I've omitted the name of my interlocutor for the sake of his privacy:
Interlocutor: Atomism is
incoherent for a number of reasons, not least of which is the inability to know
what an atom is, or even that it is, if it is truly formless. Moreover, a multitude of atoms are simply a
nondescript collection without informative content unless multiple properties
(a type of form) of atoms and combinations of atoms produce ever more complex structures
(again a type of form) such that the whole becomes greater than simply the sum
of its parts.
Reply: If by "radical dualism," you mean Cartesian substance dualism, then I agree that radical dualism is not a suitable alternative for hylomorphism. Cartesian dualism particularly has a problem dealing with the mind-body problem. If anything Descartes unwittingly exacerbated the problem.
Interlocutor: Only hylomorphism, whereby a potentially knowable form is united to individuating matter, can bring immaterial (spiritual) and physical reality into a coherent relationship such that the immaterial knowing soul is understood as the form of an individual material human body. It is true that abstract concepts or ideas known by an immaterial soul require the mediation of physical senses and a physical brain in such manner that the brain’s mediating physical images become ‘that by which we know’ rather than ‘that which we know’, i.e. the actual form potentially abstractable from the existing material substance itself. Nonetheless, such ‘coding and decoding’ of physically accessible information should pose no difficulty for an immaterial intellect capable of abstract symbolic thinking through the use of analogy.
Reply: There are lots of presuppositions in Aristotle's theory that I question. However, please allow me to say for now that this whole question of a soul is one that should be explored further. But even if we accept Aristotle's theory of hylomorphism, Anthony Kenny and Joel Green have argued that his notion of the soul is amenable to physicalism or Aristotle's soul can be the appropriate subject of biological inquiry since he defines the soul as the principle of life. In other words, I would seriously question whether the soul that Aristotle posits is an immaterial soul. Maybe it is, but I am not sure about that point. In any event, I question the existence of an immaterial soul. So each thing you say about the soul interacting with the brain seems problematic to me. My sympathies rest with writers like Joseph LeDoux (The Synaptic Self) and Francis Crick (The Astonishing Hypothesis) or Antonio Damasio (Descartes' Error). I believe that neuroscience (generally speaking) provides a more satisfactory account of how our minds work: this approach, I would humbly submit, is superior to Platonism or Aristotelianism.
I have much to say, recently (last few years) I've leaned more and more to dialectical idealism (as developed by Hegel and Schelling) to make sense of these metaphysical issues, and second to that a kind of Augustinian neo-Platonism.
ReplyDeleteI do think the Thomist hylomorphic vies has problems, (i.e. if the soul is the form of the body, and we are taking an Aristotilean metaphysics, then the soul has no reality independent of the body, and you have to start moving away from strict hylomorphism).
As you know I think physicalism is a dead end, and I think neuroscience can't in principle understand the mind (any more than examining the chemichal structure of ink and the chemical structure of papar within a Jane Austin novel will teach you whether or not mr Darcy really loves Elizabeth).
But I actually (given my idealist sympathies) tend to think substance metaphysics is the wrong starting point all together.
Could say more but I'll spare everyone.
Brother Montero,
ReplyDeleteAs always, I appreciate your input. I've read all of your replies, but time does not allow me to address your statements directly, so I'm trying to blog some posts related to the issues you raise.
Keep in mind that I hold to Christian physicalism. Admittedly, there are many ways of understanding CP, but the bottom line is that I think humans are purely material or physical. I see no need to posit souls or a much-needed spirit that humans supposedly have. Compare Eccl 3:19-21.
I've had debates before regarding the example you give. In the case of physical books, there is no bookness or book apart from its material constituents and the organization of the material object thereof. As Kevin Vanhoozer writes, it seems at least possible that textual meaning depends on physical facts like the solidity of a table depends on molecularity.
Maybe neuroscience cannot fathom or comprehend the mind, but it might tell us how mental functions arise and occur.
In sure you know about the critiques of idealism too.
ReplyDeleteWith this discussion, I'm reminded of the Buddhist story about the chariot, which I sometimes reframe by using cars as an illustration.
The scriptures speak of the subhuman creatures as being "Nefesh" possessing "Ruach" and it is clear that they possess some capacity for learning in fact some have better memory and superior computational ability than humans. More interestingly they are capable of forming non-adaptive emotional bonds and derive pleasure from these bonds,even bonds of a cross species nature and not just with humans mind you,what I find most interesting is their capacity for play/frivolity engaging exertions for the fun of it and no other reason,very non-adaptive.clearly they are not mere meat machines. Yet few western philosophers seem to think that their possessing a reductive spirit soul is a necessary or even plausible explanation for these phenomena.
