The Soul and the Body in Aristotle’s De Anima
Aristotle’s De Anima, unveils a discussion of souls (i.e., those of humans, amongst other living things) that is quite unlike what we have seen with other philosophers prior to him. Unlike the theories espoused by his predecessors, such as those of Plato and his work in the Phaedo, Aristotle’s De Anima generates a kind of characterization of the soul that steers away from the soul as being the individual creature’s true and only identity, which is separable from the body and immortal. For Aristotle, the soul is characterized as both the form of the body, as well as the actuality of the body (both claims I will explain in greater detail later on in my paper). Moreover, this conception of the soul …show more content…
Aristotle takes it that bodies (more specifically, natural bodies), which are taken to have life in them, are generally considered substances (Aristotle 412a12-14). More strictly speaking, a body that has life in it is a substance in the third sense—they body is a compound (Aristotle 412a15). Here one might immediately question how or why it is that Aristotle’s distinction between substance as matter and form, and even more so how potentiality and actuality could apply to body and soul, in order to characterize living beings as the third composite understanding of substance. Granted, one the face of it, the application seems a bit implausible. Nonetheless, one of the primary notes that Aristotle makes in demonstrating this application of this theory to bodies and souls is indeed difficult to deny. He claims that for any body, of any kind “having life,” (or, the body of a living being), the body itself “cannot be soul” (Aristotle 412a19). This indeed is a claim that is generally accepted, for the claim that the body and the soul are distinct neither a new nor a radical claim. Hence, for animate bodies, the body itself “is the subject or matter, not what is attributed to it” (Aristotle 412a19). If the body is a substance in the sense of matter, it follows that the soul, then, is the “substance in the …show more content…
For in Plato’s Phaedo, the soul is understood to merely be harbored in the body for a brief period. According to the Argument from the Form of Life, the soul, as being what gives life to a body, is the form of life thereby and cannot admit the opposite form, which is death (Plato 105D). Hence, the soul is indeed deathless (Plato 105E). We can see that the establishment of a kind of dualism motivates this argument. The soul is successful characterized as completely distinct and separate from the body. For when a man dies, it is merely the body (the moral part) that dies, while the indestructible, deathless soul remains immortal. True, for Aristotle, the soul cannot be immortal. Yet, he has not lost the ability to distinguish between the soul and the body, by claiming the soul cannot exist without the body. The soul and the body are yet distinguishable as form and actuality, and as matter and potentiality (respectively). What Aristotle offers us that is different, is a clearer understanding of soul and body as a
Aristotle’s De Anima, unveils a discussion of souls (i.e., those of humans, amongst other living things) that is quite unlike what we have seen with other philosophers prior to him. Unlike the theories espoused by his predecessors, such as those of Plato and his work in the Phaedo, Aristotle’s De Anima generates a kind of characterization of the soul that steers away from the soul as being the individual creature’s true and only identity, which is separable from the body and immortal. For Aristotle, the soul is characterized as both the form of the body, as well as the actuality of the body (both claims I will explain in greater detail later on in my paper). Moreover, this conception of the soul …show more content…
Aristotle takes it that bodies (more specifically, natural bodies), which are taken to have life in them, are generally considered substances (Aristotle 412a12-14). More strictly speaking, a body that has life in it is a substance in the third sense—they body is a compound (Aristotle 412a15). Here one might immediately question how or why it is that Aristotle’s distinction between substance as matter and form, and even more so how potentiality and actuality could apply to body and soul, in order to characterize living beings as the third composite understanding of substance. Granted, one the face of it, the application seems a bit implausible. Nonetheless, one of the primary notes that Aristotle makes in demonstrating this application of this theory to bodies and souls is indeed difficult to deny. He claims that for any body, of any kind “having life,” (or, the body of a living being), the body itself “cannot be soul” (Aristotle 412a19). This indeed is a claim that is generally accepted, for the claim that the body and the soul are distinct neither a new nor a radical claim. Hence, for animate bodies, the body itself “is the subject or matter, not what is attributed to it” (Aristotle 412a19). If the body is a substance in the sense of matter, it follows that the soul, then, is the “substance in the …show more content…
For in Plato’s Phaedo, the soul is understood to merely be harbored in the body for a brief period. According to the Argument from the Form of Life, the soul, as being what gives life to a body, is the form of life thereby and cannot admit the opposite form, which is death (Plato 105D). Hence, the soul is indeed deathless (Plato 105E). We can see that the establishment of a kind of dualism motivates this argument. The soul is successful characterized as completely distinct and separate from the body. For when a man dies, it is merely the body (the moral part) that dies, while the indestructible, deathless soul remains immortal. True, for Aristotle, the soul cannot be immortal. Yet, he has not lost the ability to distinguish between the soul and the body, by claiming the soul cannot exist without the body. The soul and the body are yet distinguishable as form and actuality, and as matter and potentiality (respectively). What Aristotle offers us that is different, is a clearer understanding of soul and body as a