Im writing in a response to Aristotle's view about the body and soul. I can see why he would speculate the soul would seece to exist with out the human body or 'Sustance'. But my addition to that thought is that: I would dissagree with that statement on the truth, that souls exist. If something so complex as a soul exists, then who are we to know or assume they would, as a law of reality be only capable of living in a physical make-up?
Odviously the laws of spiritual matters can be delt in much different ways than we can understand from reference in our own earthly lives. To assume the same laws apply in physical and mental reality systems God lets us perceive is not a correct thought at all. If Aristotle had any belief of a higher power, how could he assume that a soul made by this higher power would be limited to matter. Which leads to the quesetion did Aristotle not believe in an all-powefull god?
I think the moral that should be recognized here is to not confuse brilliance, for correctness. Throughout all of history people have had a problem with following the false words of a man or women that has said so many brilliant things. Take what you know is true out of your references, but never be so trusting in one are that you accept everything that comes from it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment