NameInstructor Course DateTheory of the Soul by Aristotle Immortality of the soul and ethical notion of the soul are the two main ideas raised and presented by Aristotle in some of his arguments and the two have attracted a lot of views and counter arguments some philosophers supporting Aristotle’s views while others sharply disagreeing with them. On the subject of immortality of the soul, Aristotle argues that a body consists of three parts; matter, form, and a combination of the two. In supporting his argument he argues that plants, animals and human beings possess live, thereby the three groups possess form and matter (Allen, 1991, p. 13). He further notes that a human being therefore having belongs to a different class different from what animals and plants possess because they can reason which is an act which cannot be performed by the other two, plants and animals. He thereby regarded reason (nous) as the highest form of rationality. Aristotle further notes that the soul and the mind in the human being act interchangeably, what the mind decides are different from what the soul decides. He therefore notes that soul is eternal and cannot be destroyed.

On the subject of ethical notion of the soul, Aristotle argues that a human being acts with rationality because it has ability to reason (Nussbaum, 1997 p. 34). Human beings are differentiated from animals and plants in the fact that plants and animals cannot reason. Through reasoning human beings act in ways to satisfy end, happiness. In striving to satisfy happiness human beings undertake a number of things, he gives an example of somebody who wants to eat that they have to go to work and after they are rewarded they will shop for food and then upon cooking and feeding they feel satisfied and therefore happy (Reichmann, 1985, p. 63).

In the above listed procedure, Aristotle notes that, in the ethical notion of the soul the means usually justify the end. He argues that the best way to understand why things are their way they are is to try and understand their purposes. He notes that there is a reason for anything. Through this form of arguments, that Aristotle sets up the pace of teleological ethics (Allen, 1991, p. 12). His focus on primacy that seeks to explain the reason as to why things exist. This essay seeks to explain these two ideas, immortality of the soul and the ethical notion of the soul, elaborately and conclusively.

According to Aristotle, the ability of the mind to accept the form of other things in the mind shows the differeciantion between the mind and the matter. Man’s acceptance of a tree as part of reality for example, he accepts the form of the tree and through that acceptance it is reflected on his mind (Allen, 1991, p. 15). The part of the tree that the man observes becomes a reality in his mind. The matter of the tree observed was then reflected on his mind, neither the thought of the tree nor the mind of the man involved the matter.

He further notes that if the matter of the tree was reflected in line with the form of the tree then the matter and the form will merge inside the observer’s mind, which in actual sense did not happen. Aristotle further argues that since the soul is pure in form, it is eternal and therefore the fact that it cannot be destroyed (Cahn, 2012). This stand of the purity of the soul raises contradiction to a number of believes such as in the case of believes held by religions (Nussbaum, 1997). Most religions holds that a soul can be polluted by what a man does or engages in, if it is bad/evil the soul loses its purity, but the purity of the soul can be maintained or upheld if a man engages in good/what is right.

The form of rationality in this case is singular and it is the case with all forms. Again the issue of singularity is another contrast that disagrees with major religious believes, most religions believe that souls are different from one individual to another. Aristotle notes that it is in this case of soul singularity that souls hold multiple instances of the same kind/objects (Allen, 1991). He further explains that when the body dies, the distinction between the form and itself is lost completely and irretrievably. When the body dies, Aristotle notes that the soul will then become immortal and it is from that juncture that it merges with the universal soul from where it originally came from. And therefore the issue of personal immortality does not exist.

This theory of the soul, drastically conflicts the popular beliefs of the modern days.  Scientists can be quick to disagree with Aristotle by arguing that the mind does not have matter substantiating with the cases of brain damage. Others will question the fact that there is a dead soul which is similar to all other souls throughout the world. Through this arguments and counter arguments, modern beliefs have found Aristotle’s arguments on the subject matter of mortality of the soul to be lacking in facts and cannot be factual (Allen, 1991, p. 21).  Modern beliefs uphold that it is the soul that draws the differences from one person to another. It is through the soul that the content in person better known as the character can be separated from another person. The soul and the mind acting interchangeably however has not been widely disputed or criticized. It is therefore true to hold in hypothetical form the interchangeability of the mind and the soul. The soul cannot act in agreement with the mind according to Aristotle, both acts independently and at different occasions or times.

