The Nature of the Soul

In many philosophical texts, the ‘soul’ is another way of talking about the ‘mind’ — it is what makes people rational, and what sets us apart from the animals.

However, philosophers debate whether anything like a soul/mind actually exists.

Here, we examine three different perspectives on the nature and existence of the soul.

René Descartes

René Descartes argues that people DO have souls.

He explains,

There is a great difference between the mind [i.e. soul] and the body. Every body is by its nature divisible, but the mind can’t be divided. (1641: 32)

He means that a person’s body can change without affecting their soul; and he argues that this shows, not only that the soul exists, but that it is different ‘substance’ from the body.

Gilbert Ryle

Gilbert Ryle argues that there is no such thing as a soul.

He explains,

It is perfectly proper to say, in one logical tone of voice, that there exist minds [i.e. souls] and to say, in another logical tone of voice, that there exist bodies. But these expressions do not indicate two different species of existence. (1949: 23)

He means that when we talk about something ‘having a soul / mind’, we are actually describing the way it behaves, NOT naming a substance within it.

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas argues that the soul does exist.

He explains,

One must claim that the principle of intellectual operations, which we call a man’s soul, is an incorporeal and subsistent principle. (ST I, q. 75, art. 2)

He argues that because the soul can perceive immaterial things, it must itself be immaterial, and immortal.

However, a human being consists of a soul AND a body, which is why people will eventually be resurrected into physical bodies.

References

Previous

Responding to Persecution

Next

Hajj