{"id":13545,"date":"2025-10-28T16:03:44","date_gmt":"2025-10-28T23:03:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/?p=13545"},"modified":"2025-10-30T15:11:20","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T22:11:20","slug":"more-on-hylomorphic-dualism-and-the-distinctness-of-souls-post-mortem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2025\/10\/28\/more-on-hylomorphic-dualism-and-the-distinctness-of-souls-post-mortem\/","title":{"rendered":"More on Hylomorphic Dualism and the Distinctness of Souls Post Mortem"},"content":{"rendered":"

Edward Feser writes<\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
Hey Bill, many thanks for your Substack post<\/a> on\u00a0<\/em>Immortal Souls.\u00a0 I’ve written up a reply<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0As you’ll see, at the end I give a shout out to your book Life’s Path: Some Trail Notes<\/a>\u00a0which I have enjoyed and profited from.\u00a0 You are the rare contemporary philosopher who has both technical chops and the virtue of wisdom in the broad sense that includes understanding of concrete human life.\u00a0 It’s amazing and depressing how many academics are utterly devoid of the latter.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Thanks for the kind words, Ed.\u00a0 Now on to your criticisms.<\/p>\n

You say that on the A-T theory, “while each individual physical substance has its own substantial form, with physical substances of the same species their substantial forms are of the same kind.” You suggest that this is something I haven’t understood, but I don’t disagree with you.\u00a0 Your point is that each physical substance has its own<\/em> substantial form.\u00a0 That’s right;\u00a0 we all understand that Aristotelian forms are not Platonic Forms.\u00a0 Unlike Platonic Forms, which enjoy a transcendent existence in a topos ouranios<\/em> whether or not they are instantiated here below, Aristotelian forms\u00a0 can exist only in concrete particulars.\u00a0 Platonic Forms\u00a0 are transcendent, Aristotelian forms\u00a0 immanent. As I see it, Platonic Forms are transcendent in two senses: (i) they exist whether or not any concrete particulars participate in them; (ii) they do not enter into concrete particulars as constituents of them.\u00a0 Aristotelian (substantial) forms, by contrast, are not transcendent but immanent, and in a two fold-sense: (iii) they cannot exist on their own but only\u00a0 in concrete particulars; (iv) they exist in concrete particulars as their constituents.\u00a0 Thus Platonic participation (methexis<\/em>, \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2) is very different from the relation that obtains between a complete Aristotelian primary substance and its ontological constituents or ‘principles’ which are not themselves substances. Plato and Aristotle thus offer two very different theoretical explications of the pre-analytic or pre-theoretical notion of instantiation.<\/p>\n

As you say, and I agree, an Aristotelian substantial form “is a concrete principle intrinsic to a substance that grounds its characteristic properties and powers.”\u00a0 You also say, and I agree, that on the A-T theory, “the soul is a substantial form of the kind that gives a physical substance the distinctive properties and powers of a living thing.” It follows from these two points that each living physical substance has its own<\/em> soul or psyche<\/em>, where the soul of a living thing is its life-principle.\u00a0 \u00a0This holds for both human animals such as Socrates and Plato and for non-human animals. We also agree that humans, unlike other living things, have both corporeal and noncorporeal properties and powers. So far, I believe we are ‘on the same page’ at least with respect to what the A-T theory says. I take it we agree on the content<\/em> of the theory; our dispute concerns its coherence<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But let’s dig a little deeper. It seems to me that the A-T conception further implies that matter (materia signata<\/em>) plays a dual role: it both individuates and differentiates.\u00a0 These are different ‘ontological jobs’ even though on the A-T scheme\u00a0 signate matter does both of them.\u00a0 Two questions.<\/p>\n

(Q1)\u00a0 Why do Socrates and Plato each have their own individual substantial forms and thus — given that souls are substantial\u00a0 forms — their own individual souls? Answer: because forms, which cannot exist Platonically, but only in concrete particulars,\u00a0 are individuated or particularized\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 parcels of matter which they inform or in which they inhere.<\/p>\n

(Q2) Why do Socrates and Plato differ numerically? Why are they two and not one? Because each is a numerically different hunk of matter.\u00a0 So matter (designated matter) is the ground both of the individuation of forms — that which makes them individuals and not universals — and that which grounds the\u00a0 numerical difference of the two complete physical substances.<\/p>\n

So much for the pre-mortem situation of Socrates and Plato.\u00a0 With respect to the pre-mortem\u00a0 situation, Aristotle and Thomas pretty much agree about human beings (rational animals). Post-mortem, however, important differences surface due to Thomas’s Christian commitments which, needless to say, are not shared by Aristotle.\u00a0 And so we need to ask how well these Christian commitments comport with the Aristotelian scheme.<\/p>\n

For Thomas, human souls after death are (1) subsistent, (2) separable, (3) multiple, (4) incomplete,\u00a0 (5) personal, and (6) such that the soul no longer functions as a life-principle but\u00a0 only as a ‘seat’ of noncorporeal intellectual operations. I’ll explain these points seriatim.<\/p>\n

Ad (1).\u00a0 The souls of rational animals, unlike the souls of nonrational animals,\u00a0 continue to exist after death.<\/p>\n

Ad (2). The souls of rational animals can and do exist after death in a disembodied state, i.e., apart from\u00a0 matter. So they don’t merely subsist; they subsist in an immaterial way.<\/p>\n

Ad (3). Just as there are many human beings ‘on earth,’ i.e., in the physical realm, there are many disembodied human souls after death. Whatever the number is, it is neither one nor zero.\u00a0 Moreover, for each human being that existed ‘on earth,’ there is exactly one soul after death (whether in heaven, hell, purgatory, or limbo) and this soul after death is numerically identical to the soul of the human before death. Thus the soul of Socrates after death is numerically the same as the soul he had before death.<\/p>\n

Ad (4). Human souls after death, but before resurrection, are substances all right, but\u00a0 incomplete <\/em>substances in that they lack a body when it is their nature to exist in an embodied state.<\/p>\n

Ad (5). Human souls after death are persons<\/em> in that they are conscious and self-conscious, albeit in non-sensory ways. In Summa Contra Gentiles<\/em>, Book IV, chs. 92-95, Aquinas elaborates on the will’s fixity after death: “souls immediately after their separation from the body become unchangeable in will with the result that the will of [a] man cannot further be changed, neither from good to evil, nor from evil to good.” (Ch. 92, top.)\u00a0 Suppose you go straight to heaven after death.\u00a0 Your will will be eternally fixed upon the good. This fixity of will is a modality of consciousness and also of self-consciousness inasmuch as the soul will be aware of its fixity of will.\u00a0 That is, the soul is aware that<\/em> it wills, and what<\/em> it wills. What’s more, the souls in heaven presumably can ‘hear’ petitionary prayers from souls ‘on earth’ and ask God to grant those petitions.\u00a0 This non-sensory ‘hearing’ is a modality of consciousness. The souls in heaven are aware of the petitions and formulate the intention to intercede with God for the benefit of the earthly petitioners.<\/p>\n

Ad (6). Dead humans are no longer alive.\u00a0 \u00a0So the soul of a human after death and before resurrection does not function as a life-principle.\u00a0 It can so function only if it is joined to an animal body that it enlivens or animates. But the soul of a human after death does function as the subject of conscious states such as the volitional state of willing only the good.\u00a0 The soul of a human before death, however, functions in both ways, as an animating principle, and as that in a human which is aware when it is aware of this or that.\u00a0 The difference is between the soul as life-principle and the soul as subject or ego or I.<\/p>\n

I hope I have made clear that I really do understand what the A-T theory maintains.\u00a0 My disagreements with Ed Feser are not about the content<\/em> of the theory, but about its coherence<\/em> and thus its tenability.<\/p>\n

The point I was making in the Substack piece<\/a> could be put like this.\u00a0 After the death of a mortal man such as Socrates, and the dissolution of his material body, the soul he had can no longer be his<\/em> soul. The reason for this is that the individuating or particularizing\u00a0 factor, signate matter, which made the soul he had his<\/em> soul, is no longer present after death. To appreciate this point you must not forget that the form of a\u00a0 (primary) substance is not itself a (primary) substance, but a ‘principle’ — Ed uses this very word — or constituent of a substance which together with<\/em> the material\u00a0 constituent constitutes a (primary) substance. Thus the constituents or ‘principles’ of a substance are not themselves substances and therefore not themselves metaphysically capable of independent existence.\u00a0 Bear in mind that for Aristotle, primary substances are basic entities in the sense that they do not depend on anything else for their existence in the way a smile depends on\u00a0 face.\u00a0 But what I have just argued — that the soul of Socrates after death cannot be his own soul — contradicts (3) which is a non-negotiable doctrinal commitment of Thomism.\u00a0 The lesson to be learned from this is that Aristotelian hylomorphism is not consistent with the characteristic commitments of Thomism.\u00a0 Note that I am not denying the doctrinal commitments listed above.\u00a0 My point is that they cannot be rendered intelligible by the use of Aristotelian conceptuality, in particular, hylomorphism.<\/p>\n

