Two Views of Soul: Aristotle and Descartes

This content is available through online browsing (free) program dependent on page scan. Screen readers can not currently scan, so please contact JSTOR user support for access. We will provide PDF copy of your screen reader

Aristotle's homomorphic mapping model is a combination of substance and form, or a combination of body and soul, and it is the two dimensional existence (for Aristotle, the soul is a form of the body and the body is a matter of the soul). Descartes dualism is to separate matter, mind and soul into two entities or substances within a person. I add that both philosophers regard the soul and thought as the central position (the center of Aristotle and the pineal gland in Descartes' brain). In the case of Descartes it is controversial (see here), but it also has the potential to maintain a sense of interaction between the two. For Descartes, personal personal soul and thoughts are eternal.

Then I have it. Two modes of mankind, soul and body, - Aristotle's homosexuality and Descartes dualism. Each has its doubts. If the body and soul are combined as matter and form, how do you explain the apparent power of the soul beyond substance when considering non-materiality and prevalence? Do humans crave universally universally to survive after death? On the other hand, if the soul is a completely independent substance from the substance and the body is just a machine to regulate a large part of the substance, how can they unite and interact in complex organisms Is not it? As with La Mettrie after a century in Descartes, completely abandoning the concept of soul and solving all living creatures, including humans, is a mere boring view of the pseudo-machine. However, there is a problem with this perspective. Probably the most important thing is to keep looking and thinking about our body and soul. Or at least we continue to think. .