제대로 된 반론이 필요할 때 이 글을 대외에 공개할 것이며 아직은 지켜 보는 입장이어서 이 곳에만 게재합니다.



고신은 그 동안 참으로 오랜 세월을 알게 모르게 이 노선을 정죄했습니다. 그 자체를 두고 잘못 되었다고 하지는 않습니다. 바르지 못한 것은 바로 비판해야 하기 때문입니다. 문제는 이 노선에 대한 기초 사실 자체를 자신들이 마음대로 조작한 다음 그 조작한 내용이 무슨 과거 사실인 것처럼 기초로 삼아 정죄를 했다는 사실이 대단히 유감스럽습니다. 세상 법정에서조차 허용치 않는 것이므로 이런 수준의 비판은 불신 사회 차원에서도 재론하지 못하게 만들었어야 하는데 이 노선은 신앙의 본질에 충실한 편이며 또 그런 정도의 무책임하고 모략적 비판조차도 우리에게 유익이 된다는 입장이어서 너그럽게 온유하게 상대해 왔습니다.

고신은 원래 이분설이며 그 이분설이 마치 역사적 세계적 현실적 진리인 줄 알고 그렇게 가르쳤고 이분설과 반대 되는 주장은 무조건 이단 또는 그 비슷한 수준으로 비판해 왔습니다. 참고로, 고신의 신학교나 공사석에는 이 노선과 여러 면으로 연관 된 분들이 많아서 거의 다 이 노선에 소식이 전달 되는 편입니다. 심지어 신학교 강의 시간에도 종종 이런 문제가 거론이 되고 그럴 때마다 거의 일관 되게 답변이 나왔습니다. 고신은 이분설이며 그 이분설만 진리로 알고 삼분설은 무조건 정죄해 왔습니다.


그런데 고신이 정죄한 삼분설은 이 노선의 삼분설이 아니고 늘 역사적 타 교단의 삼분설이었습니다. 상기 2012.5.18. 등에서 나타 나는 인식 역시 아주 명확합니다. 그런데 고신은 말할 것 없고 세계적으로 모든 이분설에게는 어느 날 그들의 진리를 변경해야 할 일이 생겼습니다. 천체물리학의 발달에 따라 지구가 평평하다고 말하거나 태양과 모든 별들이 지구를 중심으로 돌고 있다는 주장을 철회한 것과 같습니다.

생물학의 발달에 따라 이제는 동물에게도 마음이 있고 인간의 마음을 의사들이 자유자재로 가지고 놀 수 있으며 그 내용을 완벽하게 분석해 내고 있는데 바로 그 과정에서 신학은 그 마음을 하나님의 형상대로 지음 받은 영이라고 했던 입장을 철회하고 변경하지 않을 수 없게 된 것입니다. 마음이 영이며 영적 존재라면 불신 과학이 영계와 천사와 우리의 영과 우리의 신앙을 마음대로 손을 대는 모순이 나옵니다.

바로 이 단계에서 모든 이분설들은 비록 삼분설을 인정하는 데에 이르기는 어렵지만 최소한 이분설이 명확하게 틀렸다는 것은 단정할 수 있습니다. 이분설을 틀렸다고 생각하고 그리고 삼분설에서 가능성을 찾을 수 있다는 것도 그리 어려울 문제는 아닙니다. 문제는 이북 공산주의가 남북의 대결과 북한 정권의 유지를 위해 세계 어느 나라에서도 찾을 수 없도록 공산주의를 너무 강조했고 그 이름으로 저질러 버린 일이 너무 많아서 이제 공산주의로는 먹고 살 수도 없고 사실상 이 땅 위에 공산주의는 이미 없어 졌으며 북한조차 자본주의를 이미 받아 들였고 더욱 가속화 하려고 필사의 노력을 하는데도 일반 백성들을 향해서는 입장도 있고 체면도 있고 충격을 완화할 방법을 찾아야 하기 때문에 여전히 공산주의라는 표현을 입에 담고 있는 것과 비슷한 상황입니다.


이분설과 삼분설은 서로가 상대를 틀렸다 했고 자기는 옳다고 했습니다. 삼분설은 여전히 그 입장을 고수하고 있는데 이분설이 어느 날 이분설로는 생물학과 의학과 심리학 등의 명확한 사실 때문에 이미 폐기해야 할 교리가 되었고 최소한 이분설은 사실이 아니라고 선언을 해야 할 시점이 오자, 이분설 하나를 내어 주는 것이 문제가 아니라 이분설을 내어 주면 마치 칼빈주의 전부를 다 내어 주는 것처럼 심리적 압박을 받고 있습니다. 마치 천국과 선택과 주권과 정통과 구원을 다 포기해야 하는 문제처럼 여기고 있는데 갈수록 이분설의 오류는 더 이상 변명조차 할 수도 없도록 확대 되자 눈치 빠른 학자들이 '전인론'을 가지고 이분설의 오류를 덮어 버리고 퇴로를 찾아 도망을 가고 있습니다. 윗글의 전인론은 윗글 저자의 첫 발견이나 첫 발표가 아니라 이미 흔하게 목도 된 이분설의 퇴로 명칭입니다.

남북한은 분명히 공산주의냐 자본주의냐, 독재주의냐 민주주의냐, 김씨 왕조냐 보편 인권이냐라는 문제로 지금까지 싸웠습니다. 그런데 소련과 동구 전부가 몰락하고 중국도 완전히 자본주의로 돌아 서 버리고 북한은 굶어 죽는 판이 되니까 남북의 대결에서 북한이 졌다고 솔직하게 인정하고 그리고 살 길을 찾으면 좋겠는데 평양의 집권을 유지한 채로 공산주의를 벗고 자본주의로 갈아 타려고 노력하는 과정에서 '북한식 사회주의' '주체사상'이 제일 먼저 나오고 그 다음에는 남북이 다 틀렸다는 물타기가 나오고 마지막에는 박정희의 유신론으로 북한이 차를 갈아 타는 상황입니다.

북한식 사회주의나 주체사상은, 마치 자본주의가 공산주의일 수 없듯이 그 것들도 공산주의일 수 없습니다. 모두 공산주의 이름 앞에서는 없애 버릴 원수일 뿐입니다. 또한 남북이 다 틀렸다는 말을 하는 순간 북한의 공산주의는 스스로 자신들이 틀렸다는 말입니다. 그런데 말 장난으로 묘하게 퇴로를 만들고 다음 단계로 어물쩡 넘어 가는 일인데 세상이야 원래 양심이라는 것이 없어서 상관이 없으나 이분설이 삼분설과의 논쟁에서 삼분설이 왜 틀렸는지를 그렇게 오랜 세월 동안 신학교 교과서와 강의를 통해 난도질을 해 놓고도 이제 와서 이분설과 삼분설의 구분 자체가 잘못이라면서 전인론을 들고 나오는 것은, 이분설 삼분설 논쟁을 두고는 최소한의 양심조차 없는 일입니다.

전인론은 사람을 이분으로 삼분으로 나누는 것 자체를 부인하고 원래 하나님은 영육이 하나로 된 사람을 만들었지 영 없는 육이나 육은 무시하고 영만 가진 인간을 만들지 않았으며 영육이 하나 된 상태에서 인간은 인간으로서의 의미를 가진다고 주장하는데, 이분설이든 삼분설이든 전인설을 부인한 경우는 극단적 이단들 외에는 원래 없었습니다. 이분설도 전인설을 주장했고 삼분설도 당연히 전인설의 기초 위에 전인설과 삼분설이 다른 학설이 아니며 병존 불가능한 것이 아니라는 전제에서 토론 되어 졌습니다. 그런데 무슨 이북 공산당의 퇴로 만들기처럼 뻔한 논리를 내세워 과거 삼분설을 비판하던 것을 회개하는 대신에 유야무야를 시키고 끝 내려는 것은 신앙 세계에서 최소한의 양심조차 버린 일입니다. 양심은 그 자체가 정확한 것은 아니나 정확한 것을 찾는 데에 가장 중요하고 첫 발을 딛는 것이 되는 것이니 양심이 없으면 진리 연구는 꿈도 꿀 수 없습니다.

고신의 학자 입에서 이분설 삼분설은 필요 없는 논쟁이며 사람의 구성은 원래부터 전인설 이름 하나를 전부로 삼아야 한다는 논리가 처음 나온 것이 아니라 이미 이분설의 몰락을 두고 이분설 학자들이 이분설에서부터 빠져 나오는 잔꾀 차원으로 애용 된 논리입니다. 이분설 입에서 이분설과 삼분설의 논쟁을 중단하고 전인설로 가자고 발표를 한다면 이는 이분설의 퇴로 명칭일 뿐입니다. 이분설이 틀렸다는 것을 우선 인정을 해야 합니다. 그리고 전인설이라는 것은 이분설과 삼분설을 대체하는 더 나은 학설이 아니라 이분설과 전인설 또는 삼분설과 전인설이 함께 가는 병립 또는 하나로 얽힌 학설입니다.

학생이 학교를 가서 공부도 하고 인격을 도야 하는 것은 보다 원만한 학창 시절을 보내는 방법이지 공부를 하는 것과 인격 도야는 양립이 불가능한 일이 아닙니다. 전인설은 이분설을 이분설로 만드는 전제요 또한 사람의 전인설을 제대로 알기 위해서 이분설을 가지게 된 것입니다. 삼분설 역시 마찬 가지입니다.


















>> 권경호 님이 쓰신 내용 <<
:
:
:
:
: 이분론 인가? 삼분론인가? 개혁주의 신학의 입장
:
:
: 권경호(부평교회 담임목사, 철학박사)
:
:
:
: ▲ 권경호 박사
:
: 부평교회 담임목사
: Potchefstroom 철학박사
:
:
:
:
: 인간론에 있어 이분론(二分論, diachotomy)인가, 삼분론(三分論, trichotomy)인가 하는 문제는 아주 오랜 논쟁이며 아직도 끝나지 않은 문제이다. 이것은 비단 신학에서 뿐 아니라 서양철학에 있어서 지속되는 주안점인 “육체-영혼”, “마음-육체”, “마음-물질”에 있어서도 아직 논쟁이 계속되고 있다. 지금까지 보수적이며 정통이라고 자부하는 교회들은 대개 이분론을 지지하여 왔다. 특히 한국의 보수 교회는 루이 벌코프(Louis Berkhof)의 조직 신학과 이를 이어 받은 신학자인 박형룡 박사의 신학을 따르고 있기 때문에 대부분 이분론을 지지하여 온 것이 사실이다.
:
: 우리는 보통 영혼과 육체, 혹은 영, 혼, 육체처럼 이분론이나 삼분론을 따르는 입장을 이원론(dualism), 유물론(materialism)처럼 모든 것은 육체의 작용이라고 생각하는 사람이나 아주 드물게는 사람이 영혼으로만 되어 있다고 주장하는 이론은 일심론(Monism)이라고 부른다. 이분론이든 삼분론이든 간에 이것들은 모두 인간론적 이원론(Anthropological Dualism)이다. 이것을 이원론이라 부르는 이유는 영혼과 육체, 혹은 영, 혼, 육체를 구별된 별개의 존재로 인식하고 인간은 두 가지가 각기 독립된 존재로서 조합되어 구성되어 있다고 주장하기 때문이다. 물론 벌코프는 그의 조직 신학에서 영혼과 육체는 연합된(Unity) 존재라고 말하기는 하나 실제 내용으로 보면 영혼과 육체를 별개의 존재로 보고 있다. 인간론적 이원론의 기본적 사상은 인간이 육체와 영혼(삼분론은 영과 혼)이라는 분리되어 있는 요소로 구성되었다는 것이다.
:
: 사람은 인간 형태에 있어서 두 가지 종류의 본질로 조립되어 있는 것처럼 간주된다. 이 조합에서 불멸하는 영혼은 최고의 가치를 가지며 영혼은 가치가 없는 육체와 육체적 삶을 지배한다. 이분론과 삼분론의 핵심은 그리스어 “템네인(temnein)”에서 유래하는데 이 단어의 의미는 “자른다(to cut)”는 의미이다. 이 말은 인간의 존재를 잘라서 둘 혹은 세부분으로 나눈다는 의미이다. 여기에서의 중점은 육체에서 분리된 기능을 가진 영혼의 생존문제이다. 과연 인간은 그렇게 구성되어 있으며 죽을 때 분리되며 인간이 분리될 때 인간 의식은 계속 존재할 수 있는가? 계속되는 질문은 철학자 플라톤의 말과 같이 인간 육체는 영혼의 집이거나 영혼은 육체라는 배의 선장이며 마차의 마부인가 하는 점이다.
:
: 서양 철학에 있어서 철학적 이원론은 고대 그리스 철학자인 플라톤(Plato)으로부터 유래한다. 쿠퍼(Cooper)는 이런 이분론은 초기 기독교의 라틴 교부들로부터 유래하였으며 최종 이론은 어거스틴(Agustine)에 의한 것이라고 주장한다. 다시 말하면 이분론이건 삼분론이건 성경이 말하고 있는 내용이 아니라는 것이다. 지면상 일일이 성경이나 참고문헌을 소개하고 주를 ㅈ달지 못하지만(이 부분은 아래 웹페이지에서 논문을 참고하라.) 성경은 결코 사람이 육체가 영혼과 육체 두 부분(parts)으로 되어 있다고 말하지 않는다.
:
: 영혼과 육체는 엄연히 다르지만 이것은 “부분”(part)이 아니라 “면“(aspect)이다. 성경에서는 인간에 대하여 ”영(spirit)”, ”혼(soul)“, ”육(flesh)“, ”몸(body)“, ”마음(heart)“과 같은 표현을 사용한다. 그러나 이 단어들은 모두 사람을 나타내는 표현(제유법)이며, 사람을 여러 가지 다른 각도로 나타내거나 다양하게 나타내는 표현일 뿐이다. 데살로니가 전서 5:23-24의 영과 혼과 육은 전 인간의 성화를 나타내는 표현이다. 성경은 사람의 존재에 대해서 이 모든 것이 일체적 존재(unitary)로 표현한다. 사람은 결코 여러 부분으로 ”조합된composite)“ 존재가 아니라 ”전체적 존재(total being)”인 것이다. 성경에 따르면 사람의 정상적인 상태는 “심신일체(psychosomatic unity)”의 존재이며 전인적(whole)dl 다. 그러므로 인간은 부활 시에 영혼과 육체의 일체적이고 완성(completeness)된 존재로 회복될 것이다. 그러므로 육체가 영혼보다 저급하거나 무가치한 존재가 결코 아니다.
:
: 개혁주의 신학은 인간 존재를 이분론이나 삼분론으로 보는 것이 아니라 “전인적(holistic, whole being. 혹은 통전적)”존재로 인식한다. 그러므로 사람은 육체와 영혼이 본질적 연합을 이루며 따라서 “육 body”은 성경에서 “인격적 전인적 삶”을 나타내며 “영혼 soul”이란 단어 역시 “전인적 인간 존재 whole human being”를 포함하고 있는 것이다.
:
: 초기 기독교로부터 중세 교회를 통하여 종교 개혁 시대에도 영향을 끼친 플라톤적 인간론적 이원론은 아직도 한국의 보수 교회에 영향을 끼치고 있다. 영혼은 소중하며 육신은 무가치한 것이고 진정한 인간은 영혼이라 여기고 있는 신자들은 영적인 것과 육적인 것을 오해하여 종교적 생활은 소wnd히 여기지만 이 세상의 삶에 대해서는 중요하게 여기지 않는다. 아니 이 세상 삶은 죄된 것이라고 여긴다. 그러므로 영적인 것은 “하늘의 것(heavenly)”과 “거룩한 것(Sacred)”으로 이 세상의 삶은 “세속적(secular)”이고 “세상적(worldly)”인 것으로 생각한다.
:
: 이분론과 삼분론의 관점은 성경적이라 할 수 없으며 이에 대한 논쟁은 무의미한 것이다. 개혁주의는 인간 존재에 대하여 전인적(holistic)이고 전체적(totality)이고 통합된(unitary) 사람으로서 보고 있다. 인간에 대한 전인적 관점은 당연히 교회 생활에 있어서 “성-속”, “육체-영혼”의 구별이 아닌 전인적인 사람으로 살아가게 하는 일에 큰 힘을 발휘하게 될 것이다.
:
:
:
:
: 이 글은 권경호 박사의 학위(Ph. D)논문 “The Anthropological Dualism in Korean Church Education(영문)”의 결론 부분을 발췌한 것이다. 이 논문은 “한국 연구재단 외 국 박사 학위 종합시스템 (doctorinfo. nfr. re. kr)”에서 검색할 수 있다. 논문방에서는 논문의 일부분인 6장에 관한 것을 볼 수 있다.
: ================================================================================
:
:
:
: THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ABOUT THE HUMAN BEING AND ITS EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: 6 THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ABOUT THE HUMAN BEING AND ITS EDUCATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
:
: 6.1 Introductory Remarks
:
:
:
: ▲ 권경호 박사
:
: 부평교회 담임목사
: Potchefstroom 철학박사
:
: The problem of ontological and anthropological dualism has become acute under the influence of the socio-cultural and religious context painted in chapter 5. Korean Christians still believe on the one hand that the human being exists bodily or physically and on the other hand that he is a spiritual being. This belief is, according to Van der Walt (1978b:106), typical of anthropological dualism. The problems in Korean Christianity mentioned in the previous chapter are results of anthropological dualism, which not only distinguishes between body and soul, but also ascribes a separate and independent existence to each of these "components" of the human being.
:
: The problem of body-soul, mind-body or mind-matter is a perennial feature of Western philosophy (Fowler, 1991:3) and has become a problem in Korean Christianity as well. The influence of Platonic dualism is widespread in church life (Lee, 1988:88-91). It can be detected in disciple training, preaching, teaching, education as well as in the concept of labour and in social life. Korean churches tend to emphasize missionary fervour, evangelism, church-centred life and spiritual gifts strongly, and to disregard the social responsibility of congregants such as providing for the less fortunate and living a life that bears the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Kim, 2004a:372-374). Because of this misguided and unbiblical view of human integrity, Korean Christianity and churches have become confused concerning other important philosophical questions such as the relationship between faith and practice, faith and science, sacred and secular, talk and walk.
:
: 6.2 The Central Issue
:
: The central issue here is whether the soul can survive and function apart from the body. In other words, is human nature constructed in such a way that, at death, it can come apart, the conscious personal part continuing to exist (in another dimension), while the human being as an organism disintegrates (Cooper, 1989:1-6)? The further question is: is the body a sort of house for the soul; or is it better to think of the soul as the captain of the ship of the body, the driver of a horse-cart (cf. Platonic Realism)? Or, should we rather think in terms of an interpretation of body and soul (Flower, 1991: 3)?
:
: The church as a whole has never taught that body and soul are related in terms of struggle and conflict between them. The biblical witness to the essential unity and wholeness of the personal self is antithetical to a dualism that posits an evil body and good soul (Jewett, 1996:35). Despite this, the human being has often been thought of as consisting of distinct "parts" or "components" that can be abstracted from the whole. So, in Christian circles, the human being has been thought of as consisting either of "body" and "soul," or of "body," "soul," and "spirit" (Hoekema, 1982: 203).
:
: The words "body" and "soul"afford a good example of the terms that we use quite frequently in ordinary discourse, but which at the same time cover ideas of central importance to philosophy (Van Peursen, 1966: 1). Is human nature constructed in such a way that at death body and soul can "come apart," the conscious personal part continuing to exist while the organism disintegrates? Traditional doctrine and the beliefs of millions of Christians have answered these questions positively (Cooper, 1989: 1-2). But is it true and biblically justifiable? Since our concern is with a biblically justifiable anthropology, we have to look anew at the Biblical teaching about the human being to see whether this is so. We will now proceed to do so in the following sections, albeit in a roundabout manner by commencing with ancient Greek ideas about the essence of the human being.
:
: 6.3 Historical and Philosophical Thought about the Body and Soul problem
:
: 6.3.1 Ancient Greek thought
:
: The body-soul problem has a long history. It is from the Greek philosophers first and foremost that modern people have inherited the idea of soul and body as distinct and separate entities (Van Peursen, 1966:87). The question of the relationship between soul and body is a core part of ancient Greek philosophy (Je, 1998: 1). In the thought of the ancient Greek period soul and body are knit so completely together that not only is the soul inseparable from the body but the concept "body", as partner to that of "soul", is unknown (Van Peursen 1966: 87). Zurcher (1969: 9) said that the monistic concept of the world of the Greek philosopherwould logically lead him to an anthropology which we would call materialistic. The soul is generally considered by them as the product of the organization of a unique material, the only primordial reality; accordingly, it must vanish with the decomposition of the organized body.
:
: The Greek word Psyche (ψυχη) means "soul." Since Homer is the earliest source for the occurrence of Psyche (soul), we shall start with his poems. The first striking fact about Psyche is that it is only rarely mentioned as being part of the living human being, and then only at times of crisis. From these Homeric passages it emerges that without psyche a human being can not survive (Bremmer, 1979: 13). In the Homeric period body and soul are distinguished and death consists of their separation (Gundry, 1987: 85).
:
: Where ideas of separation between body and soul appear in Greek literature they are usually labelled "Orphic." Whether or not there was a well-defined religious cult called "Orphism" is a disputed question. The "Orphic" myth of the human being’s origin is assigned by Pausanias to the sixth century B C. This is the familiar story of the soul’s transmigrations, recounted by Plato in several of his dialogues. According to the myth, souls existed at first in the highest heavens,but some fell and were forced into bodies; they are condemned to successive reincarnations for a period of ten thousand years; at the end of this time, if they have sufficiently purified themselves, they will return to their heavenly home. A quite definite anthropology is suggested by these myths. The human being consists of two independent substances, a soul and a body. The soul comes from, and by nature belongs to, a higher, heavenly realm. It is therefore never at home in the world but passes through it as an unwilling alien. Physical existence is a punishment and a calamity; the bodily appetites and pleasures are bad and must be suppressed (Owen, 1956: 34-36).
:
: 6.3.1.1 Plato (c. 429-347 B C)
:
: Plato was one of the persons especially associated in philosophy with propagation of the body-soul dualism. Plato, a Greek philosopher, drew a sharp dividing line in his philosophical system between soul and body. Under the influence of Platonic concepts, which appear time and again throughout the centuries, the body is usually characterized, where the soul is concerned, as something inferior (Van Peursen, 1966: 34).
:
: The most common abstract words in any language frequently defy exact translation. ψυχη, which as a rule we translate as "soul", does not in fact mean "soul" as Westerners understand it at all. For instance, when Socrates argues at length that the soul is immortal, a modern thinker would conceptualise its existence and consider immortality to belong to such existence. But the Greek word primarily means the principle of life in any being, and whatever is alive must possess it by that very fact (Grube, 1980: 120). The conception of the soul as the highest part of the human being seems to have been imported into Greeceby mystical teachers and prophets who are usually somewhat summarily lumped together as the Orphics. Under the influence of the Orphic religion, Plato understood the human being as not only united soul and body but also soul and body as essentially different elements. This doctrine came from the East where the body was thought of as the prison or tomb of the soul, as they pithily expressed it. The human being then aims at the purification of this soul, and after several incarnations, the soul can rise to perfection and is absorbed or reabsorbed into the divine (Je, 1998: 8-9, cf. Phaedo, Buchanan, ed., 1977: 62b, 82).
:
: The aim of the food prohibitions of the Orphics and the Pythagoreans seems to have been to prevent the eating of the ψυχη in its various bodily abodes. Orpheus was honoured without the body and believed to containwhat was immortal (Onians, 1954: 112). For the Orphic, the union of soul and body was the punishment for an original sin, imputable to the murder of Dionysus by the Titans (Zurcher, 1969: 11). In the Phaedo, Plato stressed that the soul survives death and that to be freed from the body is a release from evils and an entry into a better state.
:
: According to Plato, the Orphics made their anthropology even more explicit in the theory that the body is the prison of the soul - the famous soma-sema doctrine (Owen, 1956: 36; cf. Lee, 1977:25). Plato also says the body is a source of endless trouble to us. By reason of the mere requirement of food the body is always breaking in upon us, causing turmoil and confusion in our enquiries (Phaedo, Buchanan, ed., 1977: 203-205).
:
: In the Phaedo (Buchanan, ed., 1977:77-80), where Plato takes as already proven his theory of absolute unchanging forms and his belief in the existence of the soul before birth, he goes on to argue that the disembodied soul survives to enter into a better world after death (Stevenson, 1981: 37). He says when the soul and the body are united, then nature orders the soul to rule and govern, and the body to obey and serve. The soul is the very likeness of the divine, immortal, rational, uniform, indissoluble and unchangeable, but the body is the very likeness of the human being as mortal, irrational, multiform, dissoluble and changeable. Plato thought soul to be pure at departing and draws after itself no bodily taint, having never voluntarily during life had connection with the body (Stevenson, 1981: 42-43).
:
: Plato thought of the soul as an individualized instance of the rational essence of the universe. As such, it is antithetical to the body, which is a part of the material world of flux and change (Jewett, 1996). Plato conceived of the intellect as the noblest and immortal part of the human being, of salvation through knowledge (Grube, 1980: 121). In the Republic (Buchanan, ed., 1977:514-519), Plato likens the unenlightened human condition to that of prisoners chained in a cave, and speculates on how some may gain knowledge of the realities outside the cave and be induced to apply their knowledge for the benefit of the rest of humanity (also see Stevenson, 1981: 37). The soul is immortal insofar as it shares in the vision of the Idea (Hogan, 1994: 57). According to Plato, death is the separation of soul from body and it is the aim of the soul to free itself, even during life, from obstacles such as distracting pleasures and confusing sensations, which the body puts in the way of the soul’s development (Grube, 1980: 125).
:
: For Plato, immortality of the soul means that the soul existed before being reincarnated in the body. Why does the immortal soul come into the prison of body? Plato borrows from myth to explain the relationship between soul and body (Je, 1998: 10). In the Phaedrus 246 a, Plato likens soul and body with a team of two horses and a charioteer:
:
: To describe the nature of the soul is an altogether superhuman task and a long story, but it is a lesser task and within human power to say what it resembles. So let us do that. The soul is like a team of winged horses and a charioteer that have grown into one. Now the horses and charioteer of the souls of the gods are all good themselves and of excellent lineage, but those of other souls are mixed. Our charioteer rules over the pair he drives; one of his horses is beautiful and good and of similar parents, the other the opposite in both respects, and our driving is therefore necessarily difficult and troublesome (re-quoted in Grube, 1980:131-132).
:
:
: Two further principles of some importance in this connection surface in this dialogue. First the soul is the originator of all movement, and therefore of all life, a principle of the greatest importance in subsequent philosophical thinking. The point not argued, it is dogmatically stated and made the basis of another proof, viz. that the soul is immortal. Theimmortality of the soul then, as the beginning or first principle of motion is here added to the theory that it is the origin of all life, that without soul there is no life in Phaedrus 245c (Grube, 1980: 139-140). This curious dualism is the result of following to its logical conclusion the theory that the soul is the origin of all motion and all life, for some human actions at least are not directed towards a proper goal and yet their origin must be traced to a soul as their cause.
:
: From first to last in Plato we find that the soul is the highest and noblest part of the human being, the part one should primarily care for and develop (Grube 1980: 146-147). Such then is Plato’s account of the soul-and-body relationship. What strikes one about it is the element of dualism. This strand in Plato’s thinking, usually conjoined with some disparagement of the physical aspects of existence, has had a considerable influence on the history and course of human thought. Many ideas which were long regarded, and accepted, as basic to Christianity - such as the doctrine of a subsistent and immortal soul, an ascetic attitude towards the things of the body, and the view of sexuality as in itself "the sinful lust of the flesh"- are really rooted in Platonic thought. For Plato this dualism is ethico-religious in character (Van Peursen, 1966: 44-45; cf. Park, 2000: 46).
:
: For Plato, the true status of the soul is its disembodied existence in the realm of pure reason which is both its origin and its destiny. It is true that in the Republic, Plato modifies the extreme dualism of the earlier dialogues. In the Timaeus, written after the Republic, reason is seen as the human being’s true soul; it is this alone that is divine and immortal and that will ultimately escape from the limitations and corruptions of the body into the realm of pure, universal reason. Plato remains to the end an anti-physical dualist. It is he and his followers who most of all are responsible for imposing a "religious"dualistic anthropology on Western thought (Owen, 1956: 40-41).
:
: 6.3.1.2 Aristotle (384-322 B C)
:
: Plato despised the bodily, for he distrusted sensory experience and held that reality was other than it appeared. He is the forerunner of all later "objective realists" in supposing that true reality is other than our experience of it. It is both unlike our present experience and separate from our possible knowledge. Aristotle, in denying both these in favour of a reality which is, in the end, self-explanatory and which cannot be separated, even in the thought, from God’s experience of it, also finds a more congenial place for the bodily. "The body is no-body without its use, and the body is the use", was his position (Clark, 1975: 197-198).
:
: Aristotle who was Plato’s great student, the only other claimant to the role of Greece’s greatest philosopher, made a determined attempt to interpret the human being in other than dualistic terms. Aristotle’s views of the relationship between "soul" and "body" have been intensely discussed in recent years with respect to the higher faculties of the soul (Freudenthal, 1999: 20). He sharply criticized Plato’s dualism (which he called separation), both in reality in general and in the human being in particular.
:
: For Aristotle, reality is not to be divided into two radically different realms (Owen, 1956: 40-41). He expresses a different understanding of the concept of mind or soul, which undercuts both the Platonic doctrine that the soul is an incorporeal substance and the materialist view that it is made of atoms. His analysis suggests that the soul is not a thing at all, whether material or immaterial, but rather a property or set of properties or ability, of the living body (Stevenson, 1981: 66). He provides the major alternative to the Platonic concept of soul by rejecting the idea of the soul as an entity separable from the body and taking the soul to be the structure and functioning of the body itself, or, as he put it, the "form" of the living human body. Since one cannot have the form without the body which has that form, the soul cannot exist disembodied (Shaffer, 1968: 2).
:
: Aristotle rejects any theory which affirms the existence of the soul separated from the body (Zurcher, 1969: 26). He thinks he can give an adequate account of soul and its relation to body by relying on his distinction between form and matter. He therefore defines soul as "the form of a living body having life potentially within it."Since the form of a living entity is its nature, it turns out that soul is the nature of living things; the inner principle of change and rest. Form is the actuality of a body, matter is its potentiality, so soul is the actuality of the living organism.
:
: Aristotle distinguishes different grades of actuality, however. He says soul is the first actualityof a living body. Form and matter are not two distinct ingredients which, when mixed, constitute a living organism. Soul is not a special ingredient which breathes life into a lifeless body; it is a certain aspect of a living organism, and a living organism is a paradigm of a functioning unity (Lear, 1998: 96-97).
:
: Aristotle tries to overcome the old body-soul dualism by insisting that the human being does not consist of two distinct and radically different parts. The human being is, rather, a unified substance in which soul and body are not two different kinds of thing but simply the form and matter of the same single substance. And since the substance is the ultimate reality, and since every substance necessarily consists of both form and matter, we expect Aristotle to go on to say that neither can exist apart from the other.
:
: But it is just at this point that Aristotle is unable to resist the pressure of the tradition of thought to which he belongs; he returns to dualism (Owen, 1956: 42). He quite evidently distinguishes the mind - that is, the reflective faculty peculiar to the human being - from the soul in general. The mind is independent vis-a-vis the body and is not confined to this or that particular organ. Mind comes exclusively from without and is divine: in its mode of operation it exhibits no affinity with the body. The human being’s mental activity is a component of her soul-life; but it also manifests the presence of a superior, divine potency.
:
: Concealed here behind the unity of soul and body there are the rudiments, at any rate, of a new dualism - one which opposes soul-body on the one hand to mind on the other (Van Peursen, 1966: 111-113).
:
: Though Aristotle tried to overcome dualism, he joined Plato in thinking of a divine and immortal elementin the human being. He developed a different dualistic view of the human being, viz. that of mind (reason) and matter, form and matter. Under the influence of Plato and Aristotle, the dualistic body-soul view became a mainstream position during the Middle Age. Medieval and later Reformed theologians also insisted on dualistic concepts of human being and on the immortality of the soul (Je, 1998: 17).
:
: 6.3.2 Early Christian church
:
: 6.3.2.1 Early Church
:
: In the early Christian church, some held that humans consist of three parts - body, soul and spirit. They are called trichotomists. Spirit is the essential human self which relates to God. Soul is that dimension of persons which mediates and conjoins the components body and soul (or spirit). Dichotomists on the other hand generally take "soul" and "spirit" as synonyms. Death cuts body and soul apart. Hence the term "dichotomy". Since this view entails that human beings consist of two metaphysically different and separable components, philosophers label it "dualism." This became the standard doctrine in Western theology and philosophy for more than a thousand years (Cooper, 1989: 9).
:
: 6.3.2.2 Church Fathers
:
: For the Patristic writers, the person was an integral unity composed of body and soul. Bodily life was seen positively for the most part, and the eschatological expectation was the unity of body and soul, destroyed by death, which would be restored through the resurrection. Irenaeus, who was overseer of Lyons, says the soul and spirit are certainly a part of the human being, but certainly not a human being; the perfect human being consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God. Irenaeaus holds that salvation is available for the body as well as the soul, since both body and soul together form the person who has either faith or unbelief (Gousmett, 1993: 34-35).
:
: Theodore of Mopsuestia holds that human nature consists of a body and a soul, and insists that the person is not the soul alone, but soul and body together (Norris, 1963: 151). The early Christians correctly realized that God had revealed the truth about the "composition"of the human being in His Word. They were, however, also aware of the fact that Greek philosophy had attained many moments of valuable insight. Many of the converts were philosophers who could not immediately rid themselves of their pagan convictions, and even those who enjoyed a Christian upbringing were still daily surrounded by pagan culture.
:
: To defend Christianity against Greek philosophy, Christians had to use a terminology which they borrowed from pagan philosophy. The result was that all kinds of Greek ideas crept into Christian thought (Van der Walt, 1978a: 62). Just as New Testament writings strongly affirm the goodness of the body and material universe, they also provide evidence that the early Church was already involved in a struggle with dualistic influence. The term "Gnosticism," derived from gnosis, the Greek word for knowledge, encompassed a variety of dualistic movements which become especially problematic in the opening centuries of Christianity (Prokes, 1996: 7-8). Gnostics developed the metaphysical dualisms of soul and body, and of gods as good and material as evil. They thoughtknowledge, and it alone, was redemptive. They taught that the universe itself was the result of a fallen condition, and that the body was useless and deceptive compared to the spirit within it. Gnostics hoped to take flight to the divine (Park, 2000: 65).
:
: In contrast to the anti-physical bias of the contemporary pagan philosophy and despite the Greek tendency to denigrate the body, the Church Fathers generally adopted a "high"view of the body. This "high" view of the body is stated by many of the early apologists (Owen, 1956: 52).
:
: Christianity must have been rooted early in Alexandria. It was the second city of the Roman Empire and there was a large Jewish population there. It was the home of Hellenistic Judaism of which the Jew philosopher Philo’s works are the outstanding monument. The young Christian movement began developing there (Oulton & Chadwick, 1954: 15). The fourth century historian Eusebius of Caesarea reports that the Apostle Mark was the first Bishop of Alexandria, a statement which does not take us beyond the realm of legend (Park, 2000: 78). Clement of Alexandria, who was principal of the Christian school at Alexandria, was a great Christian philosopher and theologian in his own right. Modern scholars have found Platonic, Stoic and Aristotelian elements in his writings. Because of this, Clement has alternatively been considered either as a Platonist or as a Stoic, or even an Aristotelian (Lilla, 1971: 1). Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, have been described significantly as "the Christian Platonists of Alexandria."
:
: According to Origen, God’s first creation was a collectivity of rational beings which he calls logika. Although Origen speaks of the logika as being created, they were not created in time. Creation with respect to them means that they had a beginning, but not a temporal one. These souls were originally created in close proximity to God, with the intention that they should explore the divine mysteries in a state of endless contemplation. They grew weary of this intense contemplation, however, and lapsed, falling away from God and into an existence on their own terms, apart from the divine presence and the wisdom to be found there. Thus departing from God, they came to be clothed in bodies, at first of a fine ethereal and invisible nature, but later, as souls fell further away from God, their bodies changed from a fine, ethereal and invisible body to a body of a coarser and more solid state. The purity and subtleness of the body with which a soul is enveloped depends upon the moral development and perfection of the soul to which it is joined. Origen states that there are varying degrees of subtleness even among the celestial and spiritual bodies. When a soul achieves salvation, according to Origen, it ceases being a soul, and returns to a state of pure "mind" or understanding. However, due to the fall, now no rational spirit can ever exist without a body (Kwon, 2002: 38). Only the bodies of redeemed souls are "spiritual bodies", made of the purest fire.
:
: In the third century, the Latin father Tertullian went so far as to claim that the soul was corporeal. He wrote in his Soul’s Testimony that without the soul, we are nothing (Palmer, 2005: 9). What precisely he meant by this is by no means clear since he also insisted that the soul, in contrast to the body, was spiritual and immortal. Gregory of Nyssa, in the next century, continued this line of thought. He recognized, in a strikingly modern way, both the thoroughgoing interaction of mind and body and also the physiological basis of sensation and thought. This approach is fatal to a radical body-mind dualism (Owen, 1956:74).
:
: 6.3.3 Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
:
: The fact that Augustine was a Platonist before his conversion is evident in his Christian doctrine of human nature. He has been called a Christian Platonist for holding that souls are not created but are by nature self-sufficient and have existed in eternity. His anthropology is recognizably Platonic. For one thing, he identifies the essential self with the soul rather than emphasising the body-soul composite, and he conceives of the soul as operating in the body. He insists on the unity of human nature.
:
: Some of his later works emphasize that the human being is not just a soul, but a soul-body unity (Cooper,1989: 10-11). He had once also been a Manichean. Manicheans regarded the visible world as evil. They therefore banned marriage and considered having a baby as great sin. The Christian conception of the human being certainly rests, in its origin, upon a totally different anthropology.
:
: The Christian philosophy founded by Clement of Alexandria and Origen and continued by Augustine developed into a vast system which became the doctrine of the Church. In the process, the pre-eminence of fundamental elements ofPlatonic anthropology was soon established. In the Middle Ages the first of the scholastic philosophies borrowed several of their ideas from Plotinus and through him from Plato (Zurcher, 1969: 32; cf. Han, 1970: 253). Han (1970: 256) says Augustine got acquainted with "the books of Neo-Platonism" during his nine year Manichean period. He read most of Plotinus’works during that time.
:
: According to Cooper (1989: 11), the soul is superior to the body in Augustine’s philosophy / theology because it alone bears the image and knowledge of God. The body tends to divert the soul from spiritual things and to tempt it with sinful desires. The soul is also superior because it alone is immortal. Its immortality is conferred by God, to be sure.
:
: Augustine’s anthropology is a two substance dualism. Human beings are composed of spirit and matter intimately conjoined and the soul permeates and animates the entire body. Where the body depends for its existence and activity upon the soul, the reverse is not true. According to Han (1970: 252-277), Augustine obeys two truths after his conversion, one is the traditional faith of the Church, and another is Platonic philosophical truth to which he has been exposed for a long time. For Augustine, the Biblical view was in fact supported by Platonic philosophy. Han also stresses that Augustine’s early works were seen to be the same as the Platonic philosophy. Even though Augustine wanted to use the Platonic philosophical system for extending Christian faith, it seems like he did not succeed in converting it to Christianity, but rather to a form of syncretism.
:
: With respect to Augustine’s desire to find a viable alternative to the awkward and intractable moral dualism of the Manicheans, there can be little question that his embracing ofNeo-Platonism is a positive development. For Augustine, the individual human being is a body-soul composite, but in keeping with his Neo-Platonism there is an asymmetry between soul and body. As a spiritual entity, the soul is superior to the body, and it is the province of the soul to rule the body. This view presents a fairly positive conception of the soul-body relation, one that clearly runs counter to the Manichean picture of the soul’s entrapment (O’Connell, 2000: http://Plato.Stanford. Edu/ entries/ augustine).
:
: In Augustine, also we find the idea of the intermediate state interpreted in unmistakably purgatorial terms. The interval between the death of the individual and the end of all things is used by God to purge the soul of the evil that clings to it because of its earthly misdeeds: "In this intermediate time, between the lying down and the receiving back of the body, souls will either be punished or rest in peace according to the deeds performed in their bodily existence" (Owen, 1956: 61-62).
:
: Augustine’s De Civita Dei (The city of God) and his Civita terrena (The city of the world) are clearly also separate in deep principle. For him, Romanitas and church are obviously in dualistic opposition (Han, 1970: 318-322). Though Augustine does not himself propound the two-realm theory in the form of nature-grace, it has been shown that he adhered to a certain type of two-realm theory - possibly under the influence of Manichaeism. The idea of the desiderium naturale, so important to the nature-grace theory, can however be observed in the Platonic dualism which influenced Thomas Aquinas (Van der Walt, 1978a: 77-78).
:
: 6.3.4 Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274)
:
: Thomas Aquinas was a great medieval thinker, a representative scholarof the Scholastic philosophy (Park, 2000: 155). He built up a philosophical system which in all kinds of ways rests on an Aristotelian foundation (Van Peursen, 1966: 116). Thomas’demonstration of the union of soul and body in the human being was an extension and completion of Aristotelian principles (Zamoyta, 1956: 24). In his massive Summa Theologicaand other works, Thomas built an impressive intellectual synthesis of Aristotelian and Christian ideas, which was new and controversial at the time, but hassince become Roman Catholic Orthodoxy (Stevenson, 1981: 73). In his anthropology Thomas cleverly combined important features of the Aristotelian body-soul relation with a basically Augustinian dualistic framework. In book 1, Question 75 of the Summa Theologica, Thomas proceeds "to treat of the human being, who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance."This is clearly a two-substance dualism in line with Augustine. With Augustine, he holds that "the soul of the human being is a principle both incorporeal and subsistent" (Cooper, 1989: 12).
:
: Aquinas revised Aristotle’s doctrine of a supra-personal mind. For Thomas mind is the soul-form that confers real stature and individuality upon the human being and that persists as personal being. The human being is indeed of a higher order than the animals but that is because it is mind in a personal context (intellectus agens), and this mind is the immortal soul.
:
: In Thomas’s explanation of the body-soul relationship there is a greater measure of dualism than in Aristotle’s. For Aristotle, a soul that survives on a personal basis is inconceivable, because the soul is rendered concrete by the body. So the mind (soul)itself has for Aristotle a character of pure potentiality, since a basis for that would again have to be sought in the body. Thus where the relationship of soul to mind is concerned, there is a degree of vagueness in Aristotle’s system. In this respect, Thomas is more of a dualist than Aristotle, in that the latter envisages the soul wholly in terms of the empirical, sensibly perceptible order of living things (Van Peursen, 1966: 116).
:
: Owen (1956: 62-63) insists that Thomas began his anthropology by following Aristotle closely. According to him, for Thomas the human being is not a composite of twodifferent substances, but rather a single unified substance in Aristotellian sense. Every substance in nature has two aspects, its form and its matter. Soul and body are thus inseparable aspects of one and the same substance and each requires the other in order to exist at all.
:
: By the 13th century the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in the Greek sense had become so much a part of Christian thought that Thomas could not bring himself to deny it. In order to maintain this brief he had, in the end, to return to Aristotle’s dualism. His opinion changed gradually (cf. Stevenson, 1981: 73) and he arrived in the end with his own version of soul-body dualism. Prokes (1996: 15-16) says that Thomas rejected Platonic dualism and its disdain of the body by accepting Aristotle’s theory of hylemorphism, which affirmed body-soul unity. On the one hand, he held that there is no existence of soul apart from existence of the body. It is the nature of the soul, he said, to be the "form"of the body. On the other hand, Thomas said, it is the intellective principles that determine "the human being"as a species, and while the body has no part in the operation of the intellect, the soul has sensory powers which requires it to be a body. He concluded that the soul was a substance in its own right and did not die with the body. Thomas also says that thought is an activity of the soul alone and thus that the soul, having independent activity, is capable also of independent existence as incorruptible substance in its own right (Kenny, 1973: 80).
:
: At the same time there was alongside the Thomistic synthesis a strong Neo-Platonic tradition of long standing in medieval thought. Thomas, in his synthesis, attempted to think Scripturally but exhibited an ambiguous attitude in trying to acknowledge Aristotle as well as the Bible (Van der Walt, 1978a: 139). This Neo-Platonic tradition in Christian thought enjoyed a revival in the 14th and 15th centuries. Its anthropology and ethics were prevalent and influential when the Protestant Reformers appeared on the scene (Owen, 1956: 65-68). Because of Thomas’s influence on the reformational labours of Luther, and Calvin in particular, Protestant theology relapsed into Aristotelian and Thomistic patterns (Van der Walt, 1978a: 133).
:
: 6.3.5 John Calvin (1509-1564)
:
: There can be no doubt that the name of John Calvin is one of the great names in the history of the Christian church (Fowler, 1984: 339). The connection between belief in the immortality of the independent soul and a dualistic analysis of human nature is found again in the Reformers (Owen, 1956: 71) like Calvin. Calvin succeeds Augustine by continuing the tradition of Augustinian Platonism into the Protestant Reformation (Min, 2002: 43). According to Calvin, for example, ancient Philosophers "hardly one, except Plato, has rightly affirmed immortal substance". He says,
:
: It would be foolish to seek a definition of "soul"from the philosophers. Of them hardly one, except one, has rightly affirmed its immortal substance. Indeed, others like Socratics also touch upon it but in a way that shows how nobody teaches clearly a thing of which he has not been persuaded. Hence Plato’s opinion is more correct, because he considers the image of God in the soul (Calvin, Institutes: І, 15, 6 Shults, 2003: 169).
:
: Calvin says the human being consists of soul and a body. The human being was taken from earth and clay. For nothing is more absurd than for those who not only "dwell in houses of clay", but who are themselves in part earth and dust, to boast of their own excellence. But since God not only deigned to give life to an earthen vessel, but also willed it to be the abode of immortal spirit, Adam could rightly glory in the great liberty of his Maker (Calvin, Institutes: І, 15, 1) The body is the house of clay in which the noble soul lives for the time being. It is no help to the soul but rather fetters the soul as in a prison (Calvin, Institutes: І, 15, 2). The soul is the part of the human being that naturally attracts him or her towards heaven while the body is that part that naturally ties them down to the earth. It is not just the body that is sinful but the body in its own nature that has this earthbound character that weighs down, fetters, imprisons and limits the soul (Calvin, Institutes: І, 15, 3). He stresses that "the body is earthly by nature; the soul is heavenly by nature"(Calvin, Tracts and Treatises, Vol. 3: 443. re-quoted in Fowler, 1984: 343). He thus makes a distinction between "earthly things" and "heavenly things" (Calvin, Institutes: П, 2, 13).
:
: In Calvin’s view, soul and body are two distinct "essences"or "substances." There is "one person" in the human being, composed of two elements joined together and two diverse underlying natures that make up this person. Though these essences, elements or substances are joined together in the human being "yet neither is so mingled with the other as not to retain its own distinctive nature" (Calvin, Institutes: П, 14, 1). Soul is immortal and heavenly by nature, bearing the image of God, and intended to rise above the earthly creation to God (Calvin, Institutes: П, 2, 12).
:
: In Calvin’s Institutes, his conception of body and soul is the same as in the Platonic dualistic anthropological structure (Kim, 1994: 37). Calvin generally follows the dualistic anthropology of Western ancient philosophy according to which the human being has two substances, soul and body (Lee, 1985: 118-120). For earthly matters natural reason is sufficient, but for heavenly matters it requires the restoration of supernatural gifts to lift it above the earthly. It is only as the soul is illuminated by the Holy Spirit in the restoration of the supernatural gifts that it "takes on a new keenness, as it were to contemplate the heavenly mysteries, whose splendour had previously blinded it" (Calvin, Institutes: П, 2, 12). So, in Calvin’s anthropology the human being is composed of two distinct substances or essences, soul and body. The body is animal, earthbound, unable to participate in heavenly things. It is a weight and a restriction on the human being’s life.
:
: Besides the dualism of body and soul in Calvin’s anthropology there is also a dualism of the natural and the supernatural in the functioning of the soul. Dualistic anthropology is matched in Calvin by a dualistic view of the world, although this is not spelt out as explicitly as his anthropology. His anthropology demands a dualistic world view, however, and it may well be asked whether it is not his anthropology that drives him to a dualistic world view (Fowler, 1984: 345-346). Broadly speaking, Calvin tended toward Platonic dualism, which makes sense in light of his preference for the patristic Christology of Antiochenes, who distinguished between the two natures of Christ.
:
: 6.3.6 Modern Thought
:
: 6.3.6.1 René Descartes (1509-1564)
:
: The Frenchman RenéDescartes was a central figure in the scientific revolution, being a mathematician, experimental scientist and philosopher. His philosophical dualism of body and soul provided an obvious solution to the problems involvedin applying science to the human being, because the body could be understood as the subject of a deterministic, mechanical explanation, whereas the distinctively human attributes of thought, rationality, and freedom could be located in the incorporeal soul, beyond all reach of science (Stevenson, 1981: 81). He, in adducing a sharp division between soul and body, has had an enormous influence on philosophy after him. Actually, what he does is to enunciate clearly something of which whole modern culture is the living expression: duality of the spiritual and the material. Descartes maintained the separateness of body and soul consistently and with extraordinary clarity (Van Peursen, 1966: 19). He says, among others,
:
: But what is the human being? Might I not say a "rational animal"? No, because then I would have to inquire what "animal" and "rational" mean. . . Now it occurred to me first that I had a face, hands, arms, and this entire mechanism of bodily members, the very same as are discerned in a corpse, and which I referred to by the name "body." It next occurred to me that I took in food, that I walked about, and that I sensed and thought various things; these actions I used to attribute to the soul. But as to what this soul might be, I either did not think about it or else I imagined it a rarefied I-know-not-what, like a wind, or a fire, or either, which had been infused into my coarser parts. But as to the body I was not in any doubt (Descartes, 1993 Meditation two: 26).
:
: He believed that in actual fact a human being is an "intimate union" of mind and body. In saying that I (or my mind, or my soul) am separate and distinct from my body, he meant to be speaking only of what is possible. As far as the concept of myself and my body are concerned, I could exist without a body. Descartes did not mean merely that I, having dwelt in a union with my body for some years, might be separated from it and yet survive in a disembodied condition. He meant that I might have to exist without ever having hada body. In that state what would my mental life be? Logically speaking, it could have been the same as it is and has been. For my nature is to doubt, understand, affirm, deny, will, imagine and feel. As a bodiless mind I would do those things (Malcolm, 1972: 5-6).
:
: According to Van Peursen (1966: 32-33), Descartes has to shoulder the responsibility for every single instance of dualism in philosophy. It would be more true to say that in some sense he interprets what had been latent for a long time in the climate of Western philosophy and even now persists as an active influence in the body-and-soul debate. Though Descartes never taught a thoroughgoing dualism, he hovers in the vicinity of dualism when he says,
:
: It is certain that I am truly distinct from my body, and can exist without it (Cooper, 1989: 15).
:
: We are likely to call on the observation that each human being has a mind and a body; that they are interdependent; that they are essentially and distinctively a human mind and body; that there is no understanding of being of that kind - being a the human being - without a better understanding of how each such being depends on the existence of his mind and body (Almog, 2002: 153). For Descartes, during this life body and soul interact. The soul causes the body to move, and the body delivers sensations of itself and the external world to the soul. Transactions occur in the pineal gland, where "animal spirit"rarefies and condenses, thereby bearing information back and forth from soul to body. Thus Descartes’ anthropology is called dualistic interactionism (Cooper, 1989: 15-16), or interactionist dualism (Bunge, 1980: 27).
:
: 6.3.6.2 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1678), George Berkeley (1685-1753), Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)
:
: The materialism of Thomas Hobbes, a contemporary of Descartes, is exhibited in his treatment of life as a motion of the limbs, of sensation as a motion in the organs within the body, and of desire as the inner cause of bodily movement. There is no mention of soul (Stevenson, 1981: 86). The Hobbes-Gassendi type of materialism produced an anthropology that was unacceptable not only because of the difficulty it encountered in satisfactorily explaining human consciousness, but also because it entailed a flat denial of human freedom in any sense whatever (Owen, 1956: 87). Hobbes held that all creatures consist of only one substance. According to him, the notion of an incorporeal substance is incoherent. Persons are not some combination of matter and spirit, but are wholly corporeal beings. Psychological states and events are produced in us by the motion of the body’s complex machinery. Consciousness is not the essential feature of an immaterial substance, but the result of the conjunction of all these effects of the body’s internal motions (Cooper, 1989: 17-18).
:
: Irish philosopher Berkeley goes a fairly long way towards denying the existence of matter and representing the mind of the human being as a fixed point or centre. He reached the following conclusion: matter does not exist, but minds do (the mind of God and the minds of the human being, in particular). Nor does he deny the existence of the body. Only for him, the body (his own body just as much as things) is a symbol of the presence of mind (Van Peursen, 1966: 65). There are no material "things" or substance, only collections of sense-qualities or ideas. But though he rejected the existence of material substance, Berkeley, rather oddly (he later became a bishop), retained the notion of spiritual substance or souls. Reality consists of spiritual substances, or minds and their ideas (Owen, 1956: 91).
:
: The Dutch Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza determines to treat human phenomena as subject to the same laws of nature as everything else - and therefore, in his rationalist viewpoint, capable of explanation by the deductive methods of mathematics. Then he declares his faith in the future progress of a science of human nature, suggesting very perceptively that the physical complexities within the body greatly exceed what could then be conceived. This faith makes more intelligible his identification of mind and body as different aspects of one complex whole, and his statement that the mind has no power of its own to act independently of what is going on in the body (Stevenson, 1981: 94).
:
: The ontologies of these three philosophers are monistic because reality as a whole is defined as one absolute substance. In the case of Spinoza, this single whole can be considered in two ways, thus displaying two aspects or modes of existence. Viewed one way, reality is God; viewed another, it is Nature. That single substance, therefore, is neither exclusively spirit nor matter but possesses properties of both, each available to human apprehension from a different standpoint (Cooper, 1989: 19-20).
:
: 6.3.6.3 Modern scientists
:
: The 19thcentury was when the various sciences began to concern themselves more and more with the study of human nature. Science concluded that there is a vast array of natural, material conditions that play a large part in shaping human life, including such factors as thought, choice, morality, and character which were formerly ascribed to the independent soul. Science has taught us to look at the human being as a unified psychosomatic organism. In the scientific view, the human being is a unitar