ReplyDeleteEcclesiastes 3:19
ReplyDeleteAccording to Ecclesiastes, life without God is meaningless. The author does not make a statement but ponders (thinks, observes, raises questions, and leaves open, verses 18 and 21). He does not speak of the post-mortem state of humans but rather about the similarity in the earthly fate of humans and animals, that eventually, all die (verse 19). Their bodies will turn to dust (verse 20), but as for the "ruach" of humans and animals, where it goes, he does not know (verse 21). Revelation happened in a progressive manner on many topics: for example, Abraham or Solomon could have known almost nothing about the soul/spirit and its fate, Jesus said much, and even more was given to the apostles. Therefore, in this matter, one cannot refer to Old Testament texts without considering the later, New Testament revelations. The translation: "the same spirit is in all of them" [Heb. ruach echad laqol] might be misleading to the modern reader because they might understand the concept of "spirit" differently than the biblical Hebrew does of ""ruach. However, some other translations are more accurate: "in all is the same breath of life". Returning to the arguments of Ecclesiastes chapter 3, the finiteness of biological existence can lead animals not, but humans to the fear of God, so that they live their earthly life differently through this realization.
Thus, the wise man here does not deny the immortality of the soul, because he deals not with the soul (in Hebrew, nefesh), but with the breath of life (in Hebrew, ruach). According to him, the soul goes to the joyless underworld after death (9:10), so it does not perish; however, death puts an end to organic life, and in this point, there is no difference between humans and animals. This partly reflects the same notion as Psalm 104 (verses 29-30), where God is portrayed as the one who sends out and withdraws the breath of life from all living beings. This breath of life is a comprehensive term for the organic life and its functions.
That this concerns only the fate of the body, and that Ecclesiastes did not want to deny the immortality of the soul, is clear from 12:7, where it explicitly teaches that the human spirit returns to God, who gave it.
Check this:
https://www.bible.ca/su-extinction-refuted.htm
https://shorturl.at/fmDEM
Ecclesiastes ch.9:5,6NKJV"For the living know that they will die;
ReplyDeleteBut the dead know nothing,
And they have no more reward,
For the memory of them is forgotten.
6Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished;
Nevermore will they have a share
In anything done under the sun."
So dead are not in a a sorrowful state their memories and emotions having perished with them. If it were matter of men's/angels' capabilities they would remain in that totally unconscious state indefinitely.
Nincsnevem, Eccl 3:19 teaches that man and animals (beasts) have the same eventuality and same ruach. So whatever the ruach is that returns to God, it's the same ruach that humans possess. You can't shift and say that men and animals have the same ruach but then use "spirit" for Eccl 12:7 in a way that ambiguates 3:19-22.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Eccl 9:10 does not state that souls go to Sheol. I see no mention of it there.
Ecclesiastes ch.9:10 KJV"10Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with THY might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither THOU goest." Note second person singular denoting the person/soul .
ReplyDeleteThanks aservant: I agree that a "soul" in the sense of a person/human breather goes to Sheol but I disagree with Nincsnevem about an immortal and immaterial (non-material) soul going to Sheol.
ReplyDelete@aservantofJEHOVAH
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is one of your favourite, much used (or rather abused) "one-liner", please read this:
https://justpaste.it/5qnzm
@Edgar Foster
Since the breath of life does NOT go to Sheol, but "to God", if there are many Bible verses according to which the "soul" goes to Sheol, then this soul cannot be the same as the breath of life.
Well look out for flying pigs everyone. I'm about to agree with a statement nincsnevem made.
DeleteHow can an immortal soul go to sheol?
ReplyDeleteit raises questions about other things.
"that Ecclesiastes did not want to deny the immortality of the soul, is clear from 12:7, where it explicitly teaches that the human spirit returns to God, who gave it." - SO Ecc can be used to support doctrine? well so can Proverbs
ReplyDeleteand does this eternity work 2 ways or one?
Aservant, many philosophers do posit immaterial aspects of animals, and in fact all living things, and a growing number posit something like consciousness to all reality (pansychism).
