The Nature and Existence of the Soul (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
The Nature and Existence of the Soul
Introduction
Human beings are self-reflective. We can examine our own thoughts and ask fundamental questions: 'Who am I?' and 'What am I?' This capacity distinguishes us and forms the basis for debates about the soul.
Two major philosophical approaches have shaped these debates:
- Plato's dualism
- Aristotle's more integrated view
Plato (428/427-348/347 BCE)
Theory of Forms
Forms: Perfect, eternal, metaphysical Ideas of which all things in the physical world are particular instances.
Plato contrasted two realities:
- The empirical world of sense experience: characterised by flux and decay
- The world of Forms: perfect and unchanging
Example: Understanding Forms
All tables are particular instances of the universal Form of a Table. All dogs (from Great Danes to Chihuahuas) are particular instances of the Form of Dog.
This means that while individual tables and dogs vary in appearance, they all share in the perfect, unchanging Form that defines what it means to be a table or a dog.
Key Features of Forms:
- Eternal and timeless - they exist beyond time
- Perfect and unchanging - they never deteriorate or change
- Metaphysical - they exist beyond the physical world
- The ultimate Form is the Form of the Good, which defines all others
Plato's dualism
Plato argued for a sharp distinction between:
- Physical body: part of the world of the senses
- Mind/soul (psyche): related to the higher reality of the Forms
Why the soul is immortal according to Plato:
- Only composite things (made of parts) can be destroyed
- Bodies are composite and therefore decay
- Souls are non-material and simple (without parts)
- Therefore, souls cannot be destroyed
- Once created, a soul is permanent and cannot die
This dualism was later incorporated into Christian thinking and dominated mediaeval philosophy.
Three parts of the psyche
In The Republic, Plato presented a more complex view. The psyche consists of three parts:
- Logical/thinking/reasoning part: seeks to learn the truth
- Thumos (spirited part): includes courage, pugnacity, righteous indignation
- Appetitive part: desires for food, drink and sex
Overall: The soul is separate from the body but animates and directs it.
Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Scientific approach
Aristotle represented the start of a 'scientific' and rational view. He:
- Classified living things into species
- Applied logic and demanded evidence
- Examined the distinctive features of human life
To attain any assured knowledge about the soul is one of the most difficult things in the world. De Anima (On the Soul)
Soul as principle of life
Psyche: What distinguishes a living creature from a corpse or inanimate thing. All living things have souls.
Key distinction for humans: Humans possess rational thought in addition to their psyche.
Soul and body relationship
Aristotle used analogies to explain the relationship between soul and body:
The Eye Analogy:
If the eye were an animal, sight would be its soul. When sight is removed, the eye is no longer truly an eye (except in name).
This shows that the soul is not something separate that inhabits the body, but rather the very principle that makes the body alive and functional.
Key Passage from Aristotle:
[A]s the pupil plus the power of sight constitutes the eye, so the soul plus the body constitutes the animal. From this it is clear that the soul is inseparable from its body.
Essential Points of Aristotle's View:
- The soul is what makes a thing what it is
- For humans, rational thought is distinctive
- Soul and body cannot be separated
- The soul is expressed through the body
Form and matter: The psyche is the form that organises the material body. This makes the psyche distinct from but inseparable from the body.
Nous (intellect)
Nous: The thinking mind, specifically rational thought.
Aristotle distinguished rational thought from:
- Sense perception
- Movement
- Emotions
- Nutrition and growth
Rational thought is distinctively human, while other functions are shared with animals.
Plato v Aristotle: key differences
Plato's view:
- Separate body and soul
- Soul has lived before and will live again
- Soul's true home is the world of Forms
- Soul is trapped in the physical body
Aristotle's view:
- Soul is what animates you
- Body and soul exist together as one living being
- You are defined by living and thinking
- Soul cannot be separated from body
Influence
Plato: Dominated traditional western religion
Aristotle: Closer to medical/integrated views of the person
Responses to Death:
Platonic perspective: The soul has departed; only a shell remains. The real person is elsewhere.
Aristotelian perspective: The body expressed the person but has lost its animating principle.
The Actor Analogy:
Aristotelian view: The soul is like the character on stage - all the words, actions and gestures. There is no hidden actor behind the character.
Platonic view: Double focus - both the character being played and the eternal actor (Uncle Joe) who has a life beyond this performance.
Descartes' argument for the existence of the soul
René Descartes (1596-1650)
Historical context: Initiated 'modern' philosophy, attempting to establish certainty in a world of sceptical doubt, particularly to defend Catholic Christianity.
Key innovation: Argued for radical dualism of extended physical body and unextended mind.
Substance dualism
Descartes' essential argument: Mind and body are distinct substances with different essential properties.
Two substances:
- Res extensa (extended substance): Matter
- Res cognita (mental substance): Mind
Agenda: To prove the soul can exist without the body (following Plato rather than Aristotle).
First proof: Argument from doubt
Source: Meditation II, Discourse on Method Part 4
Famous dictum: Cogito, ergo sum - 'I think, therefore I am'
The Argument from Doubt:
- I can doubt that my body exists (perhaps a malicious demon deceives me)
- I cannot doubt that I exist as a thinking thing (doubt itself is thinking)
- Therefore, I (as a thinking thing) am not identical with my body
Does it work? Probably not. Most philosophers argue that consciousness is a product of the brain, which is part of the body. Without the body, mind would not exist to produce the argument. Therefore, I cannot actually doubt my body exists.
Second proof: Argument from divisibility and non-divisibility
Source: Meditation VI
The Argument from Divisibility:
- All bodies are extended in space, therefore divisible
- Minds are not extended in space, therefore not divisible
- Therefore, minds are radically different from bodies
Extended explanation:
- Bodies exist in three dimensions and can be divided (like measurements)
- Mental states (qualia) - such as smelling a rose or experiencing redness - can be increased or decreased but not divided
- Physical objects, including the human body, can clearly be divided
[T]here is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible... if a foot or arm... is cut off, nothing has thereby been taken away from the mind.
Does it work? No. Modern neuroscience shows close correlation between mind and brain. When the brain is damaged, the mind can be damaged too - it can be 'divided'.
Third proof: Argument from clear and distinct perception
Source: Meditation VI
The Argument from Clear and Distinct Perception:
- Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive as two different things can be created by God as two different things
- I have a clear and distinct idea of myself as a non-extended thinking thing
- I have a clear and distinct idea of my body as an extended non-thinking thing
- Therefore, I and my body can exist apart from each other
- Therefore, I am distinct from my body
Does it work? The argument appears circular (the 'Cartesian Circle'). In Meditation V, Descartes deduces God's existence from clear and distinct perceptions. Now he wants to deduce the reliability of clear and distinct perceptions from God's existence.
Note: 'Cartesian' means 'relating to Descartes and his ideas'.
Summary of Descartes' dualism
| Body/material substance | Mind/soul substance |
|---|---|
| Has extension in space | Not extended in space |
| Located in space | Not located in space |
| Has parts that corrupt and decay | Has no parts to corrupt or decay |
| Cannot survive death | Not susceptible to death |
| Mortal | Immortal |
Problems with Descartes' dualism
The Ghost in the Machine (Gilbert Ryle)
In The Concept of Mind, Ryle ridiculed Cartesian dualism:
I shall often speak of it, with deliberate abusiveness, as 'the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine'... It is one big mistake... a category-mistake.
Category Mistake Explained:
Like a visitor to a university seeing colleges, libraries and laboratories, then asking 'But where is the University?'
The university is not something over and above its components - it's a term describing all these things together.
Application: Similarly, you should not expect to find a 'mind' over and above the body's parts and actions.
Problems with soul substance (Hume's criticisms)
1. The idea solves nothing
Hume argued that the concept of 'substance' is confused. Saying consciousness emerges from non-material substance is circular: 'We need to explain how a substance can think. A substance can think because soul exists as a thinking substance.'
2. Thinking cannot tell us what is actually the case
Hume suggested that the cause of thought might well be material substance. This is the common twenty-first century view - thought has a physical/material explanation.
3. Souls cannot be counted
If souls are not in space and are invisible, how do we know one body has just one soul? The one-to-one body/soul relationship is merely an assumption.
4. Logic establishes thinking, not an 'I' who thinks
For Descartes, 'I' am something beyond the process of thinking. Many philosophers deny this, arguing the 'self' is an illusion - a construct from different sense experiences. The 'self' is the flow of experiences, not something separate observing them.
Exam tips
- Clearly distinguish between Plato's and Aristotle's views of the soul
- Understand why Descartes' three arguments fail
- Be able to explain Ryle's category mistake
- Know Hume's criticisms of soul substance
- Use key terms accurately: psyche, nous, thumos, res extensa, res cognita, qualia
Remember!
Plato: The soul is separate, immortal, and belongs to the world of Forms. It's trapped in the body and consists of three parts (logical, spirited, appetitive).
Aristotle: The soul is the principle of life - what makes something alive. It's inseparable from the body and gives it form and purpose.
Descartes: Argued for substance dualism with three proofs (doubt, divisibility, clear and distinct perception), but all face serious philosophical challenges.
Key criticisms: Ryle's category mistake, Hume's arguments against soul substance, and modern neuroscience's evidence of mind-brain correlation all challenge dualism.
Historical importance: Plato's view dominated western religion; Aristotle's influenced science and medicine; Descartes' shaped modern philosophy but is now largely rejected.