1. ‘A’ Level Philosophy and Ethics
Notes
Aristotle – The Soul
Plato had argued that the soul was the driver of the body – the force that
animates the human being. The soul is the person’s identity – the body
is more like the dwelling of the soul.
The Ancient Greek Philosophers had a low opinion of the body. They
believed that the spirit or soul was imprisoned in the body, and
some philosophical schools followed ascetic regimes in an attempt
to “free” the soul from its bodily chains.
Aristotle took a more materialist view of the soul and the body. He believed
that the body was the “stuff” that a person was made of. The soul is the
person’s “form”.
Note – the soul is more than just an animating spirit. It is more than
simply the mind.
The “soul” is the pattern of humanity that the person
conforms to. Each “soul” includes the unique form of
each unique person.
For Aristotle, the soul is the complete package of a human being, not simply
the spark that makes it go. It is the sum total of a thing, including its
function and purpose. For example:
A plant has a “soul” An animal’s soul A person’s soul
– the soul gives it includes the basic includes the basic
its function as a functions of the functions of the
plant. plant. animal.
This would This would This would
include include include the
nutrition and nutrition and animal desires
reproduction. reproduction, and drives, and
and also also reason,
instincts and intellect and a
drives. sense of
justice.
Aristotle gives some illustrations to explain what he means:

2. Aristotle – The Soul
De Anima 1:ii
We have now given a general answer to the question, What is soul? It is
substance in the sense which corresponds to the account of a thing. That
means that it is what it is to be for a body of the character just assigned.
§ Suppose that a tool, e.g. an axe, were a natural body, then being an
axe would have been its essence, and so its soul; if this disappeared
from it, it would have ceased to be an axe, except in name.
§ As it is, it is an axe; for it is not of a body of that sort that what it is
to be, i.e. its account, is a soul, but of a natural body of a particular
kind, viz. One having in itself the power of setting itself in movement
and arresting itself.
§ Next, apply this doctrine in the case of the parts of the living body.
Suppose that the eye were an animal--sight would have been its soul,
for sight is the substance of the eye which corresponds to the
account, the eye being merely the matter of seeing; when seeing is
removed the eye is no longer an eye, except in name--no more than
the eye of a statue or of a painted figure.
§ We must now extend our consideration from the parts to the whole
living body; for what the part is to the part, that the whole faculty of
sense is to the whole sensitive body as such.
http://www.aquinasonline.com/medieval/pseudo-ari.htm
Consider a set of carpenter’s tools. The thing that makes the axe different to
the hammer. Both are made from a wooden handle and a metal head
attached. If the axe were a living thing, then its “body” is the wood and
metal that it is made of. The “soul” of the axe is its ability to chop through
wood.
The soul is not separate from the body. It is a basic part of it, and does not
live on after death.
However, Aristotle believed that reason is associated with the pure
thought of the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover is eternal and infinite. In
this way, it is possible to think of the reason of a person living on
after their death, but not in any recognisably individual form.
BUT…
Aristotle argued that there was no evidence for Plato’s belief in the World of
the Idea. Is there any evidence for Aristotle’s contention that true knowledge
is established in the material world?
§ Aristotle believed that everything has a Final Cause. However, Bertrand
Russell argued (in a famous debate with Copleston, broadcast on BBC
Radio) that “the universe is just there, and that’s that”. Sigmund Freud
argued that our perception of order and purpose in the universe is simply
“wishful thinking”.
2