A word about the soul

“A Tale of the Soul” is a theological and philosophical reflection on the nature of the human soul in the light of Christian teaching. The authorship of the work is attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor. This work examines the origin of the human soul, its essence and highest purpose: is the soul simple, does it have a nature, is it immortal, is it gifted with reason, etc. First of all, I will state by what criteria the soul can be discovered. Then: how does it manifest itself? After this: does it have a definite nature or is its nature indefinite? This will follow whether it is simple or complex. Then: is she mortal or immortal? Finally: whether she is gifted with reason or unreasonable. Because all these questions, for the most part, would be sought in a discussion about the soul, as those that can characterize its personal property, and that are most appropriate for research. To prove what we are looking for, we will use general concepts that will clearly verify what is in our hands 1 . For the sake of brevity and for the sake of benefit, we will use only those arguments that are necessary for the sought-after subject, which now has to be proven. To make it clear and easy to understand, we will also introduce a certain readiness to meet opposing arguments. So, let's start the word. What is the rational criterion of the soul, on the basis of which the soul is known? Everything that exists is either cognized by feeling or perceived by the understanding of the mind. And what falls under the realm of the senses has proof, expressed in the very sensation of the object, because along with perception, an idea of ​​the object placed in us is also produced. But what is perceived by the understanding of the mind is not known in itself, but on the basis of the opposite 2. Thus, the soul, being unknowable to the senses, is known not by itself, but precisely from the manifestations of itself. When our body has movement, it moves either from the outside or from the inside. And that it does not have its movement from the outside is clear from the fact that it does not perform the movement characteristic of it, neither being pushed nor being dragged, as, for example, soulless objects are moved. And from the inside, again, it, being moved, does not move in the order observed in nature, like, for example, fire. Because it does not cease to be in motion as long as it remains fire. While a dead body, although it is a body, cannot make movements. Thus, if a body receives its movement not from the outside, as inanimate objects move, nor in the order of natural laws, such as fire, then it is obvious that it moves by the soul, which gives it life. So, if the soul is the one who gives life to our body, then it is clear that the soul itself is known on the basis of the opposite 3. That it has its own being is revealed from the following. First it must naturally be said what is the definition of a being in relation to it; then, what is this nature, that being one and the same in number, it is capable of perceiving states opposite to each other. That the soul, which itself does not deviate from its nature, accepts opposite states, is clear from everything. In it you can see: righteousness and unrighteousness, courage and fear, moderation and intemperance, states that are opposite to each other. Thus, if the personal property of a being is expressed in the ability to accept states opposite to each other, then it is clear that the soul also accepts the same definition; therefore the soul is a determinate being. Then, if the body is a being, then it is necessary that the soul is a being. Because it cannot be that what is done alive has a being, and that which gives life does not have a being. Is it only that which is nothing and has no essence of its own that will be the cause of the existence of that which has its own essence?! Or, again, that which has life on the basis of another and without which it cannot exist, will some madman call the cause of that other from which it has life?! Is the soul incorporeal? That the soul is in the body was shown above. Now it is appropriate to find out: how it is in the body: and if it is adjacent to it, like, for example, a pebble to a pebble, then isn’t the soul also a body? Then it cannot be said that the whole body is animate, because (in this case) the soul is attached to the body only as to some part of it. If it mixed and merged with him, then the soul should be called multipartite, and not simple, which is rejected by the concept of soul. Because what is multipart can also be divisible; that which can be divisible is also soluble; that which can be soluble is composed of parts; that which is composed of parts has three dimensions; that which has three dimensions is the body. The body attached to the body causes discomfort. And the soul being in the body does not cause inconvenience, but, better said, gives it life. So, it follows from this that the soul is not a body, but is incorporeal. Also: if the soul is a body, does it move from within or without? No, it doesn’t move from the outside, because it doesn’t push and pull like inanimate objects. Nor does it move from within, as animate beings move, because it would be absurd to speak of “the soul of the soul.” She is not the body. So, the soul is incorporeal. And one more thing: is the soul a body, and has sensual qualities and is nourished? - No, she doesn’t eat; and if he eats, he does not feed bodily, as the body is nourished; it feeds incorporeally, because it feeds on words and thoughts 4 . So, it has no sensual qualities: since (with the eyes) one cannot see either righteousness, or courage, or any of these things, for these are the qualities of the soul. She is not the body. So, she is ethereal. That the soul is simple is evident mainly from the fact that it has been proven that it is incorporeal. If it is not a body - because the whole body is composed, and the combined one is composed of parts, and it, being incorporeal, is not multipartite - then, consequently, it is simple, and not composed of parts. Is the soul immortal? I believe that that which simply by its being attaches to itself a companion - immortality. How do we reach this conclusion: listen. Nothing that exists is perishable on the basis of itself, because in the beginning