Aristotle’s arguments on the immortality of the soul and the ethical notion of the soul, it is worth noting that his arguments have been termed as purely philosophical and it has some hypothetical elements of truth in them. It will however be unsupported empirically when Aristotle argues that plants do have souls do have souls in terms of their form. Philosophers of 21^st century have taken a rather opposite stand against this argument arguing that if plants do have souls then computers which did not existed in the time of Aristotle claims a better stand to have souls since they can operate and do better than plants (Nussbaum, 1997, p. 23). Rationality being the center of focus in determining the reasons to why things happen exists or has been done, brings in the aspect of reasoning animal in human.

The reason why human behave in ways they behave it is because of they were brought up the way they are. Primacy aspect on ethics adduces that, instructions cannot change rationality of a person rather the procedure and the process that a person goes through in the process of learning that determines their rationale or reasoning. The aspect of primacy of everything led to the thoughts of ethics of the soul, everything and exists because there is a reason to their existence as well as their being (Allen, 1991, p. 11). The condition of everything and the actuality of their being is because they exists for the greater good/happiness.

The notion of primacy raised the question of ethics of the soul as presented by Aristotle, he claimed that everything that a man does, they do so with their highest level of rationality and therefore in the perception of their minds they are doing things with reason thereby with ethics in mind. This can be conjoined with the fact that soul which only exists in human and which cannot be destroyed acts as the base of reasoning in man. Rationality cannot be exercised by animals because they lack reasoning ability, they lack form which is the soul and therefore they cannot be termed as exhibiting any form of ethics (Nussbaum, 1997, p. 19). Aristotle underscores strength of experience over instructions; he notes the soul can better act rationally through experiential exposure than through instructions and directives.

Experience therefore influences the ethics and rationality of a human being. There is therefore the teleological aspect in the argument which tries to adduce that for something to occur or to have occurred there must have been a reason or rationale to its existence or occurrence. Human being acts because there is a reason to why they act. Ethical component of the soul therefore puts rationale as the underlying component or simply the driving force behind it. This in actual sense is the subject of teleological ethics. Teleological ethics states that everything is done for the greater good of the many (Nussbaum, 1997, p. 19).

An example in teleological ethics through a situation where one have to act rationally regardless of whether he has to do less harm for the greater good of the many are bound to be harmed. A scenario is given where a train is about to cross a bridge and the rail station is a few meters away, the train’s breaks fails and it can only be stopped before it reaches the station since upon reaching the station where there are so many people it is bound to cause a greater harm. A rational mind acts by pushing a person who was near the rail line to be stepped by the train and on the event the train stops.

In this teleological concept, the man who was pushed died instantly but that act is disregarded since the train has been stopped thereby a lesser harm has occurred at the expense of a greater harm (Nussbaum, 1997, p. 11). Aristotle’s argument about the ethics of the soul is more or less similar in a way to the scenario of the train. The hypothetical case presented is in support of Aristotle’s view of the ethics of the soul. The soul and the mind act interchangeably, the mind often acts irrationally but the soul always acts in rationality. It is through this aspect of rationale that Aristotle establishes the fact that the soul rationalizes the mind to act in an ethical manner. A subject he termed as rational animalism (Craemer, 1979, p. 47).

The mortality of the soul according to the arguments fronted by Aristotle as discussed above is a subject that cannot be proved but it can only be held as a belief that indeed the soul is immortal. The only reason why Aristotle’s arguments might be hypothetically true is because it cannot be proved to be true or dismissed as not true through with facts. It can therefore be held as hypothetical facts but the truth can either justify or dismiss. Ethical notion of the soul is another subject that emerged in the discussion. This subject can be concluded that man acts in a view to satisfy happiness. In acting to satisfy the end, happiness soul assumes a rational animalist where it reasons with a view to causing no harm or less harm but in case there is harm caused the end, should result in a greater good.

Work Cited

Allen, Reginald E. Greek Philosophy: Thales to Aristotle. New York: The free press, 1991. Print.

Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2012. Print.

Craemer-Ruegenberg, Ingrid. "The Priority of Soul As Form and Its Proximity to the First Mover." Southwestern Journal of Philosophy. 10.3 1979: 49-62. Print.

Nussbaum, Martha C, and Amélie Rorty. Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Oxford [England: Clarendon Press, 1997. Print.

Reichmann, James B. Philosophy of the Human Person. Chicago, Ill: Loyola University Press, 1985. Print.