How is soul separate?

A: But which operation of the soul is clearly non-physical? It would be one thing if we had evidence for psychokinesis, telepathy, telling the future or whatever. What can you point to?

B: What’s wrong with Plato’s?

A: What, “the forms themselves”? Who can believe that? What about the third man?

B: I think this develops his thought in a direction he had no interest in. His basic point is that learning arises from sensation but doesn’t seem to terminate in it. When you teach someone you use examples in the hope that they will get what’s exemplified. The “forms” or “things in themselves” are just ways of talking about what you get when you get something and the only thing we’re for sure about is that it is a different sort of reality than the things exemplifying it.

A: Different from the sensible.

B: Yes. The physical is always correlative to sensation and learning is getting past this. Learning consists in getting something that is wholly contained in any individual without being exhausted by any one.

A: But the learning is always from sensation.

B: Recollection is a theory about learning from sensation.

A: So even here the separation from the physical is a union with it.

%d bloggers like this: