The Soul On The Matter To Be Or Not To Be

The matter of the soul has been a controversial topic for years and Aristotle and Immanuel Kant have different theories on the subject. What is the soul? What is the relation between the body and the soul? Does it survive after the death of the body, if so what becomes of it? Aristotle and Kant have their theories about what the soul is and what happens to it after death.

What is a soul? The philosophical argument rests on the Platonic view that the person is essentially a soul and that a soul is an immaterial, purely spiritual substance. (Rowe 151) The Platonic view was that the soul was trapped into the human body and could not escape until death then the soul could obtain endless life. According to Aristotle’s theory, a soul is a particular kind of nature, a principle that accounts for change and rest in the particular case of living bodies, i.e. plants, nonhuman animal and human beings. (Lorenz, 1) Kant argues that we can comply with our duty to promote the highest good only if we believe in the immortality of the soul and the existence of God. This is because to comply with that duty we must believe that the highest good is possible, and yet to believe that the highest good is possible we must believe that the soul is immortal and that God exists, according to Kant. (Rohlf) Kant explanation is pure practical reason postulates of the soul’s immortality. Kant’s theory is that the soul is a simply nature and it is an immaterial substance. For the adequacy of reason to fulfil the moral law, claims Kant, one needs an immortal soul, a soul that has duration and permanence. (Ronen) I think one need to know the definition of the soul according to the Bible to try analyzing these theories. The Biblical definition is the soul is the part of the makeup of every person that is alternately known as the mind, heart, life, self, person, or inner being. There are all synonyms for this part of our beings. God created us as three-part beings: spirit, soul/mind, and body. The soul is to be in submission to the spirit and the body was created to be in submission to the mind/soul. If Kant resisted the attempt to turn the soul into substance or knowledge about what eludes human cognition, Aristotle presents another intriguing case of the philosophical soul because he identifies the soul with the body’s very animation as body. (Ronen)

Philosophical argument used the following view to support that a human soul is immortal:

1. A thing can be destroyed only be separating its parts.
2. The soul has no parts. Therefore,
3. The soul cannot be destroyed. (Rowe,152)

My breakdown to the above statements are a soul has no parts so it cannot be destroyed by separating parts therefore the soul cannot be destroyed. So this theory convinces us that the soul cannot be destroyed but there were objections to this theory. Part of the philosophical argument of the soul is determining if it is an immaterial or material substance. An immaterial substance cannot be destroyed by separation of its parts. A material substance can be destroyed by separation of its parts. It must be determined now if the mode of destruction can have two types of destruction, separation of parts and one for immaterial substance. Kant’s thoughts were that an immaterial substance over time would reduce to nothing. Kant’s concept of mode of destruction.

Even if we admit the simple nature of the soul, namely, that is contains no manifold of constituents external to one another, and therefore no extensive quantity, we yet cannot deny to it, anymore than to any other existent, intensive quantity, that is, a degree of reality in respect of all its faculties, nay, in respect of all that constitutes its existence, and that this degree of reality may diminish through all infinitely many smaller degrees. In this manner the supposed substance…. may be changed into nothing, not by dissolution, but by gradual loss of its powers. (Rowe 152)

A translation to Kant’s statement is that the mental state is connected to the human body especially to the brain.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Aristotle believed that the soul, the form, was the life force of the body, the matter, and the body could not survive without the soul. The relation between soul and body, on Aristotle's view, is also an instance of the more general relation between form and matter: thus an ensouled, living body is a particular kind of in-formed matter. (Lorenz) Aristotle believed in the Platonic view that the soul was immaterial which makes it a spiritual substance. Kant’s point about the soul is that it has no all-embracing quantity even though it was an immaterial substance. Kant did find it necessary to have the soul because it is the compass for morality in humans. Kant needs the soul in order to equilibrate the conditions under which the human being enacts the moral will with the supreme practical principle (which imposes a demand that exceeds human life.) (Ronen)

Here are three views about the concept of life after death:

1. the disembodied existence of the soul after the death of the body,
2. the reincarnation of a soul after bodily death, and
3. the reuniting of the soul with its resurrected body. (Rowe 149)

Here we can see where the different religion developed their belief on the life of the soul after death.