ReplyDeleteMy own view is that anything which has volition has a degree consciousness, anything which acts and interacts with the whold as a whole has a degree of consciousneess (so, plants, animals, and bacteria all have degrees of consciosness and all have spirit). Conscsiousness implies intentionality, subjectivity, ispeity, and the subject object relation, this is, in my view, what the biblical concept of "spirit" is getting at.
I think the Cartesian concept of animals as machines is wrongheaded, which is perhaps where you're getting the idea that philosophers don't posit souls for animals from, but Cartesian philosophy is by no means the majority today.
Spirit just is the principle of life, which I don't think can be made sense of without this principle being a metaphysical one. That being said, I think our existence as individual subjects is not identical with spirit, but with enbodied spirit, i.e. without enbodyment "I" as an individual subject, does not exist. (the same with animals, plants, ect.)
Of course this has nothing to do with the immortality of the soul or some soul substance which exhausts our identity as persons. A notion which is both unbiblical and philosophically problematic.
I was not speaking of soul in the sense of a self, but of a reductive spiritualism where said spirit is solely responsible for personhood/identity and can exist independently of the body, among theologians hard dualism seems dominant if not an outright majority . Have any polls been done on the issue?
ReplyDeleteIt is generally said that only humans have souls; however, animals and even plants have souls too. It would be more accurate to say: only humans have a rational or spiritual soul. The soul of animals or plants, on the other hand, is better referred to as a vegetative or animal life principle. Animals do not have reason or a rational soul. Some people are misled by the observation that animals sometimes exhibit remarkably purposeful behaviors. However, this can all be explained by the finesse of sensory perception and primarily by instinct, and all evidence suggests that animals do not possess independent reason. An animal cannot help itself even when only a very small inference and inventiveness are required, something that is not given with instinct and sensory recognition. If animals had reason, they would not fall into the same traps for millennia.
ReplyDeleteWe claim that a human being consists of body and soul. Not just any soul, like the animal soul, which is the carrier of sensory life, an inherent part of animal existence, and the highest form of life in matter, but as such, it also perishes with it. Instead, from a substance entirely different from the body, independent of it, immeasurably superior to it, and by its nature, master over matter. We assert that even if humans physically originated from animals, as humans, they cannot be fully explained merely from animals or matter. Instead, even then, God's distinct and highest order of creative activity was necessary for humans to come into existence, to appear on Earth.
The soul, the spirit, is the same as God, without His infinity. Hence, Scripture says that God created man in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Thus, we assert that in every human (in their body, which is essentially the same as animals), resides such a god-like being.
Since the soul cannot be seen, it also cannot be imagined. However, it can indeed be contemplated, and since it is the exact opposite of the body in everything, we understand its essence best by enumerating the properties of the body and thinking of the opposite of each (since we cannot imagine it).
We know the properties of the body from physics. The first is that it is impenetrable, meaning it occupies space. Therefore, two bodies cannot be in the same place at the same time; one must displace the other. This rule applies even to gaseous bodies, such as air, which can be compressed much more than solids.
The soul is the opposite: it is not impenetrable, does not occupy space, has no extension. It is where it operates. For example, God is present everywhere because everything is His creation. The spirits of Galvani, Volta, and Ampère would also be present everywhere electricity is used or generated, even if their names were not written on the machines.
Of course, the human spirit is not present in the same sense where its creations are found, like God, who is the creator, maker, and primal cause of everything that exists, including electricity. In contrast, the human spirit only discovered and utilized for its purposes what already existed in electricity and its laws, which was not part of our intellectual wealth because we did not notice its existence or acknowledge it until then.
The idea the animals are meat machines driven almost exclusively by instinct has been abandoned by mainstream biology.
DeleteFrom https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/how-intelligent-are-whales-and-dolphins/#:~:text=Dolphins%20demonstrate%20the%20ability%20to,%2C%20grief%2C%20joy%20and%20playfulness.,Dolphins demonstrate the ability to do all of these things and most scientists agree that dolphins are very intelligent. They are notoriously talented mimics and quick learners; they demonstrate self-awareness, problem-solving, and empathy, innovation, teaching skills, grief, joy and playfulness."
The child in the womb and for some years afterward would be on the same level mentally as a dolphin. Is this to be taken as evidence of the absence of a soul. If the soul were formally independent of and superior to the body their should be know correlation between the development of the body and the manifestation of the presence of a soul the the reality of such a clearly causal corelation the two falsifies the claims of hard duelists. if the death/ destruction of the body leaves consciousness unaffected, then nothing less than death should affect consciousness. Intoxication for example should be impossible.
