Skip to main content

Immateriality and Human Nature

    What does it mean to be immaterial? Can we say that being immaterial means that one is animated and possesses a personality (or in other terms, that a thing is immaterial if it is animated and is a person.)? 

    A preliminary problem that I see with this idea is that it seems that ideas, concepts, mental images and imaginations, dreams, essences, natures, etc., are all immaterial, yet none of these things can be said to be either animated or possessing a personality. On the other side of the picture, it seems that we run into things that are both animated and in possession of a personality every day, yet they are obviously not immaterial - humans. If we treat animated and personality separately, then we see that being animated does not mean that one is immaterial (The word animated comes from the Greek anima which roughly translated means soul or source of life). Robots are "animated", and yet they are quite material. However, there is a difference between robots and animals. Animals are "self-animated", in otherwords, they are, in a sense, the source of their movement. There is also a difference between animals and humans. Humans are "self-animating and self-directing" (in other words, humans choose their ends). Yet, though all three groups (robots, animals and humans) are animated, they are all, also, material. (Humans alone, of the three groups, have a personality.) 

    That being said, there is more to plants, animals and humans than meets the eye. Rocks, Ipads, dirt, dead bodies, etc. are not animated; neither can we say that they have a personality, or that they are persons. Yet they are like humans in that they are material. What is it that makes the difference between rocks and humans? Materialists say that it is the combination of molecules. However, if it was just the combination of molecules, then why is a corpse not capable of self-animation? The human corpse possesses all the right molecules, and the right parts (in fact, the most obvious difference between a human corpse and a living human is that the living human possesses self-animation and self-direction, whereas the human corpse possesses neither), yet it is obviously not a human. If Materialism is true, then, strictly speaking, Frankenstein should not be a fiction. We should be able to go into any grave yard, assemble the right parts, add electricity and cause human life. Yet, inspite of all our technological advances this is not happening. Why not? 

    It seems that there is something more to plants, animals and humans then just molecules and energy. Traditionally, in the aristotelian tradition, we call this the soul (or the form). The soul is the source of life - the source of animation in all animated things. Yet, plants, animals and humans are not, because they have a soul, immaterial. They are composed of form and matter (soul and body). It is this composition that makes these things to be what they are. (A related question concerns angels. Angels do not have matter, therefore they are immaterial. Strictly speaking, even rocks, dirt, and corpses, are composed of form and matter, yet they do not have a substantial form, only an accidental form. For more on this subject see my blog post here, here, and here.) Thomas Aquinas argued that philosophically speaking, it seems that the human soul is subsistant without a body (though it will be incomplete), because it is has a function that it alone is capable of doing (it is also not dependant on the body to do it) - rational inference, reasoning.

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…


Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…