DOCSLIB.ORG

Avicenna, the Floating Man

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avicenna, the Floating Man Avicenna, The Floating Man Avicenna begins by noting that living things DO things. For instance, they perceive by the senses, are moved by volition, take in nutrients, grow, and reproduce. Material bodies act in these ways. But, what is it that causes physical bodies to do so? He calls the source these actions (“the principle of these actions”) the soul. Avicenna thinks that there must be ONE source of these actions, because the mental faculties all interact with one another (for instance, the perceptual faculty of sight might interact with the emotional faculty of sadness, and so on). In that case, there just HAS to be some central hub, or “nexus” for all of the mental faculties. He writes, “these faculties must have a nexus that joins them all together and to which they are bound as a group” So, we know that a mover exists, “something that uses the body”; and this mover (or, nexus of all of your physical and mental activity) is “the thing that each of us sees as himself”. The mover is YOU, the living, thinking individual. But, what ARE you? 1. Proof of the Immaterial Soul: Avicenna argues that the “self” is immaterial. Cannot Be a Body: Imagine that your “self” IS a body. Well then, in that case, it would have to be (a) your WHOLE body, or (b) some PART of your body. Consider (a): You are your WHOLE body That’s clearly false. Surely you can lose a PART of your body and still continue to exist, right? None of your fingernails are a foot long and your hair is not down to your feet. So, I presume that you were not afraid to cut them for fear of going out of existence. It is clear that we can even lose more significant things like an arm, or a kidney, and still continue to exist. Avicenna writes, “If it [the self] is the whole body, then if it lost some part of itself, what we perceive to be us would not exist. It is not like that, however.” (al-Shifa) Consider (b): You are a PART of your body Imagine, for instance, that your “self” is just your heart, or your brain. But, surely you were aware of the existence of your self long before you were aware of the existence of your heart or brain. He writes, “If … a heart, a brain, or some other organ … is identical to … the thing that I perceive to be myself, then my perception that I am must be my perception of that thing.” (al-Shifa) But, “one can know that his self … existed without knowing that he has a heart …” (Epistle on the Ma’ad) 1 In short, if X and Y are numerically identical, then to perceive X is also to perceive Y. It follows that, if the self is numerically identical to the brain, then to perceive the self is to perceive the brain. However, it is not like this, Avicenna says. For we DO perceive the self WITHOUT perceiving the brain (or the heart, etc.). In short: The existence of my SELF is known immediately. However, “the existence of such organs [e.g., heart, brain, etc.] is not revealed to you except through dissection.” (Remarks and Admonitions) The Floating Man: Avicenna supports this line of reasoning by way of a thought experiment, known as “The Flying Man” or “The Floating Man”. The Floating Man Imagine that a fully grown man pops into existence, floating in a sort of void. The air is neither hot nor cold, and there is no wind blowing, so he does not feel it. There are no sounds, no smells. His eyes are closed. Nothing is touching him. His limbs are spread away from his body, so he is not even touching himself. In effect, he is in something like a sensory deprivation tank. What would this man believe? What could he come to know? Answer: Avicenna says that he would know one thing for certain; namely, that he exists: “He has no doubts about asserting his self as something that exists …” (al-Shifa) At the same time, there is also something important which the Floating Man does NOT know for certain; namely, that he has a body. For, he affirms his own existence “without also [having to] assert the existence of any of his exterior or interior parts, his heart, his brain, or anything external.” (ibid.) Why not? In short, because the concept of existing and the concept of having a body are distinct. The Floating Man can coherently imagine one without the other. Knowledge of his own existence does not logically entail knowledge that he has a body. Conceptually, having a body is not a necessary condition for existing. He writes, “if it were even possible for him in such a state to imagine a hand or some other extremity, he would not imagine it as a part of his self or as a necessary condition of his self.” (ibid.) However, if one’s self and one’s body are conceptually distinct, then they must ACTUALLY be distinct. For, “what can be asserted as existing is not the same as what cannot be so asserted and that what is stipulated is not the same as what is not stipulated.” (ibid.) Since the Floating Man can be confident in affirming the existence of his self, but is NOT confident in affirming the existence of his body, then they must not be the same thing—otherwise, if they WERE one and the same thing, then the affirmation of one would just be the affirmation of the other. 