For someone who has told herself she does not enjoy biology very much, I have enjoyed reading Aristotle's proposals and observations of humans and animals. Movement of animals caught much of my interest, specifically when Aristotle speaks upon the psychological reasoning of movement and animals such as desire. Although, movement of animals was easy for me to understand and interpret, I mostly found it fascinating Aristotle's infatuation with the concept soul, which I have yet to fully grasp.
By reading Aristotle's On the Soul I can come to an understanding that animals are constructed by three substances that Aristotle calls: matter, form, and what is composed of both. As to this I understand what you're Aristotle means; matter is potentially, similar to wood. Wood is matter that has the potential to become something, such as a table or a chair. Form, on the other hand, is what gives matter it's actuality, similar to a chair or table giving wood actuality or essence, not the mere shape of the table or share but the virtue of being. I believe this is what Aristotle believes soul is. The form of a body. What gives body essence. …show more content…
But the question that I seemed to contemplate during this reading was, is a living things soul the capacity to engage in these activities? What brings me to this question is the notion I have of soul. I picture soul as sort of a spiritual substance inhabiting the body, this makes it difficult to reconcile Aristotle's points. To be soul cannot engage activities such as nourishment, perception, and intellect, these activities are merely something that happens the brain. How? I wish I could say. It interested me that Aristotle had a completely different idea of what engaged such activities in a living
By reading Aristotle's On the Soul I can come to an understanding that animals are constructed by three substances that Aristotle calls: matter, form, and what is composed of both. As to this I understand what you're Aristotle means; matter is potentially, similar to wood. Wood is matter that has the potential to become something, such as a table or a chair. Form, on the other hand, is what gives matter it's actuality, similar to a chair or table giving wood actuality or essence, not the mere shape of the table or share but the virtue of being. I believe this is what Aristotle believes soul is. The form of a body. What gives body essence. …show more content…
But the question that I seemed to contemplate during this reading was, is a living things soul the capacity to engage in these activities? What brings me to this question is the notion I have of soul. I picture soul as sort of a spiritual substance inhabiting the body, this makes it difficult to reconcile Aristotle's points. To be soul cannot engage activities such as nourishment, perception, and intellect, these activities are merely something that happens the brain. How? I wish I could say. It interested me that Aristotle had a completely different idea of what engaged such activities in a living