85. The Whole Soul in Each Part of the Body

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

Augustine’s Profound Insight #

• Augustine claims in On the Trinity (Book 6) that the whole soul is in the whole body AND in each part of the body
• Berquist emphasizes Augustine’s remarkable philosophical acumen despite his lack of formal Greek philosophical training
• This claim stands as a profound truth that must be reconciled with apparent objections from Aristotle

The Problem of Reconciliation #

• Aristotle argues the soul’s moving power originates from a single starting point (“principle”), not distributed throughout
• This seems to contradict Augustine’s claim of the soul’s presence in every part
• Thomas must explain how both can be true by distinguishing the soul’s function as mover from its function as form

The Soul as Mover vs. Soul as Form #

• As mover: The soul’s moving power originates in one part and extends to others through more subtle to more gross parts (analogous to electrical impulses moving muscles moving bones)
• As form: The soul is the substantial form that gives being to the entire body and each of its parts
• Augustine speaks of the soul’s formal causality; Aristotle speaks of the soul’s moving causality

Three Types of Wholeness #

• Quantitative wholeness: Divisible into parts that can exist separately (the whole length of a line in each segment makes no sense)
• Definitional/Essential wholeness: The essential nature is wholly present in each instantiation (like whiteness in each part of a white surface)
• Potential wholeness: Divided according to powers or abilities rather than physical division
• The soul’s presence in each part must be understood through definitional/essential and potential wholeness, NOT quantitative wholeness

The Substantial Form as Perfection #

• The substantial form (unlike accidental form) is a perfection not only of the whole but of each part
• An accidental form (like the arrangement of a house) is found in the whole but not in each part
• The soul, being substantial form, must inform the whole body first and as such, then inform parts secondarily as they are ordered to the whole

Key Arguments #

Against Quantitative Distribution of the Soul #

• If the whole soul were in each part in a quantitative sense, nothing would remain for other parts—reductio ad absurdum
• If the whole soul were quantitatively in each part, each part would be an animal, which is manifestly false
• The quantitative whole cannot be wholly in each of its parts (a logical/mathematical truth)

The Soul as Form Requires Presence Throughout #

• Because the soul is the substantial form (not merely a mover), it must be present to give being to both the whole and each part
• The form is the act of matter’s potency; it actualizes matter directly
• No intermediary is needed between form and matter, just as none is needed between wax and its shape

The Distinction Between Essential and Accidental Forms #

• Accidental forms (like the arrangement of an engine’s parts) are found in the whole but not in each part
• Substantial forms (like the soul) must inform the whole and each part because they give being itself
• When the soul departs, parts cease to be what they were (the eye of a dead man is only equivocally an “eye”)

The Operations Argument #

• A thing retains its species/nature insofar as it retains the operation of that specific nature
• An eye operates (sees) only insofar as the soul informs it
• The eye of a dead man is like the eye of a statue—equivocally called an eye because it lacks the soul’s informing presence

Important Definitions #

Substantial Form (forma substantialis) #

• A form that gives being (esse) absolutely to a thing
• Makes matter actually exist, not merely potentially
• Immediately united to matter without intermediary
• Present to both the whole and each part because it constitutes the being of the whole and parts

Accidental Form (forma accidentalis) #

• A form that does not give being absolutely but only in some respect
• Examples: whiteness, shape, arrangement, order
• Presupposes a substance already existing
• Found in the whole but not necessarily in each part

Equivocal Use (aequivoce) #

• Using a word to designate different things with different natures
• Example: calling a dead man a “man” is equivocal (compared to a living man)
• The eye of a dead man is called an “eye” equivocally, just as the eye of a statue is

Three Kinds of Wholeness #

1. Quantitative wholeness (totum quantitativum): Divisible into separate parts (e.g., a line into segments)
2. Definitional/Essential wholeness (totum essentiale): Composed of essential parts like genus and difference or matter and form
3. Potential wholeness (totum potentiale): Divided according to powers or abilities rather than physical parts

Examples & Illustrations #

The Word “Cat” #

• Letters C, A, T are quantitative parts
• The whole word is not in each letter
• The order and arrangement relate to the letters as form relates to matter

The Automobile Engine #

• The arrangement of the engine is an accidental form (like the form of a house)
• This arrangement is found in the whole engine but not in each replaceable part
• If you replace the radiator or carburetor, those parts could exist separately
• This is how modern scientists mistakenly understand the body—as an arrangement of parts

The Dead Man and Living Man #

• “Dead man” uses “man” equivocally (unlike “white man” or “black man” which use it univocally)
• The hand of a dead man is not really a hand; it is only equivocally called a hand
• The eye of a dead man is no more truly an eye than the eye of a statue
• Why? Because it no longer has the operation of an eye (seeing)

Natural and Artificial Examples #

• Natural examples (eye seeing, ear hearing, heart pumping): Each power is in the part suited to its operation
• If the whole soul were in each part quantitatively, seeing would be in the ear and hearing in the eye
• This is manifestly false, showing the soul is not present quantitatively in each part

Dependence of Parts #

• If the whole soul were in each part equally, each part would depend equally on the soul
• But removing the head is more catastrophic than removing the arm
• This shows one part is more “principal” than another
• The soul is present to parts secondarily as they are ordered to the whole

Questions Addressed #

How can Augustine and Aristotle both be right? #

• Augustine: Speaking of the soul as substantial form, which must inform the whole and each part to give them being
• Aristotle: Speaking of the soul’s moving power, which originates in one part (like the heart) and extends to others
• Both are true; they address different aspects of the soul’s causality

In what sense is the whole soul in each part? #

• NOT in a quantitative sense (the whole cannot be wholly in a part quantitatively)
• In an essential/definitional sense: the soul’s nature and perfection are wholly present
• In a potential sense: the soul’s ability to actualize is wholly present
• Secondarily, insofar as the part is ordered to the whole

Why doesn’t each part become a separate animal if the whole soul is in it? #

• Because the soul informs the whole body first and as such
• The soul informs each part secondarily, ordered to the whole
• An animal is defined by the operation of the whole organized body, not by isolated parts
• Severed parts lose their connection to the soul’s informing presence

How do we distinguish quantitative, essential, and potential wholeness? #

• Quantitative: Divisible into physically separable parts (legs of a chair, letters of a word)
• Essential: Composed of necessary parts for the thing to be what it is (matter and form, genus and difference)
• Potential: Divided according to powers or abilities (seeing in the eye, hearing in the ear)

Notable Quotes #

“Augustine is remarkable because he doesn’t seem to be, you know, he knows the pagans to some extent, but maybe kind of secondhand… But he has such a profound understanding you have to admire Augustine very much.”

“The whole… Wouldn’t make any sense… For a quantitative whole to be in each of its parts… It’s very subtle, very subtle. It’s amazing. I mean, you have to admire Augustine here.”

“A white man and a dead man, they’re not man in the same sense. And so called dead man a man is to use the word man in an equivocal sense.”

“The soul informs the whole body first and as such… [then] it informs parts secondarily insofar as they are ordered to the whole.”

“If the whole soul was in each part of the body, it would follow that all the powers of the soul are in each part of the body. And thus, the ability to see would be in the ear, and the ability to hear would be in the eye. That’s a nice objection, right?”

“When you say the whole soul is in each part, if you’re thinking of whole in the first sense of whole, the quantitative whole, it doesn’t make any sense.”

Scholarly Context #

Augustine’s Achievement #

• Despite lacking formal training in Greek philosophy (unlike Boethius, educated in the School of Alexandria)
• Augustine somehow perceives the subtle truth that the whole soul is in the whole body and in each part
• Berquist compares this to Shakespeare—Augustine says things so well that one should not try to improve upon them, but only to say them as well as they were said

Thomas Aquinas’s Task #

• Must reconcile Augustine’s insight with Aristotle’s observations about the soul’s moving power
• Does so by distinguishing between the soul’s formal causality and its moving causality
• Introduces the distinction between quantitative, essential, and potential wholeness to resolve the apparent contradiction