Ockham First Quodlibet

Ockham

For centuries, people have argued about the nature of the soul. Because it is an area of philosophy rather than of science, few findings in philosophy can be proven beyond doubt. The same is true of Ockham's argumentation regarding the form of the soul. The best arguments for the nature of the soul is therefore those that can best refute the potential difficulties with the argument posited. Ockham's argument is that the human soul does have the same form as the body. However, Ockham also acknowledges that certain premises and inferences might be used to refute this argument, including the comparison between the form and nature of human beings and animals, as well as the corruptibility of the human form.

In his reply to Difficulty 2, the philosopher uses a comparison between a human being and a donkey. While the human being differs from the donkey only in form, the two are no different in terms of matter. Hence, only part of a human beign differs from a donkey. From this, one might infer that the soul is different from the human being only in matter, but not by form. This is the basis for the philosopher's assertion that human beings and their souls have the same form.

However, the soul is not a mortal human being and might therefore be said to be a different species entirely, just like the donkey. The soul is a higher form of being than the human being him- or herself, since human beings are made of matter and not of spirit. The donkey, in turn, is a lower form of being from the human, as it is only an animal. The human and animal beings, however, have the same basic needs in terms of physical life: shelter from the elements, food, water, etc. Although human beings might also have higher needs, such as intellectual stimulation and spirituality, the basic necessities of life are the same for both human and donkey.

The same could not be said for human being and soul. The soul has a different set of needs entirely. In contrast to corruptible human forms, the soul does not need any food, shelter, or water to exist. It simply exists, and does so eternally. Hence, it could be inferred that the soul differs even more from the human being in terms of the nature of species than the donkey does. Inferring this, the question might follow: If a soul differs so completely from human being, how could it retain the same form as the corruptible body? Indeed, a donkey, being a different species, differs less completely from the human being, but nevertheless has a different form. The human being and soul, being even more different, are likely to also be different in form.

Another argument used for the probable form of the soul is the fact that it appears to reside in the intellect. A being that resides only in part of the human body cannot logically be said to retain the same form of the body, as it resides mainly in the mind and therefore occupies less space than the body. Furthermore, this argument also states that a soul residing in the entire body would also enable that body to think with its hands, feet, and other body parts on the same level as the mind. Clearly, this is not the case, and the soul can therefore not have the same form of the body, as inferred from its supposed functioning.