2 [Consider: Richmond is the capitol of Virginia. The terms ‘Richmond’ and ‘the capitol of Virginia’ refer to one and the same thing. So, if I affirm something of one, then I automatically affirm it of the other; e.g., if I affirm that the population of Richmond is 1.2 million, then I also affirm that the population of the capitol of Virginia is 1.2 million. On the other hand, if I affirmed something DIFFERENT about them, then I could deduce that the two were NOT one and the same thing. For instance, if I knew that Richmond was in North Carolina, but the capitol of Virginia is in Virginia, then I would be able to infer that they were not one and the same thing.] Avicenna concludes that the “self” is distinct from the body. He says, “what [the reader] has been alerted to is a way to be made alert to the existence of the soul as something that is not the body—nor in fact any body …” (ibid.) His argument seems to be as follows: 1. The Floating Man is certain that he (i.e., his self) exists. 2. The Floating Man is not certain that any body exists. 3. But what is known for certain must be different from what is not known for certain (i.e., if one is certain that X exists, but is not certain that Y exists, then X is numerically distinct from Y). 4. Therefore, the Floating Man is distinct from (i.e., is not identical to) any body. [Objection: But, is premise 3 true? Consider someone who knows what water is, but has never heard of H2O. Though it is true that Water= H2O, can’t this person know that water exists WITHOUT knowing that H2O exists? If premise 3 is true, then either this difference in knowledge is impossible, or else waterH2O. But, both of those options are absurd. To illustrate, consider the following “argument” which parodies the above: 1. Sophia is certain that Mark Twain exists. 2. Sophia is not certain that Samuel Clemens exists. 3. But what is known for certain must be different from what is not known for certain (i.e., if one is certain that X exists, but is not certain that Y exists, then X is numerically distinct from Y). 4. Therefore, Mark Twain is distinct from (i.e., is not identical to) Samuel Clemens. Clearly, the argument is unsound, for Mark Twain IS (i.e., is identical to) Samuel Clemens. But, maybe Avicenna has put his finger on something weird. If there is an ‘=’ sign between two things, we SHOULD be able to substitute them out in various sentences. For instance, 2+2 = 4 ; but ‘4 = 3+1’ is also true, so we should be able to sub in ‘3+1’ for ‘4’ and still get a true sentence, like this: 2+2 = 3+1 3 Fred is a bachelor ; but ‘bachelor’ = ‘unmarried male’, so the following substitution also delivers a true sentence: Fred is an unmarried male. So why doesn’t this substitution work? Sophia knows that Mark Twain exists ; but Mark Twain = Samuel Clemens. Therefore: Sophia knows that Samuel Clemens exists.] 2. Further Proof That the Soul is Not Corporeal: A second (more complicated) proof. Consider: If the soul were a corporeal body, then it would have to be one that is either (1) indivisible, or (2) divisible. (1) Indivisible Bodies are Impossible: But the idea of (1), an indivisible corporeal thing, is absurd. To put it simply, a bodily thing always has extension (i.e., it is spread out in space). But, what has extension has a left half and a right half—i.e., two PARTS. But, whatever has parts is (by Acivenna’s definition) NOT indivisible. Perhaps you’re not convinced. You might say, “Yeah, but material objects have planes, which are made of lines, which are made up of non-extended mathematical points—and those are indivisible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Duns Scotus on the Common Nature and the Individual Differentia
    c Peter King, Philosophical Topics 20 (1992), 50–76 DUNS SCOTUS ON THE COMMON NATURE* Introduction COTUS holds that in each individual there is a principle that accounts for its being the very thing it is and a formally S distinct principle that accounts for its being the kind of thing it is; the former is its individual differentia, the latter its common nature.1 These two principles are not on a par: the common nature is prior to the individual differentia, both independent of it and indifferent to it. When the individual differentia is combined with the common nature, the result is a concrete individual that really differs from all else and really agrees with others of the same kind. The individual differentia and the common nature thereby explain what Scotus takes to stand in need of explanation: the indi- viduality of Socrates on the one hand, the commonalities between Socrates * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 26th International Congress on Medieval Studies, sponsored by the Medieval Institute, held at Western Michigan University 9–12 May 1991. All translations are my own. Scotus’s writings may be found in the following editions: (1) Vaticana: Iohannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia, ed. P. Carolus Bali¸cet alii, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanae 1950– Vols. I–VII, XVI–XVIII. (2) Wadding-Viv`es: Joannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis Ordinis Minorum opera omnia, ed. Luke Wadding, Lyon 1639; republished, with only slight alterations, by L. Viv`es,Paris 1891–1895. Vols. I–XXVI. References are to the Vatican edition wherever possible, to the Wadding-Viv`esedition otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 4-16-2012 Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Krista, Hyde Dawn, "Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife" (2012). Theses. 261. http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/261 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Krista Hyde M.L.A., Washington University in St. Louis, 2010 B.A., Philosophy, Southeast Missouri State University – Cape Girardeau, 2003 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri – St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Philosophy April 2012 Advisory Committee Gualtiero Piccinini, Ph.D. Chair Jon McGinnis, Ph.D. John Brunero, Ph.D. Copyright, Krista Hyde, 2012 Abstract Thomas Aquinas nearly succeeds in addressing the persistent problem of the mind-body relationship by redefining the human being as a body-soul (matter-form) composite. This redefinition makes the interaction problem of substance dualism inapplicable, because there is no soul “in” a body. However, he works around the mind- body problem only by sacrificing an immaterial afterlife, as well as the identity and separability of the soul after death. Additionally, Thomistic psychology has difficulty accounting for the transmission of universals, nor does it seem able to overcome the arguments for causal closure.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2011 Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas Edyta M. Imai Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Imai, Edyta M., "Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas" (2011). Dissertations. 205. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/205 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2011 Edyta M. Imai LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO CONTEMPLATION AND THE HUMAN ANIMAL IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY EDYTA M. IMAI CHICAGO IL DECEMBER 2011 Copyright by Edyta M. Imai, 2011 All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE: CONTEMPLATION AND NATURAL APPETITES 30 CHAPTER TWO: SENSATION AND CONTEMPLATION 104 CHAPTER THREE: DESIRE AND CONTEMPLATION 166 CHAPTER FOUR: DELIGHT AND CONTEMPLATION 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY 291 VITA 303 iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ST Summa theologiae SCG Summa contra gentiles QDV Quaestiones disputatae de veritate QDA Quaestiones disputatae de anima In Boetii de Trin. In Librum Boetii de Trinitate Expositio In DA Sententia libri De anima In NE Sententia libri Ethicorum In Met Commentarium in XII libros Metaphysicorum In Ph Commentarium in VIII libros Physicorum SENT Commentarium in quatuor libros Sententiarum iv INTRODUCTION In this dissertation I examine the manner in which – according to Thomas Aquinas - the operations of the sensitive soul contribute to contemplation.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Imagination in Avicenna and Kant
    Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía ISSN: 0188-6649 [email protected] Universidad Panamericana México Bäck, Allan Imagination in Avicenna and Kant Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía, núm. 29, 2005, pp. 101-130 Universidad Panamericana Distrito Federal, México Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=323027318006 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Imagination in Avicenna and Kant Allan Back Kutztown University The intellect thinks time in the now^ In comparing the views of Avicenna and Kant on the imagination, we find a striking congnience of doctrine, Kant's doctrines of the syntheses of the imagination in his Transcendental Deduction (both A and B) have remarkable similarities with Avicerma's views. For both Avicenna and Kant, the imagination serves to connect the phenomenal and the noumenal. At the least this comparison has the dual use of placing Kant's doctrines in the context of the Aristotelian tradition and of illuminatiiig the modem r significance of the thought of Avicenna, Since Kant's thought is more familiar to us than Avicenna's (although perhaps not as evident in itself), we can use Kant also to help us understand the claims of Avicenna, On the other hand, tliis comparison may help to support the claim that an understanding of Kant lies to a large extent in his medieval and post-medieval roots -just as Copernicus, in his own "Copemican revolution", was following certain earlier traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder
    parrhesia 33 · 2020 · 150-176 the univocity of substance and the formal distinction of attributes: the role of duns scotus in deleuze's reading of spinoza nathan widder This paper examines the role played by medieval theologian John Duns Scotus in Gilles Deleuze’s reading of Spinoza’s philosophy of expressive substance; more generally, it elaborates a crucial moment in the development of Deleuze’s philosophy of sense and difference. Deleuze contends that Spinoza adapts and extends Duns Scotus’s two most influential theses, the univocity of being and formal distinction, despite neither appearing explicitly in Spinoza’s writings. “It takes nothing away from Spinoza’s originality,” Deleuze declares, “to place him in a perspective that may already be found in Duns Scotus” (Deleuze, 1992, 49).1 Nevertheless, the historiographic evidence is clearly lacking, leaving Deleuze to admit that “it is hardly likely that” Spinoza had even read Duns Scotus (359n28). Indeed, the only support he musters for his speculation is Spinoza’s obvious in- terests in scholastic metaphysical and logical treatises, the “probable influence” of the Scotist-informed Franciscan priest Juan de Prado on his thought, and the fact that the problems Duns Scotus addresses need not be confined to Christian thought (359–360n28). The paucity of evidence supporting this “use and abuse” of history, however, does not necessarily defeat the thesis. Like other lineages Deleuze proposes, the one he traces from Duns Scotus to Spinoza, and subsequently to Nietzsche, turns not on establishing intentional references by one thinker to his predecessor, but instead on showing how the borrowings and adaptations asserted to create the connec- tion make sense of the way the second philosopher surmounts blockages he faces while responding to issues left unaddressed by the first.
    [Show full text]
  • Essentially Rational Animals
    Essentially Rational Animals The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Boyle, Matthew. Forthcoming. Essentially rational animals. In Rethinking epistemology, ed. Guenther Abel and James Conant. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Grutyer. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8641838 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Essentially Rational Animals Matthew Boyle, Harvard University —Forthcoming in Rethinking Epistemology, ed. G. Abel and J. Conant— One may call this whole disposition of the human being’s powers whatever one likes: understanding, reason, awareness, etc. It is indifferent to me, so long as one does not assume these terms to name discrete powers or mere increased levels of the animal powers. It is the whole organization of all human powers; the whole domestic economy of his sensing and cognizing, his cognizing and willing nature… The difference is not in levels or the addition of powers, but in a quite different sort of orientation and unfolding of all powers. J. G. Herder, Treatise on the Origin of Languages I, §2 (2002, pp. 82-3) 1. Introduction 1.1 According to a tradition reaching back at least as far as Aristotle, human beings are set apart from other terrestrial creatures by their rationality. Other animals, according to this tradition, are capable of sensation and appetite, but they are not capable of thought, the kind of activity characteristic of the rational part of the soul.
    [Show full text]
  • John Duns Scotus's Metaphysics of Goodness
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 11-16-2015 John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics Jeffrey W. Steele University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Medieval History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation Steele, Jeffrey W., "John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6029 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13 th -Century Metaethics by Jeffrey Steele A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Colin Heydt, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D Date of Approval: November 12, 2015 Keywords: Medieval Philosophy, Transcendentals, Being, Aquinas Copyright © 2015, Jeffrey Steele DEDICATION To the wife of my youth, who with patience and long-suffering endured much so that I might gain a little knowledge. And to God, fons de bonitatis . She encouraged me; he sustained me. Both have blessed me. “O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!!” --Psalm 34:8 “You are the boundless good, communicating your rays of goodness so generously, and as the most lovable being of all, every single being in its own way returns to you as its ultimate end.” –John Duns Scotus, De Primo Principio Soli Deo Gloria .
