I can literally think of no major philosophical thinker who was willing to claim we weren't animals.
-
-
But very many who divided the spiritual from the bestial. Augustine springs to mind. Sapientia & scientia
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It depends what you mean. "The spiritual" very particularly defined *is* our specific difference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd say brains were. Yes. And consistently see a need to mortify the flesh & strengthen the spirit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
immateriality of the intellect stems from a very specific set of arguments about knowledge which ->
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iwpoe @HPluckrose and
had nothing to do with distaste for our animalia. Aristotle considers it. It's about ->
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iwpoe @HPluckrose and
Here's the basic outline of the traditional position: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-soul.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, this exactly! This division between the animal part of us and the immaterial soul.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No. A nuanced distinction dualists don't hold, but "The soul is the form of the living body."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iwpoe @HPluckrose and
But, that distinction isn't *motivated* by animality per se. It's not about whether we shit, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In practice it often is! I might have to write something abt this. How much such symbolism is used.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.