Somali Tales

This is simply an introduction to a series that I wish to create: a several-part feedback on my own understanding.

The version I’m reading is a French translation by Richard Bodéüs, including a presentation by the translator (ed. Flammarion).

This is my first time reading a complete work from Aristotle by myself. I did explore the “categories” at uni, but it was more an academic endeavor than a personal one. But it should help me since I’m familiar with some notions he developed in other books.

How does a modern mind understand an ancient debate: the one on the nature of the soul?
I think this could help some students—less advanced or struggling to understand—question their own perspective and explore the concepts contained in the book.
I don’t think it will be linear, and I’ll maybe involve some other author—but we’ll see if there is any interest in this project.

I’m impressed by the author’s mind and his sharpness, but I must say, as a theist—and even sometimes trying to adopt a purely naturalist view—the theory is both seductive and a bit dépassé.

Our modern (science-influenced) mind values empirically tested reality. But Aristotle’s theory is sometimes too abstract but still partially relevant. He offers a very comprehensive vision of the natural—physical and metaphysical—world, in his own way.

The soul:

Aristotle’s notion of the soul is completely different from what is commonly understood by our modern mind (in European—maybe even Western—countries and probably some Oriental regions).

I must say that the definition and description of the author are both intriguing and foreign to a modern mind. However, our modern idea inherited from his commentators (especially region with a abrahamic tradition).

What is a form?
Let me start with the idea that the soul is the “form” of the body (matter).
My brain struggled with this simple distinction because of dualistic influences. But the I try to go to a more “abstract” place because Aristotle firmly says that it is not a matter or a substance in itself. Here, any novice should be wary of the terms used.

“Substance” is not what we commonly understand, but a specific term developed by Aristotle: a “horse” or a “man” are a substance.
So, when I try to imagine something more abstract like the “shape” (what the form literally taken means), or the propriety of the individual to be “singular”, I was still wrong.

The soul is a principle and the first living “act” of the body.
The body cannot be alive without a soul, while the soul cannot exist out of a body. There is this asymmetrical relation, but the fact that the body (matter) is a requirement for an organism to “live” makes the soul the necessary element for life (even if life cannot exist without matter).

I let you meditate on this point, because it took me a while to really get it: the soul “disappears” once the body dies, but still it is not a substance.

The operational principle (the soul) is only in “action” while the organism is alive. Actually, it is the first “act” of the living body. After death, the matter doesn’t immediately disappear, but it loses its organizational principle: the thing that makes it live.

Here is where I struggle still—with my modern mind used to “mechanism” and functions—how can the “soul” (organizing the body in a way that it is “alive”) be the first “living act” of the matter (the body), while also being the act itself.

When you are ready to walk and you possess every element required for walking—but you are not walking yet—what is required for the action to take place ? The action itself, or an igniter?

An igniter is the answer for other acts, but what can be the igniter for the soul?