That the soul is not impenetrable is also evident from the fact that it does not move or advance like the body, changing its place, and neither wall nor distance is an obstacle for it, but it is already there where it operates. That it does not occupy space is proven by our inability to say where in our body it resides, in which part, nowhere and everywhere. It permeates and animates like its product: the idea.
ReplyDeleteMaterial obstacles do not block the thought, the product of the soul, nor does distance. Thought needs no place, neither small nor large, and everyone knows that by thought, we do not mean something that needs a place and has to displace something else to penetrate somewhere. Sometimes it displaces another thought (but not from its place), and sometimes it occupies the soul simultaneously with another. How could thought be of such nature, utterly contrary to matter, if its owner, the soul, were of material nature?
A point is a geometric figure that has neither length, width, nor height. I cannot even imagine this (though I can conceive it), and indeed, it does not exist in the material reality. The point that I make on the board or on my paper, no matter how fine, always has length, width, and height; in fact, under a microscope, it appears directly as a graphite or chalk tip.
However, the point that my mind, thus my soul, deals with has no extension. But how could I think of such a thing, indeed, how could I occupy my soul with such things for hours, if I have no soul, but only a brain, which is matter and thus occupies space, has extension, and is impenetrable. That is why animals, which only have a brain but no soul, cannot think of such things.
The same goes for a line, which only has length but neither width nor height. This does not exist in the material reality either; I can only conceive it, not imagine it. But the fact that I can think of such a thing proves that the entity that conceives it in this way, thus the soul, is also like this, also does not belong to the material world, so its laws and forms of manifestation are completely different from those of matter.
The second property of matter is that it is inert. It cannot change its place by itself, nor can it operate on its own. The soul is the opposite in this regard. The soul is not inert. Naturally, this does not mean that it can change its place by itself, for as we have seen, it does not occupy space, but it means that it can operate on its own, think and will.
Thirdly: matter is unconscious. It does not know that it exists, is not aware of its existence, its strength, its deficiencies, or the surrounding things. The table does not know whether it is made of beech or oak wood, does not know whether it is round or square, what color it is, how big it is, what is on it, who sits beside it. But the animal also does not know about itself or its surroundings. The animal feels that it exists and sometimes feels better or worse, but it does not know that it exists. It is not aware of its strength or its deficiencies. Indeed, if it were aware, it would not tolerate, being an ox and thus aware of its immense strength, that a little snotty, ten-year-old child hits and beats it without reason. It would not graze all day in that worn-out meadow where it barely finds food, when directly next to the first one, there is a beautiful green alfalfa field from which, however, it is not allowed to eat, because the 10 or 12-year-old child guarding it does not permit it. Would that ox obediently accept this if it had self-awareness and knew how much stronger it is than the one guarding it?
ReplyDeleteWhy has it never occurred that, for example, the domestic animals of a farm decided they would no longer tolerate the tyranny of humans and, at a given signal, when their chains are unfastened and they are driven to the trough, they would overpower the only, moreover unarmed farmhand with them, and reclaim their freedom?
Because they do not even know that they are slaves, how strong they are, and how weak humans are. Nor does it pain them to be slaves since it is in the nature of the soul to be the master and to govern (which they do not have), and in the nature of matter to be governed, hence to serve.
True, animals sometimes do attack humans, but not because they have become self-aware, but because they have gone mad and thus lost even the little sense or guiding instinct they had. Indeed, at such times, they would charge not just at humans but also at cars and even trains, which clearly proves that they do not do what they do because they have become aware of their strength.
On the other hand, the property of the soul is not only to feel but also to know that it exists, to know what it is capable of and what it is not, to be aware of the surrounding things and their properties, and to act taking all these into account in its deeds. This property makes the soul, the spirit, the master of nature, the keeper and utilizer of animals a hundred times stronger, the discoverer of the forces of nature, the determiner of their laws, and by designing machines, the one who puts these forces into service for itself.
The animal possesses the highest degree of material existence, not only lives but also feels. However, it lacks self-awareness because it is not a soul, not a spirit, but merely the highest order manifestation of life in matter. Therefore, it is not the master of nature, but only a servant to its instincts, living its servile life within their confines.
The fourth property of matter is that it is divisible. It consists of parts. It has halves and quarters, parts can be taken from it and added to it. The soul, the spirit, is the opposite in this respect. It is indivisible, it has no parts. It is either entirely present or not at all. It has no halves, parts, or components.