Then we have the view that the soul is not an enduring immaterial substance at all but a series of mental events or experiences. According to the theory a mental substance cannot undergo time. If this is true than the soul is a collection of mental events so then we must consider if this events go on after the bodily death. The philosophical argument real does not give us reason to believe in the immortality of life after death. Aristotle believed that the soul was tied in with part of the mental movements of the body. Aristotle thought was that the soul and body could not function or exist alone. Kant does give us an objective theory about life after death, revealing to us that by reason we cannot prove that there is life after death. Kant agrees that the soul is immortal but concludes that the soul destruction comes about by reduction and will eventually dissolve into nothingness. This statement makes think about a lighted candle and as it burns that it eventually weakness until it extinguishes out. He compels us to search ourselves and look within us where we must have faith in God where we find the true answer to this question. He exposes this truth when he indicates that the soul is our moral compass. If God does not exist then why do we have morals? Sigmund Freud believed that humans were all about self-gratification, if this was true humans would not have these moral laws embedded in them.

The thought of death and what happens to us afterwards concerned many and that caused great discussion and controversy over the years. The question I have is what brought about a controversy? My opinion to this answer is that the Bible clearly informed us about life after death but there were people who didn’t believe in God and began to reason this. This brought about great confusion and caused many theories to spring up. One of the concerns was about the soul and body and how they were connected or were they connected.

Aristotle’s Platonic theory brings confusion when it makes the statement that the soul is immaterial and purely a spiritual substances which how can a spiritual substance be destroyed? We see that the debate of mode of destruction and the destruction be separation of parts are introduced into the argument. Then we have the debate if the soul is an enduring, immaterial substance or materialism. Next arises if the mind has a series of mental events or experiences. Aristotle informs us that humans are two parts: the body which is matter and the soul which is the form and one cannot survive without the other. Aristotle’s writing makes us draw the conclusion that he did not believe that the soul survived after the death of the body. Aristotle’s views change as time goes by and he doesn’t completely agree with the Platonic view.

The philosophical view on immortality gets somewhat complicated but it seems that all philosophical views are based on several statements then a therefore statement is made. These steps in the argument always seem to be set up for failure which leads to problematic objections. Looking at these two theories I would lean towards Kant’s position because I believe we have an immortal soul and that we have a moral compass. Choosing between if the soul is a material substance or an immaterial substance, I would say that it is an immaterial substance. I don’t believe that is destroyed by separation of parts according to the view that was presented. I consider that when the body dies that the soul and spirit is released from that form and returned to God. I have mediated on the thought of mental substance and have come to the conclusion that I really don’t think that we will be taking all our human thoughts and events with us. If we are going into paradise we definitely aren’t going to want to bring any or all hardship or destructive memories with us. We will be set free from pain and suffering or any traumatic experiences we had in life. I would not categorize the soul of simple nature since it appears to be very complex; the soul is the one thing that keeps us on our moral compass, to do good and be considerate, compassionate, etc. and is the part of us that takes us to eternity. I am not totally agreeable with Kant’s theory but I believe that he was pointing us towards God and that we must have faith because there are some things that are unexplainable. Aristotle’s and Kant’s view changed during this long debate and reasoning of the matter of the soul. God could have given us the answers to these questions but He wanted us to have faith in Him and believe. So the soul does continue after the death of the human body.

WORKS CITED

1. Lorenz, Hendrik, “Ancient Theories of Soul”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
2. Miller, Fred D Jr. “ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY OF SOUL.” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 53, no.2,1999, p. 309. Gale In Context: Biography, htpps://link-gale-com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu/apps/doc/A6442638/BIC?u=ivytech.16&xid=71f253al.Accessed 7 Oct. 2019.
3. Rohlf, Michael, 'Immanuel Kant', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
4. Ronen, Ruth.”Lacan and the Philosophical Soul. ”Philosophy Today, vol.61,no.3,2017,pp.619-632.ProQuest,https://search-proquest-com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu/docview/1966056631?accountid=41068,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtoday2017928174.
5. Rowe, W. L. (2007). Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction (Fourth ed.). Thomas Wadsworth. Retrieved October 07, 2019