70. The Incorruptibility of the Human Soul

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

• Corruption and Contrariety: All corruption arises from contrariety in matter. The celestial bodies, lacking matter subject to contrariety, are incorruptible. The understanding soul similarly has no contrariety within it and therefore cannot be corrupted.
• Contraries in Understanding vs. Matter: In the body, contrary states (health/sickness, high/low blood pressure) are mutually exclusive. In the understanding, contraries are not contrary—one can know virtue and vice, truth and falsity, simultaneously. The very definition of one contrary contains reference to the other without contradiction.
• Subsistence and Form: The human soul is subsistent (has being by itself) and form-only. Since form-only substances have no potentiality to be something other than what they are, they cannot be corrupted per se.
• Natural Desire as Evidence of Truth: All things naturally desire to be. Humans, understanding existence absolutely and across all time (not merely here and now like animals), naturally desire eternal existence. Since nature does nothing in vain, this natural desire is a sign that eternal existence will be fulfilled.
• Understanding Without Images When Separated: While embodied, the soul naturally turns toward imagination and sensible things. When separated from the body, the soul will understand differently—like the angels—without dependence on imagination. The understanding itself is never in the body or image, only naturally oriented toward them while embodied.

Key Arguments #

Argument from Contrariety #

• Corruption requires contrariety in matter
• The understanding soul receives forms without contrariety
• Definitions of contraries are not contrary in the intellect
• Example: health in the body excludes sickness; but understanding health does not exclude understanding sickness
• Therefore, the soul cannot be corrupted by its contrary

Argument from Natural Desire #

• All things by nature desire to be
• Animals know and desire existence “here and now”
• Humans understand existence absolutely and according to all time
• Therefore, humans naturally desire eternal existence
• Natural desires are not empty; nature does nothing in vain
• Therefore, eternal existence will be fulfilled

Response to Ecclesiastes Objection (Man and Beast Have Like Beginning) #

• Objection: Ecclesiastes says man and beasts have a like beginning and process of life; therefore like dissolution
• Response: The beginning is alike only regarding the body. The beast’s soul is produced from bodily power; the human soul is created by God directly. Scripture indicates this: beasts receive a “living soul” from earth; man receives the “breath of life” from God.
• Conclusion: While bodily dissolution is similar, the soul’s fate differs fundamentally.

Response to Creation Objection (Created from Nothing) #

• Objection: What is created from nothing can return to nothing; therefore the soul is corruptible
• Response: Creation does not imply passive potentiality to non-being. Corruptibility requires passive potentiality (ability not to be) within the thing itself
• Key Distinction: Matter has passive potentiality to receive different forms; form-only substances have no such internal potentiality
• God’s Role: God could annihilate the soul (active power), but annihilation differs from corruption (passive potentiality)

Response to Imagination Objection (Soul Needs Body for Understanding) #

• Objection: Soul cannot understand without images; images are in the body; therefore soul cannot exist without body
• Response: Understanding with images is the soul’s proper operation while united to the body. When separated, the soul understands differently, like angels.
• Proportion Analogy: As sight is not in the colored object but naturally requires it as object, reason is not in the image but naturally requires it as object while embodied.
• Key Point: Interference with images (brain injury, alcohol) does not affect understanding itself, since understanding is not in the body or image.

Important Definitions #

• Form (Forma): Act; that by which matter has existence and actuality. In form-only substances, existence belongs essentially to form.
• Subsistence: Having being by itself, not merely in or through another. The human soul is subsistent; accidents are not.
• Contrariety: Mutual opposition between contraries (wet/dry, hard/soft). The basis of change and corruption in material things.
• Per se corruption: Corruption of a thing through itself ceasing to be (proper to subsisting things).
• Per accidens corruption: Corruption of a thing through something else it belongs to ceasing to be (proper to accidents and non-subsisting forms).
• Potentiality to non-being (Potentia ad non esse): Capacity within a thing to cease being; found in composite substances with matter; absent in form-only substances.

Examples & Illustrations #

Health and Sickness in Body vs. Understanding #

• In the body: If health is present, sickness is absent. If normal blood pressure exists, abnormal blood pressure cannot simultaneously exist.
• In understanding: Knowledge of health does not exclude knowledge of sickness. One can know virtue better by knowing vice; one can know falsity better by knowing truth. The very definition of ignorance is lack of knowledge.

Tragedy and Comedy in Literature #

• Shakespeare could write both tragedy and comedy excellently
• Homer likely could do both (we have the tragic Iliad; the comic Margites is lost)
• Lesser poets (like Molière) write only comedy
• An actor who plays a comic role (The Alchemist) may fail in a tragic role (King Lear) by making the character too comic/senile
• A supreme actor can move between tragic and comic modes because knowledge of contraries is unified in the understanding

Animals and the Tree #

• A hunted animal flees for its life, while a hunter pursues for food. Both pursue existence, but the animal’s desire is more fundamental.
• The animal fights for existence “here and now”
• A cat in the backyard chasing small animals demonstrates the here-and-now existence-drive

The Great Fire of London #

• The Great Fire of London (during reign of Charles II) lasted days or weeks
• Built by Sir Christopher Wren afterward (St. Paul’s, etc.)
• Described by Daniel Defoe
• Illustrates ordinary fire cannot burn indefinitely like the sun does

Meteorite Narratives #

• Native Americans observed a meteorite falling from the sky
• Europeans dismissed it as legend until aerial surveys confirmed it
• Shows ancient observations passed down despite skepticism
• Illustrates that stars might be “big rocks on fire”
• Aristotle recognized that if the sun were ordinary fire, it would have been consumed long ago

Notable Quotes #

“If you guys knew what you were doing, you could write both tragedy and comedy.” — Socrates in Plato’s Symposium, illustrating that knowledge of contraries is unified in understanding

“Don’t love me more than the truth… you’ll love Socrates a little, but the truth much more.” — Socrates in Plato’s Phaedo, encouraging students to pursue truth over friendship

“These men are my friends… but truth is a greater friend… it would be impious to prefer your friends to the truth.” — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, showing that preference for truth reflects preference for God

“Nature does nothing in vain.” — Aristotle (cited by Einstein as fundamental to natural philosophy), used to argue that natural desires point to real possibilities

“Come, bitter conduct, come, unsavory guide.” — Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, describing reason as unsavory during passion

“Dulce sapere” (to savor sweetly) — Thomas Aquinas, in Adorote de Vote, contrasting bitter reason with the sweetness of wisdom

“In vino veritas” (In wine, there is truth) — Illustrating that wisdom, like wine, must be savory and true, not insipid

“It’s natural for a human being to be led in this way.” — Christ to St. Gertrude in her autobiography, explaining why God uses images in visions

“The Lord is king and splendor robed… Holiness befits his house.” — Psalm text cited regarding God’s splendor

“In your light we shall see light.” — Psalms, cited regarding vision of God in eternal life

“The invisible things of God are known through the things that have been seen.” — Romans 1:20, the official text the Church uses for natural knowledge of God

“Existentialism is not atheistic in the sense that it would exhaust itself in trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. It’s atheistic in the sense that it makes no difference to us whether he does or does not.” — Jean-Paul Sartre, illustrating modern exaggerated love of freedom and independence from God

Questions Addressed #

How does the absence of contrariety in the understanding soul prove its incorruptibility? #

• In material things, contraries exclude each other. The understanding soul, however, receives contraries without them being contrary to each other. Since corruption requires contrariety, and the understanding soul has no internal contrariety, it cannot be corrupted by its contrary.

Does the soul’s dependence on imagination while embodied prove it cannot exist without the body? #

• No. The soul’s natural turning toward imagination is proper to its operation while united to the body. The act of understanding itself is not in the body or image. When separated from the body, the soul will understand differently without imagination, as the angels do.

If the soul is created from nothing, can it return to nothing? #

• Technically God has the power to annihilate it, but this differs from corruption. Corruption requires internal passive potentiality (ability not to be), which the soul lacks. The soul is form-only and has no potentiality to be other than what it is.

How does the human desire for eternal existence differ from animal desire for existence? #

• Animals desire existence “here and now” because they know only present existence. Humans desire eternal existence because reason understands existence absolutely and across all time. This more comprehensive understanding produces a correspondingly more comprehensive desire.

What is the significance of the natural desire argument against the “wishful thinking” objection? #

• Critics suggest the soul’s desire for immortality is wishful thinking. Thomas responds: natural desires are not empty; nature does nothing in vain. The fact that all understand things naturally desire to be forever is not a sign of mere wishful thinking but evidence that eternal existence is truly possible and will be fulfilled.

Key Distinctions #

• Being “in” vs. naturally oriented toward: Understanding is not in the body or image, but the soul is naturally oriented toward imagined things while embodied
• Understanding with images vs. understanding itself: The mode of understanding differs (with or without images), but understanding itself is never corporeal
• God’s power to annihilate vs. creature’s passive potentiality to corruption: God can annihilate the soul, but this would not be corruption; corruption is a creature ceasing to be through internal potentiality
• Sensible existence (here and now) vs. intelligible existence (absolute, across time): Animals know only present existence; humans understand existence universally and temporally, producing the desire for eternal existence