Part I (Prima Pars) Part 111 (2/2)
THIRD ARTICLE [I, Q. 75, Art. 3]
Whether the Souls of Brute Animals Are Subsistent?
Objection 1: It would seem that the souls of brute animals are subsistent. For man is of the same genus as other animals; and, as we have just shown (A. 2), the soul of man is subsistent.
Therefore the souls of other animals are subsistent.
Obj. 2: Further, the relation of the sensitive faculty to sensible objects is like the relation of the intellectual faculty to intelligible objects. But the intellect, apart from the body, apprehends intelligible objects. Therefore the sensitive faculty, apart from the body, perceives sensible objects. Therefore, since the souls of brute animals are sensitive, it follows that they are subsistent; just as the human intellectual soul is subsistent.
Obj. 3: Further, the soul of brute animals moves the body. But the body is not a mover, but is moved. Therefore the soul of brute animals has an operation apart from the body.
_On the contrary,_ Is what is written in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xvi, xvii: ”Man alone we believe to have a subsistent soul: whereas the souls of animals are not subsistent.”
_I answer that,_ The ancient philosophers made no distinction between sense and intellect, and referred both to a corporeal principle, as has been said (A. 1). Plato, however, drew a distinction between intellect and sense; yet he referred both to an incorporeal principle, maintaining that sensing, just as understanding, belongs to the soul as such. From this it follows that even the souls of brute animals are subsistent. But Aristotle held that of the operations of the soul, understanding alone is performed without a corporeal organ. On the other hand, sensation and the consequent operations of the sensitive soul are evidently accompanied with change in the body; thus in the act of vision, the pupil of the eye is affected by a reflection of color: and so with the other senses.
Hence it is clear that the sensitive soul has no _per se_ operation of its own, and that every operation of the sensitive soul belongs to the composite. Wherefore we conclude that as the souls of brute animals have no _per se_ operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything follows the mode of its being.
Reply Obj. 1: Although man is of the same genus as other animals, he is of a different species. Specific difference is derived from the difference of form; nor does every difference of form necessarily imply a diversity of genus.
Reply Obj. 2: The relation of the sensitive faculty to the sensible object is in one way the same as that of the intellectual faculty to the intelligible object, in so far as each is in potentiality to its object. But in another way their relations differ, inasmuch as the impression of the object on the sense is accompanied with change in the body; so that excessive strength of the sensible corrupts sense; a thing that never occurs in the case of the intellect. For an intellect that understands the highest of intelligible objects is more able afterwards to understand those that are lower. If, however, in the process of intellectual operation the body is weary, this result is accidental, inasmuch as the intellect requires the operation of the sensitive powers in the production of the phantasms.
Reply Obj. 3: Motive power is of two kinds. One, the appet.i.tive power, commands motion. The operation of this power in the sensitive soul is not apart from the body; for anger, joy, and pa.s.sions of a like nature are accompanied by a change in the body. The other motive power is that which executes motion in adapting the members for obeying the appet.i.te; and the act of this power does not consist in moving, but in being moved. Whence it is clear that to move is not an act of the sensitive soul without the body.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 75, Art. 4]
Whether the Soul Is Man?
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul is man. For it is written (2 Cor. 4:16): ”Though our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” But that which is within man is the soul.
Therefore the soul is the inward man.
Obj. 2: Further, the human soul is a substance. But it is not a universal substance. Therefore it is a particular substance. Therefore it is a ”hypostasis” or a person; and it can only be a human person.
Therefore the soul is man; for a human person is a man.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Civ. Dei xix, 3) commends Varro as holding ”that man is not a mere soul, nor a mere body; but both soul and body.”
_I answer that,_ The a.s.sertion ”the soul is man,” can be taken in two senses. First, that man is a soul; though this particular man, Socrates, for instance, is not a soul, but composed of soul and body.
I say this, forasmuch as some held that the form alone belongs to the species; while matter is part of the individual, and not the species.
This cannot be true; for to the nature of the species belongs what the definition signifies; and in natural things the definition does not signify the form only, but the form and the matter. Hence in natural things the matter is part of the species; not, indeed, signate matter, which is the principle of individuality; but the common matter. For as it belongs to the notion of this particular man to be composed of this soul, of this flesh, and of these bones; so it belongs to the notion of man to be composed of soul, flesh, and bones; for whatever belongs in common to the substance of all the individuals contained under a given species, must belong to the substance of the species.
It may also be understood in this sense, that this soul is this man; and this could be held if it were supposed that the operation of the sensitive soul were proper to it, apart from the body; because in that case all the operations which are attributed to man would belong to the soul only; and whatever performs the operations proper to a thing, is that thing; wherefore that which performs the operations of a man is man. But it has been shown above (A. 3) that sensation is not the operation of the soul only. Since, then, sensation is an operation of man, but not proper to him, it is clear that man is not a soul only, but something composed of soul and body. Plato, through supposing that sensation was proper to the soul, could maintain man to be a soul making use of the body.
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ix, 8), a thing seems to be chiefly what is princip[al] in it; thus what the governor of a state does, the state is said to do. In this way sometimes what is princip[al] in man is said to be man; sometimes, indeed, the intellectual part which, in accordance with truth, is called the ”inward” man; and sometimes the sensitive part with the body is called man in the opinion of those whose observation does not go beyond the senses. And this is called the ”outward” man.
Reply Obj. 2: Not every particular substance is a hypostasis or a person, but that which has the complete nature of its species. Hence a hand, or a foot, is not called a hypostasis, or a person; nor, likewise, is the soul alone so called, since it is a part of the human species.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 75, Art. 5]
Whether the Soul Is Composed of Matter and Form?
<script>