation in different rites,

being a member of a certain type of life with different ascetic rules. One of the rites characteristic for orphic movement

were ceremonies of initiation during which there was an imitation of killing and dismemberment of dyonisus to bring

back memory of what happened in the beginning. Orphic movement with all theoretical explanations of nature has in

itself a very irrational element. Important element of orphic movement is particular kind of live together with magical

rites.

Characteristic to Orphic religion is Mme. Sikorskis theory of the migration of the soul. Notion that soul has many

different incarnations came to philosophy from religion. It was a priest who gave the ideas to philosophers as such.

Mme S had a moral meaning/significance, because it was explaining a lot of problems we had in order to explain why

evil happens to innocent people. Theory of Migration of Souls explained that. Because in the present life the soul by

means of the body in which is in incarnated has to suffer for the sins committed in previous life. According to the

Page 7: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Orphics we have in this life to suffer exactly the kind of evil we have committed in the previous life. Not a very good

explanation, because it sets in motion an endless chain of bad deeds.

Reward and suffering in the beyond only in a very restricted sense before. With Orphics we have the new idea that

punishment and reward becomes a destiny for every human person/human soul. Orphics brings a new concept of

death/dying. Who knows if living ones aren’t dead and v.v. Here is the idea that death is natural and good and life is

nothing but an exercise in dying. Living is to learn how to die. (Plato will take on an orphic vision of the soul, but will

get out of determinism). End of 6th century in Greece concept of soul as principle of live was already well-established.

First philosophical tradition which is still of the orphic tradition is Pythagorean school. First philosopher who taught

the doctrine of re-incarnation. Soul is constrained to be reincarnated many times because it has to make up for guilt.

For Pyth re-inc. can happen even in animals. Pyth reformed the Orphs essentially in such a way that it was possible to

live this philosophy properly. Change of God, who is a patron both for Pyth and Orphs. Not Dyonisios but Apollo.

Because Apollo was the God to whom mind and science were consecrated. Very important point. Because difference

between orphism as religion and Pyth school is in the means of purification. Understanding of soul similar, means of

purification different. With the Orphs still by means of ritual celebrations, magical chants etc. In Pyth by means of

science, philosophy as the means of purification of soul. Plato and Sokrates will be followers of that. Soul is immortal

for Pyth, pre-exists the body, continues to exist after bucket kicked, body corruptible, incorruptible soul. Body is prison

for soul, therefore soul has to be purified from it. Up to here in line with Orphs. But then means of purification are

changing. Magical site lost. Purification done mainly by science. Pyth school had precise way of life. Movement where

a group of disciples lived together according to particular rules. How was purification of soul done? Different degrees:

1st degree of purification was concerned with music, because Pyths had concept of universe and soul. They saw the

universe as a harmony of numbers. Soul was understood as a harmony in itself. Cleaning or purification in the first

place had to consist in increasing harmony, so music was chosen. Music as such was first element in all the degrees

of the sciences the disciples of Pyth were learning, because acc. to Pyth it lead to the theory of numbers. Sound

coming out of different numbers. So introductory element to numbers and geometry in itself. Novices in Pyth school

had in the first period to listen in silence, without asking question. Was considered most difficult thing to learn. Having

grasped that, they were allowed to ask questions about music, geometry, arithmetic. Then came the time to study the

whole nature of the cosmos. The speaker was behind a carton, teacher was not seen. Students were just hearing the

voice. In a symbolical way this was an expression of the fact that knowledge is most important (anonymity of

contributor, not who, but what!). Letting doctrines out was forbidden, but one disciple obviously talked. Difference to

Orphs in the means of purification of the soul. For the first time we have a term appearing: theoretical

live/contemplative life. Pyth life sought purification in contemplation of truth.

Still in the 6th cent there appears a spiritualistic movement (improper use of term) in regard to comprehension of the

soul. A group of the first philosophers were called naturalists: “What is the first principle (archae)? From where do all

things come?” Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus = Water, Apeiron (infinite and indefinite reality), Air, Fire

(best image that speaks about constant movement). Asking about first causes different answers were given. Answers

are linked to the answers they gave to what is the soul. Soul understood as animating, governing and sustaining our

life. For each of the first philosophers the soul was linked to their element. Soul is internal principle of movement,

prime mover of our live, a principle of movement. They could not speak of immortality of souls, because our principle

of live was just part of a universal principle of live as such. Immortality of soul is always in impersonal terms. On

naturalistic basis it was impossible to conceive an immortal soul, neither a soul in the Orphic tradition. The only one,

Page 8: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

who was slightly inclined toward Orphism is Heraclitus (Movement: pantha rhe, tantum fluit). Expresses some

thoughts going beyond his three predecessors. However he identified the nature of the soul with the nature of the

archae (fire). By means of the soul in us is preserved the divine fire. Soul as such is fire. The dryer the soul is, the

more perfect it is, because it is opposed to water. Humidity terminates the soul (Drunkards). Pantha rhe also goes for

the soul: Soul is fire: Has a permanent tendency to escape from us, comes from outside the body, in order to

conserve, we have to breathe, because fire enters us by breathing and leaves us this way. Now we have the simple

elements, which come from the archae. Such an element is not a unity in itself. Naturalistic way of thinking, but still

there’s an Orph influence, because he speaks about/uses words like “death of the soul, extension to infinity”. “Death

of soul” makes no sense if we refer to a bodily element. He tries to speak about something that does not involve

space or extension. When he speaks about such a soul and its life he uses Orph terms. “Life of the mortal one (body)

is the death of immortal one (soul) and v.v.” Heraclitus believed also in some kind of immortality of the soul including

punishment and reward after death.

Parmenides: (Metaphysics, Onthology) For him the main problem is the problem of being as such. Created a certain

crisis important for us. Indication for two different categories of man. Those who are asleep and those who are awake.

Means: Sleepers walk like in a dream, follow the common opinion about reality. People awake follow the path of truth.

Those who are asleep follow an obedience that is wrong. 3 Mistakes of sleepers: Mixing together being and not-being.

Multiplicity of beings, many different things around us. Qualitative differences in the reality around us.

Movement/change/becoming: All that is wrong according to Parmi. Because to him only being exists. Being is, non-

being is not. Being and thinking. When we think we think about being, cannot think about non-being. To think means

to be and v.v.

With him the being is understood in univocal way without its many modalities. He affirms purely abherent: multiplicity

of beings (numerical diversity), qualitative differences and movement. His being is one, unique being. That’s why no

multiplicity. Being is not qualitatively differentiated, it is identical in itself, there is only one unique being identical to

itself. Finally absolutely immobile reality. Unique, identical, immobile reality.

7th century BC: Psyche and Fimos

6th Century BC Psyche -> Soul (former Fimos) center of rational and emotional aspects, appearance of Orphic

movement (religious), dualistic version of human person introduced; Pythagoras and his philosophy of orphic tradition

6th - 5th century BC: Naturalists (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes) and a new understanding of the soul, just a part

of principle of nature as such, not divine reality anymore

5th Century BC: (540-470) Heraclitusus (everything flows; first reason is movement); his contemporary is Parmenides,

who is in opposition to Heraclitus (nothing is equal to itself “We can never enter the same river twice”, everything is in

constant change)

Parmi: Negation of multiplicity, Negation of qualitative differences; Negation of movement.

Next has to be an attempt to reconcile Heraclitus and Parmi. Reconciliation is done by different people:

5th to 3rd centuries B.C will constitute the answer to Parmenides:

Democritus (Multiplicity)

Plato (Quality) (influence on Plato: Anaxagoras, Sophists, Socrates)

Page 9: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Aristotle (Movement)

Fourth Lesson:

Democritus: Tried to prove that there is no contradiction in affirming the existence of multiplicity. He introduced

atoms, atomic realities. According to him, we do not need to introduce non-being next to being. It is enough to

introduce the absence of matter (void). The reality as such consists in two things: Small atomic realities and the void

they move in. Atomos: indivisible (greek). Atoms have three qualities: They are not divisible, one in itself, do not have

qualities as such and they are unchanging. In this sense he was with Parmenides, only he turns Parmi’s one universe

into an infinite number of atoms with the same qualities as Parmi’s universe. The qualitative differences should -

according to Democritus - be explained by quantitative answers. Each body is composed of atoms and each body can

have a different number of atoms, the atoms have a different order and sequence and they are differently positioned.

Local motion is explained by the fact that the atoms are changing position in the void. The atomists conception of the

soul in regards to the consequences in psychology. Human body is constituted because of the clash of atoms. Also

the soul consists of atomic realities. Soul is seen by Democritus as the principle / the cause of movement. The atoms

of the soul are of a different nature than the ones that make the body, in the sense that they are lighter and smoother.

Taking up Heraclitusus Democritus says, they are of a fire-nature, because they have in themselves a constant

movement. These atoms are spread throughout the body. Because they are so fire-like, they tend to escape from the

body and they have to be constantly reintegrated / reintroduced into the body. How do they escape? By breathing.

That’s why we stop breathing when we die. So the soul is of the very same nature of the body. The pre-eminence of

the soul over the body is very hard to explain. According to Democritus, responsible for the principals of mind are the

fire-like atoms, too. Here he speaks of a divine reality. He says that the principle of mind is similar to God. He speaks

again about the necessity of taking care for the soul (sounds orphic), by looking for the goods of the soul, not the

goods of the body. All this is one big contradiction, because he speaks about the soul in naturalistic terms. Although it

is not even a personal principle of live, because the atoms of the soul leave and enter us, he says we have to take

care of the soul.

Anaxagoras (5th century): He is the last of the naturalists. He almost discovered the existence of supersensual, non-

material reality. He postulated that the prime cause reality was the nous (intelligence). He said that it is of such a

specific nature that it exists in material reality, but is not mixed with material reality. Something, which is independent

of material reality. Whole reality is material. In this corporal reality there is something that permeates it in every

dimension, but is not mixed with it, is not matter. This intelligence has three functions. The first is to know. It has a

knowledge of all reality. Therefore it can order the realities, can make of it a “cosmos”. Finally it is able to control the

reality, because it is such a great force. Nous is not a composed reality. This is an important characteristic, because

non-composition as such will always be one of the characteristics of a spiritual reality. It is not yet immaterial, but has

similar characteristics. Later he couldn’t make proper use of the nous to explain the events of the universe, went back

to material causes.

In the 5th century going towards the 4th, the Greek thinking takes a different turn in what is the problem of philosophy,

because of the appearance of sophists and Socrates. In the 5th century the Greeks have to adapt to new historical

conditions. Social-political conditions have changed. With these also the main focus in philosophical inquiring has

Page 10: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

changed. Up to then for all the philosophers the problem of the nature of the human being wasn’t the main problem.

The main problem was the universe, the cosmos. The first question was the “why” of the universe. In the 5th century

the human person becomes the main object of investigation. Up to then the human person wasn’t really investigated.

It was seen as one of the physical beings creating the totality of the universe. Why? Because philosophy and its

problems are here in progressive way, because our knowledge is also progressive. To make s/thing an object of

scientific investigation we have to be able to grasp it as a unit. Up to the 5th century philosophers were unable to

experience or express a human person as a unity, only in different terms of multiplicity. Human person was unable to

speak about himself in one term. Description of human persons was done in different terms. Humans were a

multiplicity of organs having this or that capacity to act. In the 5th century humans were able to see themselves as

human kind. Once the consciousness of the unity of the human kind was established, humans became the object of

philosophical investigation and you could start to ask what was the unifying principle. The human being took

consciousness of its unity on an individual level progressively. That’s why the philosophical questions were

progressive. In the 5th century we arrive at a higher degree of consciousness in regard to ourselves. This development

of the human reflection (“who are we?”) was influenced by the results of the proper investigation by the individuals but

also by the social-political conditions in Greek at that time. There were new movements. We have a very strong crisis

of aristocracy and therefore the growth of the middle class. We also have the crisis of the ancient set of values. The

traditional values were always linked to being born into a particular social class. In the new society we see the

appearance of a new conviction: Virtue is to be / can be acquired. We are not born virtues. Finally the city states

become open. After the Persian wars they open up to different cultures. This introduces relativistic views to virtues,

different points of view on different matters. Relativism is fostered. Democratic society, by the way. The first

philosophers in the 5th century that made an impact on society were the sophists (from sophizestai: “making a

profession of being inventive and clever”). Sophist is a professional wise-beer. They transferred the philosophical

interest to psychology. They ask questions about human behavior. This is the beginning of the first humanistic period

in the history of ancient philosophy. Sophists had a big success due to the capacity to respond to the needs of the

time, esp. to the young people. The society of that time (middle of 5th century, after the Persian war) had a huge need

for specific preparation for political activity, political life. It is in this field that the sophists offered the proper teaching in

contrast to other philosophers, because for the first time they will ask for money in return for proper teaching. Taking

money was a problem, sophists were denied the name of philosophers by Socrates etc. because philosophy was not

serving any other purpose but the research of truth. The aim of the sophist was making proper disciples able to act

and speak in such a way that they would be able to handle the domestic and public affairs. They aimed at the building

of a new political elite. The teaching of the sophists was aimed at practical things. They taught how to act in such a

way that you were successful in live. Why did they go for practical aims? Because they didn’t believe in the possibility

of the existence of the objective universal truth, therefore also not in the arriving at it. The research for truth wasn’t

something they aimed at. Why? The possible ways of explanation of the principle cause of the universe seemed to

have been exhausted. And all the different results made it difficult to know who was right. Contradicting positions.

Unable to judge who was right. Therefore the natural reaction was mistrust. The sophists had a conception of reality

and collected it with linguistic capacities. Link between reasoning and speaking. We are still moving in the dimension

of matter/physis. Sophists rebelled against proceeding developments in philosophy, which resulted more and more in

the belief that the real world is different from the phenomenal one. Against the “world as it appears to us, in which we

live and the real world”. What is the sense, if human person does not live in real world but in phenomenal world?

Phenomenal world is a world of multiplicity, constant change. They were very close to the division of the universe. In

this case Heraclitusus is right. We are living in a world that is constantly changing. The consequence on the level of

knowledge is evident: The truth doesn’t exist, because everything changes. Therefore language as such is influenced.

Page 11: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Main focus will be linguistic capacities, because reality as such has nothing constant in it, so the main problem is to

gain abilities to rule the others by means of speech, because reality is as you present it. There is no universal

unchanging element, they say. That has an influence on their view on the human person and on ethics. They will

never be able the nature of the human person. Because of that their set of rules and ethics will be flexible. The human

person as a measure. The human person is the measure of what is true and what is not. It is the measuring point of

everything. Different nations have different rules of conduct, even in regard to the most basic events like behavior in

regard to marriage, birth, burial. So the sophists concluded that the rules of conduct are nothing but convention. They

don’t flow from a nature of human person. They come from a kind of social contract. Therefore what is really important

is to be successful in life, to gain influence over the others. There is one answer to the question how you can be

successful. Sophists proposed different systems, gave different answers. First one is the relativistic view of society.

The world as such is for the human person what it appears to be, nothing else. What is true is relative to the

individual, to one person. Truth is relative to a particular person. A second important system is the so-called ethics of

situation. It is based on the fact that the human person is subject to changing emotions. Therefore it is capable to be

drawn into different directions by rhetoric. So the ethics depend on who prevails on the level of rhetoric. The sophists

also produced the first kind of utilitarianism. True is what is of utility for me. Pragmatic aspect of truth. In general the

sophists have seen the human person as a measure but also in biological terms as a part of nature. So later on

(soon), this principle of person as measure degenerated into a principle of “no measure at all”, because of “there is no

truth”, “there is only your truth”, “it is good if it is good for me”.

(When we do not keep a vertical element in our philosophy, we are likely to fall back into the 5th century sophists

“human is a measure”-thing. They at least had the excuse to not have the divine Christian dimension, that we are

about to leave behind today, what with pluralism and other crap).

Virtue was reduced to technical abilities, being able to deal in a sufficient way with private and public affairs.

At the same time Socrates lived. He was also considered a sophist by his contemporaries because of the method of

discussion he used. He used a tricky way in speaking with people. The main difference between him and the sophists

was: He wasn’t teaching for money. And the aim of his teaching was different. He used dialogues. He didn’t write

anything. So his philosophy is to a certain point up to discussion. He used his speech in such a way that the person

he talked thought to be right, only to later get his bottom smacked (verbally). Socrates had a similar attitude towards

the philosophy of nature as the sophists. He believed the results of the philosophers of nature were so contradictory,

that you couldn’t come to any conclusion. Socrates conclusion to this problem was different, though. Sophists said

that the truth does not exist. Socrates said that the science of the cosmos is inaccessible to the human mind. Such

knowledge in regard to what is the nature of the universe/first principle and so on is proper only to God. Finally

according to Socrates, any person who is concerned with that kind of investigation becomes so absorbed that he

forgets himself, which should be the most important point of research.

Fifth Lesson:

Division of the human person according to Socrates. Sophists and Socrates have in common the reflection on the

human being. That’s about it. Socrates gives new significance to the problem of the human person, the question “Who

is the human person?”. He responds without any doubt: “The human person is the soul!” Human person = Soul (acc.

to Socrates). He is not the first, though (see Orphics). Why is it important, then? Because nobody before defined the

Page 12: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

soul the way he did. How was the soul understood until that time? The soul as such was interpreted in the sense of

some kind of a ghostly appearance, taking existence after the departure of the living person, then lived in some time

in the Hades, then dissolved. Then we have the Orphic version: Soul is a divine element, which is in opposition to the

body, is immortal. In Orphic vision soul does not mean consciousness. Soul as such was active when consciousness

was inactive (sleeping, death). In the first philosophers (naturalists), soul was understood as a part of the principle of

all. Now comes Socrates: He identifies the soul with the consciousness. Before him, nobody did that. The soul is the

particular center of our thinking and ethical activity. It is the reality responsible in us for thinking and acting in an

ethical way. Soul identified as the conscious self. It is a revolution in the understanding of who we are as human

persons. In the Orphic and Pythagorean tradition, the divine reality of the soul had to be purified before it became

independent from the body. It was a reality, which was beyond consciousness. The soul was something introduced in

us, but not part of the human person as such. So there was still something needed to have a correct vision of the soul.

Soul had to be brought down from the heaven to the earth. Socrates did that. He operated the identification of the

supremely precious psyche of divine origin with a center of a personal character. Since Socrates time this vision of the

soul will dominate Western thinking. We do not have any writing by Socrates! Brings up the question, up to where

Socrates is speaking and when Plato takes over. Documentation points towards Socrates, because there’s a certain

eagerness to the sources that is only known to be used by him. Socrates gives ethical and religious overtones to the

meaning of the soul. The concept of the soul we have now is thought to come from the Christian tradition, but

Socrates added the particular Christian tone, that was later only enhanced. He and Plato had great influence on first

Christian thinkers.

Socrates doctrine on the soul was as follows: “Know yourself!” or “Take care of yourself!” When he uses “self” he

does not mean we have to know our name or body. He means the necessity to examine interiorly our own soul. “Take

care” means to know how to properly take care of the soul. He wanted to teach how to know the soul and how to care

for it. According to him the only thing worth doing for humans was taking care of the soul properly. The difference to

the Sophists lies in the measure of human behavior. When Socrates says, the aim of life is to take care or the proper

soul, he also means the examination of the consciousness. Such an examination (knowing and caring for the proper

soul) has to have a certain set of rules. His reality of the soul is in opposition to matter and body. So the soul is a

principle taking part in the divine. It has therefore a dominating role over the body. In us rules something divinely. The

measure of our behavior is not the human person (Sophists), but the measure is God. Reflection of the human being

Sophistic, but he has absolute norms guiding the human behavior. Because of the incapacity to define the human

nature by the Sophists, they degenerated into systems that were empty from the ethical point of view. Socrates claims

superiority, because he was able to identify the essence of the human person. He gives a set of values. Value cannot

consist in something other than that which is good for the soul. The realities, which make the soul what it is supposed

to be, help the soul to arrive at perfection. He wants to arrive at the best soul possible. Happiness consists in

achieving this end, the excellence of the soul. What is this excellence?

Soul is identified, to know it means to bring it to its best by the virtues proper to it. In what consists the good of the

soul? Socrates said: “The virtue as such consists in science and knowledge, whereas vice consists in nothing but

ignorance.” Why is that? If a human person is characterized by the soul and the soul is identified as the conscious

self, aware of proper acting, then the virtue actualizing that can be nothing but the aim of intelligence, which is

knowledge.

What purifies the soul is a theoretical act. The virtue is something, which can be taught. It is a theoretical matter. “No-

one can sin in a voluntary way.” Because evil is ignorance. If you are doing wrong, you do it because you did not

know otherwise. We are doing evil without knowing it is wrong. We are in ignorance of good. Evil is not so much the

matter of will, but the matter of reason. Since the soul is the source of our moral behavior, we can do wrong, but only

Page 13: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

due to the soul as a rational factor, in which we do not know the whole situation, all the facts.

Socrates introduces the set of values. The fundamental traditional values were the ones principally linked to the body.

Life, health, beauty, strength etc. Also power, fame, wealth, honors etc. This set of value was proper to the Sophists,

because they perceived the human person mainly in biological terms. Socrates focuses on the soul/reason/thinking

capacities. He says that the values of the human person are the values of the soul, eternal values. The main value is

wisdom or science. He is the first philosopher who tries to look for the essence of all the things, the universal element

in many particular cases under the same name (What is justice, what is beauty and so on.).

His doctrine is not free from problems. Socrates defines the soul not so much in its essence but more in functional

terms. He defines the soul according to what it is able to do, in terms of intellectual power, capacity of knowing. But

even St. Thomas and Aristotle will not arrive at the essential definition of the soul as such, and St. Thomas will say,

that this cannot be done. Socrates speaks about the soul as being a divine element, but we do not know what

Socrates knows by God. It is possible from what we know from Plato that Socrates believed in one personal God, but

it is not sure. He did not try to prove the immortality of the soul. He believed in the existence of the soul after the death

of the human person, but unclear in what form.

Plato was a disciple of Socrates. He organized his doctrine in real psychology. We find a kind of explicit views on the

human soul as such. It is not exposed in systematical way. First systematic writing on the soul will be by Aristotle.

Plato’s philosophy is marked by religious spirit. We find philosophical religious contemplation. But there is also precise

psychological observation. Plato’s metaphysics: The fundamental point of the platonic speculation is the discovering

of another sphere of existence, supra-sensible reality, spiritual dimension of reality that goes beyond physical reality.

In the dialogue titled Phedo (99c-101d) he explains the discovery of another dimension of reality. According to Plato

the search done by the first philosophers (of nature, pre-socs) was done by means of causes, looking for causes. All

the explanations were done in terms of purely mechanical causes. They were postulating water, air, fire etc., but we

saw a contradictory effect. The explanations were not satisfying. According to Plato Anaxagoras (nous/intelligence

which impregnates all mater, but is not mixed with matter) came closest to the truth. But when Anax goes back to the

ways of the ancients, Plato goes ballistic. He asks himself: Those mechanical or physical causes, are they true

principles of reality, or mainly secondary causes, simple means in the hand of another reality which is the prime

mover or prime cause of reality. Maybe the sensitive reality has to be explained by something, which is different from

this reality, unlike before. It seems matter cannot explain itself in terms of matter. Plato uses the language of the sea

(fitting to Greece). “What I have done in my philosophizing was so-called first voyage, following the natural

philosophers, like a first voyage to the sea, using the force of the wind in the sails, without any physical force you have

to exercise. Then the speculations found were not giving any more force. I was in the middle of the sea and the wind

has stopped. Now I have to use my own strength and force to move and make my second voyage.” This image

illustrates a personal input Plato had to contribute to solve the problem. So he postulated his own and arrives at

another reality. He says that the naturalists made no sense, because the sensible reality cannot explain itself

remaining on its own level. It is purely mechanic explanation. For example: “Why is Socrates in prison?” Naturalists

would say: “Because he is made of bones and skin and so on. He uses the physical reality of his body to move into

prison.” Is that a real cause? No. It is purely mechanical and material. Doesn’t explain why. The real cause is a good,

which he perceived as being in the jail. He is in jail, because he judged it to be just and good for him. He did not

accept the offer to go in exile or to be freed. The real cause of this particular situation is not material but something,

which goes beyond matter. Something of ethical character. The same procedure is valid for any other reality.