this was by no means there. Because the corruptible is brought into corruption by the action of something opposite to it. Therefore, everything perishable is soluble; what is soluble is compounded; what is compiled is multi-part. That which is composed of parts is clearly composed of different parts; that which is different is not identical. So, the soul, being simple, and not composed of various parts, is uncomposed and insoluble, therefore it is incorruptible and immortal. And one more thing: that which moves on the basis of something else does not have a vital principle in itself, but acquires it from the mover; remains as long as it possesses that active force. As soon as the active principle ceases, it is destroyed. On the other hand, that which does not move from anything, but from itself has the ability to move (like the soul, which is self-moving), in no case ceases to be, because with that which is self-moving comes (the power) to be always moving 5 . That which is always moving is unceasing. That which does not cease is endless. The infinite is imperishable. The imperishable is immortal. Thus, if the soul is self-moving, as shown above, then it is incorruptible according to the above argument. And one more thing: if everything corruptible is brought into corruption by virtue of its own evil, then that which is not brought into corruption by its own evil is incorruptible. Since evil is what opposes good, it is also what destroys it. Just as the body has no other evils than suffering, illness and death, so its virtues: beauty, life, health, prosperous condition. But for the soul, bad things are fear, immoderation, envy and the like; and yet, all this does not destroy her life and does not disrupt her movement, which means she is immortal. Is the soul endowed with reason? That our soul is rational, everyone will prove on the basis of many things; and above all from the fact that she herself invented the arts 6 that are useful in life. Because it was not for nothing, or, as someone would say, by accident, that the arts were formed, since no one can say that they are ineffective and useless for life. So, if the arts contribute to what is useful in life, then that which is useful evokes praise for itself. And what causes praise is clearly someone’s work. The arts are an invention of the soul. So, our soul is rational. Also, from the fact that our feelings in themselves are not sufficient for the perception of objects, it is clear that our soul is rational. Because in order to know existing things, we are not satisfied only with the perception of the senses, but we subject the received impressions to the activity of the mind, pondering them, since we do not want to be deceived about them. For example: are things that are different in nature the same in shape or similar in color? – Feeling, without the help of reason, is powerless to determine this. Feeling can only provide us with a single idea, a single picture, but to weigh, evaluate and compare this belongs to the test carried out by the soul. And that this is indeed the case, we see from the fact that those things whose existence, shape, color, etc., are communicated to the mind by the senses (which limits their function), the soul then knows how to use for good, make a choice and turn into what we want. Consequently, if existing things are perceived by the senses, which, without the participation of the mind, can give a false idea of ​​the object, 8 then the mind 9 will be what makes a difference to everything, and it is also conscious of everything in truth. The mind is the thinking part of the soul. So, the soul is gifted with intelligence; she is reasonable. Also: we don’t bring anything into action that we haven’t first outlined within ourselves. This is nothing more than the dignity of the soul. Because the mind is not given to her from the outside, like the knowledge of existing things, but she herself, as if by mental forces, controls existing things from herself. Therefore, a certain plan is first outlined in it, and thus put into action. The dignity of the soul lies in doing everything with reason: because it has been proven that it also distinguishes the sensations delivered by the senses. So, the soul is reasonable 10. An incorporeal, intelligent creature that lives in the body, the cause of life. The purest and most intelligent part of the soul, which contemplates (thinks about) things, and which discusses what was previously perceived (through the senses and its own conclusions). What is: “φρένες” (as if - “the mind of the soul”)? 11 The powers of the soul which, through reason and consistency, bring about, to some extent, the coherence of things. What is a skill (τρόπος)? 12 A custom in the soul, ingrained as a result of experience. What is feeling (ἄισθησις)? The organ of the soul, the ability to perceive what is outside through the senses. What is spirit (πνεῦμα)? 13 An impersonal being who leads every movement. End (of the work) of Blessed Maxim the Monk “On the Soul” 14. That is, it is a topic under study. That is, what is cognized spiritually cannot be cognized in itself, but on the basis of external “sensory” manifestations, i.e., falling under the realm of things cognizable by the senses; i.e., the spiritual is known on the basis of its opposite – the sensual. That is, based on the body. In lat. translated as follows: “Because the force by which something moves on its own is accompanied by the force by which it always moves.” "Τάς τέχνας" – arts, crafts, science. This “not” is missing from the Greek. text, but the meaning of what follows requires that it be here. Lat. the translation preserves this negation. That is, it is not fully perceived, is not fully represented, and may be presented in an erroneous light. Lat. translation: “The soul is gifted with reason and is intelligent.” Definition: “Quasi animi rationes”: “as if the mind of the soul,” as well as the text itself in this place, is given on the basis of the Latin translation, because the Greek text in this place is very unclear. Lat. lane here it is more extensive: “A skill of the soul that has become easy from habit, but has been ingrained in the soul as a result of experience.” Here it refers exclusively to the function of the human soul. Opusculum de Anima. Migne. P.G.t. 91, col. 353–361. You might be interested in: