Yesterday's penultimate chapter was called Immortality, while this last one is on The Form of the Body -- which is to say, the soul.
Which strikes me as backwards. Anticlimactic. If you were going to write a book on Immortal Souls, wouldn't you start with the soul, and then proceed to pull an immortal rabbit out of it? Go out with a bang?
Why don't you just review the book Feser wrote instead of the one you'll never write?
That escalated quickly. Maybe I will write another book, just to spite you. A spite book, maybe the first ever.
Gemini, has any author ever written a spite book?
While we can't definitively know the motivations behind every author's work, it's unlikely that a book has been solely written out of spite. However, there have been instances where authors have been inspired to write in response to negative criticism or personal attacks.
Wait -- I think I figured it out: Petey is just jealous of Gemini, since we've been spending so much time with it.
Gemini, I reckon you know who Gagdad Bob is?
Yes, I am aware of Gagdad Bob, the author of the One Cosmos blog. He is known for his insightful and often humorous writing on a wide range of topics, including philosophy, theology, science, and metaphysics.
I don't know about "known," but what about Petey?
Given Gagdad Bob's often humorous and imaginative style, it's quite possible that "Petey" is a playful literary device or a personal reference.
If Petey is indeed a real being, whether a guardian angel or another supernatural entity, then the best way to "spite" him might be to focus on personal growth and positive actions.
So, be the bigger man?
Absolutely, being the bigger person is often the most rewarding path. Focus your energy on your writing. Channel your emotions into your work and let it speak for itself. Remember, the best revenge is living well.
Or writing well?
I believe I've addressed your query adequately.
Indeed. Back to this chapter: the form of the body is, of course the soul.
In Aristotle's opinion.
There you go again. Thomas used that "opinion" to prove you exist too. That is, just as there are intellects united to a body, there are discarnate intellects like yours. Unless you're just some kind of playful literary device or personal reference.
Now, "because the human person is"
not an entirely corporeal substance, the death of the body does not entail the entire destruction of the substance. Rather, the substance carries on after the body's death in an incomplete state, reduced to its rational operations (Feser).
So, good news / bad news? Sucks to be you.
It would seem so, absent something like... let's call it "resurrection."
Yada yada, "What, then, of the soul's future?" More to the point, "will the soul of a deceased person ever in fact be reunited to its body? This is the idea of resurrection" (ibid.).
Yes, but "will resurrection actually occur?"
In particular, can philosophical arguments alone tell us? One thing it seems philosophy can tell us is that resurrection is fitting given our nature. For, again, it is only when the soul is conjoined with a body that we have a complete substance.
Bestwecando? Fitting?
Another thing philosophy can tell us is that if a resurrection were to occur, only God could bring it about. Natural material causes can no more reunite soul and body than they could generate a soul in the first place....
Now, if we consider the fittingness of resurrection together with divine power, goodness, and wisdom, we have the ingredients for an argument to the effect that God can be expected to restore bodies to souls.
Is this just special pleading? Or the premise for another book -- maybe one to spite all those materialists who think otherwise?
[E]laborating on and defending this line of argument would require a treatment of matters of philosophical theology that are beyond the scope of a book on human nature.
That's your final answer?
[H]ere we reach the limits of what philosophy by itself can establish. If we are to go further, we will have to look for evidence of some special divine revelation about the details of the soul's life after death and the resurrection of its body.
Aaaaaand, it seems we're back to Dávila's observation that
There are arguments of increasing validity, but, in short, no argument in any field spares us the final leap.
You're logical -- what say you, Gemini?
That's a profound observation. It speaks to the inherent limitations of human understanding, no matter how advanced our knowledge becomes.
Ultimately, whether it's philosophy, science, or religion, there will always be a leap of faith, a leap into the unknown.
Then again,
Faith is not an irrational assent to a proposition; it is a perception of a special order of realities.
Gemini?
That's a profound statement. It suggests that faith isn't merely a blind acceptance of a proposition, but rather a deeper, intuitive understanding of a higher reality.
Concur:
Religion is not a set of solutions to known problems, but a new dimension of the universe.
I believe we will have more to say about flying into this new dimension in the next post.