Posted by: Lorraine | June 8, 2007

More Than Matter, Part I

This week, I returned to a work which I began reading about 18 months ago. Written by a Jewish physician and biochemist who teaches university literature and philosophy classes, The Hungry Soul:Eating and the Perfection of Our Nature is self-admittedly (as the “Preface” notes) a strange book. The author, Leon Kass, considers eating, nourishment and all the activities which pertain thereto, then unfolds the implications of these processes for understanding living creatures and, more especially, man. In the first chapter, he effects a brilliant feat. He uses food to demonstrate the existence of the Aristotelian, or animal, soul.

The “Foreward to the Paperback Edition” explains his reasons for beginning with this topic :

“To know the human, if only by contrast and relation, we need to know also the nonhuman, especially the animal. For though we may be, as claimed in many traditions, the most godlike of the animals, we live always an animated and necessitous existence just like our fellow animals. Yet because modern biology with its materialistic and mechanistic biases fails to do justice to the evident vitality of animal life, it will fail also to do justice to our humanized animality. Thus, partly to locate the human within the animal world, partly to show how we might acquire a richer and truer science of all living things, I begin with a chapter on animal feeding–on food, nourishing, and animal form.”

In short, a complete account for human nature must encompass man’s animal powers as well as his immortal soul. But one cannot understand human animality without understanding animal nature in its broader application. Thus, he begins with the lower and more basic aspects of human existence, as a necessary foundation for appreciating the noble whole.

Here is a brief summary of his argument for the animal soul: In the process of nourishment, living creatures preserve their existence by transforming another substance into a part of their own substance, thereby replacing a part of their substance which passes away. Undoubtedly, the same organism persists, despite the loss and addition of material. What persists is a certain organization of matter - the nourishment depends upon this organization. As Kass states: “Though sustained by metabolism, an organism seems to be more than metabolism’s product. It also appears to be its cause.” In other words, a living creature possesses an organizing principle within itself, by which it acts upon things outside itself, also perceiving and desiring other substances in a degree corresponding with its complexity of organization. Thus, an animal is more than the sum of its matter. It is matter organized for the sake of activity. Aristotle called this organization the form, or soul.

Responses

The great thing about traditional philosophy is that it includes everthing that is in modern philosophy, plus a whole lot more.

Lorraine,

This is a very interesting thought: “A living creature possess an organizing principle within itself, by which it acts upon things outside itself, also perceiving and desiring other substances in a degree corresponding with its complexity of organization.”

As this applies to human beings, what strikes me is the notion that our actions, perceptions, and desires correspond to our complexity of organization. Now, given that most members of the human race have the same *material* organizational complexity, I think the variance we see in human action, perception, and desire must be accounted for by a corresponding variance in another sort of organizational complexity.

To this end, the term “complexity of organization” seems to be a sort of amoral category used to examine what kinds of behavior we can expect from a man. However, as soon a we begin to consider the rightness or wrongness of any given action, perception, or desire, I think that we will find that a man’s organizational complexity corresponds to his advancement in righteousness. In short, as a man becomes more like Christ his moral and spiritual nature becomes more organizationally complex.

“Organizational complexity” is indeed a rather amoral way of looking at things.

Morally, Christ tells us: “And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required”. If God gives you the grace of a high degree of complexity of organization, you had better put it to good use.

Mark,

Very true. Traditional philosophy puts the discoveries of science in the proper context, which actually amplifies their “meaningfulness.”

Brian,
Interesting thought. However, I would make a few qualifications.

While all men share the same basic “material organization,” there is a great deal of variation even in that respect. In the classical tradition, differences of temperament (or personality) are essentially connected to physical characteristics, though external circumstances (grace, education) certainly affect the development of that natural disposition. Our individual material existence offers a partial account for that “variance we see in human action, perception, and desire.”

Furthermore, in man, the principle of material organization is an immaterial substance, an immortal soul. The proof of its immateriality rests upon the proof of its rationality. It is the power of reasoning which gives human actions a moral character and enables moral variety. In short, free will is an appetitive power of the soul which follows upon rational apprehension. I don’t think one would say that holiness increases the complexity of the human soul. Rather, through virtue we perfect the operation of the powers of the human soul, particularly the most important powers of reasoning and willing. The complex organization is there by nature; we can move, grow, sense, procreate, love and know. The question is whether we make good use of that organization.

Hi Lorraine,

Great thoughts! I have been wanting to return to this conversation for a while now, so here goes.

I am still wondering about the idea of a man’s growth in righteousness: Can he actually become more organizationally complex, or is he simply led to make better use of his organization as you suggest–to begin accessing his untapped potential as it were?

I think for the most part, I agree with your position, however, I would suggest that the Sacrament of Baptism does more to ontologically change a man–to increase his organizational complexity–than to merely open him up to new horizons within his nature. It seems that the infusion and deposit of Christ’s righteousness that a man receives in Holy Baptism is a gift which, to use the Prophet Ezekiel’s imagery, puts to death our hearts of stone and resurrects them as hearts of flesh. Or as the CCC has it, Holy Baptism involves “the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (1989). This, to me, seems to describe a transformation whereby a man becomes more than what he previously was. I agree that “the complex organization is there by nature”; but it just seems that within the sacramental economy it is given to Man to partake of a Divine nature–one that is more complex (i.e. morally superior) than his own–so that he might grow in his own organizational complexity and in so doing become more like Christ.

Hi Brian,

You touch upon an interesting paradox - the oddity of human nature. Man’s natural end, the Beatific Vision, is a supernatural good, above his nature, and he cannot attain it without supernatural help. Other material creatures possess, by nature, the means of attaining their perfection; for example, the perfection of a tree is in growing and bearing fruit. While the tree depends upon external circumstances like rain and sunshine, those are available by nature(for the most part) and trees can absorb the suns rays and draw water from the ground by a natural power. Man, on the other hand, has a potency for receiving supernatural grace, but it is not something he can merit or acquire except as a free gift of God. “Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.” (CCC,1997) With the help of grace, however, he can practice the virtues in a supernatural way and achieve his supernatural goal. So, the soul which receives sanctifying grace certainly possesses a richer existence, but it is still an existence in accordance with human nature.

[N.B. I am not an expert and might be terribly confused.]

[...] post is a long overdue sequel to one I wrote several months ago, outlining the interesting argument for Aristotilian form found in the first chapter of The Hungry Soul:Eating [...]

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories