Aristotle's On The Soul

Aristotle has a different view on the make-up of the soul. In Aristotle discussion On the Soul he talks about the kinds of souls possessed by different living things such as plants, animals and, beings. Aristotle then goes on describing the substance that makes up the soul, the first is matter which is not this in its own right, the second is form which makes matter this and the third form is the compound of matter and form. Every living body is a substance and the soul is the actuality of the body. The soul

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

Does the soul exist? If so, what is the soul? Moreover, what is its function in daily life? For millennia, schools of philosophy have investigated these questions and attempted to answer them by devising complex philosophies, which were in some cases completely alien to our modern ideas. In this essay, I will discuss the Egyptian, Taoist, and Aristotelian views on the soul’s function and composition during life. Then, I will compare these philosophies and discuss which aspects of each philosophy I find the most plausible from a realist’s point of view. Concerning the composition and function of the soul, I argue that the Aristotelian and Taoist philosophies are equally plausible, but that the Egyptian philosophy also had plausible aspects. Ultimately, however, it is difficult to determine which theory the most plausible (from a realist’s perspective) without tackling the bigger question “does the soul exist?”

One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.

The form of an object helps clear up its behavior. Aristotle calls the forms of living things “souls,” which are of three kinds: plants, animals, or human beings. Because Aristotle believed that the soul is merely a set of determined features, he didn’t regard the body and the soul as two separate individuals that mysteriously combine to from an organism.

Although animals act on many impulses and mechanisms, many animals have proven that they have the ability to adapt and survive, showing that they have the ability to think of when they are ill, or feel pain. Animals have the ability to survive illness and changing environments. If animals only acted on mechanism, then they would exacerbate illness causing their demise, or they would fail to adapt to the changing environments, causing them to become extinct. The survival of species throughout years, proves that animals do not just act on mechanism, but also have a mind that is “tightly jointed”.

Socrates’ views of death as represented in “The Trial and Death of Socrates” are irrevocably tied to his beliefs of what makes life significant. For Socrates, life must be examined through constant questioning and one must hold the goodness of life above all else. Consequently, even in the face of the un-good, or unjust in Socrates’ case as represented in his trial, it would not be correct to do wrong, return wrong or do harm in return for harm done. Therefore, no act should be performed with an account for the risk of life or death; it should be performed solely on the basis of whether it is good and right.

In Phaedo, Socrates uses the soul and body to express the distinction between the forms and appearances. Socrates describes the soul as “divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble, and never consistently the same” (Phaedo 80b). Furthermore, Socrates believes there is a “future awaits men after death” (Phaedo 63c) because it might be “a relocating for the soul from here to another place” (Apology 40d). Socrates believes “the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death” (Phaedo 64a) because philosophers are stuck “in a kind of prison” (Phaedo 62b) struggling to acquire knowledge.

Aristotle explains that anything that is living has a function, or something they’re meant to do. He says that what is good for X depends on the function of X. So the function of a nose is to smell, a good nose smells well or that the nose is virtuous when it smells things clearly because smelling well is the function of the nose. Similar to the nose, humans also have a function that is specific to the species because the species is alive and has something they’re meant to do.

In Phaedo Socrates claims that the soul exists somewhere after the body dies. He uses the argument of opposites to make his claim. Socrates believes that for something to “be” it must have been something else before or come from something. He gives Cebes examples of thing that are generated as a result from its opposite. “when anything becomes greater it must inevitably have been smaller and then have become greater.” He uses this example to say that being “greater” is derived from having been “smaller” at some point; and that in between being “greater” and “smaller” there are a lot of variables. After giving several examples to Cebes and Cebes agreeing to most outcomes, Socrates asks Cebes if there is an opposite to living, Cebes responds

Aristotle asks many what questions when talking about what is a living being. He discusses us as a specific type of animals and how it relates to animals, plants and nonliving things. There is an hierarchy when discussing the differences between these things. For instance, all living things can ensouled destructible mobile substances. This means, all living substances can die and their body can disintegrate when no soul is in them. The essential features of “being an animal” is that it has a soul but not a rational soul compared to a human being. As stated in Arwin and Fine (1996), “An animal is a living item that has perception.” (413b1-5) These perceptions state that the animals have wants, desires,

Q1 (i). In different cases such as situations of pleasure, pain, desire, and fear, Laches claims that endurance of the soul is a case that occurs in all of these matters (191e4-192b2). To prove that Laches new answer cannot be right, Socrates starts by making a confirmation: “I think that you don’t regard every kind of endurance as courage. The reason I think so is this: I am fairly sure, Laches, that you regard courage as a very fine thing” (192c3-c5). Socrates goes on to explain that courage can coexist with wisdom and would become a fine thing, but courage can also coexist with folly and the combination of courage with harm and injurious could not be a fine thing (192d1-d6). Laches agrees that if endurance is accompanied by harmful and

In this critical summary, I will demonstrate that Socrates’s argument about how the soul has three parts, is indeed a valid and true argument.

There are many definitions but Aristotle came to his conclusion. As the soul is the first grade of actuality of a natural organized body. He uses two examples to show proof or to convey what he means which are the eye and the axe. He created this in order to accept whatever is correct in their views and avoid whatever is mistaken. Aristotle is successful in providing contrast to both the dualist and also the materialist which can serve as future philosophers to engage in deeper understanding of a nature of a soul. By this essay it shows step by step how Aristotle used his ideas and also his examples to convey that the soul must be a substance in the sense of a natural body having life potentially with in it into the soul being a first grade of actuality. For me it was very difficult to understand Aristotle in what he meant by the soul an also the ways he used it in his examples. After this essay it made me have more understanding of the soul and his way of explaining it because he explained something then he went into another in order to convey his idea by making sense. Now I have a better understanding than I had before. As Aristotle, he doesn’t give up until having his main idea by his examples and for it to be well

.Sacrates proof of the immortality of the human soul is ethics. Socrates says how if the Gods do something does not mean it always going to have a positive outcome. Good and positive outcomes go further then the Gods itself. Good behavior is beyond the Gods that mean it is immortal. Ethics are what makes the human sole so if ethics are immortal so is the human soul. This is all based off of whether you have proper ethics and having that and being a good person your soul can be immortal.