ReplyDeleteWhen a person says, "I," this refers to the soul. I either exist or I do not. I cannot be halfway or in part. My body may grow or diminish, it has parts, but I know that with the growth of my body or with weight gain, my soul does not grow, does not become larger, does not diminish, and does not become smaller.
The growth of the soul (or rather its increase in value) lies in something entirely different. If one of my arms is amputated, I do not become lesser, only my body does. The products of matter are like matter itself, and thus they consist of parts and are divisible, whereas the products of the soul (such as thought or character) are like the soul itself: indivisible. A thought does not have a half, it has no parts, pieces, nor does character or honor.
Finally, among the properties of matter is that it is measurable. The soul, in this respect, is the opposite; it cannot be measured. No one has ever conceived of a soul that weighs ten kilos, stretches five meters, or holds six liters. Nor a thought that weighs in kilos, measures in meters, or fills liters. If the product, the thought, is of such nature, opposite to that of matter, then the producer, the soul, must be of the same nature.
But it is clear that neither the soul nor the thought has a shape or color. A round soul, a square thought, a red soul, a blue thought are absurdities. But from all this, it is clear that we are not just matter, since among the products of our operation are spiritual ones, we ourselves are also spirit, beyond matter.
aServant, among theologians perhaps, I'm not sure. But yeah, I reject the "spiritual" reduction, where the some incorporeal reality is solely responsible for the subjective self, as I do the materialist reduction. I think we have to think dialectically.
ReplyDeleteMy own position is that all finite beings must be (in some sense, not necessarily physically) corporeal, and that only God can be pure "spirit," i.e. infinite Life; which means infinite potency, infinite perception, and sublating the subject/object dichotomy, so God is by definition incorporeal, whereas creatures are by definition corporeal, so there can be no creaturely self, or subject, meaning finite self without the bounded and determinate center of perception or action which is the body.
Nincsnevem, what you’re saying about animals is incorrect, inventiveness and inference (to a limited degree) has been found in the “higher” animals, whether that means they have “reason,” is a different issue.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say the “spirit” is the same as God, I basically agree (with some necessary caveats), however this logically rules out the possibility of conscious selfhood existing beyond the destruction of the body, since the body is precisely what makes us “a” living being, distinct from infinite life.
Btw, this is precisely why God is NOT a soul, (yes the bible speaks of God’s soul, but I would say that’s the same as God speaking of his arm, or his hand, i.e. an anthropomorphism), because he is NOT ensouled as a living body, but he infinite spirit, infinite life.
Spirit just is NOT synonymous with soul, people are souls, and they have spirit, i.e. they are living, they have life, but they are creatrues.
I’m NOT advocating materialism here, I am just taking the metaphysics of the bible seriously, and yes the bible DOES have metaphysical content, of course we need to take into account larger metaphysical findings, but just as the bible makes scientific claims (the beginning of the universe, some anthropological claims, etc), but that does not rule out the use of independent scientific reasoning, the bible also makes metaphysical claims, which does not rule out independent metaphysical reasoning, so we don’t have to start with Aristotle, we can start with the bible, and only add Aristotle if we need too (or add anyone else, be it Hegel, Saul Kripke, Edmund Husserl, or whatever). The bible’s metaphysics is NOT aristotilean, it’s closer to Heraclides than it is the Parmenides, YHWH is a dynamic God, not an Aristotilean prime mover.
I agree, when I persons says “I” this refers to the soul, i.e. this person in front of you now, this living subjective self, experienced by you as a corporeal agent. The body changes, but so does the mental life of the subject, I mean this should problematize classical substance metaphysics from the get go; I don’t think there are “things” which undergo change ultimately, and more than “things” are processes and relations that are continuous and sustained, there is no “I” without a constant process, and subject object relation, there is no static “I” only the dynamic “I.”
@Roman
ReplyDeleteThe terms "spirit" and "soul" do not mean exactly the same thing, this is true, but there is not such a sharp difference between the two. Incidentally, we can also mention here that in the history of theological thought, the idea has also surfaced that according to the Word, we should distinguish not two, but three components in humans. Expressed in conventional terminology: instead of "dichotomy," we should read and teach "trichotomy" from the Bible. For in Scripture, in addition to the body and the soul, there is also mention of the spirit. Expressed in the language of the Old Testament, this results in the trio of "basar" - "nefesh" - "ruach," and in the language of the New Testament, the trio of "sarx" - "psyche" - "pneuma."
