Part I

​

This question has challenged and entertained scientists and philosophers alike for ages and ages.  If it has not yet been answered definitively, it can at least be addressed by delving briefly into the world of metaphysics.  Metaphysics includes the study of transcendentals.  It seems to be our universal nature to divide, categorize and name things for ease of understanding.  In examining the question of “being”, we divide broadly into finite or infinite and then further divide the finite into more categories.  Aristotle, (384–322 BC) enumerated ten unique categories for defining or describing the finite.  Metaphysical transcendentals rise above all these divisions. 

​

In the Middle Ages, philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274) argued that in all finite being the essence of a thing is distinct from its existence, that is, one can exist without the other.  His contemporary, John Duns Scotus (c. 1266 – 8 November 1308) who is considered to be one of the three most important philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages, disagreed with Aquinas.  Scotus argued that we cannot think about what it means to be something (essence), without also thinking about it as actually existing. So he developed and put forth his own theses.

​

Scotus did not believe that all created substances were simply composites of form and matter.  He believed that matter exists that has no form at all and that a single substance can have more than one substantial form.  He proposed an original principle called individuation, which speaks to the heart of our question.  He drew a clear distinction between the common nature of beings, which would include features that would be found in any number of individuals and “haecceity” which is the specific combination of features that make one unique. 

​

This question, posed by Scotus, is essentially the same question we are pondering here.  Scotus asked, “What is it in this stone, by which as by a proximate foundation it is absolutely incompatible with the stone for it to be divided into several parts each of which is this stone, the kind of division that is proper to a universal whole as divided into its subjective parts?”  Applied to the human person, he is asking what it is that ultimately unifies me into a unique individual, such that if removed, I would cease to exist?  More simply, what defines the existence or non-existence of a specific individual? 

​

Clearly, there was a time when I didn’t exist, but now I do.  There is a saying that it is the clothes that make the man, but when I change my clothes during the day, I am not then a different individual.  I am still the same person.  If I wake up pale in the morning, spend the day at the beach and come home at night tanned, or more likely red, I am not thereby a different individual.  I am still the same person.  Even if I have organ transplants from another person, I am not a different individual.  I am still the same person.  My thoughts and emotions are essentially the same.  Even if I change my mind and my attitude and my emotions, I am still me.  How can I change so much and still continue to exist as the same person?  What is that key element that makes me “me”? 

​

What does science teach us about this?  Can metaphysics explain it? How does the medical community weigh in?  Is the key some thing learned or acquired or innate? Are there any answers or just more questions?  Is there a knowable truth about our existence? 

​

Part II

​

In exploring this question previously, we examined some philosophical works from the Middle Ages, particularly those of John Duns Scotus.  Scotus did not believe that all created substances were simply composites of form and matter.  He believed that matter exists that has no form at all and that a single substance can have more than one substantial form.  He proposed an original principle called individuation which speaks to the heart of our question.  He drew a clear distinction between the common nature of beings which would include features that would be found in any number of individuals and “haecceity” which is the specific combination of features that make one unique. 

​

Scotus posed this question, “What is it in this stone, by which as by a proximate foundation it is absolutely incompatible with the stone for it to be divided into several parts each of which is this stone, the kind of division that is proper to a universal whole as divided into its subjective parts?”

Answers to this question require conclusions about the distinction between common nature and individuation such as made by Scotus.  Humanity would be considered a universal whole.  Its members, who share many common characteristics, can be divided by geography, color, gender, ethnicity and a number of other characteristics without destroying humanity as such.  Humanity continues to exist even though we divide ourselves into categories. 

​

However, not everything can be so neatly divided.  This is where Scotus’ philosophy of individuation comes about.  “What is it in this stone, by which it is absolutely incompatible with the stone for it to be divided into several parts each of which is this stone?”  For example:  The Akbar Shah diamond was a specific 116 carat diamond of the early 1600’s.  In the late 1800’s it was purchased and recut into a pear shaped diamond of about 72 carats.  The new pear shaped diamond, the chips and the diamond dust together on a table would not still be called the Akbar Shah.  It is no longer the same stone.

Scotus’ question about the stone is just as easily addressed to an individual human being.  In part one, we looked at how a person changes over time, but still remains the same person.  Science and medicine teach us that over about a seven year period an individual’s cell structure is completely renewed, that is, by age seven or so, there is not a single cell left in the body that was there at birth.  The cells at birth have all died and been replaced, but I am still the same person.  From birth to youth to young adulthood to middle age to retirement age to old age my entire body structure is replaced repeatedly, but I am the same person.  What is it in me that makes that true?

​

Applying Scotus question to a specific person it might read, “What is it about Mark that makes is absolutely incompatible with Mark for him to be divided into several parts each of which would still be Mark”?  In humans, we see this most clearly at the instants of life and death.  Have you ever been present at the moment of someone’s death?  All the same body parts are there the moment after death as were there the moment before, but what animates the parts is missing.  Even though the body is still in front of us, we speak of the person as having slipped away, passed over, gone.  We begin to talk about the person in the past tense. 

​

In part one of this article, it was noted that Thomas Aquinas argued that in all finite being the essence of a thing is distinct from its existence, that is, one can exist without the other.  John Duns Scotus, disagreed with Aquinas.  Aquinas taught that the soul is the substantial form of man. Scotus taught that the human body without the soul has its own form, the forma corporeitatis.  What is it we are seeing in death?  Is there a distinction without a difference? 

​

Next time, we’ll examine the definition and concept of soul and what science and the medical community can and cannot teach us about Transcendentals.

​

Part III

​

This is the third and final article in this series titled, What makes me, “me”? In comparing the philosophical works of Aquinas and Scotus, it was noted that Thomas Aquinas argued that in all finite being the essence of a thing is distinct from its existence. John Duns Scotus, disagreed with Aquinas. Scotus taught that you cannot think about essence, that is, what it means to be a particular thing, unless you think of that thing as existing. Aquinas taught that the soul is the substantial form of man. Scotus taught that the human body without the soul has its own form, the forma corporeitatis. Is there a distinction without a difference?

​

Let’s examine the definition and concept of soul talked about by both of these philosophers and what science and the medical community can and cannot teach us. I have pulled definitions of soul from a variety of sources.

​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

The soul, in many religious, philosophical, psychological, and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortal essence of a person…

 

dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul  

soul —n: 1. the spirit or immaterial part of man, the seat of human personality, intellect, will, and emotions, regarded as an entity that survives the body after death...

​

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul

SOUL 1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life; 2a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings...

 

www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/555149/soul  

In religion and philosophy, the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity…

​

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm  

The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life.

​

These definitions describe the soul as “incorporeal”, “immaterial”, “spirit”, or “essence”. The body is material, that is, physical. There is a clear distinction between that which is material and that which is immaterial. So what can we learn about each and how can it be learned?

​

Science is referred to as a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation, study and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. Information is obtained and tested through scientific method and is concerned with the physical world.

​

The many fields of science are commonly classified in two major categories: Natural sciences (the study of the natural world) and Social sciences (the systematic study of human behavior and society). The Natural sciences would include such fields as biology, chemistry, physics and earth science. Examples of the Social sciences would include political science, psychology, criminology, sociology and economics.

So science can study, describe and explain the physical body through the natural sciences and can explain human behavior through the social sciences, but as yet, it has no means or scientific method to observe, study, experiment on or explain that which is “incorporeal”, “immaterial”, “spirit”, or “essence”. The soul is beyond the scope of present day science. It is hard to say whether that will always be the case.

The medical community is noticing and noting something in its encounters with death and near-death experiences. More and more doctors, surgeons and emergency room physicians are writing books on this subject. One of the above definitions describes the soul as the “animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life. Perhaps we are witnessing the beginning of methodical observation of the soul or at least the effects of its presence or absence.

​

Could it be that both Aquinas and Scotus were correct? Thomas Aquinas argued that in all finite being the essence of a thing is distinct from its existence. Could it be that the essence, the soul, is distinct from the existence of the body and is in fact an immortal essence, an entity that survives the body after death as defined above?

​

Aquinas taught that the soul is the substantial form of man. Above, the soul is defined as the seat of human personality, intellect, will, and emotions. Scotus taught that the human body without the soul has its own form, the forma corporeitatis. It would seem that this is what the medical community and others surrounding the dying are seeing at the time of death. Is the difference between the moment before death and the moment after death the absence of the soul, the “animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life”?

​

We began this short series by asking what is it that makes me, “me”? Both philosophers and the above definitions would point to the soul as the answer to that question. As defined above, the soul is the “animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life”. The soul is “that which confers individuality and humanity”. The soul is the “seat of human personality, intellect, will, and emotions”. What an excellent description of what makes me, “me”!

​

Given these definitions of soul and its intense, intimate and integral connection to our existence and essence, there are two additional aspects of the definitions to be examined at a later date: “spiritual principle” and the philosophy that “with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life”. For more, watch for articles on near-death experiences and other related topics.

​

​