Philosophy Shows You Have an Immortal Soul (Aquinas 101)

[@Verhoefswords]

Thank you, Father! I'm not Catholic but you're helping me pass my Medieval philosophy class!

[@antoniomoyal]

Come home!

[@annepauline5241]

Come Home! You're most welcome in The Arms of The Catholic Church!

[@antoniomoyal]

@@annepauline5241 which is to say the body of Christ

[@displaychicken]

You’re not Catholic... yet...

[@janusg8680]

I always loved monks and the Middle Ages as a Protestant. Now I can appreciate Aquinas even more as I now am a Catholic. I thank God for that almost every day. May God bless and guide you.

[@aiantenor9080]

Learned something new today. The difference of the soul and spirit in us and how we are different from animals and plant souls. I think not taking care of my soul may be one of the reasons why my body is in pain.

[@aiantenor9080]

Thank you Fr Brent for that clear and concise explanation.

[@Cleisthenes2]

This is why Aristotle says a dead person's hand is a hand only by a kind of analogy

[@byron8657]

Now I know that spirit is the rational soul and we have different spirit with the angels because our soul is in the body it has a form! Thanks Father more of this simple enlightening explanation! More Power Godspeed! K

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

That was not rational.

[@jerometaperman7102]

Enlightening? That was one huge load of doubletalk. 🙄

[@nameless-yd6ko]

You "know" no such things! You might have been infected with evidenceless beliefs, but knowledge = experience.

[@AnciAlatir]

This is hugely relevant when we think about how the human mind is different and superiort to A.I.

[@SacredReason]

GLORY BE TO THE FATHER, TO THE SON, AND TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD ALMIGHTY. HALLELUJAH. AMEN.

[@julialopes5054]

The relationship between body and soul can even explain sickness as a consequence of disordered soul activity, since it’s the one that controls the body

[@chriscarty2308]

yeah thats if you completely ignore science.

[@jon6car]

@@chriscarty2308 edgy

[@YSLRD]

@@chriscarty2308 Ah, St. Science. A true scientist sees the magnitude of what he DOESN'T know.

[@penugemgamer341]

@@YSLRD Exactly what religion has never been able to do...

[@oscarcastell8164]

@@chriscarty2308 diferent topics Open your mind bro!

[@magdalenacuevas816]

Great videos! May God continue to bless the Thomistic Institute. Now is up to us to pass them on.

[@L1011MD11]

Thank God for Saints Dominic and Thomas Aquinas and all the Dominicans who through their study and contemplation of the Divine truth are able to reach out to the laity so we can also able to understand and to know more about our Triune God so we can love more and glorify God.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

St. Thomas Aquinas, Pray for us!

[@L1011MD11]

@@ThomisticInstitute For this Lent, I should be binge watching Thomistic Institute YT videos instead of Netflix and other secular entertainment.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@L1011MD11 Amen. [Alleluia].

[@warren279]

@lary Snw There’s a difference between the dead and saints.

[@tan1591]

Yet none of this is taught or thought of in the original traditions of Jesus and the apostles.

[@QuTeBug]

I thought I had a proper understanding of our "soul' now my head is spinning 🤯

[@jenniferCastellano927]

This is going to sound like dumb question but of our senses and perceptions are all related to organs then after death are we just completely deaf and blind until the resurrection? Will we be floating around in quiet nothingness without having senses. Or would we be able to perceive the spiritual world around us via spiritual senses? And if the angels are pure spirit without any bodies how are they able to watch over us and such? Are they deaf and blind too?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

That's not a dumb question. It's a very perceptive one. At death, the human person suffers the separation of body and soul. With the loss of the body, one loses the normal functioning of those powers that are seated in and circumscribed by bodily organs--that's everything except for intellect and will. So, in one sense, yes, after death we are deaf and blind. But in another we are not. Since intellect and will perdure, we can still think and choose which affords a vision and hearing of a sort. We still know and love what God gives us to know and love based upon our experience of life prior to death and our anticipation of things to come. In general, this shouldn't disturb us too terribly since God can neither be seen or heard and yet he can be known and loved. These powers are infinitely more substantial and constitutive of us as human persons. As for the angels, God gives them to know and love what pertains to their contemplation and ministration. So, they know us to that extent that they need to know us for the execution of God's purpose. They can also exercise influence in time and space according to said knowledge. So, here again, we needn't worry about sense deprivation. They are able to watch over us in a far thicker way than by mere eyes and ears.

[@_________________________7050]

@@ThomisticInstitute What a comforting answer, thankyou

[@donnaberube5480]

@@ThomisticInstitute Jesus can be heard....He is God

[@abcdidgh879]

Rebirth. As soon as you die.

[@butterflybeatles]

@@abcdidgh879 You die moment by moment. You are also re-born moment by moment.

[@grmalinda6251]

Soul is that part of us that seeks truth, beauty and goodness. No other creatures have this ability To my way of thinking.

[@lifeisbeautiful-nerin]

Wow...I struggled explaining what a soul is to my 6 year old daughter today. Thanks for this !!!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

[@st.mephisto8564]

Don't explain such an abstract and subtle concept to a 6 yr old

[@chocolateneko9912]

​@@electrical_cord Aesop's fables prove that you can give great wisdom to a child while doing the same to the adult without boring either. ☦️

[@electrical_cord]

@@chocolateneko9912 Can confirm. I read those all the time growing up.

[@chocolateneko9912]

@@electrical_cord I love Aesop's fables, the fox and the goose one is really good. "never trust flatterers"

[@lauzeladasse]

All this is a gif to me, God all bless you and your excellent Work, you teach so clear Father.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

It's our pleasure!

[@claymcdermott718]

It’s a gif to you, but it’s like a whole KZbin video to me. There must be something off with your computer. Haha

[@lauzeladasse]

@@claymcdermott718 right friend, hahaha, "Errare humanum est" thank you for your help, I'm not a native speaker, therefore I did my best effort. But I got the gift from you and also the TI. God Bless you.

[@robertvann7349]

@@ThomisticInstitute Your wrong, read my post and Debunk.

[@maryjohnstone4777]

So lovely to watch these videos,thanks for this wonderful one ,so easily explained almost to keep up with !. Comforting too,in thinking about a loved one who has died.R.i.p.

[@mrman5066]

Oooohh this is interesting. This explains why we're able to try to comprehend & describe things like the 4th dimension or non-Euclidean geometry, even though we can never experience / sense them!

[@porkc78nj19]

before St.Thomas Aquinas, what did we believe about the soul?

[@mauijttewaal]

Before Aquinas "we" didn't exist;)

[@akostarkanyi825]

I think it is the notion of information that is very near to this kind of definition of the soul. Information is in DNA (organizing the body) and in such thought processes as knowing and loving. But what is information? Even scientists and contmporary philosophers cannot agree on it but they still use it as a natural basic notion. I think that it is quite similar to the notion of soul - being an essential organizing factor of the material world and still seemingly being somehow independent of it or "above" it. This latter problem is connected to the one of whether mathematics is something existing in a "Platonian" world of ideals (an idea Roger Penrose supports, among others) or just a practical artifact of material processes of this world.

[@coralbricks]

Very insightful observation.

[@pbmbuss]

Does the discovery of the DNA and the mechanisms of biochemistry and development biology somehow undermine this classical notion of the soul as the form of the body? Also, supposedly the higher functions of the soul - the rational part - could be related to the brain and the neo-frontal cortex. Do this new knowledge undermine or require a reconceptualization of the idea of the soul if we are to resist or avoid biological reductionism? Thank you

[@ertegi64366]

origin of beeing self consciousness is a real threat to materialism. neurological structure of organisms looks like complicated networks which process enviromental data and act accordingly. but there is no reason or for self consciousness. sure there is a correlation but yeah.

[@ertegi64366]

like we know all the events happening inside a neuron while humans activly thinking. but it is just corrolated always developing patterns of electrolytes across membranes really. self sensation and experience is biggest mystery of our time for sure.

[@omegaxx7777]

@@ertegi64366es we don’t fully understand it. I don’t see any reason to believe there’s anything more than a material brain, however; or if there is, it’s merely an emergent property of a human mind.

[@Susan-vk6rj]

Très bon message. Mon père, je vous en remercie. J'ai réellement tout à apprendre sur ces explications dites catholiques, mais de ce que j'entends, cela me paraît très beau, très juste, et aussi très bon. Je viens de m'abonner à cette chaîne. Merci encore.

[@suntzu7727]

Can you make a video on the Thomistic understanding of Free Will and perhaps respond to arguments against it?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Here you go: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYKYgWOha7WqmJY

[@annepauline5241]

@@ThomisticInstitute Father, can you (or have you) done a video about Heaven after the final Judgement? (I really think it would be us walking around with Jesus in a beautiful Kingdom. St. Thomas Aquinas said that in Heaven our bodies can fly as it is subject to the soul, are my thoughts similar to The Infallible Teachings of The Church?) Also somewhere in Scripture, we're told about "The New Heaven and NEW EARTH". So, does that mean no eternal happiness for us, but we have to come back to earth? May The Immaculate Heart be your Refuge!

[@AnglandAlamehnaSwedish]

I died and came back before brain death n experienced many things with animals n ppl n no one had to open their mouths to speak n it was a continuous joy increase by flash seconds being greater n greater n I believe I have more authority to speak a out the soul than many others who are faithful to Christ

[@jberninzon]

Excellent teachings if you can provide this knowledge in different languages like Spanish or Portugues. The Christianity world will be appreciate it very much with substitutes. Thanks and God bless you

[@terencemonteiro]

Portuguese subtitles are available if you click settings (gear)

[@gavynabshire182]

I’m not catholic, but it was a joy to watch you work, Father

[@kirolotfy2687]

Thank you father I need this because I grew up with a concept of soul that didn't identify at all with consciousness or mind. It caused me great confusion when I heard all of these ideas about consciousness or the weirdest of them all cosmic consciousness.

[@D3nchanter]

don't worry, to a rational person, this doesn't make sense.

[@crusaderACR]

​@@D3nchanterCosmic consciousness and to speak of consciousness as something separate is indeed non-sensical. I've been studying about Buddhism and Hinduism and I see this as a strong sign of the incompleteness of their philosophy. They've perceived the same things as us, but they interpreted it wrong. I have a book to recommend, if you're interested. It connects these Dharmic ideas and conclusions and makes it patent. I forget the name though so tell me if you want it before I dig it up.

[@andrewheakes244]

​@@crusaderACRcould you tell me the title of this book? I came in to spirituality though the teaching of the east. I found my way to Catholicism but I have found myself wondering about the difference of my understandings.

[@barrywilson4276]

As a former undergraduate philosophy major. Philosophy doesn't show or prove. Philosophy speculates rationally. There will always be a future thinker to challenge and that's expected.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

Aquinas and his cult are woefully challenged in the area of critical thought and science!

[@coralbricks]

Ever heard of a demonstration?

[@nameless-yd6ko]

@@coralbricks Yeah, young hippies carry signs and walk around in circles? Don't stress, just look it up! ;)

[@coralbricks]

@@nameless-yd6ko Shows you don't know what demonstration means in philosophy.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

@@coralbricks What I know is that you don't. Why don't you demonstrate your intellect and just get to your point? Teach us oh wise one?! Educate us all on what a 'demonstration' is "in philosophy"! I obviously just thought that philosophy was just words, concepts, critical thought, which is all that philosophy "demonstrates". Feel free to demonstrate my ignorance!

[@Revelation18-4]

The Spirit/Ruach/ Nephesh makes our heart beat. Genesis 2:7

[@bigbrownhouse6999]

These videos are like when you realize that salad can taste good

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Certainly one of the most striking compliments we've received. Thanks for watching!

[@HG-ic8ks]

“You shall surely not die”

[@justynaharasimczuk9251]

Thank you! Could you provide some reliable literature on these "aspects" of the human person, which are: body, soul, and spirit? How does this compare to the Greek distinction of soma, psyche and pneuma. How this idea developed until today. I really need to understand where psychology can be placed in this pattern (as modern science). Please, please help me.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Justyna, take a look at the next two videos (Body and Soul, Powers of the Soul - A Closer Look), which drop today and Wednesday. They should answer most of your questions. If not, follow up!

[@andrewmccullough559]

@lary Snw Can you clarify what you mean when you say that “body and soul are one in the same”? ‘One and the same’ usually refers to different names for the same thing: Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same person, numerically identical. They are not two persons, but one person considered under two aspects - his personal name and his superhero persona, or alter ego. 3+3 is one and the same with 1+5 - considered in terms of the resultant quantity, both are identically equal to 6. You can consider a sum also as a path of aggregation, or way of arriving at a quantity, in which case they are not one and the same - it is a different thing for you to bring three apples to the picnic and I bring three, than it is for you to bring one and I bring five. ‘One and the same’ usually does not refer to distinct parts of a whole, as constitutive components, as if I could say that the brain and the pancreas are one and the same because they are both organs of the human body. They are organs supporting one and the same life, but it does not make them identical, or absolutely and simply the same, as if it would be of little consequence for the doctor, by mistake, to remove your brain instead of your pancreas. In what sense are body and soul one and the same? Are they inseparable, like the two sides of a coin? Are you saying that they are co-constitutive of man, either as parts to a whole, or as semi-wholistic in their own right but essentially and inseparably united? Something else? You say that we are a soul, not that we have a soul. Would you say the same for any part of a whole, like the pancreas - not that you have a pancreas, or that together with other organs and systems it constitutes you, but that you are a pancreas? Would you say of a U.S. quarter-dollar that it is a heads or is a tails, not in the way it lands after a flip but in its very essence, considered in itself? What distinction, then, are you willing to make between body and soul? If I am a soul, not a body-soul composite, then is my body extraneous to what I am? Is the body an illusion or apparition of the soul? If they are identical, or two names for one and the same thing, is the “dust of the earth” the same as the “breath” which comes from God and goes into the nostrils? Is the body the same as the thing which comes from outside the body and goes into it? Is a corpse, instead of a body without a soul, rather a dead body and therefore a dead soul? When Jesus says in Matthew 10:28, “do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,” is he telling us to not be afraid of something, and to be afraid of that very thing, as if I were to point to a bear and say “do not be afraid of that bear; instead, be afraid of that bear”? Is he saying that the thing which man has no power over (soul), and the thing which man has power over (body), are in fact identical? He is saying exactly what he seems to be saying: body and soul, though joined into one composite thing called a human person, are not strictly identical, even though they coordinate in and constitute one and the same individual man. Bodies are destroyed every day by the direct action of man, and this causes death, which is the separation of soul from body - and this is an unnatural state. But the soul is not destroyed. When it is said in Ezekiel that the “soul who sins … will die,” this is consistent with the view than man is a composition of body and soul. The soul is more primary in man, or has more dignity, because it is the image of God and not the ‘dust of the earth’ in him (the dust is not evil, but it is lower than the image of God). In other words, what Ezekiel is saying is that people will die, and he’s doing it in a way that we do all the time: he’s referring to a complex thing, having body and soul, according to what is most dignified in that thing and most constitutive of it (the soul) - man’s soul is most properly where the sin is said to reside, and without the soul man would be like the beasts, incapable of sin. Ezekiel is not intending here to indicate something about the soul as such - is it tangential to his purpose. Jesus, on the other hand, says explicitly that man cannot kill the soul. If Jesus is not saying this, he is contradicting himself and speaking like a crazy person. Ezekiel can be read as saying nothing about the soul itself being annihilated, without requiring that Ezekiel be contradicting himself or speaking nonsense. It’s true that the soul is not invincible, or (like God) incapable of being destroyed. Rather, it cannot be destroyed by man, whereas the body can. God can destroy the soul because the soul is created, by God, which means that it received its existence from Him, who sustains it in being and remains absolutely sovereign over it.

[@andrewmccullough559]

@lary Snw The sense of Genesis 2:7 is that man became a living being from God - God gives man his life. And what makes man alive? His soul, so that without the soul he becomes a corpse, or the body of a man, but he is not a man. The question of the immortality of that soul is, in a way, separate - for example, I could concede that the soul dies with the man, or the man dies because the soul dies. In other words, my view is more about the distinction between body and soul, and their relation, not about the immortality of the soul. What did you mean when you said that "body and soul are one and the same"? Two names for the same thing?

[@andrewmccullough559]

@lary Snw "One and the same," as in inseparable?

[@akostarkanyi825]

I have heard from a Catholic theologian that psyche means the soul when it turns to the natural world (of the body) - thus, when it is focused "downwards" - and pneuma means the same soul when it turns to the transcendent world of God - thus when it is focused "upwards". Psyche means the natural side, endeavours of the soul, pneuma means the supernatural ones. The basic vocation of human beings - given from God - is that the pneuma (the "upward aspect and activity of the soul") enlighten, penetrate and rule the psyche so that divinity appear in this world through our psyche, in and around us. In short, we must live in prayer and faith.

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

I adore your videos I am not catholic but I just love medieval scholasticism and theology. I greatly respect catholics and I am a Baptist so that is saying alot its not very common for low church denominations to be interested in medieval theology but that should change keep up the great work.

[@ibndee9187]

well. thanks for the presentation. "

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure!

[@StuJones-gn7te]

This concept is present in ancient pagan religion and thought, yet somehow completely absent from the Bible. So, where did Catholicism get it? Same place as the title "Pontifex Maximus?"

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Finally I needed this. I would ask however a point about Animals. If the Principle of the Rational Soul is the Universals (for knowing) then why do Dogs have it Edit:"(I used Dogs as an example but I am not writing that other animals do not do the following.)". Dogs are able to sense similarities between different things compared to a universal because how then can it recognise it's own species and then proceed to reproduction. I hope you can answer. Thank You.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

By the way I am unable to interact with comments so please do it again. Sorry.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@johnnotrealname8168 So, the type of universal knowledge described is proper to a rational soul which can abstract forms, make judgments thereupon, and reason out the implications. Rationality is associated (for Aristotle and St. Thomas) with immateriality and there immortality. That's the basic argument. As for animal souls, we needn't be shocked that they exhibit behaviors resembling that of man (since the lower creation at its ceiling touches the higher order at its floor, according to Pseudo-Dionysius). St. Thomas, though, would attribute this to the exercise of the estimative sense, which functions in animals as a kind of "reason." Prof. Mark Barker has written very excellently and compelling about this theme if you care to read more.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thank You very much for this explanation. It has cleared up many misconceptions. I am doing an EPQ (Extended Project Qualification and the topic is Virtues and Films. In it I intend to determine the competency of certain films in showing the Cardinal Virtues. I am using the Summa Theologica and Father Joseph Rickaby S.J. as my two primary resources. The main issues I have is understanding the various allusions to the Passions, Will and nature of the Virtues. Is it okay if you send me any useful links or explanations. Sorry and Thank You once again.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@johnnotrealname8168 You can start with these videos: 1. On Powers of the Souls - kzbin.info/www/bejne/iGPCpWqkjJuAkLM | 2. On Habits - kzbin.info/www/bejne/e6fMpKuvbrGlppo | We also have videos coming out in a couple of weeks on beatitude, human action, the fonts of morality, two on passions, one on habits, and one on virtue. Stay tuned!

[@MarkNeyer]

The “spiritual operations of the soul” as described here seem to line up with what a number of eastern religions call “awareness”. Texts like “Tantra Illuminated” by Christopher D Wallis outline a model that looks incredible similar to the thomistic model of body, emotion, intellect, mind, will, and heart. The overlap between these two suggests to me that, being independently developed in different places, these models are likely to be decent approximations of the truth.

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

Can you guys make a video about Aquinas understanding of universals? I've heard that he is supposed to be a conceptualist which is supposed to be a position between realism and nominalism. But I'm not quite sure I understand conceptualism. .. thank you all for all your work. God Bless!

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

Or maybe a video on resurrection!! that would be awesome!! thanks

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@kelvinvillegas5310 The video on universals is out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jF66qaZteLmCm80 . . . the one on the resurrection is coming, but it'll be a few months.

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you!!!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@kelvinvillegas5310 Of course!

[@byron8657]

As St Paul said on his Epistles I qoute Vain is our Faith if there’s no resurrection of the dead, to rephrase it Vain is our Faith if the soul spirit is not immortal! K

[@998azaz]

Amazing. I wish you talked about love after intellect. I might have missed the point but again, why not appropriate abstract knowledge (intellect) to the brain (bodily organ)?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

The basis of the argument is that the intellect can consider not just this and that instance of a thing, but the thing as a universal. So, for instance, we don't just consider this or that triangle, but triangularity. Now, in order for this to be the case, we have to be able to hold the form of triangularity in our intellect. Aristotle will go so far as to say that the mind becomes the triangle. Now, if the mind were something material, like the brain, then it couldn't host all the kinds of different things that it does. And yet, it can, so, he argues the nature of the intellect (specifically the possible intellect) is to be immaterial, and specifically to be potentially all things. Thus, it cannot be one concrete material thing, but rather is immaterial. A similar logic is at work in another argument you'll hear from the De Anima called the bias argument. Again, if the intellect were material, it would be limited to knowing only in one way or the other; it would be biased. Aristotle draws a parallel with the eye. The eye, he says, is potentially all colors. If the eye were colored red, then it couldn't perceive the whole visible spectrum, since certain hues wouldn't show up on the radar (couldn't detect red, purple would look like blue, etcetera). He extends this logic then to the intellect. If the intellect were this or that thing, then our perception of reality would be biased such that we couldn't perceive the whole range of intelligible options. And yet, he continues, we can. Thus, the soul is immaterial. This is not inconsistent with saying that it operates through a corporeal organ, which it does (the brain). But, we want to say that it's functioning is not wholly circumscribed by the functioning of a corporeal organ. It's range extends beyond the brain. Thus, it endures with the death of the body. Here's an article by Tim Staples (strangenotions.com/seven-proofs-for-the-natural-immortality-of-the-human-soul/) which breaks down some arguments for the immateriality of the soul, citing St. Thomas. It's a good resource.

[@998azaz]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you so much! Will surely ponder this.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@998azaz Cheers!

[@clemensvanlier1151]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thanks for the answer and the article. I notice I have the same hesitation as Elie Andraos. With love and will however it seems more clearly to me: there's obviously no organ that facilitates 'loving', or even the will in general, which is the 'seat' of love. People often refer to the heart when they talk about love, but I think it's obvious that the organ of the heart doesn't facilitate love. But, when people talk about the heart in this case, they might, maybe unconsciously refer to the 'heart of the human person', his core, his centre. Which would be, in a certain sense referring to the human soul; and also referring to the fact that 'loving' is the core activity of the human being.

[@scripturalknowledge8835]

The Subject of the Immortal Soul - A Bible Examination - worth a view

[@1960taylor]

My dog demonstrates more intelligence and reason than most people I encounter.

[@basedzealot3680]

Replace the word intelligence with rationality. That’s what he means.

[@1960taylor]

@@basedzealot3680 that too..most people I know are not rational

[@basedzealot3680]

@@1960taylor it’s not that they aren’t rational, they just don’t use their rationality. Animal don’t have the capacity of rationality

[@marcokite]

your dog does not have any 'intelligence' or 'reason' in the way humans and angels do, the dog has instinct and can 'reason' (work things out) in a very limited way.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Wikipedia: "In many religious and philosophical traditions, there is a belief of "an immaterial aspect or essence of a living being", generally applied to humans, called the soul. In lay terms the soul is the spiritual essence of a person, which includes our identity, personality, and memories that is believed to be able to survive our physical death." I am afraid your personal identity does not survive the death of the body regardless of what people may believe." My idea of a soul is the energy field that contracts into galaxies, clouds and living organisms and then expands into formless space. The so called individual is an energetic pattern that forms briefly as a body and then dissipates.

[@zakbrownrigg1]

Im not sure I follow the logic of how knowing about universals is spiritual and not just the function of intellect as made possible by the brain.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

The basis of the argument is that the intellect can consider not just this and that instance of a thing, but the thing as a universal. So, for instance, we don't just consider this or that triangle, but triangularity. Now, in order for this to be the case, we have to be able to hold the form of triangularity in our intellect. Aristotle will go so far as to say that the mind becomes the triangle. Now, if the mind were something material, like the brain, then it couldn't host all the kinds of different things that it does. And yet, it can, so, he argues the nature of the intellect (specifically the possible intellect) is to be immaterial, and specifically to be potentially all things. Thus, it cannot be one concrete material thing, but rather is immaterial. A similar logic is at work in another argument you'll hear from the De Anima called the bias argument. Again, if the intellect were material, it would be limited to knowing only in one way or the other; it would be biased. Aristotle draws a parallel with the eye. The eye, he says, is potentially all colors. If the eye were colored red, then it couldn't perceive the whole visible spectrum, since certain hues wouldn't show up on the radar (couldn't detect red, purple would look like blue, etcetera). He extends this logic then to the intellect. If the intellect were this or that thing, then our perception of reality would be biased such that we couldn't perceive the whole range of intelligible options. And yet, he continues, we can. Thus, the soul is immaterial. This is not inconsistent with saying that it operates through a corporeal organ, which it does (the brain). But, we want to say that it's functioning is not wholly circumscribed by the functioning of a corporeal organ. It's range extends beyond the brain. Thus, it endures with the death of the body. Here's an article by Tim Staples (@t which breaks down some arguments for the immateriality of the soul, citing St. Thomas. It's a good resource.

[@justinbristow5838]

​@@ThomisticInstitute Do you, with Aquinas, want to say that the soul's 'functioning is not wholly circumscribed by [or with?] the functioning of a corporeal organ [brain and body]' for the primarily purpose of defending the immortality of the soul and its possible ontic status as distinct from the body? If the soul (or mind, spirit, immaterial aspect of a person) is not essentially bound up with the body, what is significant or new about Christ's resurrection from death and, as a corollary, the eschatological hope in universal resurrection, if souls are by nature already immortal and/or survive death anyway? Is it simply that the disembodied soul can now be reunified with and reannimate the body?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@justinbristow5838 The main reason for advancing the first claim, according to Aristotle and Aquinas, is that it is a reasonable conclusion from observable natural and epistemic phenomena (e.g. knowledge of universals). But that the soul is separable and subsistent should not distract from the fact that it is a truly informing form or a constituent part in the one thing which is a human person. The resurrection shows 1) the victory of God, 2) the righteousness of God's only begotten Son in human flesh, and 3) our destiny to live fully alive (body and soul) at the end of the age in the general resurrection. Does that get at your concern?

[@mauijttewaal]

So you're saying that a robot that from a material viewpoint is indistinguishable from an animal could never function because it doesn't have a soul? I highly doubt that.

[@Galbex21]

Im not coinvinced with the point of animals not being "rational". Just because it dosent seem to us that they are rational, that dosent mean they lack rationality. And then there is also evolution, so at what point or generation an animal soul becomes a rational soul? This is stupid if you think about it. It lacks an appreciation of animal knowledge and biology. Btw Im not trying to argue against anything else of the video. Just the point about animals and plants ir really basic. Besides what about the other Kingdoms in nature that are neithe plan or animal? Aquinas obviously doesn't know, so his theory is completely incomplete. LOL

[@andrewmccullough559]

Re: rationality of animals - they have, in some sense, rationality, but not in the same sense as humans. They have cognitive / mental activity arising from their sensory faculties - this gives them sense memory, emotions (your dog can be afraid, joyful, sad), imagination (that's how they can dream, or it could be sense memory), etc. This sensory part of animals is appetitive, drawing them toward or away from perceived (sensible) goods and evils, we can speak by analogy of 'animal loves.' So, in one sense, they do resembles us very much. And since we have bodies and are animals too, though not merely, we should expect a great deal of similarity. The key to understanding the video's claim about human rationality is abstraction and universal knowledge. Do you have any evidence that animals have abstract knowledge, such as would make them capable of doing geometry, building complex tools, producing art/artifacts, proving us wrong about all the bad things we say behind their backs, etc.? Or do you see the monkey digging bugs out of a tree hole with a stick, or that species of crow 'fishing' for maggots by sharpening a twig to prick the maggot and make it grab onto the stick in order to pull it out, and you think, 'aha! See, there, it's just like us!'?

[@UHFStation1]

A soul or spirit of a person after death continues to contain their identity, memories, personality, etc? It is still them?

[@mauijttewaal]

Wouldn't it be useful to distinguish between soul and spirit where the soul is the unity of body and spirit?

[@TashiDelek1]

When you were conceived, did God create your soul on the spot or did your soul come into existence just like your body, from your parents?

