Ancient greek philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soul in Pre-Socratic Thought
Soul. This concept is commonly used in both philosophic and theological debates, but one must consider precisely what is implied by the term soul before one can actually determine whether it has a rightful place in Natural Philosophy. The Random House Collegiate Dictionary tells us that soul can be defined as, “the emotional part of man’s nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.” If we can accept this as a valid definition of soul then one can assign both scientific validity and rational explanation to the concept. Emotion has definite physiological effects on the human body. Joy, anger, depression, exuberance – all the emotions cause distinctive bio-chemical reactions to occur.
While emotion is irrational, it can be encompassed within rational thought. Rational thought being a logical progression of concepts; one can treat an emotional reaction as part of a logical statement. Take the following example:
If Jackie wins the Lottery, she will be Happy and Quit her job. Therefore, if Jackie wins the Lottery she will be Happy.
Through the use of some fairly basic Logic, one can easily involve emotion in what is a rational thought process. If it is agreed that emotion is the definition of soul, then one can attest that soul is both scientific in nature and subject to rational thought, therefore deserving of a rightful place amongst the topics of Natural Philosophy.
Some may argue that soul is much more than a jumble of emotion caught up in the worldly flesh-shell of the body. The Ancient Greeks themselves would have more likely considered soul a separate spiritual part of humanity responsible for all thought, knowledge and the overall greatness of mankind. Irrespective of what the pre-Socratic philosophers may have considered soul to consist of, they would very likely have taken for granted that soul exists, that it is a part of nature and subject to the laws of the universe.
From Anaximenes who considered that soul binds us and controls us in some sort of cosmological magic and Thales who believed that the gods (soul) were in everything to Pythagoras’ concept of immortal soul through reincarnation, the general acceptance in the existence of soul as a spiritual thing (separate from the body but still existing in the universe) is prevalent amongst all of the pre-Socratics. While this concept of soul differs from a more current, secular definition, the fact remains that in order to allow soul to be a concept in Natural Philosophy one must either admit the existence of soul (and by doing so, allow that it is subject to universal laws) or deny it. If soul doesn’t exist, then the point is moot and all can agree that the non-existent cannot be studied. If soul does exist, then Natural Philosophy should attempt an explanation in non-theological terms.
A non-theological explanation of soul obtains its necessity via secularists, agnostics and atheists. Where the pre-Socratics failed is in this: they all accepted the existence of soul but failed to justify how, where or even if it existed. In the Natural world there is always cause and effect: the effect being soul, the cause being undefined by the pre-Socratics. The attempt at tying in the origin of soul to one of the primal elements in order to correlate the soul’s existence to the creation of all things is laudable but not productive. That speculation paved the way for some of the most important conceptual thinking ever in human recorded history, but in and of itself was fairly unremarkable. The one exception to this was Anaxagoras and his concept that Mind (nous, in the Ancient Greek) was the origin of everything and that Mind is the essence of soul. Anaxagoras best states his precepts when he says, “Mind rules all things that possess life…And Mind set in order all things, whatever kinds of things there were to be…” (Reeve, p45) While this conceptualization still borders on the theological, Anaxagoras presents them in a very matter-of-fact manner more akin to an architectural text as opposed to fragmentary reading on the origins of soul and universe.
This all being said, we return to one basic precept: if one accepts that soul exists (in any iteration be it theological or secular), then by definition it must exist in the Natural world. Natural Philosophy’s pursuit is to seek out the ‘wisdom of nature’, to create a dialogue relevant to natural occurrences which (based upon belief) include soul. Attempts have been made since antiquity to define soul, and in the attempt to define it humanity has, in essence, confirmed its existence.
Bibliography
1. S. Marc Cohen, Patricia Curd & C.D.C. Reeve. (1995). Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy from Thales to Aristotle. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
