The Self, the Soul, and Human Nature

Aristotelian analogies. The blossom, scientifically, is a means to the end of reproduction. Which means that even for science ‘purpose’ belongs to the natural realm, at least to what is alive. From a perspective within the realm of meaning, however, I hope I may be forgiven for seeing the blossom – or beauty – as the end to which a snowdrop or a daffodil strives. The potential for beauty so apparent that even I can perceive it is contained in the seed of the flower. All kinds of things may prevent the flower from reaching this end – a lawnmower, for example, or a drought. But the potential to reach blossom is essential to the flower, and what a flower is can only be apprehended by the finished product, so to speak.

       Now in this I see a strong analogy between the blossom and the human soul. For the evolutionary reductionist, our inner lives are nothing but an adaption that at one point served the end of reproduction. From within the realm of meaning, the soul is the telos or final purpose of our kind, what makes us human, our essence. From within the realm of meaning, this is the natural order of things. And it is “good, very good.” Aristotle characterized our essence by writing what might be translated as ‘human beings are animals with the potential to reason and understand’ – to grasp the essence of things from a limited point of view. But we are more than creatures blessed with the potential to reason. We are animals with the potential to be souls, and the soul, though it includes the intellect, is more.  

         I don’t care here about any metaphysical belief or theory concerning the soul: whether it is immaterial and immortal, for example, or whether it emerges from the physical body (my view). I’m referring unmetaphysically to that which can show itself in the human face. A soul is just a person insofar as they can love and be loved; insofar as they can respond to and perform acts of justice and mercy; or insofar as they can respond with joy and wonder to beauty and goodness; through the soul, life can be meaningful; we can hope, have faith, and say ‘yes’ to existence insofar as we are in touch with our souls; because we are souls, we grieve when a loved one dies or lost; suffer remorse over evil done. The soul is the self in purity, the self as it should be, stripped of all corruptions and strengthened by the virtues. To ‘lose your soul’ is to be cut off from all love for whatever is ‘other’ to the self, to be so imprisoned in a self that it finally becomes a stranger to the soul. We are, most of us, on the way to our souls; we rarely ever get there. 

As the flower needs earth, water, good weather, the right environment, and sunlight to thrive, the soul needs five connections to blossom:      

• Genuine love as a child (a loving family): Love = "wonderful that you exist"
• Recognition of itself as a soul by other souls, rather than being treated as an object (morality), a product of evolution, a psyche, an identity, or a self. [I confess: "I identify as..." seems a soulless expression to me.]
• Freedom from oppression, corrupting influences (e.g. much social media), and ignorance (a nurturing community that passes on the treasures from the past); a community based on justice, mercy, and truth.
• A place in the world, including the nature and history of that place (roots) that understands itself as part of a common humanity.
• Joy, affirming love, hope, and faith – or the grace to receive a relationship to the mystery of our being (the sacred)

 

The breaking of these essential connections uproots the soul, and the capitalist social form, at least in its present incarnation, breaks these connections as even the much more oppressive regimes in the past could not. I also think to realize our potential and find our meaning we need a lot of luck.

   In fact, I wonder if these conditions have ever been met anywhere? No wonder wherever I look - starting with myself - I see damaged souls struggling to be. That seems to be part of our nature, of part of the human condition: to have to become what we should be under adverse conditions. 

...

I am exploring the "essence" of the idea of the "soul" - not trying to find the right theory. To ask, ‘What is it?’ - What is the soul? - can mean many things, but at the most radical level it involves concept formation. To ask, ‘What is a human being, really?’ is both to ask about what makes possible sense to us in terms of the way we conceptualize ‘human being’ and to ask about the being of this phenomenon. What is it? The answer: everything meaningful that has been said, is being said, or could possibility be said about it in the future, in any form: everyday life, poetry, philosophy, science - whatever. That the answer is a limit you can always only approach, never reach. Reality transcends our ability to make sense of it (I hope). Essence is not a definition. 

.. .

Limits of Philosophy. What is a human being? What is the soul? These are metaphysical questions: science has no more or less to say about them than it does about death or birth, good or evil.

     Metaphysics – like translating a great, indeed the greatest poem ever written: Being. It can only be done from what can be revealed in finite aspects in our particular language and history. The essence of, for example, a tree is far from being definitely given by an Aristotelian definition or a logical definition with necessary and sufficient conditions, however adequate such definitions may be for thinking about reference /extension. All the good poems and stories about trees, the traditional lore about particular trees, the experience of wonder, beauty, or fear, the sense of violation when certain trees or forests are seen as nothing but a ‘natural resource’ – all this and every intelligible use of 'tree' discloses what a tree really is / can be. This is even more true of the soul, a human being. There can never be closure until the human mind is closed.