Obviously, the correctness of the "trichotomous" view hinges on demonstrating that, on the one hand, the words "nefesh" and "psyche," and on the other hand, "ruach" and "pneuma" are not simply synonyms, but bear significantly different meanings. Furthermore, this view assumes that Scripture has a uniform and precise terminology, which theology can simply adopt and follow. However, this assumption is generally not valid, and it particularly falls apart because the expressions used to signify the two non-physical components are often used as obvious synonyms in the language of Scripture. Generally, it can be said that when it comes to the human soul's orientation towards God, or turning away from God, then - at least in the New Testament - mainly the word "pneuma" is used, because God is also "pneuma" (John 4:24), and the same word is used to denote His Holy Spirit; however, when it comes to the human soul's functioning towards the body, then the term "psyche" is more commonly used, which otherwise often simply means "life," whether human or animal.
Only in two places in the New Testament is there a contrast between "psyche" and "pneuma" (or "psychic man" = "sensual man") and "pneumatic man" (= "spiritual man"), or "psychic body" (= "sensual body") and "pneumatic body" (= "spiritual body"). These two places are: 1 Cor. 2:14-15, and 13:44 and following.
However, this contrast can be easily resolved based on the aforementioned nuance in meaning and the context, without relying on it as a basis to build the doctrine of "trichotomism." Even less can the New Testament passages serve as a basis where "psyche" and "pneuma" are listed side by side, and this listing can be well understood in the sense of "hendiadys" (like "heart and soul"). These places (1 Thess. 5:29 - a classic argument of the trichotomists, - and Heb. 4:12. - both according to the original Greek text!) - are not in sections of a teaching nature such that their wording could have particular significance regarding the question at hand. - It must also be noted that the language of Scripture naturally has more synonyms for indicating the spiritual life of a person, such as "heart," "mind," etc.
"Trichotomy" seeped into theological thought from Greek philosophical anthropology (clearly visible in the Platonism of Origen), but it always only played a temporary role, and not having deep roots in the Word, it was unable to divert theological thought from the generally prevailing direction of "dichotomy.
It must be kept in mind that Scripture does not use words with scientific consistency. The same word can mean different things, and at other times, one thing can be expressed by multiple words. For example, the Hebrew "nefesh" often should not be translated as "soul" but as "living being" (therefore, when the death of the "nefesh" is mentioned, it is not a denial of the soul's immortality, as Jehovah's Witnesses think). There are cases when we are compelled to translate the Greek "psyche" as life and not soul.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, we should consider that the ancient Jewish perspective is not as analytical as we might assume in our technically dissective culture. It is more dynamic; it thinks in terms of functions rather than components. Indeed, the pneumatic and psychic functions of a human person really differ in reality. In the former, a person transcends themselves, opening up to God, while in the latter, they develop their own perceptive-feeling-rational-intuitive world. These can be distinguished without having to trace them back to two different components. The same principle of human life as psyche defines the body, as pneuma transcends it.
If Scripture sometimes appears to teach trichotomy, it is often just poetic parallelism, so that spirit = soul, spiritus = anima. Most often, however, in the spirit of Scripture's practical perspective and expression, it is simply a concrete (non-philosophical) expression of the various, religiously and morally significant, often opposing areas of spiritual life. Notably, in the Apostle Paul's writings, the higher aspect of a person turned towards God or the supernatural: the spiritual man; and the lower, sensual, disorderly drawn to creatures, purely natural side: the natural or bodily or earthly man.
The pneumatic and psychic denote two different qualities. For example: "It is sown a natural (psychic) body, it is raised a spiritual (pneumatic) body" (1 Cor 15:44). Or: "The natural (psychic) man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual (pneumatic) man judges all things" (1 Cor 2:14-15). In the earthly person, the psyche dominates, permeated by self-centeredness through the fall, and thus is condemned to death; but in those who have died and risen to new life with Christ, the human pneuma, open to the Spirit of God (Pneuma!), gradually gains dominion and will exercise complete control over the person's body after the resurrection. The biblical concept of pneumatic is therefore not identical to the philosophical concept of spirit but signifies more: openness to the Spirit of God, interpenetration with Him, receptivity to Him. Philosophy can only analyze the natural, whereas the scriptural pneumatic signifies the supernatural.
