Aristotle and Plato on Aquinass View of the Soul

The Greeks believe that the soul is an essential part of the body since it gives it life. The soul thinks, feels, and chooses[footnoteRef:1]. The interaction between the body and soul influences one another giving rise to the concept of dualism. They also view the soul as a simple form without any parts. Plato postulated that the soul is separated from the body and while the body degenerates, the soul leaves to form another life at death[footnoteRef:2]. Contrastingly, Aristotle considered the soul as a ‘form’ that cannot exist without the body. The following study explicates Aquinas’s views of the soul whilst appreciating the contribution given by Plato and Aristotle on the topic. [1: Terrance, W. Klein, The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative, Routledge, 2016: 4.] [2: Lean, Spruit, "The Controversy over the Immortality of the Soul," Routledge Companion to Sixteenth Century Philosophy (2017): 225.]

Christian theology subscribes to the concept of life after death, and it was only natural to adopt Plato’s idea of the soul. However, St Thomas Aquinas was keen on developing a conception of the soul based on Aristotle’s concept while accommodating the Christian doctrine[footnoteRef:3]. According to Aquinas, the soul was indeed a form, but a special one that could exist briefly without being embodied. In his postulation, human beings are made of body and soul, matter and form and that death entail the separation of the body from the soul[footnoteRef:4]. Therefore, the human body ceases to exist while the human soul survives and keeps existing after death. Aquinas described the human soul as the substantial form and unique among the forms of material substances because it can survive in separation from the body, as it does after death and before resurrections. [3: Terrance, W. Klein. The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative. Routledge, 2016: 4.] [4: Kendall, A. Fisher, "Thomas Aquinas on the Metaphysical Nature of the Soul and its Union with the Body," PhD diss., Syracuse University, 2017:6.]

The modern time’s views on the souls provide that human beings have souls as an essential part of the body yet can also be separated from it as depicted by Aquinas and Plato. However, Aristotelianism argues that humans do not have souls and are made up of complicated and possessing properties that are absent in inanimate things.[footnoteRef:5] Therefore, conceptualizing the soul as something that can be separated from the body indicates that it ceases to exist at death once the body stops functioning. [5: Del, Potter, and Richard G. Howe, "The Heart and Soul of Christianity: Does Any" Body" Know?" (2015): 3.]

The form of something is in its pattern of reaction, appearance, and shape. According to Aristotle, the form of a living thing is its soul. While animals have sensitive souls, plants have vegetative souls. Humans have intellectual or rational souls that determine how they think or behave in public. For Aristotle, forms are universal to mean that the same form can be instantiated in multiple dissimilar things[footnoteRef:6]. For instance, the form of a table can be instantiated in various tables and differentiate one from another is dependent on the matter utilized in making it. Therefore, Aristotle asserts that matter makes up human beings. He asserts no form can be in existence when separated from the particular substance in which it is represented. Therefore, it is impossible to separate a human soul from its body. Aristotle believes that the soul has parts and only some of them may be separate, for instance, those responsible for thinking. [6: Ibid., 8.]

In contrast, Aquinas asserts that no bodily form is necessary to facilitate thinking. As such, the soul can continue to exist as a whole without a body[footnoteRef:7]. The claims follow the typical notion of life and death as represented in the Christian doctrine. He maintains that the soul continues to exist after the body is destructed then reunites with it during resurrection. Aquinas clarifies that the soul survives during the period between death and resurrection. Therefore, the soul is an essential part of human beings with a limited function whose nature is to unite with the body and keep living under a normal human operation. [7: Terrance, W. Klein, The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative, Routledge, 2016: 85]

Unlike Aristotle who considers form as universal and human form can be instantiated into various people, Aquinas maintains that each form is inclined towards a certain body, particular the one that it was initially separated from during death[footnoteRef:8]. Duns Scotus considered this explanation insufficient because an inclination cannot be bare and it should be inclined towards a feature of the soul that is in actual existence. It is analogous to the fact that some substances incline towards liquefaction at a particular temperature only if it is grounded in their chemical constitution. Thus, Scotus maintains that souls are individual forms and not mere universals. Claiming that souls can survive in separation from the body should be substantiated with what constitutes of this soul and that of the initial person. [8: Turner, Nevitt, "Survivalism, Corruptionism, and Intermittent Existence in Aquinas," History of Philosophy Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2014): 4.]

Plato maintains that it is difficult to analyze what makes this chunk of matter different from the initial one[footnoteRef:9]. Socrates is indistinguishable with Socrates’ soul, unlike Plato who considers them as separate. Essentially, Socrates is not his body but his soul. The soul to the body is analogous to the captain to the ship. In as much as the captain governs the ship, he or she is still a separate and full individual that still exists with or without the ship. A soul original from heaven and are particles from the infinite spirit that enter the material body to breathe.[footnoteRef:10] Plato maintains that if souls live upright lives and achieve total purification, they will ultimately be reintegrated into their primitive spiritual origin. Plato’s comprehension of the soul is primarily situated in a religious and spiritual context. He provides four attributes of the soul including that it is the principle of life, it is immaterial, the rational soul is eternal and immortal, and the soul and body unit in an accidental form and not a natural manner. [9: Del, Potter, and Richard G. Howe, "The Heart and Soul of Christianity: Does Any" Body" Know?" (2015): 8.] [10: Norman, Melchert, The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, 7th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2014: 212.]

Based on Aquinas’s view, all that happens to a soul in the past when it has combined with a particular body, and what happens to it in future does not make it a soul now[footnoteRef:11].Therefore, it has to have something internal presently. Religious devotees who consider that human beings can be in existence without their bodies, even just for a short time, must maintain that. Similarly, any believer who thinks that there is life after death, although souls cannot be in existence if not embodied, should hold that notion. [11: Kendall, A. Fisher, "Thomas Aquinas on the Metaphysical Nature of the Soul and its Union with the Body," PhD diss., Syracuse University, 2017:36.]

Aristotle’s arguments for the post-mortem existence of every human being’s nature maintain that life ends after death.[footnoteRef:12] Whereas Aquinas adopted several concepts from Aristotle in his work, he could not employ his philosophies while exploring the concept of life and death. When explaining the post-mortem existence of soul and mind, he notices that there is no text to provide an Aristotelian solution for the immortality of the mind and soul; thus, he uses Platonism. Aquinas acknowledges the resistance he faces when using the Aristotelian philosophy while trying to determine the status of the soul and mind after death. His intelligent mind thus leads him to adopt Plato’s solution. Aristotle does not provide a clear solution to how the soul stays intelligent even without being embodied. [12: Terrance, W. Klein, The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative, Routledge, 2016: 73.]

Aquinas and Plato agree on the fact that while the soul can function intelligently when united with the body or not, its natural state is to stay embodied because the relationship between the soul and body is not accidental but essential[footnoteRef:13]. Plato first introduced the idea that the human existence and soul lies at the interface or between the temporal physical world and the non-physical domain. Christian philosophers describe the split-level existence to which humans belong to the world invisible by their souls and visible by their bodies. Thus, human being serves as the linkage between both worlds and stands at the top of the visible world as an animal capable of reasoning. [13: Del, Potter, and Richard G. Howe, "The Heart and Soul of Christianity: Does Any" Body" Know?" (2015): 10.]

Corruptionists and survivalists have conflicting opinions regarding Aquinas’s views of the soul and the status of individuals during the interim period between death and the resurrection. According to corruptionists, an individual stops existing after death and comes back into existence at the resurrection[footnoteRef:14]. However, survivalists contend that the existence of soul during the interim period after death and before the resurrection. Issues arise from the identity of the subsequent body after the resurrection and the extent to which it resembles the original body. For instance, do the atoms of the original body reconstruct into a bodily form? What happens when atoms cease to exist? What is the most significant percentage of the atoms to make the body similar? These questions define the arising concerns regarding the identity of the subsequent body and its resemblance to the original one[footnoteRef:15]. This perception concludes that, when atoms combine to form a human body during resurrection, it may not be a hundred percent a representative of the original body. As such, it is safe to conclude the degree of human survival is not exactly defined by the body but the soul. [14: Turner, Nevitt, "Survivalism, Corruptionism, and Intermittent Existence in Aquinas," History of Philosophy Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2014): 1.] [15: Ibid., 3.]

Substance dualism holds that the body is a separate form from the soul, the latter being essential to human beings[footnoteRef:16]. Contenders of this school of thought find it illogical for humans to survive without the body because there is no coherence or logic in losing the body but maintaining the ability to think. Other philosophers contend with substance dualism and its causal interaction between the soul and body. They consider it not intelligent acknowledging the gap regarding explaining the mechanism through which soul states cause brain states and vice versa. [16: Terrance, W. Klein, The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative, Routledge, 2016: 63.]

Aristotle opposes Plato’s dualism concept, as he believes that the soul and body combine to form one substance. He considers dualism illogical in the sense that if the soul is fundamentally different from the body, the need for unity remains questionable. However, for both Aquinas and Aristotle, it is necessary that a body unites with the soul and the former is essential for the later to exercise its vital capacities[footnoteRef:17]. They maintain that the soul requires the body since it is sensitive and acts of seeing or sensation need bodily organs. Furthermore, the intellection act needs sensation, which happens only in the presence of the body. To this end, human beings need a body for them to perform their functions properly. Aquinas also disagrees with Plato on the claim that the soul or mind makes a human. He maintains that a human being cannot be a mere mind without a body[footnoteRef:18]. To this end, the human soul remains the essential form of the body, and together they form one substance. [17: Del, Potter, and Richard G. Howe, "The Heart and Soul of Christianity: Does Any" Body" Know?" (2015): 15.] [18: Ibid., 5.]

Aquinas views the soul as simple and separable from the body and stays in existence after death complete with a mental life that has sensation, feelings, and thoughts.[footnoteRef:19] Some argue that the soul’s existence after death is analogous to how it exists while human beings have a dreamless sleep. Numerous claims support the natural immortality of the soul. They posit that the soul stays in existence forever without any external agency or God intervening with an extra special power to ensure it remains immortal. The claims underscore the peculiarity of the soul, which makes it impossible for normal forces to affect it while they cause other things to stop existing. [19: Kendall, A. Fisher, "Thomas Aquinas on the Metaphysical Nature of the Soul and its Union with the Body," PhD diss., Syracuse University, 2017:38.]

Plato and other scholars have provided arguments for the immortality of the soul. For instance, they claim that things stop existing when some parts are separated from them. For example, if bricks are taken from the house, it stops existing. On the other hand, the soul is simple and does not have any parts that make it difficult for normal forces to cause its inexistence and stopping the divine intervention[footnoteRef:20]. However, the argument is not substantial because things such as atoms do not have parts yet they cease to exist when transformed into energy without any portions being separated from them. The other issue is pegged on the fact that having a mental life facilitates the functioning of the soul. What happens when the brain is damaged? Does the soul stop existing? [20: Terrance, W. Klein, The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative, Routledge, 2016: 60.]

Plato further argues that human beings have conceptualized numerous facts acquired or learned on earth. He supports the claim using the slave-boy example who was guided by Socrates to affirm several mathematics truths that no one had taught him.[footnoteRef:21] According to Plato, these must have been acquired from a previous existence. Therefore, if souls exist before birth, it is normal to assume that they will stay in existence after death[footnoteRef:22]. The Christian Philosophers like Aquinas did not subscribe to the pre-existence ideology. They claimed that souls exist at birth or conception, but even after death, they remain in existence.[footnoteRef:23] According to Aquinas, human beings have a natural desire to be in existence until the end of time. He also believed that the soul could capture irreconcilable things and its nature is naturally immortal or not corruptible. [21: Ibid., 61. ] [22: Lean, Spruit, "The Controversy over the Immortality of the Soul," Routledge Companion to Sixteenth Century Philosophy (2017): 228.] [23: Kendall, A. Fisher, "Thomas Aquinas on the Metaphysical Nature of the Soul and its Union with the Body," PhD diss., Syracuse University, 2017:39.]


Regarding the immortality and spirituality of the soul, Aristotle maintains that in human beings, there are intellectual operations that only a separated or incorruptible substance can accomplish.[footnoteRef:24] However, natural ‘forms’ are not separated substances. Thus, they must perish after the disintegration of their composition of form and matter. Aristotle’s writings are also not quite clear on what happens after human beings die. The doctrine of Aristotle does not deal with the human self-consciousness or even explicate how a human can acquire any form of meaningful immortality. [24: Norman, Melchert, The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, 7th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2014: 213.]

Examining the writings of Aristotle and Plato clarifies the understanding of the human soul as being largely conditioned by the human body and vice versa. The two philosopher, however, significantly differ on human mortality. Plato is mostly guided by religious ethics that lead man towards immortality and death is regarded as the soul being released from the dead weight of matter[footnoteRef:25]. However, Aristotle is guided by empirically based metaphysics that links human beings to the material and tangible world. As such, death seems to involve the destruction of nature and riddance of the individual, but Aristotle does not reject the possibility of the immortality of the soul. [25: Ibid., 214.]

Aquinas adopts ideas of both Plato and Aristotle when explaining the soul concept. He employs Platonism since his beliefs maintain a logical outcome regarding life after death, which could not be philosophically justified by Aristotle. Aquinas believed in the harmony between faith and reason. He was compelled to clarify the afterlife concepts that have remained remarkably speculative. Aquinas acknowledges the limitations of philosophical ideas and the fact that they do not capture reality genuinely and conclusively. He believes that knowledge goes beyond the philosophical constraints. He, therefore, applies the Platonism features as a significant support to his Aristotelianism while exploring important concepts. While Plato and Aristotle have different explanations regarding the soul, death, and resurrection, they shared views, particularly in the religious, philosophical context. Therefore, Aquinas adopts Plato’s concepts as they complement the limitations found in Aristotle’s thoughts when used in explaining the concept of the soul and the afterlife.


Bibliography
Fisher, Kendall Ann. "Thomas Aquinas on the Metaphysical Nature of the Soul and its Union with the Body." PhD diss., Syracuse University, 2017.
Klein, Terrance W. The Nature of the Soul: The Soul as Narrative. Routledge, 2016.
Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. 7th Edition. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Nevitt, Turner. "Survivalism, Corruptionism, and Intermittent Existence in Aquinas." History of Philosophy Quarterly 31, no. 1 (2014): 1-19.
Potter, Del, and Richard G. Howe. "The Heart and Soul of Christianity: Does Any" Body" Know?" (2015): 1-20
Spruit, Leen. "The Controversy over the Immortality of the Soul." Routledge Companion to Sixteenth Century Philosophy (2017): 225.