 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
[
96 ] the rise and fall of soul and self
union with matter. Forms of this kind are merely forms, not also substances.
A second kind of form “has operations and passions beyond matter, as well as in
matter.”
4
Forms of this second kind, which includes human souls, are also sub-
stances. But how could forms of this second kind be substances? Instead of
answering this question, Peter addressed another: On the assumption
that the
human soul is a substance, how could it be the form of its human body? His
answer is that the human soul was created specifically to be the form of its human
body, which is its matter. A difficulty with this suggestion is that the human
body, which is not prime matter, already has a form, prior to the arrival of the
human soul. Peter’s response to this difficulty was to claim that what informs the
human body prior to the arrival of the soul is not any form that the body has on
its own—he denied that the developing embryo has a vegetative or a sensitive
soul—but, rather, form in the father’s sperm, which belongs not to the embryo
but to the sperm. This form, which departs as soon as the human soul arrives,
ensures that the matter of the embryo is suitably prepared to be informed by the
human soul.
By 1240, the scholastics
had concluded their initial confrontation with the
flood of new Aristotelian literature. Although Christian Neoplatonists still looked
to Avicenna, who was a dualist, to point the way, they reached no consensus on
what the soul is or how it is related to the body. Each new proposal seemed to
raise as many questions as it answered. Without dualism it was difficult to see
how human immortality is possible. With dualism it was difficult to account sat-
isfactorily for human unity. With or without dualism, each new attempt to syn-
thesize Neoplatonism and Aristotle raised questions that could not be answered
without both knowing more about the human body than anyone then did and
also developing a clearer understanding of Aristotle’s natural philosophy.
At about this time, Aristotle’s De anima, along with the recently acquired
commentaries, became the subject of regular lectures at Oxford and Paris. As
this happened, Averroës’ views came to the fore. An initial misconception about
Averroës’ helped him to win an audience. He was thought to have held that each
individual human soul had its own agent, or active, intellect. His real view was
that there is only one agent intellect, which all humans share. It took another
two decades for scholastics to appreciate the implications of his real view for
personal immortality. By the time they did so, European thinkers had developed
a deep appreciation for Averroës’ interpretation of Aristotle, and Neoplatonism
was on the wane.
Albert the Great (c. 1206-1280) was too much of an Aristotelian to feel com-
fortable holding, as Peter of Spain had, that the soul is both a complete substance
and the form of the body.
5
Instead, he claimed that the soul, which is a complete
 |