The function of distinction, which we so much need in spiritual life, is clearly a pneumatic, supernatural function. Therefore, it belongs among the supernatural gifts, charisms (1 Cor 12:10).
"The bible’s metaphysics is NOT aristotilean, it’s closer to Heraclides than it is the Parmenides, YHWH is a dynamic God, not an Aristotilean prime mover."
ReplyDeleteWhat are you basing this on? To the anthropomorphistic statements about God inthe Old Testament? Anthropomorphisms (from Greek anthrōpos, 'human' and morphē, 'form'): human images and expressions through which we express concepts of the transcendent God. Thus, anthropomorphisms are only mentioned where the religion truly aligns with a spiritual, transcendent God. The gods of primitive peoples and mythologies are magnified humans. This is most evident in Greco-Roman mythology, where the moral world of the gods does not surpass that of humans. The epistemological root of anthropomorphisms is that we can only approach God's transcendent world through our experiential world and can only speak of it using human expressions. The believer derives the right and limits of such expression from the notion that humans are made in the image of God. No serious exegete takes them literally.
When the Scripture (especially the Old Testament) speaks of God in terms of strong anthropomorphism, it does not intend to obscure His spirituality but rather acknowledges the psychological fact that for humans, who are deeply entrenched in the sensory world, it is extremely difficult to consistently conceive and maintain in consciousness a purely spiritual (image-less) concept of a purely spiritual being, especially for those without philosophical education, who are drawn to pictorial representation due to a need for concreteness. This is also indicated by the various names for spirit in different languages: πνεῦμα (pneuma, breath), spiritus; cf. spirit, wind, חַוּר, Geist (Jn 4:24; cf. Lc 24:39, 2 Cor 3:7, 1 Tim 6:16).
Since revelation does not teach philosophy but aims to foster religious life, the Scripture, as the supernatural cosmos of revelation, prioritizes moments that, with their vividness, liveliness, and immediacy, are suited to eliciting life-shaping religious effects. Profound, action-inspiring effects cannot be achieved through the abstract language of philosophy. Here, anthropomorphic depictions are inevitable and indispensable.
Similarly, the powerful anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms of Scripture, especially in the Old Testament (God showing anger, regret, etc., cf. Gen 6:6, Ps 106:40, Hos 1:6, etc.), must be measured and aligned with the fundamental truth of God's immutability. These are said not because of a similarity in emotions but because of the observable effects outwardly. Thus, "God regretted that He had made man" means: what God did in response to human corruption shows effects similar to when humans regret their actions. The Church Fathers explicitly defended God's immutability against the Arians, who distinguished the changeable Son from the unchangeable Father; against the Gnostics, who believed that God created the world of spirits through emanations from His own being; against the Stoicizing thinkers, who attributed emotions, passions, especially anger, to God; and finally against the Patripassians.
God's personality and active behavior can only be conveyed by likening Him to humans. A Bible, especially the Old Testament speaks of God's face, eyes, ears, hands, ways, and feet. These do not aim to depict God's form but rather the manner in which God impacts humans. The anthropomorphisms do not represent God Himself. The prophetic visions do not show His form but rather convey the effect He has on people. Semitic spirituality is not interested in the external form and limbs but rather in their function. For example, Isaiah 55:12 reads that the mountains sing and the trees clap their hands. When the prophetic literature speaks of God in human terms, it does not provide a visual image but aims to express His entire essence, personality, as each body part expresses activity and characteristics. God's personality is best illuminated by Him being the sovereign actor, the creator of the world, the director of history, and humans being in His image by having dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26-28). Images that detail His activities bring God's personality even closer: He sees, hears, speaks, laughs, gets angry, reconciles. Human behavior can only be a tool for comparison because behind it lies the spiritual consciousness, the personality. Animal representations cannot be applied to Yahweh. The Old Testament does not forget that there is an infinite distance between God and humans (Gen 18:17; Ex 3:5; Isa 28:29). The prophets adopted the anthropomorphisms because they saw no danger in them concerning the concept of God. Only theological reflection and the guidance of the people's thought led later Greek and Aramaic translators to somewhat mitigate expressions that could endanger the pure transcendence. Looking back from the New Testament, we can also see in the anthropomorphisms a preparation for the incarnation.