My point can also be made from the side of differentiation.\u00a0 Thomas is committed to saying that Socrates and Plato are as soulically\u00a0 or psychically distinct\u00a0 in the afterlife as they are in this life.\u00a0 But in the afterlife before resurrection they lack material bodies.\u00a0 Lacking bodies, they lack that which could ground their numerical difference. So if the two men after death are two numerically different souls, then souls are not mere Aristotelian forms. They are substances in their own right.\u00a0 This is why Richard Swinburne, no slouch of a philosopher, speaks plausibly and indeed correctly of “Thomist substance dualism.” (Are We Bodies or Souls?<\/em> Oxford UP, 2019, p. 82)<\/p>\n

Aristotle is not a substance dualist, but Thomas is.\u00a0 This is not to say that Thomas is a substance dualist in the very same sense that Descartes is. But he is a substance dualist nonetheless.<\/p>\n

I expect Ed to balk at this and reiterate the bit about ‘incomplete’ substances formulated above in point (4).\u00a0 Let’s think this through as sympathetically as possible.\u00a0 If a life-principle is actually functioning as such, then there must be a physical body it enlivens or animates. It therefore makes perfect sense for Thomas to say to say\u00a0 that it is the nature of\u00a0 a\u00a0 life-principle to be joined to a body.\u00a0 For a life-principle to be a life-principle of a material thing, there must be<\/em> a material thing whose life-principle it is. So if human souls are life-principles, then it is the nature<\/em> of the human soul to have a body. But post-mortem souls before resurrection are not functioning as life-principles. And yet Thomas insists that after death and before resurrection human souls continue to exist and are numerically the same as the souls that existed before death.\u00a0 \u00a0One survives one’s bodily death as a person, as a self, as a subject of conscious states. So is it not obvious that human souls before death and after death (but before the re-embodiment consequent upon resurrection) are not mere substantial forms but substances in their own right?\u00a0 I say it is obvious and it puzzles me that what is obvious to me is not obvious to Ed.\u00a0 Try this syllogistic chain on for size.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. No forms for Aristotle are substances.<\/li>\n
  2. All souls for Aristotle are forms. Therefore:<\/li>\n
  3. No souls for Aristotle are substances. (1, 2)<\/li>\n
  4. All and only substances for Aristotle are capable of independent existence. Therefore:<\/li>\n
  5. No souls for Aristotle are capable of independent existence. (3, 4)<\/li>\n
  6. Some souls for Aquinas are capable of independent existence. Therefore:<\/li>\n
  7. Some souls for Aquinas are not souls in Aristotle’s sense of ‘soul.’ (5,6)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    I conclude that Aquinas’s conception of the soul is not hylomorphic sensu<\/em> stricto<\/em> but substance-dualist. Hylomorphism does not render the angelic doctor’s doctrinal commitments intelligible.\u00a0 And that was my point.<\/p>\n

    I have heard it said that Thomas is an Aristotelian on earth, but a Platonist in heaven.\u00a0 That is an approximation to the truth, but it just now occurred to me that it is not quite right, and may be more clever than truthful.\u00a0 \u00a0For Aquinas is committed to the diachronic numerical identity of the person or self both in this life and on into the after life. So even in this life there has to be more to the soul than a life-principle. I conclude that even in this life Thomas is not wholly Aristotelian.\u00a0 If Thomas is a substance-dualist in heaven, he must also be one on earth as well .A follow-up post will make this more clear.<\/p>\n

    Addendum<\/strong> (10\/29).\u00a0 This morning I found a section\u00a0 on Aquinas in John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting<\/em>, Eerdmans 1989, p. 11-13.\u00a0 \u00a0Cooper makes points that support what I argue above. He states that Thomas “combined important features of the Aristotelian body-soul relation with a basically Augustinian dualistic framework.” Although “Thomas uses Aristotle to emphasize the unity of human nature,” he “remains with Augustine in affirming that the soul is a distinct substance which can survive biological death.” Cooper appreciates that a Christian cannot take an Aristotelian\u00a0 approach to the soul. “For Aristotle’s soul is only the form of the body and not a substance as such. Therefore it cannot survive death as an individual entity.” (13) Thomas abandons Aristotle by holding that “the soul is both the form of the body and an intellectual substance in its own right.”\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

    Swinburne, Cooper, and I are saying the same thing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Edward Feser writes, Hey Bill, many thanks for your Substack post on\u00a0Immortal Souls.\u00a0 I’ve written up a reply\u00a0 \u00a0As you’ll see, at the end I give a shout out to your book Life’s Path: Some Trail Notes\u00a0which I have enjoyed and profited from.\u00a0 You are the rare contemporary philosopher who has both technical chops and … Continue reading “More on Hylomorphic Dualism and the Distinctness of Souls Post Mortem”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[57,22,184,23,139,59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13545","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aquinas-and-thomism","category-aristotle","category-death-and-immortality","category-hylomorphism","category-religion","category-soul-and-body"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13545","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13545"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13545\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13660,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13545\/revisions\/13660"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}