"...one must examine whether it is divisible or without parts, and whether all soul is of the same kind, or, if it is not of the same kind, whether should differ as forms of one general class... For those who now speak and inquire about the soul seem to consider only the human soul, but one must be on the lookout so that it does not escape notice whether there is one articulation of soul, just as of living thing, or a different one for each, as for horse, dog, human being, and god...
"...if there are not many souls but parts of one soul, one must consider whether one ought to inquire first about the soul as a whole or about these parts..."
Aristotle, On the Soul, Book 1, Chapter 1
The central themes of these two books of Aristotle seem to be the definition of the soul itself and the examination of the soul as a presence in different creatures. In the very beginning of Book 1, Aristotle raises these questions in the above passage, asking which creatures possess souls and if these souls manifest themselves in different ways for each type of creature. He later maintains that each soul is made up of at least one potency, and that the souls of human beings have the highest number of these, above animals, plants, and elements. However, an interesting idea is presented in the above passage: Aristotle seems to imply that if all living things have the same articulation or type of soul, they make up "not many souls but parts of one soul".
These two different ideas of the soul in nature, whether it is different for all creatures or the same and therefore a communal soul, seem to recall the question we debated in the early weeks of this course: are we, as humans, a part of nature or separate from it? The idea that each creature has a different type of soul and that the soul is the strongest and most complex in humans seems to lead to the idea that humans are superior to the rest of the natural world and therefore have the ability, perhaps the right, to dominate it and use it for our own ends. However, the idea that all of the natural world shares the same soul is a voice for the conservation movement, suggesting that humanity has a duty to care for and preserve the natural world. If we lose it, we lose an intrinsic and vital part of our own soul and of ourselves. The fact that Aristotle eventually embraces the idea of multiple different souls could imply that he might also support human superiority and domination of nature.
The idea of nature itself having a soul is also a very spiritual thing. Most religions today believe that only humans have souls and, therefore, only they can pass into the next life. Aristotle's ideas of animals and plants having souls lends a sort of spirituality to the natural world, and is another reason to protect and value the natural world for more than just aesthetics. If we embrace modern ideas of the soul, then killing a wild animal or chopping down a tree is merely ending a lesser life, that of a wild beast; if we embrace Aristotle's doctrine, we murder another perceptive and valuable being.
Do you think the connection between the soul and the natural world is conducive to conservation, or does it only complicate this cause in the long run? Do we have a duty to protect the natural world because it may have a soul as well, or does the presence of a soul make a difference? What about the different ideas of the soul: does it matter if we believe that the natural world shares the same type of soul or that humans have a superior one?
I think that you did an excellent job explaining Aristotle's so-called "hierarchy" of souls. I also believe that because Aristotle accepts the idea that different kinds of souls exist and that human beings have the most complex souls that he implies that humans have superiority over nature. For this reason, I do not think that his view can also be helpful for conservation efforts. If anything, it might give his reader's a reason to distance themselves from nature and feel less attached to our effects on nature. While I believe that this kind of thinking may complicate our relationship with nature further, I do not think that individual views on the soul will have a significant impact on how we treat nature.
ReplyDelete