Aristotle's Dichotomy: The Soul Vs. The Body

1996 Words4 Pages

Throughout the centuries, “the soul vs. the body” has been a recurring theme that philosophers and theologians alike have grappled with in their works. Religious texts, such as the Bible and Augustine’s City of God, use the terms “spirit” and “flesh” to characterize the dichotomy. Rule of the flesh is essentially giving into sin while not giving into sin is exercising the spirit’s control over the flesh. In the Greek philosophical tradition, Aristotle and Plato equate the soul’s activity with contemplation, or reasoning, while the body’s domination of the soul is yielding to the extremes of vice. Despite having slightly different names and definitions, these thinkers all seem to agree that it is best for the soul to be in control of the body. However, Aristotle, in Politics, strays from other prominent figures of Western thought in that he labels the soul’s domination of the body a natural phenomenon and the body ruling the soul an unnatural one: “the soul is the natural ruler; the body the natural subject” (I.5, 1254a.35). Aristotle’s assertion is surprising, especially since he uses it to justify the existence of a natural slave. This essay will not question whether it is best for the soul to rule the body, but rather will argue against Aristotle’s assumption that it is more natural for the soul to rule the body. Through careful analysis of passages from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Against the Gentiles, Plato’s Republic, and Al-Ghazali’s The Rescuer from Error, one finds that it is not natural for the soul to control …show more content…

Like Al-Ghazali, most people lack the self-control to sacrifice immediate gratification for the ultimate reward. One must go through a grueling experience or training to learn to lead the body with the soul. If it were more natural for the soul to rule the body, then it would be much easier for man to achieve the ultimate

Open Document