Somali Tales

This is simply an introduction to a series that I wish to create: a several-part feedback on my questions after reading one of the most influential book of all time.

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 to anyone who wishes to read Aristotle’s technical book, reading part of the Categories (and “on interpretation”) should help since it makes you familiar with some notions he developed.

On reading ancient work

How does a modern mind understand an ancient debate: the one on the nature of the soul?
I think this could help some students—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 naturalistic view—the theory is both seductive and a bit dépassé. But that is only an impression if you don’t understand Aristotle’s aim.

Our modern (science-influenced) mind values empirically tested reality. But Aristotle’s theory is sometimes too abstract. He offers a very comprehensive vision of the natural—physical and metaphysical—world in his own way. Indeed, he maps the “sensitive” world and creates a model based on what we can see and think.

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 is inherited from his commentators (especially the region with an Abrahamic tradition). In fact, a modern and dualistic notion of the soul is based on a wrong impression and understanding of Aristotle’s theory.

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 Aristotle firmly says that it is not a matter or a (material) 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” is a primary 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 am still wrong.

The soul is, however, the “substance” of the body (in terms of its “causes”, except a material cause), 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 a .

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?

Another life. Thus, life is eternal by its constant “generation” of new life.