    [Show full text]
  • Avicenna's Flying Man Argument
    Journal of the American Philosophical Association () – © American Philosophical Association DOI:./apa.. The Thought Experimental Method: Avicenna’s Flying Man Argument* ABSTRACT: No argument from the Arabic philosophical tradition has received more scholarly attention than Avicenna’s ‘flying man’ thought experiment, in which a human is created out of thin air and is able to grasp his existence without grasping that he has a body. This paper offers a new interpretation of the version of this thought experiment found at the end of the first chapter of Avicenna’s treatment of soul in the Healing. We argue that it needs to be understood in light of an epistemological theory set out elsewhere by Avicenna, which allows that all the constitutive properties of an essence will be clear to someone who understands and considers that essence. On our reading, this theory is put to work in the ‘flying man’: because the flying man would grasp that his own essence has existence without grasping that he has a body, connection to body cannot be constitutive of the essence. KEYWORDS: Avicenna, self-awareness, dualism, essentialism, Islamic philosophy No argument from the Arabic philosophical tradition has received more scholarly attention than Avicenna’s ‘flying man’ thought experiment. It has recently been hailed as a major contribution to the theory of self-awareness (Kaukua : ch.), and in the past it has been compared to Descartes’s cogito argument. Though Avicenna alludes to the argument several times in his works (see the list in Hasse : –), the passage on which most scholarship has focused—and on which we will likewise concentrate here—is to be found on the last page of the first chapter of Avicenna’s() treatment of soul in his Healing (al-Shifāʾ) – we will subsequently refer to this section of the Healing as On the Soul.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Maimonides' Ideal Person Austerely Rationalist?
    Is Maimonides’ Ideal Person Austerely Rationalist? by Menachem Kellner Abstract: Maimonides is regularly thought to have seen the ideal human as nothing more than a rational animal. In this essay I show that this picture of Maimonides is insufficiently nuanced and reflects a notion of intellectualism thinner and more pallid than that actually held by him. But first I adduce evidence for the standard view from Maimonides’ positions on perfected and imperfected human beings, and from his discussions of immortality, morality, providence, prophecy, and the distinction between humans and animals. Maimonides’ universalism and his messianic vision are also shown to reflect his intellectualism. In the second half of the essay I argue that Maimonides holds that knowledge is transformative. Through an analysis of his discussions of human perfection, prophecy, and love of God, it is shown that learning carried out properly transforms the learner into a new kind of person. aimonides is regularly thought to have seen the ideal human in purely and austerely intellectualist terms, as nothing more M than a rational animal. In this essay I plan to show that this picture of Maimonides is insufficiently nuanced, reflecting a notion of in- tellectualism thinner and more pallid than that actually held by him.1 But this position is often attributed to him because Maimonides seems to adopt a view (held afterwards explicitly by Gersonides) according to which that which makes us human, and in consequence that which survives our deaths, is only what we know.2 On this view, the human subject counts for nothing, 1I would like to thank Jolene Kellner for first posing the question that prompted the writing of this essay.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Itself
    THE GREAT IDEAS ONLINE Mar ‘15 Philosophy is Everybody’s Business No 811 THE UNIQUENESS OF MAN Mortimer Adler In The Descent of Man Darwin says, “The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind.” n this concluding discussion on Man I want to sum up and assess I not only the evidence on both sides of the question but also the importance of the issue itself. Last time I began by reporting to you the experimental evidence in regard to animal intelligence, especially the perceptual insight of the chimpanzee. And to demonstrate some of the experiments that Köhler did with chimpanzees, I showed you how a chimpanzee made a crude tool to fetch bananas by fitting together two bamboo sticks to make a longer one. And as a matter of fact, I fumbled do- ing this last time and someone who saw the show told me during the week that I had fumbled and didn’t do it as well as the chim- panzee. Well, it’s hard to be an intelligent chimpanzee. And though I practiced, I didn’t quite succeed. 2 Then I went on to present the evidence to support the conception of man as distinct in kind from other animals on the ground that man and man alone is rational. I presented this evidence under three main heads. Let me remind you of what those were: first, that only humans make artistically; second, that only humans think discur- sively; and third, that only humans associate politically.
