64. The Subsistence of the Human Soul

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Question of Subsistence #

• Whether the human soul (anima) is subsisting (having existence by itself)
• The soul is subsistent but incomplete—it is a part, not a complete substance
• Distinction between subsisting and being a complete individual substance (hoc aliquid)

The Three Objections to the Soul’s Subsistence #

First Objection: Based on the term hoc aliquid (this something)

• Only the composite of soul and body constitutes a complete individual substance
• The soul alone is not a hoc aliquid
• Thomas resolves this by distinguishing two senses of hoc aliquid: (1) anything subsisting, or (2) something subsisting and complete in its species

Second Objection: From Aristotle’s language in De Anima

• Aristotle says the soul does not sense or understand; rather, the man does
• This appears to deny independent operation of the soul
• Thomas notes Aristotle speaks dialectically, according to predecessors’ opinions, not his own considered view

Third Objection: The apparent dependence of thought on the body (most substantial)

• Understanding requires phantasmata (images)
• Brain damage interferes with thinking
• Therefore, the soul cannot subsist independently

The Central Argument for Subsistence #

Thomas reasons from operation to being (agere sequitur esse):

1. The intellectual principle has an operation per se (by itself), not in the body
2. Understanding universal natures shows the intellect is not itself a body
3. A thing must exist before it can operate
4. Therefore: If the soul operates independently, its existence is not merely immersed in the body
5. Conclusion: The soul must be subsistent

The Latin principle: Quo modo aliquid est, sic operatur (In the way something is, so does it act)

• If the soul’s existence were only in the body, it could only operate in the body
• But the soul has an operation not in the body (understanding)
• Therefore, its existence is not only in the body

The Aristotelian Argument from Universal Knowledge #

• The intellect knows the natures of all bodies
• What is able to know all things cannot itself be limited to any particular body
• If the intellect were a body, it would have a determined nature that would prevent knowing other bodies
• Example: A sick tongue with bitter humor cannot taste properly; everything tastes bitter
• Therefore: The intellectual principle cannot be a body, nor can it depend on a bodily organ in the way sense organs work

Substantial Form vs. Accidental Form #

Similarities:

• Both are acts that give actuality to something in potency
• Both actualize their subject in some way

Critical Differences:

Why this matters for the soul:

• If the soul were accidental, existence would belong to the body first
• Since the soul is substantial, existence belongs to the soul before the body
• This opens the possibility that the soul’s existence transcends the body
• The soul can have operations the body does not share

Key Arguments #

Against the Inference from Brain Damage to Materialism #

Berquist corrects a logical fallacy:

Invalid reasoning:

• If A then B; B is true; therefore A is true (affirming the consequent)
• Applied: “Brain damage interferes with thinking; therefore the brain is the organ of thought”

The problem: Brain damage could interfere with thinking by affecting the object of thought (phantasms/images) rather than the organ

The analogy:

• Hitting a light bulb interferes with seeing (object side)
• Hitting the eye interferes with seeing (organ side)
• Both interfere with vision, but in different ways
• Similarly, brain damage affects phantasms without proving the brain is the thinking organ

Conclusion: Correlation does not determine causation; we must distinguish between interference with the object vs. interference with the organ

The Nature of Contact Between Immaterial and Material #

From earlier discussion cited in lecture:

• Two bodies touch in two ways: (1) surface contact, and (2) one acting upon the other
• One body acts upon another only through the surface; the action gradually penetrates inward
• An immaterial thing (like an angel) does not have to act through surface; it can act on the interior immediately
• An angel is “in” the material world where it applies its power, not where it is contained in a place

Important Definitions #

Subsistens (Subsisting) #

• Having existence by itself (existentia per se)
• Distinguished from being a complete individual substance
• The soul subsists but is incomplete without the body

Hoc aliquid (This Something) #

• A term for individual substance from Aristotle’s τόδε τι
• Can mean: (1) anything subsisting, or (2) something subsisting that is complete in its species
• The soul qualifies under sense (1) but not sense (2)

Phantasma (Phantasm, Image) #

• The sensible representation in imagination
• The proper object of the intellect when thinking about material things
• Requires the body/brain to form, but understanding itself is not in the body
• Compared to color in relation to sight: the object, not the organ

Modus essendi (Mode of Being) #

• The way something exists
• The soul’s mode of being is not entirely immersed in the body
• The body participates in the soul’s existence, but the soul’s existence can transcend the body

Examples & Illustrations #

The Cat and the Hot Stove #

• A young cat jumps on a hot electric stove and gets singed
• The cat learns from this experience and avoids the stove afterward
• Shows how bodily experience affects imagination and memory
• Demonstrates connection between body and intellectual life without proving brain is organ of thought

The Heating Pad #

• A heating pad applied to sore muscles gradually penetrates to the interior
• Illustrates how a body must act through surface contact to reach the interior
• Contrasts with how an immaterial thing could act on the interior immediately

Butter on the Dining Table #

• Berquist’s cat would lick butter left on the table when no one was watching
• Shows animal appetite and memory
• Illustrates that even animals have some memory from bodily experience

Questions Addressed #

How can an immaterial soul operate on a material body? #

• The soul acts as the form of the body, not as an external agent
• The soul’s operation is the body’s operation when the operation is vital
• Immaterial things can act on bodies where they apply their power
• This is different from how one body acts on another (through surfaces)

How can understanding require phantasms if the intellect is immaterial? #

• The phantasm is the object of understanding, not the organ
• The intellect abstracts universal form from particular images
• Just as the eye needs light and color (objects) but the eye itself is not colored
• Brain damage interferes with formation of images, not with understanding itself

Why can brain stimulation produce desires but not choices? #

• A Canadian neuroscientist found that stimulating brain regions produces wishes (e.g., “I wish I had chocolate”)
• But no brain stimulation produces the statement “I just made a choice”
• This suggests the will’s operation is not in the body at all
• The will’s act of choice transcends bodily causation

Is grace a substance or an accident? #

• Grace is an accident (accidental form)
• It exists for the perfection of the substance (the soul)
• Therefore, sanctifying grace completes the human substance

Notable Quotes #

“In the way something is, so does it act” (Quo modo aliquid est, sic operatur)

• Fundamental Thomistic principle linking being to operation
• If the soul’s existence were only in the body, it could only operate in the body
• But since it operates independently (in understanding), its existence must transcend the body

“What is able to know all things must have nothing of them in its nature”

• From Aristotle’s argument in De Anima III
• A tongue with bitter humor cannot taste properly
• If the intellect were a body, its determined nature would limit knowledge

“Existence belongs to the soul, a substantial form, before its subject”

• The crucial metaphysical distinction explaining the soul’s subsistence
• Contrasts with accidents, where the subject has actuality first

“You must be before you can do something”

• The principle agere sequitur esse
• Applied to prove the soul’s independent existence from its independent operation