When talking about the ‘soul’, the non-physical essence of a human being, many philosophers will use different words to mean the same thing. Words such as ‘mind’, ‘psyche’, and ‘spirit’ can all potentially be used interchangeably to mean soul. Many philosophers choose not to use the word ‘soul’ as it can have religious connotations, which may not necessarily be wanted when simply talking about the separation between the body and the mind. There are two general approaches to the idea of there being a body and a soul; the first, substance dualism, is a belief that the mind and the body both exist as two distinct, separate realities; the second, materialism, suggests that only physical aspects (i.e. the body) exist.
For Plato, the soul and the …show more content…
In his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ (1976), he proposes that humans are simply ‘survival machines’, and disagrees with the concept of humans having any kind of soul to distinguish them from other species. In addition to this, in his book ‘River Out of Eden’ (1995), he states ‘there is no spirit-driven life force … life is just bytes and bytes of digital information’. His reductive materialistic ideas are scientifically sound; however, Keith Ward argues that without the soul, humanity lacks any sense of final purpose. If we do not have a soul, and we are nothing more than physical organisms, then there is no reason for us to be different to each other or to care about others – morality becomes …show more content…
He believed the soul was the capacity that the body has to do whatever it is meant to do. To add to this, he suggested the various types of souls: plants have a ‘nutritive’ soul, animals have ‘perceptive’, and humans have a higher degree of soul than the too, as they can tell right from wrong. Aristotle’s idea of the soul overall linked with his ideas about causation; the soul gives the matter its form, its efficiency, and its final telos. This concept makes much more sense than substance dualism; for example, a dualist approach sees the body as a ‘vehicle’ that the soul controls, rather than as an inseparable part of the person, which Aristotle’s idea indicates. Additionally, when we are hurt, we suffer physical pain as well as mental distress – this indicates that the mind and body must be one, as if they were to be separate, there must be some sort of unknown connection.
To conclude, I believe that there is such thing as a soul, or a spirit, however it is not separate to our body. I agree with Aristotle’s approach to the existence of the soul as both materialism and substance dualism have many flaws: notably the fact that neither of them are fully explained. Materialists cannot explain how a strong emotion can only be a physical chemical reaction; dualists have no explanation for how the two stay or work together. There is not enough
For Plato, the soul and the …show more content…
In his book ‘The Selfish Gene’ (1976), he proposes that humans are simply ‘survival machines’, and disagrees with the concept of humans having any kind of soul to distinguish them from other species. In addition to this, in his book ‘River Out of Eden’ (1995), he states ‘there is no spirit-driven life force … life is just bytes and bytes of digital information’. His reductive materialistic ideas are scientifically sound; however, Keith Ward argues that without the soul, humanity lacks any sense of final purpose. If we do not have a soul, and we are nothing more than physical organisms, then there is no reason for us to be different to each other or to care about others – morality becomes …show more content…
He believed the soul was the capacity that the body has to do whatever it is meant to do. To add to this, he suggested the various types of souls: plants have a ‘nutritive’ soul, animals have ‘perceptive’, and humans have a higher degree of soul than the too, as they can tell right from wrong. Aristotle’s idea of the soul overall linked with his ideas about causation; the soul gives the matter its form, its efficiency, and its final telos. This concept makes much more sense than substance dualism; for example, a dualist approach sees the body as a ‘vehicle’ that the soul controls, rather than as an inseparable part of the person, which Aristotle’s idea indicates. Additionally, when we are hurt, we suffer physical pain as well as mental distress – this indicates that the mind and body must be one, as if they were to be separate, there must be some sort of unknown connection.
To conclude, I believe that there is such thing as a soul, or a spirit, however it is not separate to our body. I agree with Aristotle’s approach to the existence of the soul as both materialism and substance dualism have many flaws: notably the fact that neither of them are fully explained. Materialists cannot explain how a strong emotion can only be a physical chemical reaction; dualists have no explanation for how the two stay or work together. There is not enough