Mechanical elements are not true causes, but only, sub-causes or means at the service of the true cause. Such a

cause is of non-material character. Real cause is a non material reality which makes this particular thing to be what it

Page 14: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

should be. According to Plato these realities are meta-empirical realities. It is necessary to go beyond sense

experience. We have to look at reality by means of our intellectual eyes. We have to look at the true causes of reality

on the intelligible dimension. Intelligible reality means the reality that can be grasped by means of thinking not by

means of senses. Example: We indicate with one word “beautiful” many different things. Why is a thing beautiful?

According to the naturalists the explanation would be the particular physical elements as color, shape. Plato says that

are not the true causes. They are only the means through which the true cause is realized. The true cause is

something intelligible, invisible for our eyes. It is the idea of beauty in itself. The particular individual realities are

beautiful, because they are participating in the idea of beautiful. Plato postulates the existence of another dimension

of the reality. The intelligible reality was nothing else than a postulate we have to admit in order to explain the material

world. Sensorial reality cannot explain itself by itself. If we don’t want to fall into contradiction, we have to say it is

permissible to postulate the existence of another dimension of reality. Second voyage leads to two sides of existence:

The phenomenal world, appearing to our senses, the physical world. On the other hand we have an invisible,

intelligible, metaphenomenal reality. This postulate of Plato was one of the greatest stages in the history of

metaphysic, because the whole western thinking is conditioned by this discovery of a supersensible reality. Everyone

after Plato will have to position himself in regard to that discovery. If you don’t take the position, you have to explain

why. and only from then on you can talk about materialistic philosophies.

How does Plato understand these supersensible realities? How does Plato understand the term “idea”? For Plato the

real cause of the physical cause is the supersensible world of ideas. Idea comes from the Greek eidos, from idein = to

see. When we say idea, we talk about a concept, on object of thought, a mental representation. This has nothing to do

with the idea in Plato’s terms. In Plato’s time the meaning intended was opposed to thought. He thinks of a reality to

which our thinking has to turn to grasp the reality of things, to have a mental conception. A reality of real beings that

we can only reach by means of our mind. For Plato the idea is a being, something that exists, the only true being as

such (all from the ontological point of view). Idea here means the external form, specific shape or later even the

essence of something. Second use of the term “idea” becomes a constant with Plato. He uses idea in the second

meaning, the internal form of the particular reality, the nature, the essence. To him idea means an internal form, a

kind of metaphysical structure. Ontological essence of the phenomenal realities. It is correlated with real being. To

him the world of ideas is the true cause of the material reality.

Main points of Plato’s teachings are not transmitted in writing.

For Plato the world of intelligible ideas is structured. We can identify five different levels.

At the summit Plato postulates what he calls the idea of good/one/unity. It contains the principle of order and measure

and all goodness. As such it is the first formal cause of all that is. On the very same level next to it exists the material

principle. On the level beneath you have the ideas of numbers. Under that follow all the ideas of things that exist. On

that level the main five ideas are being and from that identity, difference, movement and rest. On the level below we

have mathematical beings. And then follows the material world. For Plato these ideas are, they do not become, which

is a Parmenidean approach. They are permanent, unchanging. The material world of Plato sounds more like

Heraclites.

Plato’s understanding of the soul seems to be full of contradictions. He has three different positions on how many

souls the human person has. He says that the human person has one soul, completely indivisible. In the republic he

says, that the human soul has three parts. Intellect, desire and passions. So the soul is divided into rational, irrational,

concupiscible.

Then he talks about one more part, the nourishing soul. How do we get out of this contradiction?

Page 15: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Sixth Lesson:

In Phaedo (one of the most important writings), the human soul is one. In the Republic, he gives the soul three

different parts (rational soul (intellect), irrational soul (desires), concupiscible soul (passions)). On a still lower level we

have the nourishing soul, responsible for the vegetative acts. Contradiction? The discussion of the soul depends on

the nature of the dialogue. In Phaedo he only speaks of one soul, because he only talks about the rational soul. In the

Republic, however, the discussion assumes psychological dimensions. He speaks about the principles of human lives

from the point of view of vital activities and assigns vital principles. So when he divides the soul, he talks about the

faculties we have. In Timaeus the vision of the human person and the soul becomes more physiological. Whenever

Plato touches social or political problems, he gets back to the division and the soul, because he sees similarities in the

person and the society. How the society should be constructed corresponds to the nature of the human person. He

speaks of three different levels of the acts we perform, therefore three different levels of the soul.

What does Plato mean by the term “part”? (three different souls or three different parts of one soul). Part has to be

understood metaphorically. It is not his intention to say, the soul is an extended material reality, divided into three

parts, which are linked to constitute one reality. He is more talking about three different functions. The highest element

to Plato will always be the rational parts (Phaedo), being of divine nature. Irascible and concupiscible seem to be

perishable. But still one is better than the other: One part is more connected to reason than the others. This is the

irrational part. The functions for which the irrational soul is responsible are more perfect than the functions of the

concupiscible part.

Plato’s theory of the physical locations of different vital functions is to be taken in the un-literal sense. The rational part

is located in the brain, the irrational part in the breast (heart), the concupiscible part was, according to Plato located

more below ;-)

Moral seems to be the main reason for there being three parts of the soul according to Plato. Experience shows that

often you know what you should do or you desire to do, but you act in a different way, because the passions are

stronger. So there are three different realities, which are in conflict. Hence Plato’s conclusion. He introduces the

image of the soul as a charioteer steering a wagon with two horses, of which one is good and listens to the

commands and one is bad and does not listen. The charioteer is the rational part of the soul, the good horse is the

rational part, easily led by the reasons. The bad horse is the concupiscible part, that does not listen. According to

Plato, we are not able to say what the soul is, because only God can know that. We can try to explain, what the soul

resembles. For Plato (mythological explanation) in the beginning the soul lived in the world of ideas with the Gods and

was moving in the sphere of that idea like a charioteer with two winged horses. Because of the difficulties with the bad

horse, the human souls often entered into clashes, since the movement was not in harmony. In the ensuing accidents

the horses lost their wings and fell into the bodies.

Plato is the first Philosopher who tired to prove the immortality of the soul. He speaks only about the rational part of

the soul in his argumentation. But in many dialogues and mythological accounts he uses we see that the soul is

pictured as immortal in its totality. Plato’s ethical interest is shown. The rational element has the nature to guide and to

rule, because that is the act proper to the charity, which is steered by the rational part. Imbalance in the human life is

introduced by the concupiscible part. Plato declares that the soul in immortal. In Timotheus he teaches that only the

rational part of the soul is immortal. If the other parts of the soul are mortal they have to be separated from the rational

part. There is a separability of the several part. So they must form two different souls. He doesn’t say so but it is sort

Page 16: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

of implied. This is one of the things that are not clear in Plato’s theory of the soul. He retains the immortality of the

soul and it seems probable to him that at least the rational part survives. He wants to prove that now. How? The

important proofs we find in Phaedo are put in the mouth of his master Socrates, who first spoke about the soul as the

center of our human thinking and rational behavior The dialogue takes place in the jail, when Socrates is imprisoned

and about to be executed. The disciples of Socrates wanted to have proof that he is not going to die wholly, that his

soul is going to survive. Plato tries to give proofs through Socrates.

There are four proofs:First: Plato says the contraries are produced from the contraries (strong to weak, warm to cold etc). Every change

takes place from one opposite to another. It goes in both directions (awake - sleep; sleep - awake). If everything only

went in one direction, all would end after a while and the universe would become one unmoving reality. This proves

the immortality of the soul, because we have to apply to this principle life and death. Therefore here too life has to be

produced by death and vice versa. It is assumed, that from the death of the body the life of the soul is produced.

Criticism: It is based on certain assumptions (eternal process, contraries produce contraries). It hardly satisfies

straight rational thinking. Nothing is said about the condition of the soul in its state of separation from the body. It

doesn’t speak of any kind of conscious remembrance the soul retains after death.

Second: A proof based on the nature of human knowledge. Plato indicates two things. First he points at the fact that

everybody has knowledge of standards/norms, of which we make constant use in our comparative judgments,

judgments of values. But these universal absolute realities of which we make use do not exist in the world we can

know by means of our senses. Therefore we cannot grasp them by means of sensation, so we know them because

we must have “seen” them before our soul has fallen into the body. Secondly he indicates is based on mathematical

education. Plato gives the example of a servant who concludes with correct mathematical answers without ever

having learned math. So he knows math from a previous existence. The proof is based on the process of knowledge

called reminiscence. Criticism: The math thing: By means of a good process of our teachers we were able to come up

with correct answers, just as Plato’s servant was able to, after having been asked questions that led him to the right

answers. Is it a proof for the immortality of the soul? No, it’s best a proof for the pre-existence of the soul before its fall

into the body.

Third: This argument is based on the divine nature (pre-supposed) of the soul. Plato says that the visible things are

composite, therefore subject to decay and death, because they are composed of different elements that can be

divided. The soul can see the invisible intelligible world of the ideas that is unchanging and unperishable. This fact

indicates that the soul has to belong to the same family as those realities. Each idea is simple, indivisible, immaterial,

immortal reality. Given that we know the ideas, our soul has to be similar to them, has to be divine in the sense that it

is simple, indivisible, immaterial and eternal. Criticism: The vision of the universe of Plato and his view of knowledge

have to be accepted for the theory to be valid.

Fourth: One disciple suggests that the soul can be partially immortal in the sense that the soul has certain amount of

energy, which can wear itself out from incarnation to incarnation. Plato asked if the world of ideas and forms was

accepted. Yep! The presence of one idea includes the presence of the contrary one. The world of the ideas is the

formal cause of the physical cause for Plato. Whatever we see here participate in the ideas present in the intelligible

world. Can we admit or accept the existence of a reality with would participate at the same time in two contrary ideas?

Nope! Because the presence of one form will not admit the presence of a contrary one. Fire cannot be cold and warm,

the reality cannot participate in these two ideas which are contrary. How does this apply to the soul. The human soul

is what it is because it participates in the idea of life, therefore it will not admit in itself the presence of the contrary

form, which is death. The soul has for its own essence life. So it excludes by the very fact of the participation in the

Page 17: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

idea of life the idea of death. When death approaches, the soul withdraws but does not die. So the soul cannot wear

itself out, because it participates in the idea of life. Death is proper only to the body.

Two other kinds of proofs which Plato gives (Republic, Phaedo).

Republic: A particular thing cannot be destroyed expect through some evil inherent in it. The evils of the soul are

unrighteousness, intemperance, ignorance etc. Those things evidently do not destroy the soul, because we see in our

societies people who act badly and live morally wrong, yet live longer than the just sometimes. So the vices do not

destroy the soul. The soul does not carry in itself a principle of destruction.

Phaedo: Soul as the soul of its own movement. The reason of the proper activity which has in itself the cause of the

proper motion cannot be destroyed. New definition of the soul. Soul is a self-moving principle, therefore life as such.

Whatever is a principle of the proper existence/activity/motion cannot be stopped. Only if you have the source of the

proper motion coming from outside, from an external source it can be stopped. If it is a principle of self-motion, it will

always exist.

Plato has sort of an Orphic vision of the soul, because he strictly separates it from the body. He affirms the reality of

the soul as distinct from the body and its pre-eminence over the body. Stands in the line of psychological dualism.

Philosophy is an art of dying, of escaping from the body, from the evils of the world. Plato defines the soul as self-

initiating motion. When he says that, he indicates, opposing himself to the naturalist vision, that the soul has to be

superior to the body. It cannot be of equal reality as the matter. It has to be of a different nature, cannot be essentially

the same as the material reality. He opposes himself to a certain Pythagorean vision of the soul, claiming or

suggesting that the soul is some kind of epiphenomenal of the body, a harmony that results from the body. The body

is a physical phenomenon, while the soul results from what the body is as a epiphenomenal element, like a harmony

in music is a result of a composition of different notes. Plato says it is not possible that a mere harmony can rule of

what it is a result, what created it. Plato does not, however, deny an interaction between the two ontologically

separated realities, does not deny influence from one on the other, but does not explain how it happens profoundly.

He sees music as an element that helps to live correctly on an ethical level, because music induces harmony. There

is in us a certain influence of hereditary elements (defects of the body, environment). Plato seems to claim the

immortality of the soul not in general, without being able to remember what happened in the present incarnation. He

however believed in the personal immortality of the soul. The soul reincarnating itself retains personal characteristics.

What happens to the human person once we die? The soul reaches the moment of judgment, is naked, presents itself

as it is, without ornaments, only with the vices and virtues. Before the next incarnation, the soul is brought to the place

where different types of life are presented. The soul is free to chose the way in which it wants to live the next

incarnation. The virtue has no patron, it is the soul that chose the life. How to explain that we don’t remember? Once

the soul has chosen on the basis what it knows the life proper to it, it is led to the river of forgetfulness. It has to drink

from the river and it forgets the moment of the choice that was personal and proper to it. Plato tried to explain how to

retain an element of personality from incarnation to incarnation and the personal responsibility we have in our lives.

The Orphics thought the incarnations were effects of what you did in the incarnation before (if you were a killer, you

will be killed). Plato believes that the soul can escape from the chain of reincarnation and so remain in the world of

ideas.

Seventh Lesson:

Page 18: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Aristotle:Tried to answer the question of change (does it exist or not). Plato gave the answer to the problem of qualitative

difference. Things are what they are in virtue of the participation of the universal idea. According to Aristotle, Plato

wasn’t able to give sufficient explanation how things become. He only indicated a material and formal cause (ideas).

Main problem remaining according to Aristotle was the question of efficient cause, the agent that makes them to be as

they are, that makes them to be. Three important principles of Aristotle: causation in general/theory of a set of notions

of matter and form/theory of a set of notions of act and potency.

Causality: By cause Aristotle indicates the reality that constitutes, structures something, whatever reality it is. Four

causes. Material and formal explain whatever is explained in an intrinsic way. Material: This from out of which

something is made. Formal: Essence of the nature, form shape. Efficient and final explain the reality in a dynamic,

extrinsic way. Efficient: Indicates a particular agent responsible for what a thing is, for its coming into existence. Final:

Purpose towards a thing exists, was made.

Previous philosophers tried to explain reality by means of causes, but never used all four causes.

Theory of hylomorphism: According to Aristotle matter and form are the two causes constituent of being of every

reality. Two components that constitute one reality. Form: Aristotle contradicts Plato. According to Aristotle, the

essences are not constituted by some kind of external realities, as in Plato (ideas). He retains that what a thing is

explained in the terms of his form. He interprets the term form as Plato did: The nature of the given reality. Every form

is not given to a thing from outside but is pulled out from the potentiality of matter, in virtue of an adequate agent

cause. There is no world of ideas, separate from matter, as in Plato. The form is not added from outside the matter.

Form is not that what exists, as for Plato. Form is rather a co-principle of something, it is that through which something

exists (but not that what exists). Matter as a principle correlative to form. Aristotle believes in eternity. According to

him the matter cannot exist in a pure state as such. It cannot exist without the form. Whatever exists, each material

reality, exists under a particular form. Matter has no character of its own. It is not a reality. Matter is a co-principle, too.

It is that through which things exist (but not that what exists). Matter is an undetermined principle of corporal reality,

but determinable. Form is the determining principle, that accounts for a particular thing what it is. Neither matter nor

form are things that can exist by themselves. To be a complete entity, the matter must be compounded with the form.

Physical beings always have matter and form -> Synolon. Everything that exists is a synolon, a composite of material

and formal principle. Aristotle’s explanation of how things exist is called hylomorphism. Aristotle’s position is not

materialistic, because he does not talk about matter exclusively, but makes its existence dependent on form. Matter

and form are necessary to understand out of what each being is mode.

Notion of act and potency: According to Aristotle, change in the physical world consists in the fact that from the

matter under the influence of an agent cause, form is being extracted. Change is the change of form that happens in a

certain amount of a particular matter under the influence of the agent cause. For Aristotle change means

transformation, going from one form to another. The notion of potency for Aristotle linked with the notion of matter.

Matter invokes potency in the sense of a capacity to assume or receive different forms. Prime matter does not exist. It

is absolutely formless, indefinite reality without quality or quantity. It is a certain potentiality. The corporal things

actually only exist under certain forms. Potency invokes capacity of receiving forms and it also invokes passivity.

Potentially prime matter can assume every form, but actually it is nothing. Before becoming anything, prime matter

has to receive the form.

Matter can assume or receive different forms under the influence of different agent causes. What a particular thing

becomes depends on the agent cause working on it. Example: A piece of wood can become different things under the

influence of different agent causes. Fire turns it to ashes, in the hand of a carpenter it can become a table.

The act is linked with form in the way potentiality is linked to matter. Form is in itself intrinsically a limit that

Page 19: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

determinates a matter in its continuous becoming or changing. It is putting a limit to matter’s infinite possibilities of

becoming. It stabilizes the matter, it diversifies it as an ordered totality, a whole. Act, actuality, actualization comes

from the Greek term “entelechy” (this, that possesses in itself a term/an end). It indicates an original meaning of the

word act. Form is what brings with itself a limit, brings determination. The Latin translation of “entelechy” “actus”

underlines another aspect of what is important in the process of change and becoming. It indicates an activity. The

form as act in reference to the Latin word points out that form in its determination of matter, depends on the agent

cause, the acting cause. Forms exist in matter potentially. They do not exist actually, until there is a sufficient agent

cause, some active potency, to pull them out of the potentiality of matter. A particular corporal reality cannot be

actualized at the same time by two contrary forms.

Act being a limit: The matter receives with the act also a limit to what it can become. To inform a particular kind of

matter means to de-terminate it, to put the limits, finish it, make it a whole accomplished reality. That is what happens

under the influence of the form. In order to be and remain essentially what it is a particular reality cannot overcome

certain limits given to it by the form. If these limits are overcome, it means that the particular matter will change the

form and the proper limits of becoming. Or: We are what we are in virtue of a particular form we have. This form

defines us, makes us what we are and limits us in what we can do. Example: We can be heated up by the sun up to a

certain degree and only undergo accidental change. But if we are exposed to excessive heat, we start so smoke, look

funny, smell weird and finally undergo a substantial change. So our being human limits the amount of, i. e. heat we

can take before we become something else.

[Is Aristotle’s position materialistic? (Forms are induced from matter in virtue of efficient causes which in general are

also material realities) According to Aristotle his God (unmoved mover, pure act) has no relation with the world,

doesn’t even know it. To Aristotle God only knows its own reality.]

Psychology for Aristotle is a study of the soul. For him it is a part of philosophy of nature. A investigates psychological

phenomena in which the soul manifests itself in different writings. Of main importance for us is “De Anima”. Linked

with that is a collection of shorter works like the writing of sense and the object of senses and another one of memory

and recollection. “De Anima” is the first systematic writing that exposes the nature of the soul as such. The writings on

the senses and on the memory consist of empirical data. He investigates how the phenomena come to the soul and

body. In “De Anima” Aristotle introduces a new question. He asks if there are certain acts only proper to the soul or if

all psychological states (acts proper to the soul, vital acts) are necessarily the acts of matter (body) and the soul. To

Aristotle the objects of psychology are plants, animals and human persons, because psychology is broad in terms,

especially in modern terms. “De Anima” is first ordered discussion about the soul as a principle of life and its

manifestations.

Aristotle’s concept of the soul: Aristotelian physics does not only inquire into the nature in general and its principles,

but also animate realities without rational capacities and with rational capacities. What is for Aristotle the element that

introduces the difference what is animate and what is inanimate. Those two dimensions are differentiated because

they posses a principle that gives them life, this principle is the soul. The demarcation line in the physical world is

between living and non-living beings.

What is the nature of the soul? Aristotle expresses the essence of the soul in categories according to his own physical

doctrine. He defines soul by saying that the living bodies have life but they are not life (difference between being alive

and being life).

So what is life? Second book of “De Anima”, first chapter, 412a and 412b. “It is necessary that the soul is a form of a

natural body potentially having life” and “Soul is a form of a natural body having organs”.

Page 20: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Soul as such is a form of a natural body potentially having life or a form of a natural body having organs. Soul

essentially being a form: Aristotle puts himself in the middle between the Pre-Socratic and Platonic vision of the soul.

Pre-Socratics saw soul as physical principle, soul was reduced to an aspect of matter. In the Platonic view of the soul

we have another extreme because the soul is dualistically opposed to matter in general and body in particular.

Aristotle is in the middle, unites both views into a higher synthesis. According to him Pre-Socratics are right in saying

that the soul is something intrinsically united with the body, but Plato is also right in saying that the soul has some kind

of ideal nature. This enables Aristotle to see in the soul the form or an act of the body. It is an intelligible element, not

reduced to material. Substance is essentially inseparable, possesses a unity, proper to living organism, a unity that

says that matter and form, body and soul are inseparable. The substantial union between material and formal element

is not problematic, does not pose a question for Aristotle. To him it was natural and did not need any particular

discussion. However, he doesn’t consider the questions to be meaningless. He answers the questions, but does so

quickly. The fact that for Aristotle the unity of body and soul is evident does not mean that body and soul are identical.

For St. Thomas one of the main problems will be the unity of body and soul. He will retain the problem of the unity of

the body and the soul.

Aristotle couldn’t ignore Plato’s transcendental immaterial reality. Plato was right saying that there is speculative

thinking in us, a knowledge of immaterial realities. According to A the possibility of knowing such realities implies the

existence in us of certain reality, which retains a similarity with these eternal unchangeable world. He postulated the

existence of a different kind of a form than he speaks about in his metaphysics, as a price for retaining his philosophy.

He says “there is no doubt that the soul is not separable from the body, or at least certain of its part are not if its by

nature divisible. Nothing prevents that there are some separable parts because they are not forms of any bodily reality

at all. With respect to the mind nothing is clear. It would seem that it is a different kind of soul…”

Some separable parts? Contradiction to his own metaphysics of hylomorphism!

Eighth Lesson:

Aristotle divides all that exists into animated and inanimated. Animated has principle of live in it (soul). Nature of the

soul is explained in terms of his hylomorphic theory. Reality composed of matter and form. Definitions in 2nd book of

de anima: Soul is the actuality of the natural body having organs or potentially having life.

What can we say about the second part of that definition? For Aristotle having organs or potentially having life is the

same. The form is the principle that shows itself by means of different vital activities. The soul therefore has a

fundamental relation to the matter. Soul is a form of a natural body potentially having life. In order to act, the soul

needs a well-structured body. Without such a body the soul cannot express itself by means of the vital acts. In order

to have life, the body has to accomplish minimal conditions for the soul to be active.

This definition is linked to the analysis of the soul following in Aristotle, because it characteristic for him to link the

definition of the soul to the form and the organs. Aristotle gives us an explanation of life or soul in fashion of its

capacities.

Difference between Aristotle and Plato. Plato divided the soul into three parts, rational, irrational and concupiscible,

because of the human behavior with its contradictions. Plato divides because of ethics. Aristotle divides according to

the analysis of the essential vital functions of the human beings, not ethical behavior

Operations inseparable from life can be differentiated into three groups:

1) Phenomena of the vegetative character: birth, nutrition, growth, reproduction

2) Phenomena of the sensorial character: Sensorial perception, local movement

Page 21: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

3) Phenomena of intellectual character: Knowledge, choice.

Aristotle says we have to conclude that there are three different principles of life responsible for these vital actions:

vegetative soul, sentient soul and rational or intellectual soul.