    [Show full text]
  • Being Towards Aristotle? Heidegger's Implicit Presupposition of Aristotle's Concepts of the Human Being in Being and Time
    Noesis¯ Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy Vol. 19, no. 1, 2018, pp. 11-23. NOESIS¯ XIX BEING TOWARDS ARISTOTLE? HEIDEGGER’S IMPLICIT PRESUPPOSITION OF ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPTS OF THE HUMAN BEING IN BEING AND TIME THOMAS BENSTEAD Richard Rorty hails Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time as “pow- erful and original”: the author of this paper seeks to scrutinize the latter claim. Heidegger starts his chef-d’oeuvre by aiming to dis- tance himself from the ontology of prior philosophers, and so he investigates the Question of Being through “Dasein.” The author argues that Heidegger’s concept of “Dasein” presupposes within itself the concept of Aristotle’s “Rational Animal,” which accord- ingly prevents Heidegger from actually separating his ontology from prior ontologies. The author’s assertion of a presupposition of “Rational Animal” within “Dasein” is supported not only by Heidegger’s familiarity with Aristotelian thought, but also that the key feature of “Dasein” (i.e. inquiry) necessitates a sort of ratio- nal capacity. Moreover, the author seeks to demonstrate that the presupposition of “Rational Animal” within “Dasein” results in a sustained Aristotelian influence within Heidegger’s work, such that Heidegger’s concept of the “They” resembles Aristotle’s “Po- litical Animal.” Key Words: Heidegger, Aristotle, Dasein, rational animal, political animal, inquiry 1 INTRODUCTION In Heidegger’s Being and Time, he aims to create an ontology separate from the ontologies of Plato and Aristotle in order to answer the question of Being: he examines the nature of Being from the perspective of “Dasein” (i.e. the hu- man being). I will demonstrate that in doing so, Heidegger implicitly presup- poses the Aristotelian concepts of the human being within his work, meaning 12 Being Towards Aristotle? that he does not actually establish an ontology separate from prior ontologies as he aims to do.
    [Show full text]
  • Incarnate Spirit Proper Lhomistic DeNition of the Human Being Or Merely a Description of the Human Soul?
    JAMES CAPEHART Incarnate Spirit Proper lhomistic Denition of the Human Being or Merely a Description of the Human Soul? 'gkz What a creature is man! He is spirit and matter together. He is not an imprisoned angel; he is by nature an incarnate spirit. This is the fact to ex plainwithout changing it and without explaining it away. But the more we are true to the fact of man as an incarnate spirit, to the fact of a subsis- tent and spiritual soul which is yet by nature a part ofman, the more we are driven to ask the why of such a being. And we are equally driven to exclude as impossible all explanations of man which render the facts impossible. What is, is possible; and man is. And because man is an observable reality, he poses the problem of the unity of his being and of his nature.1 As the great Thomistic philosopher Anton C. Pegis gives poetic testi- mony to in the above quotation, the nature of the human being is an awe inspiring mystery. Unlike the brute animals, human beings have a soul which subsists in its own right after death. The soul is indeed a spirit. How- ever, outside of anthropological poetry and hyperbolic rhetoric, is it justi- liable to call the whole human being a spirit, or even to dene it as an Incar nate Spirit? Furthermore, is it justiable to claim that St. Thomas Aquinas held to the defensibility of such a predication? In the following account, I hope to show that the answers to both ques tions are resoundineg in the negative.
    [Show full text]