Does man have soul? This question have boggled philosophers' minds through the ages. Since Socrates, this question has been tried to be answered. Socrates believes in reincarnation. For him, and for his student Plato, the soul is immortal unlike the body which logically means for Socrates that the soul can transport to another body when its original body dies (but this is not just Socrates' and Plato's idea, even the Hindus have the concept of the Karma wherein a person's soul can be transported to an animal's body when he dies). In fact, Socrates argues that the soul actually knows everything it just enters a state of "amnesia" or "drunkenness" when embodied. Plato actually got more further. Plato argues that reality can be seen through two ways: the sensible world and the World of Forms. The former is like a mold wherein the latter was molded and formed into being. Thus, the mold is logically greater than the molded. For Plato the sensible world is just a copy of the World of Forms. The World of Forms is eternal and immutable while the other is not. Walang forever. The soul, for Plato, participates in the World of Forms and thus the body is just a "copy" of it and the value between the two is clearly seen. Asserting the existence of the soul, the question remains: what is the relationship of the soul and the body. Following this ancient tradition, our favorite mathematician, Rene Descartes, argued that the soul and the body have no relation at all. In fact, you can actually doubt the existence of your body! The only thing that you cannot doubt is the existence of doubt which means that there is a I who doubts. The ego or the self for Descartes is equivalent to the mind, psyche in Greek, or can also be called the soul. Thus, cogito ergo sum! This view known as dualism. For Descartes the soul/mind works independently from the body (they are just like two synchronized clocks that's why you think they have a connection). In fact, another philosopher by the name of Leibniz adopted this view and even asserted that what only exists are monads (you can call them the mind/soul). This view got the attention of the Englishman, David Hume. Hume, along with other empiricists, would argue that things which do not have empirical evidence should be "committed to the flames!" and so is the idea of the soul. What persists now is the body. But even the body does not persist. The body's components (i.e. cells/tissues) are degenerating and regenerating over time. Your cells when you were born will be completely replaced by newer cells at the age of 20's. Thus the existence of the Self or personhood is put into question. Hume asserts that there is actually no self but Selves in the plural. "There is no you that is the same person from birth to death". Having seen the extreme let us now examine the middle.
The phenomenologists, led by Edmund Husserl, reacted to these extremes. The lowly treatment on the body is an injustice to it and the non-existence of the soul is problematic. Gabriel Marcel an existentialist and phenomenologist argues that the relation of the soul to the body is seen in two ways: "I have my body" and "I am my body". The former connotes property but not a normal possessive element. In everything one owns he do not have only control over it but responsibility as well. This can be clearly seen in material possessions but what more is the body? Of all one's possessions the body is the most personal, thus it connotes a higher responsibility. This brings us to the second view: I am my body. My body is part of who am I. I cannot experience the world (and know who am I) if I do not have the body. The human person is historical, that is, he have a story behind his every move - he experienced, experiences, and will experience the world. But this world can only be experienced through the body. Taking from this cue, Maurice Merleau-Ponty would argue that the body is essential especially in relating to other people. It is through what he calls "phenomenology of perception" that we experience the other. It is through the body that we know another. Just like Jean-Paul Sartre in his article "The Look" (from his great book, Being and Nothingness), Merleau-Ponty argues that the very reason we cannot objectify the other person is because of the experience of seeing him looking at me and this can only happen if we have and are bodies. From this, we should now view the perspective of another type of monism: i.e. the soul and the body composes man. This view has been held by St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas and other Christian Philosophers. For them, a man is a human being if he is composed of both body and soul. Without one of them he is no longer human. Thus the soul alone we can call a "ghost" or "spirit" and the body alone is a "mannequin". This was furthered by Karol Wyjtola (a.k.a. St John Paul II) who do not only followed the Christian /Scholastic Philosophers but also subscribed to the ideas of the Phenomenologists. Wyjtola would say to us that what makes man truly human is the combination of both body and soul. This is the reason why man is an "embodied spirit". Because of this, the body is no longer a disposable vessel for the soul as we have seen Descartes and Leibniz would imply and the soul is still there unlike Hume's assertion. Only one problem remains unspoken. Is there an afterlife? The answer lies in your hands. |
anonymous lenzJust a traveling someone in this reality we have fallen in love with... this we call our world... "What is essential is invisible to the eyes..." Tags
All
"The absolutely other is the Other" Archives
September 2018
"There is only one corner in the universe that you can be certain of improving and that's your own Self" |