Life Originates From the First

¶ … life originates from the first principle of life, which is the soul. The soul is not able to think, reflect, or learn without a body, and a body is only matter without a soul; therefore, the soul is "the actuality of body" (Q75, p. 3). So how is essence different from the soul? Aquinas states that essence is "the definition of a thing," or how you categorize it into a genus or species (Aquinas, p. 1). Aquinas also says that essence is both matter and form (Aquinas, p.

2), and that: "In composite substances we find form and matter, as in man there are soul and body" (Aquinas, p. 2). This statement suggests that essence equals soul and body together. I agree, since you cannot define or categorize a thing without considering both its form and matter. Form can be defined as the "nature" of an object.

For example, you may observe the likeness of a fierce tiger in a painting and know that what you see and sense is a tiger -- its "nature" is clearly that of a fierce tiger ready to pounce; however, the tiger you see does not in truth belong to the species tiger since in terms of matter, it is only paint and canvas. Aquinas also states: "nor is anything determined to a genus or species according to its matter but rather according to what something is in act" (Aquinas, p. 2).

Therefore, it follows that if a genus or species is determined by its essence, and this can also be stated as what it is "in act," then essence is "what something is in act." In other words, a dead creature cannot be defined or categorized because it is unable to act, and because it is unable to act it is only matter, not matter and form.

While we may see a dead tiger and know that it is a tiger from experience, if you were the first person to discover tigers, and every tiger you found was motionless and lifeless, you would not be able to categorize that creature in the same family as other felines. Technically, in terms of matter, the dead tiger has the features of a feline and mammal, yet if it is unable to move, or eat, or hunt, or mate, then it cannot be a tiger.

It does not have action, therefore it does not have essence. And without essence, it does not have a definition. On the subject of matter and cognition, Aquinas says: "But matter is not a principle of cognition" (Aquinas, p. 2). Since the principle of cognition states that what you are thinking about must be a being, or it must be "knowable," then matter alone, without form, cannot be a principle of cognition, since matter has no being.

You may think that you are thinking about matter alone, particularly when you concentrate on thinking only about matter without form or function, yet I would argue that your human brain cannot even conceptualize matter without any form or function. That would be like imagining what the world would be like if there was no world, no space, no universe, no atmosphere, etc. Finally, since the principle of cognition has led.