Thaumaturgus on the soul c. 4-7

4a.) The soul makes the body alive and moves it. If it moved it as one physical part moved another, it would not make it alive. Therefore the soul does not have physical parts.

4b.) If the soul were so mixed with body that it formed one compound with it, then the soul would not exist as its own simple substance, which is contrary to 3.

4c.) If soul had physical parts, it must either be moved from outside the body or within it. Not from outside, for this is contrary to what soul is; not from within, for the soul is what moves

4d.) The bodily is known by sense, but the soul is known not by sense but by its effects.

4e.) Everything is either animate or not. If the soul is an animate body, it is a body with soul, and so the question repeats. If it is not, then it could not animate another.

5.) What has no physical parts is simple, but the soul has no physical parts.

6a.) Whatever can corrupt or die has physical parts that it can be resolved into, but the soul is simple.

6b.) Whatever can lose its operative power lacks operative power as part of its substance. But to give life and activity belongs to the substance of the soul.

6c.) What does not cease to exist by its proper evil cannot cease to exist. But the soul does not cease to exist by the evils proper to it, like fear and vice.

7a.) What benefits the soul is of a like nature to it. But rational arts benefit the soul. Therefore the soul is rational.

7b.) Our activities are not sufficiently explained by the illumination we get from sensation. But the soul is the source of activity, and so is characterized by a higher kind of illumination and apprehension.

%d bloggers like this: