Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
Yes, it's true the Roman Church does not teach the preexistence of the soul. And BTW, neither does Aristotle.
But Plato does mention it — though I can't say in a terribly useful fashion for present purposes perhaps. In Timaeus he writes:
...We should think of the most authoritative part of our soul as a guardian spirit given by god, living in the summit of the body, which can properly be said to lift us from the earth towards our home in heaven; for we are creatures not of the earth but of heaven, where the soul was first born, and our divine part attaches us by the head to heaven, like a plant by its roots, and keeps our body upright. If therefore a man's attention and effort is centered on appetite and ambition, all his thoughts are bound to be mortal, and he can hardly fail, in so far as it is possible, to become entirely mortal, as it is his mortal part that he has increased. But a man who has given his heart to learning and true wisdom and exercised that part of himself is surely bound, if he attains to truth, to have immortal and divine thoughts, and cannot fail to achieve immortality as fully as is permitted to human nature; and because he has always looked after the divine element in himself and kept his guardian spirit in good order he must be happy above all men. There is of course only one way to look after anything and that is to give it its proper food and motions. And the motions that are akin to the divine in us are the thoughts and revolutions of the universe. We should each therefore attend to these motions and by learning about the harmonious circuits of the universe repair the damage done at birth to the circuits in the head, and so restore understanding and what is understood to their original likeness to each other. When that is done we shall have achieved the goal set to us by the gods, the life that is best for this present time and for all time to come. — Desmond Lee, translator; emphasis added.Marry this insight to Plato's doctrine of seminal ideas, which suggests that prior to birth (incarnation), the [pre-existent] soul as microcosm "knows" all things; but the "circuits in the head" that are "deranged at birth" leads to a condition wherein the slate of human consciousness is completely wiped clean WRT this knowledge. Thereafter, the process of human knowledge acquisition mainly consists of "remembering" what was already known before we were born, via a process called anamnesis.
All of which is an interesting conjecture which remains utterly outside any possible human direct observation or validating test.
There is nothing in human mortal experience that can provide any kind of verification of such an idea. We have no experience, and no language, to address the issue of the pre-existence of souls.
And so if the Roman Church (like Aristotle) does not address this matter, perhaps this is because the matter really cannot be addressed from the standpoint of mortal human direct knowledge and experience. So don't waste your time dwelling on it!
In the end, as you say dear brother in Christ, "what do all these pre existent souls do or feel and know?...Or do they just hang around blank ready for the order to be filled in time?" NO MAN can answer that question, just as NO MAN ever comes back from the dead to advise us of what post-existence is like.
In short, this may be a question about which it is futile for mortal human beings to preoccupy themselves with....
And so the Church likely is entirely correct not to dwell on the pre-existence of souls....
Just some thoughts FWIW.
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for writing!
And so ... "man is the measure" of reality at the personal scale? Reality ultimately must obey what a particular man might happen to want? And that somehow one's personal proclivities and preferences along this line determine what happens in the real world on a universal scale? Is that what you're saying?
If so, I'd reply: Man can conceive of the universe any which-way he wants to. But the REAL universe goes on, irrespective of man's imaginings — at least those that do not conform to the REAL universe, which God created in the Beginning. His LOGOS rules — then, now, and forever.
Man is part and participant of/in the real ["objective"] universe. As such, he never determines it. In short, human rhetoric does not change actual Reality. That maneuver works only in human dreams....
Then again you wrote:
The idea of an immortal soul, a whole being that "feels" and "sees" and exists transcendentally on another conscious plane, is intriguing. To me, it's like dark matter—a convenient postulate that could answer a lot of questions, but no one knows what it is or how to detect it and recognize it.Very intriguing way to put the matter, my friend!
Thank you so very much for writing, dear kosta!
Somehow, dear brother in Christ, I do not object to Objection 2, above. Although St. Thomas Aquinas evidently did. But his answer to it — "Something can be added every day to the perfection of the universe, as to the number of individuals, but not as to the number of species" — not only strikes me as pretty lame, but as strangely off-topic also.
But then, who am I to say???
Thank you so much for the link, dear brother in Christ!
THANKS FOR THE PING.
That's right. What is a solid to us is not a solid to a neutrino. That's why we are a measure of our reality; we can be aware of other realities but we cannot participate in them. Pretending to be a neutrino and trying to fly through a rock will be most disappointing. We can't be something other than what our natures make us to be.
A human being can only be a whole and if that whole includes a soul and a body then anything other than that combination is not a human being. As human beings we can only exist and live and function in human reality, or so it seems.
I see this as Aquinas saying perfection being added as we(humans) see it in time and the number of species is to be understood as us(humans) knowing God knows the number of species from eternity
but as strangely off-topic also.
The answer to objection# 3 saying ...."Consequently it was not fitting that God should make the soul without the body from the beginning: for as it is written (Wisdom 1:13-16): “God made not death . . . but the wicked with works and words have called it to them.”
It makes this on topic
I appreciate you views on this interesting topic
Again? To the best of my recollection you’ve sought to disqualify some Founders (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc) on the basis of their Christian doctrines, not on their Christian values, and ignored the others entirely. But, let me see, I’ve mentioned a number of values: Adore God; revere and cherish your parents; love your neighbor as yourself; be just; be true; murmur not at the ways of Providence; equality in the eyes of God, equality before the law; do unto others.
And, the Founders have witnessed that Christian values fueled the Revolutionary Act, whether or not you approve of all their tenets of dogma.
We’ve been over this I don’t know how many times, you emphasizing doctrinal distinctions, I emphasizing Christian values. You’ve stated your desire that we stop beating a dead horse, but it seems there’s still some life in the old girl.
Of course. Nothing personal. The Romans used threats, humiliation, and fear to force conquered peoples to submit to Roman will. Romans cared not a whit for religion, only that the conquered not set themselves against Roman will. The same reason why Romans flogged Boudica and raped her daughters. Although individual Roman soldiers may have thought it great fun, the point was to force submission by humiliation, brutalizing, and slaughter. Islamics and Marxists/Socialists employ the same tactics today.
For a Christian there can be no greater humiliation than to be forced to deny Christ, as dispiriting as rape, torture, or slaughter might be. To its humiliation, Roman Might did not ultimately prevail and, worse, the Christians, having not learned a thing from their brutal experience at the hands of the Romans, not only defeated Roman Might, but also turned it to serve their own disreputable purposes.
You’ve stated your desire that we stop beating a dead horse. Not however, it appears, unless you have the last word. Very well, for the sake of that poor horse, you get to have the last word.
According to the Bible, God gave man his breath of life on the last day of the Creation. And man has been passing it on to the offspring ever since (see traducianism). This view solves the problem of further creation after God ended "all his [creative] work," as well as avoids the need to presuppose the problematic pre-existence of the souls.
I agree.
Did the Greeks simplify this?(I think)
Traduscianism was the belief of the Church before Blessed Augustine introduced creationism, i.e. belief that God creates a new soul at the moment of conception. The East simply retained the original belief. There is no doctrinal strife as regards this subject in the Church; both traditions are accepted, with creationism predominating in the west and traducianism in the East.
However, trasucianism inadvertently leads us to realize that we are all brothers, since the life we have is the same life God gave to Adam, and through Adam to all of humanity. Creationism leads us to look at each person as life unto itself.
The God Who knows the number of species, and the number of hairs on our heads, certainly can be expected to know the number of human souls He created right at the beginning. Or so it seems to me. Still this is not a provable statement!
Question about traducianism: is the "breath of Life" — spirit —equivalent to "soul?" The Scriptures tell us God breathed Adam alive; that is, made what He formed of the dust to live; and that original breath of life was something that Adam passed on to his progeny over all the human generations until now; and if spirit = soul, that would mean that Adam himself creates the souls of his offspring upon their physical conception. And they in turn do likewise WRT their offspring. This definitely does not work for me. But perhaps I haven't understood traducianism well enough. I guess the matter turns on whether spirit = soul or not. I'm not clear on this question.
Neither do I think I'm a "creationist" in the sense that I believe God specially creates each man body and soul at physical conception in time. Or did I misunderstand that notion as well?
Just to complicate matters further, here are some lines from St. Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury that I find particularly interesting:
Those things which were created from nothing had an existence before their creation in the thought of the Creator.It is in Anselm's sense that I conceive of the pre-existence of souls — i.e., in the timeless Mind of God Creator. This is more a Platonic than an Aristotelian notion. Or so it seems to me.
BUT I seem to see a truth that compels me to distinguish carefully in what sense those things which were created may be said to have been nothing before their creation. For, in no wise can anything conceivably be created by any, unless there is, in the mind of the creative agent, some example, as it were, or (as is more fittingly supposed) some model, or likeness, or rule. It is evident, then, that before the world was created, it was in the thought of the supreme Nature, what, and of what sort, and how, it should be. Hence, although it is clear that the being that were created were nothing before their creation, to this extent, that they were not what they now are, nor was there anything whence they should be created, yet they were not nothing, so far as the creator's thought is concerned, through which, and according to which, they were created. — Monologium, Chapter X.
This topic truly is fascinating, dear brother in Christ! Thank you so very much for your excellent contributions to this discussion!
Very interesting insight, kosta. Thank you!
Thank you oh so very much, dear YHAOS, for all of your insights shared on this thread!
Man is part and participant of/in the real ["objective"] universe. As such, he never determines it. In short, human rhetoric does not change actual Reality. That maneuver works only in human dreams....
Thank you oh so very much for all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
And so ... "man is the measure" of reality at the personal scale?
Man is a measure of his own reality. No one else can measure his reality. Just as a woman is a measure of woman's reality and man (male) is of his because they are distinct realities. After all, each person is a measure of his or her reality by virtue of how they are.
And that somehow one's personal proclivities and preferences along this line determine what happens in the real world on a universal scale? Is that what you're saying?
Each person will try to create conditions that best suit his or her physical and psychological makeup, how each experiences and deal with the world. For example, overweight people may prefer stretchable clothes; non-smokers may wish to create a smoke-free environment; disabled individuals may wish to see more wheel chair ramps, etc. Along with these desires they also create a set of values that reflect their reality.
Very few people attempt to change or influence things they cannot influence, such as earthquakes or hurricanes; heat waves; tidal waves, etc. At best they can hope to come up with technology that will give them some time to escape or seek shelter. The reality of Nature is simply accepted as such and man can do no more than hope he will manage to escape the natural (impersonal) wrath of the physical world.
If so, I'd reply: Man can conceive of the universe any which-way he wants to. But the REAL universe goes on, irrespective of man's imaginings
I agree.
Man is part and participant of/in the real ["objective"] universe. As such, he never determines it. In short, human rhetoric does not change actual Reality
Again, that is correct. However, that does not mean that man does not measure or change the world (within means) according to human standards, according to his measure.
In subjective experience, a man may well believe that he is the measure of his own reality (i.e., of the reality of which he is — finally — merely part and participant during his mortal existence). Indeed, it seems such an idea gained considerable traction with the Enlightenment, which deemed the power of human reason to be unlimited in principle. (Of course, the philosophes had to bump off God first.)
In objective experience, this "subjective man" is also and necessarily a part and participant, not only in the world of Nature, but also in the social world; i.e., of human society. What he thinks in subjective moments inevitably bleeds out into the way he relates to the natural world and the social world of his fellow men.
If every man believes that he is the measure of his own reality, it goes without saying that inevitably conflicts will occur between two systems of perceptual reality that lack a common ground.
You give examples of this, dear kosta: e.g., the non-smoker insists on a smoke-free environment; the smoker would like to enjoy a post-prandial cigar or cigarette over his coffee at the conclusion of a meal in a fine restaurant. If every man is his own "measure," then both are "right." But if an argument breaks out between the two sides (as usual), where is the higher, objective (i.e., common to all) standard or "measure" to which to appeal to resolve the conflict? And so it becomes a political matter, to be resolved "by the numbers." And thus yet another "political minority" is thrown under the bus.
Reflecting on the practical moral relativism your view seems to invoke, I find it useful to remember certain great classical insights about the nature of man and his relations to God, world, and society.
The classical Greek philosophers recognized that man had a given nature; that is, his nature is not something that he can remake or construct for himself — no matter how much he would like to.
Plato thought man is the microcosm, the image or eikon of the Cosmos; and as such fundamentally alike, syngenes, to the Cosmos.