[@kristindreko3194]

Thank you for this video! May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@changedlife1904]

Having a hard time with this one , im trying very hard to believe , its easier some days than others

[@michaelabbott9080]

Can you demonstrate in a verifiable way that what you describe as the soul actually exists...Once again you are describing a soul into existence,then claiming it exists..You also rely on monumental pre supposition. And post hoc rationalisation....I love the claim that human beings are different because they have intelligence and reason...my cat has intelligence and reason...Please also demonstrate that the soul is what makes the heart beat,let alone what makes it "be"..what on earth that means l have no possible clue.....forget the metaphysical claims,claims that are unable to to be either confirmed of falsified..and are therefore simply assertions..You may as well say that the soul is blue...or perhaps green..Please provide verifiable evidence that there is such a thing as the soul that does the things you claim...

[@dynamic9016]

So you're saying all proofs must be by the scientific method?.. So once knowledge can't be verify by the scientific method it isn't true..That Scientism?.. Seems like you're an objectivist..So before the Scientific Method was developed, we human beings was not sure about anything whatsoever..

[@michaelabbott9080]

@@dynamic9016 Not at all,nowhere did l suggest that..I am saying that if the soul manifests in or interacts in any way with the natural world..then we should be able to demonstrate that it does...It should leave demonstrable evidence...If the soul exists but does not interact with the natural world,then l cannot understand how we can verify its existence...There is a huge amount of pre supposition here...My question would be...Why should l believe in something that you cannot demonstrate actually exists...

[@dynamic9016]

@@michaelabbott9080 I understand what you're really saying now..Well I believe it's better to be agnostic on certain religious claims.." Things" that seems not to have demonstrable evidence, I'll just say I don't know n leave it there..But I wouldn't claim it is false or not true..But I understand where you're coming from.

[@alphazero5614]

Questions of the soul are addressed through philosophical reasoning rather than empirical proofs. All living beings possess a principle of life and action internal to their being. In plants and animals, this is the power of growth, metabolism, sensation and motion according to their nature. This principle is the soul. In humans alone, we find powers of intellect and will - the capacity for rational self-movement and abstract thought. These powers far surpass what is found in other creatures and point to our spiritual nature. The fact that humans universally experience ourselves as unified subjects of consciousness, reason and free choice provides prima facie evidence of an immaterial principle - what philosophers call the spiritual soul - animating our material bodies. While we cannot see the soul directly, to deny its existence one would have to believe that consciousness and reason are epiphenomena arising from purely material processes in the brain - a view that is logically impossible and cannot offer a coherent explanation for the self-awareness, free will and purposeful agency that characterize human life.

[@joecheffo5942]

@@alphazero5614 I don't know what anything is, but it seems that the thing we call the brain, it can make a person go lights out. People without brains seem to be gone, and when our brains our hit or go in sleep mode we seem to be gone. Gone as in unaware. Are you saying humans don't die?

[@justiniani3585]

I'm not sure if knowing is possible without organs. I probably wouldn't be able to calculate the area of a triangle if I got lobotomized or if I was born with anencephaly

[@ashleypuza6911]

The idea is that the soul uses the body and its senses/ experiences in order to know. The soul needs the body to know. The body needs the soul to make sense of its experiences. So you are right. If we can't experience the world around us, then we can not "know".

[@savvageorge]

The fundamental truth would still exist even if everybody on Earth was unaware of it.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

If fallacious wishful thinking were an official competition, oh boy would a certain someone be bringing home an awful lot of gold.

[@reyreyes6126]

the human soul is spiritual rather than spirit. A spirit is a complete incorporeal being while the human soul is an incomplete substance which requires a body to inform. Body and soul unite to form one complete living substance called man.

[@rm7097]

As a Catholic I’d like to point out that this reasoning is very flawed. In this case Aquinas started his reasoning with a bias and assumed that a soul already exists. That assumption negated all validity of everything that came after.

[@theronimisha]

This is a good video, good introduction.

[@georgeszweden9497]

This is amazing

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@gh0stly584]

So soul = life I dig it ! I want to see this guy and all the major religious 'leaders' at a debate table.... + Adam Miceli (look him up, very interesting)

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

Souls equal stuff made up by humans. Life does not need souls.

[@jamesjulianguerrero7217]

thank you for this, helped a lot. :)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@wierdpocket]

Re: Knowledge: Isn't knowledge stored in a physical part of the brain? If damage is done to someone's brain, he may forget the formula for finding the area of the triangle. How then is knowledge spiritual?

[@mauijttewaal]

Good question

[@legron121]

Knowledge is stored in the passive intellect, a nonmaterial power. When the brain is damaged, the imagination is impeded and therefore one is unable to consider that which he has previously understood. "From experience it is clear that he who has already acquired intelligible knowledge through intellectual appearances, is not able actually to consider the knowledge he has unless some phantasm comes to mind. And this is why injury to the organ of imagination impedes a man not only in newly understanding something, but also in considering that which he has previously understood, as is clear in the mad.” - St. Thomas Aquinas.

[@el34glo59]

I also looked at the brain as hardware, and consciousness as software. Although I'm not religious

[@savvageorge]

Knowledge is just an understanding of truth. The truth is discovered, not created. It exists independantly of humans.

[@reyreyes6126]

Is the human soul, immortal? What is spiritual is immortal, but the human soul is spiritual. Ergo, the human soul is immortal. Minor: the human soul is spiritual because it can subsist and perform some operations which do not require body organs like intellection (to understand, form judgment, and to reason which in their exercise do not use any body organ.) The human soul has vegetative, sensitive and intellectual powers. In the exercise of the vegetative and sensitive powers like nutrition, grown and reproductive powers (vegetative), and seeing, hearing, etc. powers (sensitive) the human soul needs body organs. However, the intellectual and free choice---the soul acts without any bodily organ otherwise, the brain for instance is incapable of abstraction. Now, if the human soul can perform spiritual operations thus it is spiritual because of the principle: agere sequitur esse, a thing operates or acts according to its nature. But what is spiritual is immortal, because what is independent of the body cannot corrupt like a body.

[@fr.hughmackenzie5900]

only problem is animals do behave as if they grasp universal-species concepts. E.g. Cat is not too concerned which bird it chases, but is concerned with bird-ness

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

I'm not a Catholic, but super fascinating. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this answers my question as to why, as it pertains to The Argument From Motion, a human can sit in a chair and decide to get up but a book can't (I know that the change argument doesn't pertain to the accidental series of causes of getting up, but I'm referring to the snap shots of changes that could be viewed at each point in the event)? I'm new to this, but I think even starting to understand formal causes can change the way a person sees the entire world.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

A book cannot make decisions because it has no brain to make them with. This a complete tempest in a teapot about souls based on exactly zero evidence and just nonsense that people made up. People that knew nothing about brains or biochemistry.

[@christophersnedeker]

I'm not sure if animals can be characterized as wholly irrational.

[@Hulkmosher]

A soul doesn't exist without a body,Genesis says God breathed into Adams nostrils and he became a living soul,doesn't say the soul was placed into man

[@genekelly8467]

What about time? Humans perceive time as the succession of events. When you die, you cannot see, hear, touch or smell..so (logically) there could be no perception of time. Is this correct? As for perceiving non-material spirits-why would you be able to do this without senses?

[@georgebush6002]

Knowing and loving (and other emotional judgments) seem like a reasonable way to define a soul, but there is no reason to conclude this is not a biological function. Just because a soul has been defined does not mean every property that has been attributed to it should be accepted as a premise.

[@alphazero5614]

Biological processes certainly facilitate cognition and emotion, but they are not self-explanatory. There must be an overarching formal and final cause of a living being's organized unity and teleology. A soul is not a premise but a conclusion reached through philosophical argument - e.g. the need for a subsistent, immaterial principle to actualize prime matter into a self-aware, rational subject. Empirically, we experience ourselves as unified subjects of mental acts and free choices - not just bodies. And reason and will transcend mechanism.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@alphazero5614 > There must be an overarching formal and final cause No, life is messy and nothing in it is formal. Your wanting it does not constitute a requirement of life.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

The video offers a perspective on the concept of the soul largely grounded in the Aristotelian and Thomistic understanding of the soul as the form or principle of life of a living thing. This understanding is deeply embedded in the metaphysical and philosophical tradition of the Western world, particularly in the Catholic tradition. 1. **Dualism vs. Holistic Views of the Soul**: One critique of this viewpoint might come from the perspective of Cartesian dualism, where the soul and body are seen as fundamentally distinct entities, with the soul being the locus of thought and consciousness. This contrasts with the Thomistic view presented in the transcript, which speaks of a more holistic integration of soul and body, where the soul is not just our consciousness or thought life, but the very form of our bodies. From a dualist perspective, the video's insistence on the soul as the formative and animating principle of the body might seem to unduly reduce the soul to merely a physical or biological function. 2. **Materialist Viewpoints**: The video might also be critiqued from a materialist viewpoint, which denies the existence of non-physical substances such as souls. From this perspective, the discussion of souls as formative and animating principles might seem to be metaphysical speculation without empirical evidence. Materialists might argue that all of the functions attributed to the soul can be more parsimoniously explained by physical processes, such as the functioning of the nervous system and the brain. 3. **Eastern Philosophical Perspectives**: The video's perspective might also be critiqued from the viewpoint of Eastern philosophies, such as Buddhism, which posits a doctrine of 'anatman' or 'no-self', denying the existence of a permanent, unchanging soul or self. From this perspective, the video's assertion of the existence and importance of a soul might seem to be a form of clinging to a concept of selfhood that is ultimately illusory. 4. **Differences in Understanding of "Life Beyond Death"**: The video's discussion of life beyond death from a Thomistic perspective, where the soul is believed to survive death and continue its existence in a spiritual form, might be critiqued from the perspective of other religious or philosophical traditions with different understandings of life after death. For example, from the perspective of reincarnation as understood in Hinduism and Buddhism, the idea of a soul surviving death in a spiritual form might seem to be a partial or limited understanding of the ongoing cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. 5. **Rational Soul and Animals**: The video's discussion of humans as possessing a 'rational soul' or 'spirit' that distinguishes them from other living things might be critiqued from the viewpoint of more recent understandings of animal cognition. Increasing evidence of complex cognitive abilities in animals might challenge the traditional Aristotelian and Thomistic distinction between 'animal souls' and 'rational souls'. While the video presents a comprehensive and nuanced view of the soul from a Thomistic perspective, it leaves room for critique and discussion from various philosophical and religious viewpoints. The question of the nature of the soul is a deeply complex and multifaceted one, with a rich history of debate and divergence across different intellectual traditions.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

The question of the nature is due to it being made up claims based on no evidence at all. Its largely due to people knowing exactly nothing about how brains work and even less about biochemistry. Discussing things based on zero evidence and complete ignorance tends to engender complex nonsense. Without verifiable evidence for anything about souls, not even that they exist, its a tempest in a teapot. Rational souls is an oxymoron for without verifiable evidence, the belief in any kind of soul is irrational.

[@filhodehenoc]

What does thomistic institute think about the NDE phenomena? Is it one more confirmation that we have immortal souls?

[@gabek.2952]

Here's my theory: If a living human is copied molecule by molecule so we just have the "soul-less" body, that body would not be alive... why? - that body has not had the specific transfer of energy (through conception) to "start the self-functioning system of the living body". When a body dies, that "self-functioning" system is now just failing to continue with its energy-dependent processes (pumping of the heart). Hence, the soul is not something spiritual or non-physical, but rather simply energy in context.

[@alphazero5614]

For something to be truly alive, it requires an intrinsic principle of operation which coordinates and guides the various bodily systems towards an organized end. The human soul is more than just an animating energy; it is a subsistent spiritual form that elevates the body to a new ontological order. A copied body, devoid of this intrinsic principle, would lack the formal causality necessary for self-movement and coordination towards vital activities. At best it could be likened to an automaton or machine, operating by external efficient causality rather than an inner telos. The soul confers not just life but the specific rational nature that makes man who he is. A soul-less copy, while biologically similar, would lack humanity in the deepest sense. Its processes would not be guided by intellect and will towards intellective and moral ends.

[@ciscodealmeida8541]

YA ya i can see you guys are confused due to Aquinas. he had it wrong very wrong, i cant believe you guys can even try share this with us .

[@bryansmith7758]

ok, does this mean if i lose my leg in a car accident, my soul has been injured? if not, what's wrong with that statement.

[@joelrivardguitar]

Can you provide a neuroscientist who agrees that the brain cannot be the reason for our intellect and that no other species of hominid can think in similar ways? Why is aquinas, who is using Greco-Roman theology and philosophy, an expert on what we should believe about reality?

[@coralbricks]

And what's the problem of Greek PHILOSOPHY? It's old? Also what do you mean by hominid? If you mean Neanderthals, those had all the characteristics of humans besides accidental features such as cranial differences, therefore being humans. As for chimps, I've never heard of a chimp philosopher. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I'm a Doctor and the way I understand it, adding to what was said in the video is the arm movement comparison. While I may have the will to move my arm, it won't move unless I have the physical structure called an arm. Likewise, despite being spiritual, for the human intellect to have an effect on the visible world by doing something like explaining what was explained here there needs to be organs such as the brain and our mouthes so we can put our thoughts into words, speak and so on.

[@joelrivardguitar]

@@coralbricks Greek philosophy is not about Yahweh. Using older concepts to build a deity show it's more likely a mythology. You are not a doctor. You would know what a hominid is. Just go to wiki and type in human evolution. The hominid line is explained. The first hominid was chimp-like but walked more than climbed. Over millions of years the fossil record shows they slowly became more human like and slowly gained larger brains. You brain explanation required an anecdotal claim. That "despite being spiritual," you have no evidence for that except myth. Is the Quran true because it's written down?

[@coralbricks]

@joelrivardguitar Okay, this is the last time I'm replying to you. I don't take lightly to being called a liar and yes I am in fact a Doctor. I won't get to the evolution side of things except that my point stands that if skeletons and art are found made by a creature that shares all but non-essential anatomical differences like a longer or shorter cranium, it's a human being we're speaking of. If there's no art, no tools, just a primate, chimp-like body, then it's not human. About your first paragraph: the concept of the Uncaused Cause is the same as the Christian God, except for the trinitarian aspect. Omnipotent, Omniscient, and so on. Even if Aristotle hadn't exposed all His atributes as such, Aristotelianism has. So if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....then it's Jahveh, or Allah if you prefer. The thing about God that cannot be reached through reason alone is Trinitarianism.

[@joelrivardguitar]

@@coralbricks " it's a human being we're speaking of. If there's no art, no tools, just a primate, chimp-like body, then it's not human." Then I believe you less now. And I don't care if you don't write. That isn't even close to what classifies a human. A "human" is anything in the family Hominidae. It includes modern humans, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis and some others with the genus "Homo" . It never went from "chimp like body" to modern humans. There is 7 million years of gradual change. "About your first paragraph: the concept of the Uncaused Cause is the same as the Christian God" LOL. How can a doctor be so ignorant of basic logic? This is just insane. The reason the Christian God has the attributes as the tri-Omni qualities, IS BECAUSE AQUINAS BORROWED THE IDEAS FROM GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND JUST DECLARED IT WAS ACTUALLY YAHWEH WHO WAS THAT GOD. Just F$#^$&#* claims?!?!?! He bought into the Gospel myth and proclaimed his god has all these Greek qualities. Nothing to do with reality. It is well known in historical studies that the concept of an uncreated God did not originate with Yahweh. That was also borrowed mythology during the 2nd Temple Period, when the Persians occupied Israel. The Persian religion already had this in their theology: "God t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities. " /Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices Mary Boyce, expert historical scholar on the Persian religion and it's influence on the OT. Yale Divinity Professor John Collins teaches where we see actual Persian influence in Daniel and Isaiah in the Divinity Lectures. "So if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....then it's Jahveh, or Allah if you prefer. The thing about God that cannot be reached through reason alone is Trinitarianism.' That isn't "reason" in any sense. It's speculation. Nothing about God can be reached through reason. Why do you think among the PhD philosophy field theism is supported by around 1% of modern philosophers? Reason includes logic, empirical methods and so on. These are fantasy ideas. Textual_Sources_for_the_Study_of_Zoroastrianism Mary Boyce There was only one God, eternal and uncreated, who was the source of all other beneficent divine beings. For the prophet God was Ahura Mazda, who had created the world and all that was good in it through his Holy Spirit, Spent Mainyu, who is both his active agent yet one with him, indivisible and yet distinct. Most Zoroastrian teachings are readily comprehensive by those familiar with the Jewish, Christian or Muslim faiths, all of which owe great debts to the Iranian religion. The prophet flourished between 1400 and 1200 B.C. One of the two central sources of teachings uses language of the Indian Rigveda which is assigned to the second millennium. Many text are presented as if directly revealed to him by God.

[@Paul-qr7hu]

How does DNA fit into this explanation? Thanks.

[@TroglodyteDiner]

As my own body decays, the Resurrection of the Flesh is a dogma I have increasing difficulty with. To begin with, what body? And do we get our bodies back just because He got His? Taking her cue from Aristotle, Shakespeare's Last Pagan, Cleopatra, says "I am fire and air/My other elements I commit to base nature". That doesn't sound bad to me. I'm no Hindu/Buddhist. I think that immortality without an intact ego is BS. I mean, what's the point? But why would I want my mutable flesh?

[@62peppe62]

As rational catholics, how can we argue against the objection that Aquinas and Aristotel didn't know modern neurology that compare our brain to a very sophisticated computer and suggests that also knowledge and love can be the outcome of the function of the brain?

[@alphazero5614]

A common objection from those enamored with modern scientism and its reductionist tendencies. While modern neuroscience has illuminated much about the physical workings of the brain, it in no way disproves or undermines the metaphysical analysis of intellect and will developed by catholic scholastics. The brain is merely the organ of cognition, not its cause. The intellect is an immaterial, spiritual faculty capable of abstract, universal knowledge - something no physical system could achieve on its own. The brain is an instrument used by the intellect and will to operate in the physical world, not their ontological source. Knowledge and love, as acts of immaterial powers, transcend any purely physical explanation. Neuroscience describes brain states and processes correlated with cognition, not the essence of cognition itself. There is an irreducible gap between brain activity and mental experience which no amount of empirical data can bridge. While modern science illuminates the physical antecedents and concomitants of intellect and will, it tells us nothing of their formal, final, and efficient causes residing in the spiritual realm. The human person is a composite of body and soul - to reduce them to only the physical is to fall prey to the errors of hylomorphism.

[@UHFStation1]

Wait, you're saying if a person gets amputated before death their soul will be a stomp for all the rest of time?

[@matthewdimarcantonio4627]

This is fantastic. Brilliant mind

[@SeaJay_Oceans]

Plants and Animals have sense and thought, and anyone with a dog can tell you how dogs have dreams, run in their dreams, bark in their dreams, even wag their tails, in their dreams. Dreams are observable proof of cognition, and a subjective state of self, experiencing reality, even while asleep. You spent 10 minutes talking about Anima and Spirit, but Never mentioned SOUL. The SOUL is the 5+ dimensional Life-Pattern Etched into time-space by your Anima. When people die, the anima departs the body, but the SOUL is eternal = it's past history is permanent. It's actions and effects on reality, physical objects, people and other souls are FOREVER. You spent 10 minutes talking about the ink in the pen, how the ink flows out of the pen, and how the pen is empty... But the SOUL is the poetry written by the pen. This is why maintaining a healthy Soul is very important spiritually. The Body is the pen, the anima actions are the ink, but the poetry is the soul. In ALL the universe, each soul is unique, eternal, and dynamic. Some souls are so vibrant and strong, they leave a lasting impression upon everyone that meets them. Good souls broadcast goodness like ripples in the pond, and damaged or fallen souls so to spread their harm through the crimes and violence they create. When meditating upon the nature of the soul, focus on that which lasts forever after the body and spirit anima are both gone. Reflect on the greatest souls you know: Christ, Abraham Lincoln, Your own family members that changed your very existence by bringing you into this world ! Souls creating Souls, each individually unique and forever eternal.

[@viz8746]

2:50 question: If the soul “forms” or “informs” the matter, does a parasite or worm inside a body (say) get “absorbed” in a human soul or is it distinct from the human “matter” that informs the human “soul” - you see where I’m going with this; do Individual cells have a “soul” (RBC can survive for up to 120 days outside the body)? - If the “life breath” (or life principle) distinguishes the soul, how is it localized with individuality (sense of “I”)?

[@alphazero5614]

The human rational soul is the substantial form of the body, giving it the principles of life and imbuing matter with humanity. However, other living things within the body, like parasites, have their own intrinsic principles of life and organization. While contained within a human, they remain distinct substantial forms. Individual cells do not possess souls in the strict sense. Their "life" derives from their organization within the unified structure of an embodied soul. The soul is the source of an organism's interiority and subjectivity - its "haecceity" or principle of this-ness. It individuates prime matter into a singular, self-aware whole. Localization occurs through the soul's relationship to the entire material complex it informs, especially the brain/nervous system through which it exercises powers. So while the soul gives substantial existence to the body as a whole, it does not absorb all lower forms of life within. And cells alone do not equate to the hylomorphic union of soul and body that constitutes a person with inherent dignity. The soul's localization and individuation of prime matter is what makes each of us a unique "I".

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@alphazero5614 Souls are imaginary. They are claimed to be many different things, mostly contradictory. Because they are evidence and fact free nonsense.

[@hunivan7672]

Father, could you please tell me if the souls of people with malformed bodies are also malformed? People who are born deaf, without limbs, and stuff like that? If so, how is that just, and if not, why are their bodies not "normal"?

[@kiwihans100]

'Google' SOUL; The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.

[@markjardinez5602]

Truth. The original Jewish concept of soul is the whole being. No separate immortal soul after death. The soul is the the human being. If he dies, then there is no soul, just a corpse. death is just the reverse of how God created man. No consciousness before he was created, and is the same if he dies. Immortality of the soul is a pagan concept. Christians who believe in this are deceiving themselves. If there is immortality of the soul, then there is no need for the resurrection day that is written in the Bible, as the soul is eternally alive. The immortality of the soul also backs the concept of eternal punishment of the wicked ones in hell. Which is contrary to the character of a merciful and lovingl God. Would God then be pleased seeing how His creation suffering and crying for eternity? God is not even pleased for just one soul to perish without repenting of his sins. That is why God in His mercy even for these wicked people, will end their miserable lives once and for all in that judgment day. Their consciousness will no longer exist as though they were never born.

[@kiwihans100]

@@markjardinez5602 Good comment! | agree with all you say! So where do you stand on the true faith?

[@markjardinez5602]

@@kiwihans100 I stand on what is written or what God has explicitly stated in His Word and the Testimony of Christ.

[@kiwihans100]

@@markjardinez5602 Yes Paul advised "Do not go beyond the things that are written" ( 1 Cor 4:5) The Jews allowed their 'traditions' to nullify the 'word of God' ( Mat 15) Just like the 'christian philosophers' did about Jesus e.t.c.!

[@BaronAna]

Angels can at least hear, see and think. They can observe, listen and understand what humans do, that is why they are able to serve God and help us. Because they are spiritual, they are superior than human beings, capable of greater abilities, like the ones written in the Bible.

[@Zanroff]

It's a little confusing. Isn't the ability to know something of all triangles also altered by a head injury? I think this explanation is close, but there's something missing and I don't know what it is.

[@MichaelLevine-n6y]

If a person is born missing a limb or blind, do they have a soul which matches that condition? Or if one has an amputation or goes blind is the soul damaged in the same way?

[@delsydebothom3544]

A defect in matter doesn't say anything about the form of life an organism is. A defect in matter simply prevents the form of a particular creature from being fully implemented in the matter in informs.

[@zachc.3258]

Do non-human souls (such as grass in the example) continue to exist after death as well?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

St. Thomas would argue that they do not since they lack an operation that transcends their bodily organs.

[@zachc.3258]

Thanks! Something to ponder next time I’m mowing the lawn!

[@slumbertrap6506]

@@ThomisticInstitute Hay This was a great video! im just wondering, So is the same true for animals(like dogs or cats)? would that mean that our evolutionary ancestors also didnt have immortal souls and there for didn't get into heaven? does that mean a soul can change over time?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@slumbertrap6506 Great questions! In St. Thomas's understanding, a soul is just what makes a thing to be alive. So plants have souls (vegetative souls) and animals have souls (sensory souls) and men have souls (rational soul). The soul corresponds with the life form, so it does not change or evolve. St. Thomas would teach that plants and animals do not go to heaven. You might also find this video helpful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYKpnnitbJJ8sJo

[@raykaelin]

Outstanding! In every sense!

[@vishva8kumara]

Almost what Traditional Buddhists in Sri Lanka believe, except there is no distinction between animal, human or diety/angel souls. Mahayana have a different point of view radically different from these.

[@destroyriri]

Enlighten me, please? A source said that Aquinas believed that when the body dies, the soul also dies (mortal). This video says that human soul can survive death, therefore it is immortal. Which of these is true?

[@donew1thita11]

@lary Snw ok what happens to souls at the resurrection at Great white throne , do the damned get erased from existence

[@markjardinez5602]

​@@donew1thita11yes. They will no longer exist. They will for eternity have no consciousness. We cannot blame God for that. He gave everything He can to warn us of what results of our choices will be. Though He gave us free will to choose goodness and life or evil and death, He always wish for us to choose goodness and life. That is why He even sent His Son as our example, a pattern of obedience to God. That though we will die, as He ressurected, so shall all who believes in Him or live as how He lived.

[@jamesreid5329]

Silly question alert - What do friars usually wear under your habit? God bless you.

[@no42arak-st-floor44]

How the Lord We'll give us the ability to find soul of our beloved ones, As my recently departed wife after 40 years, as she left so unexpextedly as her nurses and doctors neglected her! once I depart from this earthly life, will I be able to be with her & see her? What literature text or facts do you have to demonstrate that? 😥

[@jlad225]

Take Courage, brother! "I have told you this so that you might have peace in me. In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” - John 16:33 "When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham." - Luke 16:22 Your guardian angel meets you and leads you home. "So we are always courageous, although we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yet we are courageous, and we would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord. Therefore, we aspire to please him, whether we are at home or away. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil." - 2 Cor 5:6-10 We meet Jesus who we see, recognize and worship with the eyes of faith. Luke 16:19-31 shows that you are conscious. You think, feel, speak, and remember. Revelation 4-5 shows that we worship with the angels before the throne of God. Luke 9:28-36 shows that we will know, recognize, and communicate with the other souls in heaven.

[@no42arak-st-floor44]

@@jlad225 I shall remain thankful for the passages sited...feel free to provide additional, especially as to where the holy scripture Provide glimpse of hope that received our loved one at the time before departure as well! The Lord's Blessings!

[@vicentevilla8492]

After bodily death, the soul continues to live [eternally?] on this higher plane simply by continuing to know and to love?

[@emmynoether5878]

I did nt realise he was a father and thought he was wearing a hoodie until i looked at the comments omg

[@PirateRadioPodcasts]

KOINE Greek: EU-DAIMON-ia = HAPPINESS (or the good "demon" within).

[@larryuk8630]

Thank you Father

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you.

[@mel086]

If a body is dysfunctional, as in the case of an epileptic or mentally ill or terminally ill person, and the soul is the form of the body, does that mean his soul is defective?

[@junacebedo888]

Is soul the source of the 'heart beat'? Soul leaving the body means heartbeat ceases?

[@courier3389]

The ending of this kinda freaked me out lol. Can someone point me to what the “resurrection of the body” means and what Catholics say happens to the soul right upon death?

[@matthewdimarcantonio4627]

Can you do one on AGI?

[@Revelation18-4]

We who are mortal, must put on immortality. We are not immortal ! 1 Corinthians 15:53-55

[@roccocarlino067]

To understand the working of soul, one must seek Indian scripture teachings( Vedic, Bhagavad Gita, etc) because this is where Plato and other Greek philosophers took their teachings from. All teachings regarding the soul always is traced back to India.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

so, no one knows shit, everyone just reads someone elses imaginings? lol

[@roccocarlino067]

@@nameless-yd6ko unless you have a bodiless experience...

[@nameless-yd6ko]

@@roccocarlino067 Life IS a bodiless experience. Imagine a mirror in a hologram. Soul is the mirror/Consciousness and that which is reflected (everything that is perceived) is Mind (aka quantum wave field), whether a person or a dream or a hammer, all are concepts, Mind. The hologramic hammer or human or fish or dream or fart... do not 'exist' to 'have' anything. Brings us to thought, Ego, the illusion of autonomous self, the concept.memory that you claim to be you, the 'real' you. ;)

[@lassejensen1552]

Well, personally i think this video should have been named: "A philosopher thought that you have an immortal soul" or something to that effect.