Replies

You can say THAT again!

heh heh heh

Then you "mostly sort of" agree with what Ken wrote.

Well as long as Mr. Fortier is not mostly sort of disagreeing with the teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm okay with that. The popular opinion on something, even the popular opinion on the teaching of the Church, is not in fact what the Church teaches.

On of the reasons I say "mostly sort of" is that I THINK it's right to say that Plato's immortal soul has no personality, and doesn't think of itself as Joe or Sally or Barack. Plato SEEMS to be in the "cosmic soup" school, or close to it, while the popular opinion seems to be that Little Suzi is now one of God's angels, returning to whence she came. (Cf the very weird movie "The Bluebird of Happiness") But in that connection, why do you say

While it admits that man himself is a soul, ...

Are we stating from the position that the Catholic Church is defending, surlily, some suspect position and only grudgingly conceding Mr. Fortier's points when all other options are closed to it? That's not a game I especially want to play.

I think the difference about immortality is on the question of intrinsic vs God-given immortality. The proposition, "God can not bestow immortality on the human soul," is not one I'd like to defend. The proposition that God HAS not bestowed immortality on the human soul is controversial, and while it runs against the general thrust of Mr. Fortier's word study, there are hints ("I shall not die but live," comes to mind) that it may not be a slam-dunk either way.

And there is the problem of God Himself in the Isaiah quote and IHS Himself in my John quote talking about their "souls". If the soul IS the self, then who is it who says "my" in "my soul is troubled?" Are we going to say, "Well God and the Christ were speaking loosely; we can ignore their turns of phrase?" When Paul speaks of "inner" and "outer", and in related discussions, of "sarx" and "pneuma", I come up thinking that it's not going to be that simple.

(Just for giggles, my "Schema" is that my soul, that is "I" died when I was grafted into Christ, and now I live with Christ's life, for it is written, "Now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.")

Moving along ... One of the things that brought me up short in my Fortier-like line of thought was that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to agree with it. For me, if Arians firmly maintain something I've been thinking, I'm going to go over it again ... and carefully, making a list, checking it twice.

Okay, I staggered upstairs and hauled down De Anima. And it's been a few years, but I did a lot of highlinhting and marginal noting back then. Here's what I found. A number of statements about the soul that it is the actuality of the body and inseparable from the body.

The line I have used is, "soul : body :: burning : fire". The last Dominican I asked for an inquisition on this said, "I will quote Obama: That's above my pay grade," and we cracked up.

Anyway, for most of the relevant discussion of soul, Aristotle is right there with Fortier. The brick wall is MIND. And the discussion on mind is very difficult.

At the end of Book III chap 5 Aristotle sounds (but I think it's misleading) really gnostic when he says mind "set free from current conditions" alone is "immortal and eternal".

Here I'd suggest that it's important to understand the difference between "eternal" and "From everlasting to everlasting". I'd suggest that for Aristotle pure intellection is simply outside of time. And it's clear that he has all the appropriate philosophical problems with this. (As in, so how can we think about time?)

As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things.

I'd say it is in the nature of reasonable discourse that things are assumed, and further that the minute THIS conversation leaves being a mere descriptive account of the use of the words nephesh, psyche, etc. in Scripture and gets prescriptive ("We should think of soul in this or that way") we are hauling in assumptions, one of the most debatable of which is that the words are used with technical philosophical or theological rigor in Scripture.

I don't consider either of these men to be the "authority" one should look to for their beliefs of Christianity.

I think they were brought up as presenting a particular incorrect view, or an array of incorrect views of the "soul", not as authorities for our belief.

But at another level: the other day I pompously described myself to someone as a "philosophical theologian." If you ask what such a monster might be, I'd say, "You know how we discuss what a sacrament or ordinance is and wonder what thing the bread and wine are or become? A philosophical theologian is too stupid to be able to discuss such questions. He's still stuck and wondering what a thing is. If you say, 'it's not true that the bread becomes the body of Christ," I'll start dawdling and wondering about 'true' and 'becomes' while the rest of you go on ahead."

The relevance of this verbosity is this: Mr Fortier, you, and I are trying to say something meaningful and true about something we call the soul. If I say, "X," you and Mr. Fortier say,"But don't the Scriptures seem to say, 'Not X?'" If you say,"Y," I say, "But here are verses which seem to require or to suggest at least a soupçon of 'Not Y.'" As far as I can tell, we are the only physical creatures who do this kind of thing. Again as far as I can tell, we are the only physical creatures who wonder about the difference between us and the other creatures.

Now some aspects of this kind of conversation are sort of pre-religious. I mean that the builders of the Hagia Sophia, Notre Dame, or The Greater Park Street Baptist Tabernacle would not hesitate, I believe, to derive some of their techniques of architecture and construction from the unregenerate. Deciding to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified does not mean forgetting all the construction techniques one learned as a sinner.

Similarly, while I am not going to look to Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, or the disciples of Siddhartha for the ultimate truth about the Ultimate Truth, I think they all have useful things to say about the relationships among certain thoughts and opinions, and about the challenges of grasping and articulating the things that matter with the mind and tongue.

So I won't take any of these guys as guides for the whole journey, but I will still consult them from time to time, just as ded reckoning can tell me, with perilous imprecision, more or less where I am, but only consulting heaven will tell me reliably where I am.

Okay. yeah. that was long.

***Then you "mostly sort of" agree with what Ken wrote.***

Ken, I imagine, does not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church - otherwise he would probably still be in it. However, he does not expound on that very much, rather, he does bring out things he disagrees on, and refers readers to check out exactly what the official teachings are - sending them to Catholic sources. If you don't think that is fair, well, all's fair in love and war, as the saying goes.

Very sharp. I follow you here...

But in that connection, why do you say, While it admits that man himself is a soul, ...

Hmmm...because of the teaching of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is quite explicit in saying that. How's that for keeping it short and to the point?

Not at all. Just stating what I read. I believe they are being very honest in saying that both the Hebrew "nephesh" and the Greek "psuche" refer to the whole man. And in their follow-up, which is a philosophical stance, I don't believe that Ken, nor I, accept that stance as something we must believe in. It is in the realm of supposition and presumption that other "options", as you say, are put forth.

FYI, Both Ken and I attended College and enrolled in philosophy classes. In Ken's case, he also enrolled in Logic classes at the same time - which he admitted to me caused him problems in accepting much of what philosophy entailed. He rejects philosophy as forming his beliefs, preferring the pure word as found in the Scriptures.

Intrisic vs God-given immortality? Hmmm...I would "off-hand" reject the "intrisic" idea as being purely Platonic. On the other "on-hand" side, hold tight that only God can bestow immortality to man. I would say that the real question is stated by your second sentence; You say it is controversial; I say that God has, in what He chose to reveal to us in the Scriptures, not yet gifted any man, other than Jesus, with immortality. If you would like to discuss it on that thought, I would be willing to accommodate you. What you "hint" at is a good start.

(Just for giggles, my "Schema" is that my soul, that is "I" died when I was grafted into Christ, and now I live with Christ's life, for it is written, "Now I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me.")

Actually (not giggling), I "mostly sort of" agree with you here.

Let me make a point here. It will not do to condemn a doctrine because it is sometines held in conjunction with false doctrines. The fact that some sect, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, have grasped a truth is certainly no reason for anyone to discard that truth. Neither does one become one of their followers because he agrees with them on a particular truth they may hold, or why else not accuse all who hold to the Virgin Birth of following Roman Catholicism?

At the end of Book III chap 5 Aristotle sounds (but I think it's misleading) really gnostic when he says mind "set free from current conditions" alone is "immortal and eternal".
Here I'd suggest that it's important to understand the difference between "eternal" and "From everlasting to everlasting".

I agree, and that is a worthy topic for discussion.

***As with any philosopher, they all seem to speculate or assume many things.***
I'd say it is in the nature of reasonable discourse that things are assumed, and further that the minute THIS conversation leaves being a mere descriptive account of the use of the words nephesh, psyche, etc. in Scripture and gets prescriptive ("We should think of soul in this or that way") we are hauling in assumptions, one of the most debatable of which is that the words are used with technical philosophical or theological rigor in Scripture.

I think that this is where we would have to agree to disagree. If I were to say that "I think we should translate this Greek or Hebrew term by this English word", would you say I was making an "assumption"? Or would you agree that my choice of words may or may not be correct in your way of thinking? If the latter, I would then ask you the important question of WHY? Would you say that is philosophical thinking, or just seeking the best word to use?

Good for you! Same here!

Well said.

Okay. yeah. that was long.

Yeah, wasn't it. Same as my response. Long but enjoyable. It's been a long time since I've taken part in such a conversation. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I thank you very much.