ReplyDeleteIn evaluating the epistemological and theological value of anthropomorphisms, we must understand that all our concepts are uniquely human, hence accompanied by a perceptible image, as all our knowledge is PERCEPTION, that is, human vision. And since God's OWN IMAGE is missing, we concretize His impact and characteristics in created images. But we also know that even the most abstract concepts or images cannot be directly transferred to God, as these concepts also contain a synthesis of image-like elements and the transcendent intuition of the spirit. Thus, every concept hides an aspect that points to God being entirely different. The use of images is based on the metaphysical analogy (analogia entis) that exists between the Creator and the created world. The images convey that we know the unfathomable, that the infinitely distant is here, and we get some impression of His absolute personality, spirituality, and freedom. Therefore, contrary to negative theology and dialectical theology, we can rightfully make positive statements about God's existence. Human concepts, due to their spatial and temporal constraints, are always linked to historical experience. The metaphysical concept of God was formed in this way. Therefore, the experience of salvation history indeed fills the metaphysical concept with essential features, not merely conveying symbols (Jaspers: chiffre) or mythic images (Bultmann). Thus, in explaining anthropomorphisms, one must always consider God's absolute spirituality, infinity, immutability, omnipresence, and sovereignty. For example, when it is said that He gets angry and reconciles, it is not He who changes, but we project into it the change in our relationship to Him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhere's my edit button?
DeleteSorry, bro, does Blogger have one? ☺
ReplyDeleteI agree that terms can have different concepts over scripture, for example Paul’s concept of pneuma was likely influenced by Stoicism/middle-Platonism in a way that none of the Hebrew Bible was. I also realize that “spirit” can also refer to spiritual beings, i.e. non-physical. Paul’s talk of the pneumatic body was not just a way of talking about one’s disposition, I think he’s literally drawing on a variety of metaphysical concepts to talk about the resurrection of a different form of corporeal existence. Anyway, I understand that the words in scripture are used differently in different contexts.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I’m not arguing for a trichotomy, i.e. a substance triism (like substance dualism+spirit), I’m arguing for a different kind of metaphysics, there is the body which becomes a soul when enspirited, and spirit which is the life of a body, making it a soul, these are not three substances.
I’m basing it on various studies on the metaphysics of the bible (see Yoram Hazoney’s chapter “Truth and Being” in his philosophy of Hebrew scripture). I’m NOT talking about anthropomorphisms, nor am I denying transcendence, I’m talking about the actual metaphysical claims of the Bible, Exodus 3:14, 6:3, Revelation 1:8, and so on and so forth. God in the bible IS transcendent, is not like the God’s of the nations (not just some big powerful creature), he is all the omnis, and the ground of all being, but he is a dynamic God who relates to creatures in a dialectical way.
A “Either Thomistic Simplicity or anthropomorphic big man in the sky” dichotomy is a false one.
The point I’m saying is that there ARE metaphysical claims in the bible, and yes, perhaps the writers were not from the Greek Academy (although certainly Paul, the author of Hebrews, and John showed sophistication in Greek philosophy), but that does not mean that they NEVER did philosophy or didn’t make metaphysical claims. For example creation ex-nihilo IS a metaphysical claim which was made independently of Greek philosophy in the bible (I know not everyone agrees that creation ex-nihilo is in the bible, but it is :P):
For example, JWs identify spirit with energy. But from the theological-philosophical point of view, energy is also matter, it is not the same as the concept of "matter" in physics, here it is all matter that can be quantified.
ReplyDeleteYou do know the difference between Potential energy and kinetic/actual energy don't you?
DeleteI'd say that the "identification" with energy is at best an analogy, and perhaps even metaphorical. It's clearly not physical energy, (i.e. what physisists talk about), but it is energy in the sense of an active force, perhaps something ἐνέργεια in Greek.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "theological-philosophical point of view" which one do you have in mind?
Where Ninc - please cite a source for this claim
ReplyDeleteI was a little confused by Ninc's statement too. Witnesses seem to distinguish between the energy that appears in Einstein's formula versus the energy that comes through the holy spirit which motivates us to preach or teach.
ReplyDeleteI was not referring to the "holy spirit as power" proposition now, but to the fact that God himself is said to consist of "energy" and is "made" from "energy".
ReplyDeleteWhat Witness publication says that God consists of/is made from energy?
ReplyDeleteConsidering Ninc cites publications when it suits- I think this claim is made up
ReplyDeleteI know the Holy Spirit is conpares to energy ( electricity maybe) in how it works - but that’s far from calling it energy
Witnesses have never identified God as such , there is an argument to be made about what a spirit is made of, but Witnesses have never addressed such a thing.