In other words, man recapitulates in his own being all of the components of cosmic order. The Cosmos is laid out as a hierarchy, at the summit of which is the Epikeina, or divine Nous (the structuring principle of the Cosmos), and at its root the Apeiron, the cosmic depth (the unlimited, indefinite, unbounded; the unlimited source of all particular things — i.e., it is pure as-yet nonexistent potentiality). Because it transcends all limits, the Apeiron is in principle indefinable (that's a limit on reason right there).
In Plato's myth of the Cosmos, the Apeiron of non-existence is not merely a negative dimension of the Whole but the reality that is the creative origin or Beginning of existent things, including life and the order of the "things" called men.
In between Epikeina and Apieron, we find man. He mirrors the cosmic hierarchy, recapitulating all the orders of the Cosmos in himself, including, in descending order, the divine first and foremost (for man is "the ensouled animal that thinks," i.e., possesses reason, which is divine). Then there are five levels descending from there: the levels of human psyche (1) — nous (reason, mind); human psyche (2) — the emotional life, passions; animal nature; vegetative nature; and inorganic nature. Man is naturally structured by this hierarchy, which bottoms out in the unfathomable Apieron from which he arose as a physical creature, an into which his body will return at death.
The implication is that man, as part and participant of the Whole, somehow contains the Whole within himself. Two of the hierarchical levels represent the "poles" of transcendent reality in which man immanently participates: Epikeina and Apeiron, the Limited and the Unlimited. Both are divine.
It is fashionable today to reject the possibility of transcendent reality because by its nature it is not something that can be advanced on the basis of verifiable propositions, or subjected to empirical tests.
Yet empirical tests "reduce" the universe to only what can be observed and tested. Huge sectors of human experience lie completely outside of such methods.
What empirical method could test the truth of Plato's pregnant insights, e.g., that man, as microcosm, is the Cosmos "writ small"; that society is man "writ large?"
Back to my original point: If every man is his own measure, then that is tantamount to saying that there is no measure in the world, but only that which individuated human consciousness can produce in response to transient conditions. And if every man's measure is unique to himself, it is difficult to see how the various and sometimes mutually-opposing measures can be reconciled — absent a higher criterion of Truth that can justly adjudicate the contending claims.
You conceded my point (I think) that "the Real universe goes on, irrespective of man's imaginings." But then almost instantly seemed to refute it by saying "...However, that does not mean that man does not measure or change the world (within means) according to human standards, according to his measure."
Which begs the point I'm trying to get at: The man's self-measure either conforms to a measure beyond himself or (to me) man's "measurements" ought quite property to invoke skepticism and doubt.
Thank you so very much, dear kosta, for your provocative essay/post, and for participating in this rather strange conversation!
p.s.: I'm sorry to be so tardy replying. I've been pretty busy myself lately.... I'm not on-line as much as I'd like nowadays.
The implication is that man, as part and participant of the Whole, somehow contains the Whole within himself. Two of the hierarchical levels represent the "poles" of transcendent reality in which man immanently participates: Epikeina and Apeiron, the Limited and the Unlimited. Both are divine.
I believe it was none other than the guy you suggested I get a room with, Richard Dawkins, who observes that to an insect surface tension is a heck of a lot more important than gravity. To us, of course, surface tension means very little but gravity is a major issue.
Or, using a cosmic example, who cares if there is a supernova in NCG4696?! It's real, but in our life here on earth it's trivia: it doesn't help you get a job, pay the bills, get a date, keep you young, or healthy, etc. But to an astronomer who makes his living finding such cataclysmic events just may be the most important thing in his life! :)
So, assuming Plato was correct, what difference does it make to us? In what way does Plato's transcendentals affect us any more than surface tension does (unless you are hoping to get a job teaching Platonism)? This life we have is about us making it comfortable here and now, having a job, food, comfort, loved ones, etc. What goes on in the background we cannot see, detect, feel, and even know for certain, does not pay the bills or keep the water warm and might as well not even exist.
You unwittingly confirm this when you say
When I say that man is his own measure it means how he fits himself into the material world, and that is by no means subjective. To the contrary, subjective is what man imagines himself to be; not necessarily what he is. Objective is realizing that a VW Golf is not the car to buy if someone barely fits into an SUV. Subjective is that we are transcendental spirits, and objective is that "man's gotta know his limitations." ["Dirty Harry"]
No, betty boop, the unseen and the undetectable, is not always important in our lives, let alone essential. But, likewise, empiricism isn't ether; just because we can measure it doesn't mean it's significant. It depends what it is. That's why it's so important for me to know what is God.
Surface tension is a perfect example. We can measure it but so what. Our keyboards and telephones are a certain size because they are best suited for the size of our hands. They could be larger or smaller, but we made them just right. This is an example where man manipulates and creates his environment to his measure, what's best for us. And that becomes the standard.
Disagreeing with me, you observe
Yes they are. But the one who has more power is "more" right. :) Former Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller is rumored to have quipped "we are all equal, but some are more equal" or words to that effect. It doesn't seem "fair," but that's got to do with our culture and not absolute values. Some cultures believe that each man is where he is because God wanted them to be there and that's fair to them.
You ask
and I say there isn't any common to all higher standard; we can approximate it. There are agreed-upon standards. In the case of smokers versus non-smokers the scale of "fairness" is tipped in favor of the latter because they are the ones being harmed. Our society sides with those being harmed. You may say that's because of the Bible. Maybe, but the same can be observed in societies that don't use the Bible.
So, is "do no harm"a common higher standard to all? Pretty much (generally speaking), because being harmed it not something too many people like (again man's own measure)! :) Smoking is unhealthy and that is harmful for the smokers as well as those around them (besides, for non-smokers the smell of smoke is really obnoxious).
I know you like Plato, but I don't. I think he was a brilliant man with too much time on his hands (and possibly a disturbed childhood—just joking!).
Perhaps it's because the world realized that it, like surface tension, doesn't pay the bills and keep the water warm, and is therefore of limited if questionable value.
By showing that they have a pragmatic value.
To a transient man transient conditions are important, else life will pass him by; carpe diem.
They have been reconciled by agreement or by force. The agreement exists on the appropriate level of commonality of the subject. On the very basic level there is no agreement or even a need for reconciliation.
For example, all our homes are different even if they were mass produced with the same layout; none is furnished exactly the same way. Our homes are our own communal microcosm, a miniature society, where someone calls the shots and someone obeys them. However, our homes may have to conform to some standards of safety and community we live in, typical of the development, county, city, state or country.
Man conforms to those measures which are imposed upon him either by himself (his physical and psychological makeup) or the world around him. No matter how you turn it around, we measure (and judge) everything and all that we experience by our own ruler. When conditions exceed the scale of our rulers we quit, move, rebel, etc. trying to re-establish a measure suitable to us.
At least that's how it looks to me.
Slippery analytical slope here, dear kosta: Plato does not reduce his analysis of the Cosmos to problems of surface tension. So why do you?
I would say that a person using "surface tension" as somehow an ultimate test of Reality would probably be insane. As Professor Dawkins confesses, surface tension may be of great importance to insects (assuming they are cognizant of such in any way), but not so much to human beings. [Activities of the human body that involve surface tension are ordinarily orderly dealt with on molecular and cellular levels, conducing to the homeostasis of the system, far below the level of human consciousness.]
Insects do not imagine Reality. So this example is a non sequitur. For here we are interested in how human beings conceive of Reality. (And that includes you.) Or at least I am so interested.
You wrote:
...the unseen and the undetectable, is not always important in our lives, let alone essential. But, likewise, empiricism isn't ether; just because we can measure it doesn't mean it's significant. It depends what it is. That's why it's so important for me to know what is God.And thus the perfect posture of moral equivalency. More crudely put, fence-straddling.
How on earth do you expect to know "what is God" if you insist on processing Him through the "meat grinder" that you consider "logical analysis?"
That is to say, before you can "judge" the reality of God, He has to present Himself to your court of judgment, and submit to your rules of evidence. We will not bother to consult a jury in this case. For who could be the peer of God? Instead, we, expressing the measure of ourself, will deign to become the measure of God — and by the way, of His Creation also....
In the lines above you condemn BOTH the "unseen and indetectable" and empiricism, too. Which is a really neat feat; since the understanding of the human species relative to the world of Reality has been relying, dependent on just these two things for several millennia by now.
Now you want us to try something else???
What, pray, would that be, dear kosta?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.