Aristotle Understanding of Nature of Human Soul - Essay Example

Aristotle Understanding of Nature of Human Soul Throughout the years, the soul has received enormous discussion, disagreement, and of efforts to define its meaning among philosophers and the religious populace. It has grown to be an outstanding theme of interest among intellectuals of all scopes of life. Considering this immense reaction, conceivably one could deduce that the soul is reality scenery because the facts of millennia have some basis in actuality. One philosopher Aristotle spent much of his time exploring the soul theme and regarded the soul as a combination of vital principles of the body as what the vision is to the eye (Spelman). To him, the soul is the whole being of the human-body structure and regarded it as the living sentience of the body that cannot be related to matter. In this study, I will evaluate and critique Aristotle’s conception of the soul, at least tortuous with considerable bearing on modern truth-seeking concerns. It helps us clearly identify with some of our presumption anxiety both mentally and physically. Aristotle’s approach to the understanding of the human soul is a reasonable approach because he articulates several definitions in support of his arguments. Such descriptions include the role of soul in animals and definition of soul as a form of natural body. His philosophies are to some extent valid. However, he does not invoke God’s encouragement system to explain the existence and creation of organisms such as human and cows for instance (May 35). He does not present much desire and incentive on the creation process. Rather Aristotle states that “the soul is the orderly natural process that brings out the existence of living beings (35).” This is a little back-draw of Aristotle’s philosophy about nature of the human being. The role of soul. In the contemporary understanding, the definition of the term soul is often referred to an incredible thing that is unique from, and perhaps even autonomous of the body. Elsewhere, on the soul excerpts, Aristotle views the soul of all human, as having nutritive value, can guide, initiate, and nourish most basic human functions. These functions include food digestion and absorption, growth and reproduction of its kind. He further acknowledges that human possess a rational soul that allows thinking and representation which is uniquely from animals and plants (Aristotle. et al.). Additionally, few of us will think of plants as having souls, and even fewer will imagine that plants have souls. This is completely contrary to Aristotle’s allusion of definition of the soul and is radically different from modern knowledge of the soul. Continuously, throughout his viewpoint Aristotle unequivocally resents the premise that the soul can exist autonomous of the body, and furthers his claim that plants and animals do have souls same as human beings. Equally, Aristotle ascertains his claims as “final, formal, and efficient cause of the body (35).” That way he asserts that for the body, apart from being the contested theme, is by itself a focus and matter. He further emphasizes that if that is true then the soul is a form of a natural human body with potential life same as the body (35). In addition, as per Aristotle, the soul is a game-change in human life development. He accordingly refers the soul has not only the driver in the growth of the human body, but also the most significant cause or target of what the body is and does (36). Considering Aristotle’s account of the soul, it is undoubtedly and radically different from conservative notion of soul. All through, he conceptualizes the soul as some kind of artisan work that employs biological matter to make human beings and animals. For instance in the De Anima, he inscribes, “there is a parallel between a craft’s need to use tools and the soul’s need to use the body” (DA 407b). Clearly as per the excerpt, those who subscribe to certain spiritual aspect about creation are simply not in the picture of Aristotle’s mind. For him, the human soul is related to the modern notion of DNA and describes it because of natural engineering of the body. His concept is analogous to DNA notion, and therefore the soul leads in growth of an organism. Soul as a form. In another assertion, Aristotle holds that the soul is a form of natural human body and that it conveys the meaning or essence of the subject body. He correlates nature and the body. Critically though, Aristotle holds on evolution and that form and nature of a particular creature is not something that obviously exists in the beginning. To a certain extent, he ascertains that the form evolves or develops over time towards an explicit termination. He further heightens that just as human-made products materialize from orderly procedures of the manufacturer or artisan’s action and so are natural products (36). From the context, Aristotle’s idea of a soul as a form combined with nature is a correspondence of form and knowledge that are the skills needed for manufacturing artificial products. Clearly in demystifying the perception that the soul is the “form” of the body, Aristotle is articulate of the information that is necessary for growth and development of that body. However as you will still note, there is nothing like a motivational scheme that captures the form of an organism talked of. When drawing-in scientific principles, the biological concept of form is not in “God’s mind” or in any specific encouragement model as according to Aristotle. Instead, he holds that the soul is inherent to the natural body that emanates from it similarly as the genetic sequence is inherent to the body from which id developed. Again as you could expect, spiritual notion that the soul lives after demise does not have a place in his definition of the soul. He rather maintains that, the soul is kinfolk responsible for the biological processes that begin at ejaculated sperm fertilize an egg. Because such biological processes just go on without anybody’s intervention to drive them, Aristotle supports his claim that indeed, natural processes follow similar internal logic as the manufacture of human-made products (37). It, therefore, means that, a sequence of well-spelt steps is adhered to one after the other thus culminating the successive completion of development of an organism. A measure of the quality of products is the same logic as of natural production. It is how nature works. It is a craftsman-like production whereby particular orders of achievements are necessary for the whole organism production series. Following through Aristotle’s arguments and documentation that causality and supposed requirement operate in natural production, one question about the end of the development process comes into the picture. For instance, in case of living organisms or species such as the constant considered human in Aristotle’s philosophy, what was the goal or target of the completed product? What is the eventuality of the alleged biochemical development procedures? Was this a live target? Or is there any point where eventuality of nature strives? What is the target of these processes- in terms of human being development what is the goal? Is it “a fetus? An infant? An adolescent? An adult?” (38). Such critical questions are necessary to validate the arguments made by Aristotle that the natural procedure follow similar internal logic as the manufacture of artificial products. In a rejoinder, Aristotle responds by stating that the goal or target of this natural production is apprehended when the idiom or the characteristic function of that species is formed. He further disputes that is not true that when an animal is produced, a human being or any other animal is formed at the same instant. According to him, what matters is the end of formation course. Despite raising several queries, the reasons given by Aristotle are not so satisfactory. Therefore, he furthers his explanation by claiming that each species has something unique, maybe unique capacity. Therefore, the development of the distinct capacity is obviously the target of matter. From this assertion, Aristotle states that the idion of a human being is a reason or nous. This question is even harder just to think that “reason” could be a target in case of the human soul in the development process. He then writes that for the sake of reason all the look, body parts and the like that defines man were made. Through this assertion, he sustains that in humans, “the rational principle and mind are ends towards which nature strives (38).” Therefore, as the body is precedes the soul in development, so is irrational is prior to the rational. A good example to illustrate this fact when you consider fury, desire and wish as implantation attributes to children from their very birth, but reason and knowledge are attributes gained through the growth period (Spelman). Conclusively, after the assessment of Aristotle’s understanding of the human soul, it is evident his conventional approach is a success. Aristotle explores the concepts of the role of the soul such as nutritive in several body functions as well as defining the soul as a form of natural body. He quietly employs an evolution theory whereby he relates human development to product manufacturing that follows an orderly sequence to a certain end. Despite these immense revelations of Aristotle understands of the nature of the soul, he receives some criticism and resentment especially from contemporary philosophers. They raise several questions to unearth, which is Aristotle’s aimed target in human development. It will require a great incentive to convince society to accept his viewpoint entirely. Works cited Aristotle, et al. On The Soul ; Parva Naturalia ; On Breath. London: W. Heinemann, 1957. Print. May, Hope. Aristotles Ethics. London: Continuum, 2010. Print. Spelman, Elizabeth V. "Aristotle and the Politicization of the Soul." Discovering reality. Springer Netherlands, 2003.Print. Read More