Vegetative life reveals itself by nutrition growth and reproduction. All living organisms have those capacities. But

animals have in addition the sensorial perception. Finally humans have in addition the abstract thinking and the

rational thinking. Broadest vital act is the one in which all the living beings share, the acts of vegetative character.

According to Aristotle there is between the different kinds of souls a hierarchy. The rational pre-suppose sensorial that

pre-suppose vegetative. The higher vital acts always pre-suppose the existence of the lower capacities. Why?

Teleology! Nutrition and growth serve the higher vital actions (sensorial perception and thinking). Still the beings with

the higher and more vital operations only have one soul. The question if we have three souls or one soul that is

divisible remains unsolved for Aristotle.

Aristotle speaks about the vegetative principle of life first, because it is the broadest dimension of life, pre-supposed to

everything that lives and a condition for having higher vital or intellectual powers. The vegetative soul is the most

elementary principle of life, manifesting itself by means of three operations: Nutrition, growth and reproduction. What

can be said about these acts of vegetative life? When Aristotle speaks about nutrition he says, that in the act of

nutrition three components are involved, that which is nourished, that by which it is nourished and that what nourishes

(which is the soul). Why the soul, because that which is nourished is already the body, and the second element is the

food. The notion of food here has an essential link to life. We cannot speak about food without the soul. Nourishment

is a notion reserved for living bodies. You do not nourish a car with petrol, you fill it up. The food (that by which it is

nourished) is nourishing under the control of the soul, which brings us to the second act proper to all living things,

which is growth. Why? Aristotle objects to those who want to account for growth saying it can be explained purely

mechanical or material. He says growth is a constraint pattern of development, a well ordered development, not a

simple addition of one matter to another which makes a being to become bigger. The source of such a constraint

pattern of development obviously is the soul. Growth in the organisms proceeds along structured paths. Happens

along structured ways and it is an act which has a finality, an end-oriented act. Explain growth without taking into

account something that organizes it, it would follow that if you add to the fire a little wood, the fire will be small, if you

add a lot of wood, the fire will be big. In materialistic terms the growth of living organisms would always be appropriate

to the amount of nourishment it receives. Organism grows and develops and acquires perfections up to the point of

max from where it starts to decline. There is a relation between growth and nutrition, but not proportionate, as in the

fire-example. According to Aristotle, all organisms grow and develop according to well established finalities, maturity

and decay. This cannot be explained without a principle that coordinates these acts: a soul, the first principle of the

act of growth. The last vital act of the vegetative life is reproduction. According to Aristotle this is the final goal of every

form of life, which has its limit in time. A final aim of life, for each living being which is temporarily finite, which is not

eternal. Why? Because each being is made for eternity, even the most elementary have this tendency to go beyond

the barriers of death. For any living thing, which has reached a normal maturity, which is not handicapped, most

natural act is to produce another one like itself, in order to give some satisfaction to the tendency to live eternally.

Material finite realities cannot partake in what is eternal, cannot have uninterrupted existence, and recreation is the

only way for them to make this seem possible. A specifically equal thing like themselves is produced, in which

existence goes on.

Page 22: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

The next level of live is the sentient soul. The acts proper to this second level of live are sensorial perception, some

kind of sensorial appetite and local movement. Existence of another soul is postulated, because these acts are so

different. Sensorial soul. Capacity of sensorial reception is for Aristotle the demarcation line between animals and

plants. Sensorial perception defines animals. They have to have sensorial perception in order to live. It is the most

important vital function for animals. These beings have to navigate in their environment to get the proper nourishment

and therefore have to sense. Teleology! Movement and sensation are needed for the animals, so they can gain

nourishment.

Sensorial perception: Most important and most characteristic for animal life: Some of A’s predecessors tried to explain

sensation as a kind of passion or alteration, where a similar was submitting itself to a similar. Aristotle explains the act

of sensorial perception with the hylomorphical change, the changes in general in the universe, the change as

transformation. Has to be explained with act and potency. According to A we have a power in potency, in capacity of

receiving sensations. Our organs are like a wood which is in capacity to be burned, but does not burn until it comes

into contact with fire. This can turn into the act of sensation with the contact of an sensible object. A sensitive capacity

can be actualized when the faculty comes into contact with the sensorial qualities of our physical world. What has the

power of sensation is potentially similar/like what the perceived object is actually. Means that at the beginning of the

process of sensation or being actualized, we have to dissimilar realities, which at the end become identical. Means

that we have the principles dissimilarity, similarity and identity: An organ is changed or affected in the act of sensation.

It is a change that takes place in the organ of sensation. The sensation is an alteration, which for A is a particular case

of interaction between two agents (in the physical world and sensual organs), which correspond to each other, are

suitable to one another. There is a hylomorphical model of alteration according to which the change is explained as

acquisition gaining another form, acquisition of a form by something, which is able to do it, is able to receive such a

form. Consequently whatever is changed is by force a reality, that is able to be changed in such a way. Aristotle

recognizes the specific forms of sensorial perception, well defined capacities in changing subjects, the one who

senses. In order to sense you have to have well defined capacities. The change consists in the fact that the capacity

which is able to change (in potency towards the well defined change) under the influence of the defined object is

made like such a thing, is made like the object which makes an impact on it. Being made similar or identical or

becoming like the agent affecting the sensorial organ means not a process of assimilation of the some kind in the act

of nourishment, where the form is destroyed and the matter assimilated. Here only the form is assimilated. A says that

sense is what has the power of receiving into itself the sensible forms of things without the matter. Example: It is like

the act of making an impression of a seal ring in wax. The result is a form of the seal in the wax, not the seal-ring

itself. Subject can perceive a given object only if it has the capacities required to receive such an object, only if such

an object acts upon the capacities by informing them, giving them the form it has. The subject becomes isomorphic

with the object, has the same form. We have five external senses to which qualities of the physical world correspond.

Actualization of the capacity of the senses he calls sensation. Our senses do not fail, when the grasp the objects

proper to them.

There are common sensibles, things we can come to know by means than more than one sense, i.e. we can feel or

see or even hear movement.

We also have an internal sense that Aristotle calls the common sense (not in the meaning we use). It is in a non-

specific sense, a sense that acts in non-specific way, therefore common. It is an internal sense that has no external

organ to use in order to operate. Its only organ is the brain. Common sense is responsible for three different realities

in us.

It is a capacity we have of sensing our own sensations. Our sight does not know that it sees. The first awareness of

perception is due to common sense. It is a root in which external senses are grounded. Without common sense

Page 23: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

external senses would not have meaning.

We can form a unity out of different sense impressions of one thing. Ex.: my perception of the rose is not “I sense the

rose”, but I perceive it because the rose is a unified reality, which I sense through color, smell, touch. These elements

are coming to me un-unified and are unified by the common sense.

It also makes an act of discrimination. Sight can only discriminate in colors, not in sweet and red. This capacity

belongs to the common sense.

Two more internal senses:

Imagination comes from sensation and consists in producing images of realities we sense.

Memory consists in preserving these images.

Sensitive appetite is a consequence of sensation. According to A, if a living being has capacity of sensing the reality, it

also has to have appetite, because it belongs to the genera of desire, passion, wish. All animals have at least one

kind on sensorial capacity, which is touch. Whoever has that has also the capacity of feeling pleasure or pain. So the

animal with the touch capacity knows pleasure or pain, the animal will have in itself created the desire for pleasure or

the aversion of pain.

Local movement is the logical consequence of sensorial perception and desire, because the desire or aversion

generated by sensation will make us move toward or withdraw from.

Ninth Lesson

Last part of Aristotle’s philosophy of the human person; his understanding of the rational soul. He postulates the

existence of a principle of live, which is the rational soul, different from vegetative and sensitive soul. Capacities of

abstract thinking and will-power constitute vital operations justifying the introduction of a new principle of life which is

the rational soul. Without it we cannot be what we are.

His first investigation of the mind appears in the first chapters of “De Anima”. 4th + 5th chapter of the 3rd book. Well

known in history of philosophy, but often interpreted terribly wrong. Aristotle approaches the nature of thinking on the

basis of hylomorphical analysis. Thinking involves the reception of intelligible form by suitable intellectual faculty.

Thinking consists in minds being informed to receiving a form. So an act of thinking occurs whenever a suitably

prepared mind is made like its object. A subject has the capacity needed for receiving the intelligible form of a given

object. The object acts upon the capacity by informing it. as a result we have an act of knowledge. The subject

becomes isomorphic with the object known. What does it mean that the thinkers mind and its object become

isomorphic? Here, in this case, Aristotle points out that becoming isomorphic does not mean that the knower becomes

one with a hylomorphical reality of the known object. He does not take upon himself the reality of the object in the

hylomorphical form (matter + form) but only the form. His analysis of a change that takes place in an act of knowledge

bring Aristotle to the indication of some more problems: The intellective act is analogical to the act of sensorial

perception, insofar as it is a reception or assimilation of intelligible forms, just as in the act of perception. But it differs

profoundly from the act of perception because such an act is not mixed with the body or a corporal element. “What

differentiates the rational part of the soul and how can thinking take place?” If thinking is like perceiving it must be

either a process in which the soul is acted upon by what is capable of being taught (as the impact of the external

object in perception), or we are speaking about a process different from perception but with analogies. The rational

Page 24: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

part of the soul has to be capable of receiving the form of the object. In other terms it must be potentially identical with

its object without being the object. The mind has to be related to what is thinkable in the same as the sensual organs

are related or correspondent to the possible objects of our sensorial acts. There is nothing, which isn’t a possible

object of our thinking. All the realities are possible objects of our thinking. Therefore we have to conclude that the

rational soul (the part by which it thinks) has to have a pure reality, no mixture with bodily elements. We are speaking

about a pure form here, something that goes beyond the hylo-theory. Why? Because an admixture of matter, the fact

that it would work by means of material organs would limit the souls possibilities to know. This part by means of which

we think cannot have a nature of its own and it cannot be mixed with material elements. But a reality like the rational

soul doesn’t have anything in it that limits it. This part of our soul has no nature of its known and it has only a certain

capacity. It has no nature of its own other than having a certain capacity, being in capacity towards all. What we call

thought is not a real thing before it thinks. Thinking/thought: By thought I mean that by which the soul thinks and

judges. Such a thing is a pure capacity. So before it comes to the act of thought it isn’t a real thing. Important

observation: When we look at (observe) the organs of sensorial perception we notice an important distinction between

how they work and how our mind works. When senses and mind are exposed to something extreme: if our sight is

exposed to an stimulus which is too strong (sun), such an organ, after being exposed to act in an intensive way,

becomes weakened for a certain time. So what we see is being inversed by our mind, same as the mind is getting

used to hard thinking. Proves that our mind does not function by means of physical organs. The thinking part of the

soul is a pure potentiality (1st point of the argument). Another problem: The intellectual knowledge is by Aristotle

explained in functions of the metaphysical potentiality of potency and act (passing from potency to act). Thinking is

passing from potency to act. At the same time the senses only grasp concepts. These forms are contained in potency

in the sensations, or in what is the final product of our senses. In this image we have, which is the form of an object

and we form in our sensorial apprehension of reality, are contained potentially intelligible forms, the basis for making a

concept (“an apple” not “the apple”). Two kinds of potentialities: Mind with capacity to think, the potentiality to express

the ideas. On the other hand we have the object that can work on mind and is contained in potential images. This

twofold potentiality would be actualized by creating a concept, receiving a form. The form contained in the images

becomes intelligibly in act only when it is grasped by the intellect. On the level of intellect we have the soul with the

capacity of thinking which is a pure potentiality. On the other side we have the images, the forms of the things in

singular characteristics. Those forms/images exactly are the potential object, the object which has to make an impact

on the part of the soul which thinks. This is another potentiality added to the one that the senses have in the presence

of reality. So Aristotle postulates another reality. He makes a distinction between the mind that makes all things

(potential intellect or intellect as potential) and the mind that becomes all things (active intellect or intellect as act). 5th

chapter: “We always find in the act of change or in forming certain factor which are indispensable. A matter which is

potentially all the particulars, which can become all different things, and a cause which is productive, it makes what is

possible out of this matter. These elements must be present in the change, which is an act of thinking. The matter

does not take the form itself, it depends on the agent cause. In the act of thinking we have this situation. The mind will

not become populated by ideas out of itself. Thought is what it is by virtue of becoming all things. In itself it is pure

potentiality.” It is like prime matter which is able to assume all the forms. “In fact thought is what it is by virtue of

becoming all things while there is another which is what it is by virtue of making all the things.” This is a sort of a

positive state like light. In order for the intellect to see what is potentially there we need enlightenment, something,

which will bring the images out of darkness. That’s why he says “there is another which is what it is by virtue of

making all things.” This later is called agent intellect. Thinking of thought in the “another/as light” way is

impassible/immutable, unmixed and separated. Thought is separable impassible unmixed. It is in essential part

activity. It is the unique reality, which in true terms is immortal and eternal. Here the agent intellect (the

Page 25: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

“another/light/mind which makes all things”) acts as an efficient cause, it brings out of the potential the actuality, to

become adequate to the soul, to be brought to the level of existence that makes it intelligible. This second kind of

mind (makes all things) is an active state, while the other is pure potentiality. This kind of light is in the soul. In another

part he says this intellect comes from the outside and it is the only divine reality in us. It is in the soul but comes from

outside. It comes from outside: It seems that it stays in the soul all live long. It cannot be reduced to the body. By its

nature it transcends the sensible realities. In us there is a spiritual element. It has a divine nature, but is not God. But

it has exactly the divine characteristics: It is not undergoing change, it is always in act and it is unmixed with the body.

Thought seems to be an independent substance implanted within us and seems to be incapable of being destroyed. If

it could be destroyed it would be under the influence of old age. Old people seem to think in a less efficient manner

sometimes. Does this not prove that the efficient cause/active intellect is destructible? No! The decline in cognitive

capacities is due to deterioration of our senses. If the old man could have perfect senses, there would be no problem

to think properly. The mind, which makes all the things is not linked with the body and does not decay with it. The

decline is due to the vehicle of thought, which are the senses. If you are drunk and therefore have less proper

sensations, you think improperly, too. Soul does not decline, is not affected by old age.

Dualism between body and soul is destroyed, because the soul in itself is always essentially linked with the matter.

Human person has regained its substantial unity.

How is this part “mind, which makes all things”) of the soul created? Aristotle says: “Having the rational capacities is

due to being a member of a particular society or a member of a particular race, in other words being Greek.” So the

mind, which makes all things is the property that Greeks have. So the rational soul is given to a certain race.

Insufficient explanation.

Psychology of the moral act: Socrates reduced virtue to science and knowledge. Refused that evil could be done

voluntarily. Plato saw the contradictory elements, that we can chose evil, even if we know what’s good. Aristotle tried

to overcome the intellectualistic interpretation of moral act. Being the realist he was, he defined virtue as a knowledge

of the good, but not only that. It is also actualization or carrying out/doing it. He clarifies what should be understood by

involuntary and voluntary actions. Involuntary actions are carried out by cohersion or ignorance of circumstances.

Voluntary are those actions of which the principle resides in the person that acts. After that he includes among

voluntary actions those, which are performed out of anger, desire and calls voluntary the action of children and even

those of animals, where no thinking is involved. He does that from the point of view that the principle of act was in

them, not forced on them. He here seems to lose the understanding of circumstances. To him voluntary and

spontaneous acts suddenly are equal. They are not non-voluntary, but neither voluntary, they are spontaneous.

Human act analyzed further: Besides being voluntary (principle in acting person) they are also determined there is

another principle, the fact that they are determined by choice, which is essentially connected with virtue. Choice is

proper to adults, cannot be exercised by children or animals, but only by persons that reason and reflect on the

actions that depend on them. This kind of reflection on our own acts he calls deliberation. According to him children

cannot make the choice because they are not able to deliberate. Deliberation is concerned with the quality of different

actions. It conserves the actions from the point of the means. Choice acts with respect to the final goal. It consists in

rejecting all the means that are inadequate and choosing what we judge as the best means for achieving a particular

goal. The object of deliberation and choice is the same. In both cases we are talking about the means of reaching a

particular goal. The mind presents in deliberation many means, choice is picking the best. Aristotle denies that choice

can be identified with the will, because will sees only the ends, while choice and deliberations are about the means of

Page 26: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

achieving such a goal. Choice concerns the means, while the will concerns the ends. Final problem is introduced

here: What is the nature of this “choice” of the ends? What is the nature of this will? Problem is that we always want

good. But is it the truly good or the apparently good? What is good? How do we judge that what we want is really

good? There’s a difference between good and good. What is wished fore is good in an unqualified true way or good

for the particular person. Take as a model a virtuous man. The one who is able to judge correctly is the one who is

virtuous. But who is the virtuous person? The one who already chose real good. So what he says is “in order to

become good you have to be good.” Most of the people judge on the basis of pleasure. So what is the source of

pleasure is good, but it is the pleasure that is misleading in most of the cases.

Tenth Lesson:

St. Thomas:There are similarities in Thomas and Aristotle, but they are not identical.

Main concepts: St. Thomas assumes the point of view that there is a variety of substances, being is not a monolithical

reality. He divides into substantial and accidental realities. Something can exist divided into ten categories, everything

that exists can exist according to ten different ways of being. Out of these ten categories, one is called substance

(exists on its own), the others are accidents (exist in another). There are nine accidents, nine accidental ways of

existence: quality, quantity, relation; where, when, possession, position; action, passion. These are linked to the

changes a being can undergo. Two different ways of movement or change: Substantial and accidental. According to

Thomas each material substance is composed of matter and form. Hylomorphical composition. Prime matter is pure

potentiality, substantial form is the first act. First act means the principle, which is placing a particular material reality

in its specific way of being. It determines the essence of the reality. Prime matter cannot exist without any form. For

Aristotle prime matter was an eternal reality. for St. Thomas it is created and cannot exist by itself. Whatever came to

be was created with the form. It always comes to be under a specific form. Aristotles hylo. comp. is restricted by

Thomas to corporal realities, to the physical world. Bonaventura claimed that hylo is proper to immaterial finite beings,

too. Thomas says: “Nope!” Immaterial beings like angels are not composed that way. Why? Thomas considered

angels as something that can be proved rationally, because the existence of these beings is demanded if we look at

the hierarchical order of being. There is a certain ontological graduation, a hierarchy. We see low forms of existence,

which are inorganic substances, then we have organic vegetative forms, sensitive animal forms, the rational human

person, which has soul and body. Then we have an infinite pure act, which is God. In the world of corporal substances

we see graduation, no big leaps. But the human person on top of the physical crated world, the gap between him and

God is too big. Material finite to infinite spiritual reality. There has to be an intermediate being, beings which have

something proper to the most high and the human person. Angels: Finitely created, but spiritual immaterial

existences. For Thomas matter always means a quantified reality. In no case was he able to attribute hylomorphical

composition to angels. As a consequence he would say, that each spiritual finite being is a species of its own,

because it only has form, which is specifying principle. In his time, other philosophers attributed a composition of

matter and form to spiritual beings, because they had a different understanding of matter as Thomas. The other

theologians did not understand the matter as being linked with the necessity of being quantified, but simply as a

capacity to change (mutability). Bonaventura understands material principle in this terms, not as a need for quantity

shaped by form, but simply as capacity for change. He says that it is necessary to admit hylomorphical composition

for the whole of reality, because if we deny it to the created spiritual world, then those realities become simple not

composed, therefore equal to God, who alone is pure act. Thomas answer to that: matter and form are not the final

Page 27: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

co-principles of the whole reality. According to Thomas beyond hylo. comp. proper to the corporal world, there is

another more fundamental composition/distinction proper to the whole of the created reality, corporal and spiritual.

The angles have no matter, true, but they have potentiality. The most fundamental distinction throughout all of

creation is between act and potency. So, the angles have no material element but potential element. For Thomas form

does not always mean actuality, can be simple potentiality. This is because of another distinction Thomas introduces

and was absent in Aristotle. Every finite being exists because of an act of existence. We have a distinction between

substance, something which has a being, while existence is this in virtue of which a substance is called a being. This

notion is the core of Aristotles metaphysics. For Thomas the ultimate notion of the metaphysics is not the one of

matter and form, but an act of being, of existence. It was a discovery within the field of metaphysics, within the field of

being. We have a very dynamic conception of being. There is a difference between the things which are and the

principle in virtue of which they are (esse and ens). When we try to define ens/entity, we see it is a composition;

Thomas says “that what is” (it quod est). Two aspects: it quod and est: That what and is. An essence and an

existence. Existence points out to an act, the highest act, in virtue of which the essence becomes a reality. It is an

ultimate act which causes something to be. Aristotle did not see that. For him the being was always considered as a

substance, as “ens”. There is no hylo. comp. in the spiritual substances, because the essence of the corporal beings

is composed of matter and form, while the essence of immaterial beings is simple reality, only form, no composition.

Since even immaterial beings have to be actualized by an act of being, they are not simple, but composed, although

the composition is not hylomorphical, but of essence and act of existence. So they are not equal to God. They have

existence, but they are not existence themselves. So the lack of absolute simplicity is a characteristic of all of creation.

Only God has absolute simplicity. Actuality and potentiality are two elements we find in each created reality. It is the

composition that runs throughout creation. All substances are composed of at least two elements. One of which is in

relation to the other like potency towards act; not like matter and form. The act of being is what Thomas calls the most

perfect and highest element in whatever exists. To such an act every form is in potency. The form is the principle,

which determines the essence, what the being is. What actualizes the essence is the existence. In the intellectual

substances we have only one composition act/potency. In the material substances we have a double composition

act/potency, because first we see that the material principle stands as potentiality towards the formal principle, which

is actualizing; and the essence stands a potentiality towards the act of existence. Existence is neither matter nor form

and it is neither the essence nor even a part of those beings. It is an act which brings into existence the essence,

actualizes it. This means that in this light the essence is not the highest ontological perfections in order of being,

because it is an act of existence, according to Thomas. Still it has a high perfection, because it is an element of a

finite being, which is of absolute necessity. There is nothing that exists that does not have an essence. Relationship

between essence and existence in finite beings: It is compared to the receiver (essence) and received (existence).

Each being participates in the act of existence (God) according to its own capacities. The more capacities a being

has, the bigger a receiver it is, the more it will receive, it will participate in the act of existence. So the essence

determines to what degree something participates in the act of existence. Thomas also indicates a distinction between

essence and existence. On an ontological level these are two different realities. Acceptable? Depends on how you

understand “real” distinction. If it is between two things as separated from another in isolated realities, then it is not the

case with essence and existence. They cannot exist as separate realities. Thomas means the distinction between two

metaphysical principles. The essence is something else but cannot exist without existence. And existence always has

to be within a substance. In God there is no difference between essence and existence, because the act of existing is

the very essence of God.

Thomas admits substances and accidents in reality. These words indicate the fundamental ways of existence in

Page 28: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

reality. Whatever exists does so under substance and accidents. To Thomas the substance is that in which the

accidents are inherent (substantia: substare = to stand beneath. A reality which stands beneath another reality.”).

Essential meaning is another one, coming from subsistere: the capacity for existing by itself.

Distinction between essence and substance: Essence is what determines a things way of being; indicates that a thing,

if it would exist, would exist like that (rational animal). Substance is a certain manner of being which is actually

subsisting. Substance is something more than essence.

Accidents are multiplied perfection of substantial realities. Accidents by themselves are the reality to whose essence it

is proper to be in something else. Accidents by their essence can not exist, have to be in something else, which

becomes their subject.

Classification of different accidents: Two ways

First: One which is done according to the way in which different accidents affect the substance. From this point of

view we have three groups: First those accidents which affect substance intrinsically (quantity, quality, relation),

second those which affect a substance extrinsically (where, when, position, possession), third those accidents which

affect the substance partially intrinsically and partially extrinsically (action, passion).

Second: Four groups:

First, the accidents, which belong to the species, which directly come from the essence of whatever reality it is. They

are common qualities to a specific kind of a being. Qualities, which each individual belonging to a particular species

has to have. In order to be a human person we have to have qualities.

Second we have the accidents, which are inseparable from a certain individual (heights, weight, color).

Third we have accidents, which are separable from the individual, like the realities that affect the individual only in a

transient way.

Fourth we have accidents that affect an individual under the influence of the external agent, being submitted to the

actions of the others. Being sick is caused in me by an external agent.

Act of being always belongs to the substance, not the accidents. Substance is formed by the essence and different

accidents, which belong to it. The act of exist belongs to the essence. Matter form accidents separately do not have

an act of existence.

There is the problem of the passive and active potency and the first and the second act, corresponding to them.

Potentiality is a capacity to receive an act, to be actualized. That is the meaning we assign to a passive potency,

which is potentiality in its proper sense. Corresponding to that is the first act, the form, which actualizes this

potentiality. The active potency is a capacity to act, to produce something. Corresponding to that is the second act, an

act accomplished.

We can distinguish three levels between passive potency and corresponding act.

First: Prime matter and substantial form: Prime matter is in potency to receive a form that turns it into something

concrete.

Second: Substance and accident. All substances are in passive potency to be perfectioned/actualized by accidents

Third: Essence and act of being. Essence is in potency to receive the act of being.

Page 29: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Active potency and the act corresponding to it is the capacity to produce something. Active potency is sometimes

simply called a power. The act corresponding to this active potency is action or activity. It is called a second act.

Second acts are operations and the corresponding powers are accidents. The active powers are accidental realities,

which belong to the species (first of the four groups: inseparable from the species).

From the point of view of origin the active powers are the accidents that belong to the species, qualities that are

inseparable from the species! The second act can be action or quality. When the operation is transitive, we speak

about action, when the act is immanent, we speak about qualities.

Eleventh Lesson:

Thomistic Psychology:

Parts of the Summa are to be analyzed, will show us the way in which Thomas is discussing the human nature. How

does he proceed?

Aristotle, when writing on psychological problems, treated the problems in a broad sense. His psychology talked about

the souls of plants, animals and humans. Thomas is not interested in plants or animals. For him the object proper to

psychology is only the human person. His point is much more anthropological. His psychological discussion is in three

works: “Disputed questions on the soul” was written in Rome in 1255 + 1256. It consists of 21 questions where

Thomas deals with questions later developed in Summa. “A commentary on Aristotle’s ‘On the soul’”, 1267 +

1268. In this work there is a lot of detailed analysis of Aristotle. In the “Summa” (1268, pt1; 1271-72, pt.2; 72 until

death, pt.3, left unfinished) his position is expressed in the easiest, most accessible and fullest way.

Summa (Preface) is written for students, therefore it is a work that is meant to be easy:

No useless questions! No unordered presentation of subjects! No unnecessary repetitions!

Summa contains three parts. In the first Thomas speaks about God and creations (descending order). In the second

part Thomas speaks about the human person from the point of view of the way we behave and act. In the third part

Thomas speaks about incarnation and the life of Christ. It is presented how everything that is created descends from

God (pt1) and has to return to God. How? By living our life in a Christian way (pt2). The way, which leads us back to

God is Christ and the sacraments (pt3).

Structure of the Summa: I, I-II, II-II, III

1st part (I):- Existence of theology (1)

- God and his perfections: Does he exist? (2), How does he exist? (3-16), How does he

operate? (4-26)

- Procession of Divine persons: Origin of each person (27), relations between them (28),

three persons as one being (29)

- Creation: God as the first cause (44), Creation - what it means (45), duration in time

(46)

- Distinction of creatures (47-102): in general (47), in particular (48-102): Good and evil

(48-49), Corporeal and spiritual creatures (50-102): angels (50-64), absolutely corporeal

(65 - 74), composite (75-102): Nature (75-89), production of the human person (90-102)

Page 30: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

- How God governs the things (103-119)

2nd part (I-II, II-II):I-II

- Purpose of human existence (1-5)

- Human acts/operations: Intrinsic principles of human acts (6-89): Powers/faculties and

corresponding acts (6-48), Habits (49-89): Habits in general (49-54), Habits in

particular (55-89): Virtues (good) (55-70): in themselves (55-67): Essence (55), Subject

(56), Division: Intellectual (57), Moral (58-61), Theological (62); Causes (63),

Properties (64-67), Matters connected with virtues (68-70): Gifts of the Holy Spirit (68),

beatitudes (69), fruits of the Holy Spirit (70), Vices (71-89): In themselves (71),

Distinction (72-73), Subject (74), Causes (75-84), Effects (85-89); Extrinsic principles

of human acts: God (90-114): Law (90-108), Grace (109-113), Devil (114)

II-II

- Theological virtues (1-46): Faith (1-16), Hope (17-22), Love (23-46)

- Cardinal Virtues (47-170): Prudence (47-56), Justice (57-122), Fortitude (123-140),

Temperance (141-170)

- Acts specific to certain men: Gifts (171-178), Active and contemplative life and the acts

proper to them (179-182), Diversity of states of life and different perfections linked

with these (183-189)

3rd part (III):- Incarnation (1-27)

- Life, death, resurrection of Christ (28-59)

- Sacraments (60-90)

- Resurrection and life everlasting (91-99)

We will look at I, qq 75-89 and I-II qq 1-48

I, qq 75-89: Nature of the human person. Being theological, the work does not have an ascending aspect like

Aristotle. He speaks about a being that has a body and a soul in its proper making. Human person is a composite of

spirit and matter. Thomas looks at the soul, particularly its essence, powers and operations. Essence (75-76): Soul in

itself (75) and as united with the body (76). Powers (77-83): In general (77), in particular (78-83): Vegetative and

sensitive powers (78) as a preambula to the intellectual powers, intellectual powers (79), appetitive powers (80-83): In

general (80), In particular: Sensitive appetite (81), Intellectual appetite/will (82-83). Operations (84-89; I-II, 57; I-II, 49-

89)): Corresponding to intellectual powers (I, 84-89; I-II, 57): Intellectual acts -> How the soul knows when it is united

with the body (84-88): Bodies (84-86), Itself (87), Immaterial spiritual realities (88), or separated from the body (89),

Intellectual habits (I-II, 57); Corresponding to appetitive powers (I-II, 6-89): Appetitive acts (I-II, 6-48): Acts proper to

the human person (6-21): In general, voluntary/non-voluntary (6-7), In particular (8-48): From will (8-17), Good and

evil (18-20), Consequences (21); Common to human person and animal, passions (22-48): In general (22-25), In

particular (26-49): Concupiscible (26-39): Love, Hatred, Desire, Delight, Sorrow, Pain; Iratible (40-49): Hope, Despair,

Fear, Courage, Anger; Appetitive habits (I-II, 49-89): General (49-54), Virtues/good (55-70), Vices/bad (71-89)

Look at I, q 18.3 if you have the time, see what are the elements in virtue of which St. Thomas is making a division of

Page 31: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

all living reality in three dimensions.

Twelfth Lesson

The nature of the soul, its essence, in Thomas:

We see an independence of Thomas from Aristotle and also a difference. Thomas follows closely, but always retains

his independence. Already the presentation of the problem is different from Aristotle, because Thomas does not follow

the ascending order of Aristotle. Aristotle speaks about vegetative, sensual and rational soul and treats them equally.

Thomas looks at the problem from the Christian point of view and therefore starts his discussion with the notion that

the soul is spiritual and created. The discussion goes immediately to “What is the human soul?” not “What are the

different kinds of souls?”.

Question 75: “What belongs to the essence of the human soul?” Seven important questions

Is the soul a body or not?

Is the human soul a subsistent reality?

Is the animal’s?

What is the composition of the human person (soul and body)?

Is the soul composed of matter and form? Is it simple?

Is it corruptible?

Is the human soul of the same kind as the souls of the angels?

Answer: The soul is a material, substantial, simple reality.

Definition of soul in Thomas in the 1st article of question 75:

Premise: Looking for the nature of the soul we have to presume that the soul is defined as the 1st principle of life. We

call living things animated = “Having a soul”; things that do not live inanimate = “Having no soul”. Smart, because no-

one would object to the division of things into animate and inanimate. And the soul is, what makes the difference! So

the soul is connecting us with life, is the principle of life.

What do we mean by life?

Two different points yet compatible points of view: Metaphysical and scientific

Metaphysical: Abstract definition. Life as such is an abstract term. Life is an act of being typical of the living things (from vegetative to human). What do we do? We live! Life is an abstract term coming from an act of life. Life is

a specifial act of being proper to a group of beings. The act of being is proper also to non-animate beings. Whatever

exists has an act of being.

Scientific: Properly speaking we cannot give a definition for life, because what is proper to the positive sciences is

not so much the study of life in itself as an abstract act, but the operations of being that are proper to life. The vital

operations are examined and expressed in mathematical formulas. From this point of view, the biological sciences

give only reduced information in regard to what life is, because they study not “the life” but the vital operations, by

means of which we can detect life. Definition of vital operations: Self-regulated chemical processes on the molecular

scale of the organism that preserves through time and generations a genetic continuity.

Self-regulated chemical processes on the molecular scale: In order to speak about the living beings, the first thing

characterizing them is the fact that they are a center of constant chemical reactions. The reactions are of a particular

kind. They do not happen on a microscopic scale, but on the molecular scale, which is impossible to see without

Page 32: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

special instruments. Also, such chemical reactions are happening under conditions, which are distant from equilibrium

and they can not be reduced to the laws of neutrons. They are happening on the basis of feedback, not action-

reaction. Means: If we join two cylinders with gases, which have their own characteristics and temperatures, we know

that the result is another kind of gas with a temperature resulting from the two previous ones. It is an equilibrium

between the first initial stages. The result is a particular state of equilibrium, stability. Initial conditions were different.

The third state is a stability of the system. We have identical temperature. The stability is a stability of the maximum

disorder, because we have complete disorder of the initial gases, we do not know which is what. We have another

reality representing a condition of a molecular chaos. Such a situation of living in equilibrium with this what is joined

with us, is something which is not proper to life. Chemical processes proper to life take place in a state distant from

equilibrium. It is true that living beings are the physical systems capable of exchanging energy with the proper

environment. Yet the exchange of energy with the environment happens in such a way that the living organism is able

to retain its own stability without passing to the state of equilibrium with the proper environment, i.e.: average

temperature. The living organism has the ability to maintain stability during the exchange of energy. The living

organism maintains a maximum of inner order. Death of the individual means the state of thermodynamic equilibrium,

loosing the capacity of keeping yourself in a stable condition.

This stability implies a presence of a system of self-regulation, because the stability is only possible because life is

characterized by a process of self-regulation of the chemical processes. The exchange of the energy between living

organism and environment does not happen in terms of action-reaction. Self-regulation is linked to complex

structures, which are supposed to maintain the individual, the reproduction, the species. The self-regulating process

consists in a hierarchy pf processes inside the living organism. Some parts of the higher level of the organism check

operation of lower levels of the organism. That’s why we speak of organism, because where the higher level controls

the lower, the lower elements become tools for a good used by a higher element. Tool = Organ. Organism is exactly

this coordinated being, having a capacity of self-regulation. The organs regulate the functions of cells, which become

the tools of the organs, the cells regulate the molecular stuff in the cells themselves. So one becomes the tool of

operation for others = Organism.

This process goes in two ways. The organs do not only regulate, but v.v. There is a mutual interaction on the different

levels of organization of the totality. It is kind of a circular reaction, not linear, or a kind of retroaction. Life from this

point of view is characterized by this particular important sophisticated capacity of self-regulation. The vital operations

are the self-regulated processes of the molecular scale to stabilize individual and species. The self-regulation-capacity

is replaced by a notion of the capacity to perform an immanent act.

From a metaphysical point of view (in comparison to the scientific point of view):

Life is a transcendent perfection of an act of being, proper to certain beings, which are by their essence able to

determine levels of proper behavior. Life is an act of being proper to those beings with the capacity of partial or total

self-determination, or beings capable to perform immanent acts, or of those things able to move themselves. Living

beings are those physical (and spiritual) substances manifesting intrinsic finality. We can see this in the actions they

perform, because they are able to modify their behavior in view of satisfaction of determined aims. This is a capacity

of changing behavior in order to reach a determined aim. This can be done in conscious or unconscious way. Not

each living organism performs such processes of self-determination in a conscious way. There is a significant

difference in what way such self-determination happens in sub-human beings and in the human person. With the vital

acts, the first finality is surviving, reproduction, retaining the continuity of the individual existence and the existence of

the species. In the sub-human kingdoms, these aims occupy the highest pace in the natural aims. All other finalities

are subordinated or instrumental to these aims. The intermediate aims/ends can always change place without the

Page 33: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

awareness of the animal. For example: Animals have a fear of fire, because it is dangerous and deadly. But there also

is the natural drive to satisfy hunger, because it helps to survive. An animal would not try to overcome the barrier of

fire to get food. But when the hunger becomes a deadly threat, the main aim becomes life, so the hierarchy of

operations changes and the animal might jump through fire to get a snack.

In the human being the capacity of change is present, but additionally we have an awareness of natural goals. We

also have a freedom that the animals do not have. We can know our natural goals and we are free in one way or the

other to achieve goals. We might even sacrifice our own life in order to safe the life of someone else and do this

consciously.

In the living beings there are different levels of how we can determine our own behavior. Thomas speaks about

different levels of life, using the principle of immanence or self-regulation. In order to determine the levels of life and

their perfection, we have to look at three different components of acts and see what kind of influence we can have on

them. The three components of an immanent action: In the first place the end (towards which we move) moves the

agent, the principle agent is that which acts through its form (the principle of movement), and sometimes … does not

more than execute the action.

Beginning from the lowest level up to the highest, the ability to being moved by itself is growing. On the first level of

live the determination of self-regulation can only be exercised in reference to doing or not doing something, not in

regard to the form in which it is done, not in regards to the end toward such an act is directed. -> Vegetative forms of

life.

On the second level we find a higher level of self-determination, because animals can determine both the execution of

the vital act (doing or not doing) and the form of doing it, but not the proper goals -> Animal forms of life. Animals can

apprehend by sensorial perception and can thus change the form of the way in which they behave. But they cannot

change the purpose of the vital operations.

On the third level of life self-determination can be exercised in regard to the purpose as well. We have different

degrees of immanence. Once we have a process of self-regulation only in regard to the executive acts, we speak

about vegetative life, add the form of the execution and you have sensorial, animal life; finally when self-regulation

can be exercised in regard to the end, we have human life.

These three levels of life are characterized by certain things, about which Thomas speaks.

Third level is characterized by that the ends are known and voluntarily chosen. We have a consciousness of the goals

and we can voluntarily change them. This capacity of knowing the goals and the proper behavior and choosing them

in a free way makes that a particular object becomes an intentional goal, something towards which we tend in a

knowing and voluntary way. They become values for us. Such a goal, knowingly pursued, will define the form and

execution of our acts. From this point if view this kind of behavior is determined by the fact that we have intellectual

capacities and will. We are able to know the forms of the other realities.

Second level is given to those beings by nature. It cannot be chosen in voluntary and conscious way. But it can be

changed unconsciously, involuntarily. The goal is instinctively pursued. Feelings of pain modify the form and the

execution of acts. The modification of the behavior can be done in virtue of sensorial knowledge, through which the

animals receive the forms of the other beings.

First level beings cannot be enriched in its form or nature like that. They have an innate natural goal, involuntarily and

unconsciously present. They cannot change the way they behave. They can only influence in regard to performing or

not performing an act.

Page 34: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

So Thomas means a certain degree of the capacity to perform immanent acts, a capacity for partial or total self-

regulation, when he talks about living beings.

About the soul:

First from the notion of the soul in general: “It belongs to the nature of the soul to be the form of the body.”

Secondly not in general but in specific: “We can say that it is an intellectual or rational reality.”

General notion can be applied to plants and animals, too. Specifically it is only applicable to human beings.

Speaking about the human soul, he indicates one important characteristic. Essentially the human soul is immaterial. This means on the one hand incorporeal and on the other hand subsistent. Incorporeal means that it is not a body,

not a material element but a formal element in whatever is alive. Immaterial also means subsistent, not intrinsically

dependent on the body. It is able to exist independently from the material component, from the body. So it is not a

form in the sense that Aristotle meant. Because the act of being belongs to the soul.

FINAL EXAM

Question: What is philosophical philosophy? Where does the term come from and what are the Formal and Material objects of it?

Answer: **Philosophical Psychology is a natural science, which is speculative**Philosophical Psychology seeks a metaphysical understanding of the human person, both in its essence and its powers, acts and habits. **Psychology is part of natural philosophy and focuses on the soul and its relation to the body. Investigates the problems of life.**The term for philosophical psychology originates from the Greek psyche (soul) and logos (reason/the study of). **Etymologically, it indicates “something which is thrown in front of something.” **It is the study of the soul and has the living person as its material object. **Philosophical Psychology has the essence of the human person as its formal object.

Question: What is the nature of the human being in the Orphic Tradition?

Answer:

**The Orphics believed that when Dionysius was killed in battle with the Titans that Zeus burned them and scattered their ashes over the earth. **It is from these ashes that man took their form. **The Orphics also held that the mortal body was a prison and that the soul was continually seeking to return to the Divine. **The human soul is of Divine origin and can leave the body and exists before and after the body. **Human person was the principle called “soul” not the body. (Soul fell into the body) **Dualistic conception of the human being. Means the human being is composed of 2 opposite elements. Soul, incorruptible and corruptible body. **The Orphics further thought that the soul and the conscious were two different parts. **Their reasoning for this separation was that when the body slept that the conscious did too. **The soul, however, was liberated when the body slept. **Overall, the Orphics thought that life was a preparation for death and so they struggled to liberate the soul through ascetics.**Soul aso called “demon” in positive sense. Inner voice. (Socrates had a very strong inner voice.)**Orphism believed in transmigration - Metampsychosis.**Not from religion do we learn about re-incarnation, but from this philosophy.

Page 35: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

Plato wrote **The soul had to come back for what we had done during this life. Live through what we had done to someone else. **In early Greek thinking (before 6th cent.), we already saw the idea of paying back errors or receiving a reward,**Saw sin as penalty - some imperfection.

Question: What are the similarities and differences in the conception of the human person according to the Sophists and Socrates?

Answer:**Socrates used many of the logical ticks that the Sophists developed to pursue the truth. **Socrates wanted his students to obtain a genuine self-knowledge and actively pursue truth, justice and life. **He wanted them to see the illusions of the world, instead of create them like the Sophists. Socrates, further, held that the unexamined life was not worth living.**Socrates believed that the soul was identified with the conscious and that it was the source of all of our moral acts. **The measure for the soul was God and those evils committed by a person are done so out of ignorance. **The perfect soul is gained by virtue as formed by science and knowledge. **It is the soul, as such, that makes use of the body and rules it.

**The Sophists were "philosophers" that taught for a fee. **They often focused on the most popular topics and, with the young politicians, taught them how to sway a crowd to their view and prove any proof. **It is apparent that the truth for the Sophists was not one of the highest priorities. **For the Sophists the measure of everything is the human person. This notion is developed in Phaedo (relativism), Gorgias (Ethics of Situaiton) and Phaedrus (utilitarianism) as well as the idea that reality is just an appearance. **Overall, the Sophists thought that the world had no aim or direction.**Socrates. Sometimes mistaken as a Sophists because of his way of questioning. **He would ask questions, like ‘what is justice’. Made himself look stupid which ffrightened others. **For Socrates, aim was not success, but research of truth. **Sophist and Socrates: both have reflection on human being. Sophists made conclusions about man without considering essence of man.**Socrates considers essence: What is a man? Human person is the soul (anima).

Question: Discuss the immortality of the soul and its proofs in Plato.

Answer:***Plato develped six proofs for the immortality of the soul, four of which come from Phaedo and the other two which come from the Republic and Phaedrus. →The first proof, to begin with, is that contraries are produced from opposite contraries, ie. light and darkness and darkness and light. In this way, there is life and death and death and life. →Secondly, the soul pre-existed and is immortal. We have a knowledge of things before we were born. We could only know these things from our past existence. Detractors held that this only proved that the soul pre-existed, not that it was also immortal. →Thirdly, similar knows similar. The nature of the soul is similar to God. It understands things that are not seen, ie. ideas and forms. These things cannot decay and so neither can the soul. Detractors said that this proved that the soul was immortal, but they said that it wears out. →Fourth, contigent being participates in absolute being. The soul is life and life cannot admit the principle of death, it excludes it. Therefore, the soul is immortal and can't wear out. →Fifth, the soul cannot be destroyed by anything internal or by an eternal evil touching us. For example, those who have ignorance or drunkenness can live a long time in spite of being evil and, yet, the soul is not destroyed by whatever is in it that is externally bad. →Lastly, the soul is the source of movement, the principle movement of the body is the soul and it is self-moving. The soul, therefore, cannot stop moving. **Overall, the problem with this argument is that there is no real proof of the immortality of the soul.

Question: Tripartition of the soul in Plato and Aristotle: explain the fundament of each divisions and its characteristics.

Answer:**Plato has three distinct souls that are found within all people.

Page 36: Philosophical Psychology I (Study of the Philosophical Proofs for the Soul)

→They are the rational soul (intellect/mind) Discerns what is right/wrong; true/false and in charge of making decisions. For Plato this soul is immortal: charioteer w/two mortal horses → and the irrational soul, which is divided into two parts,

a. irascible soul: heart and the desires.b. concupisible soul: found in the bowels and is the passions

**Our feelings are mostly deferred in the face of rational pursuits, especially to achieve a degree **concupisible souls, one of which is good and the other that is bad.

**Aristotle believed that each person had parts of each soul. **He held that the soul is formal, efficient and the final cause of the existence of an organism. **Aristotle developed the vegetative, sensible and rational souls.

→The vegetative soul deals with nutrition, reproduction and growth. →The sensible soul is found in animals (and perhaps plants) and accounts for their perception of features of their surroundings and move in response to this stimuli. →The rational soul is in human beings and permits representation and thought

Question: How did Aquinas describe the soul? Questions 75 through 77? Indicate and explain essential characteristics of the soul in St. Thomas.

Answer:St. Thomas believed that the soul is immaterial and is the 1st principle by which we live. It is the form of the body and is capable of existing by itself. The nature, powers and acts of the soul all work in harmony with the body and require the body to operate. The proper action, thus, of the soul is life and so the body itself rquires the soul to operate it. Importantly, the soul does not contain matter but it distinguishes between living and non-living beings. There is also no way to destroy the soul.

Question: What are the genera of the powers to each power of the soul? What are the acts proper to all those species? What are the objects proper to all those powers? Indicate the nature and division of the powers of the soul in St. Thomas.

Answer:

St. Thomas developed three ways to distinguish powers: →1) orders, grades of cosmic life; (vegetative, sensitive, rational powers)→2) genders, divisions in orders; and →3) species, division within genders.

The orders of the soul are the vegatative, sensative and rational powers. The vegatative power of the soul, in terms of gender, has the object of the body and acts to give life to the body. The vegatative power is the lowest dignity of the three powers of the soul and has the acts of nutrition, reproduction and growth.

The sensative power apprehends through the five senses and provides data to the brain to figure out the specifics and the bigger picture of things. The powers are taste, smell, touch, hearing and sight. When things enter through the senses they don't lose their individual material make up. Sight is the highest act of the sensative power because it can apprehend the object without changing it or loosing its material properties. The internal power coming from this is the imagination and makes the transition to the highest power of the soul. The four internal operations of the sensative power are 1) common sense, 2) imagination, 3) discrimination and 4) memory. Together these form the passive intellect. The intellect is the highest power of the soul. It is made up of the possible intellect and agent intellect, which is memory intellection and reasoning. It is in this power that man is like unto God. The degree of intellect, thus, is in direct proportion to its knowledge of the Universal Being.