March 7, 2024 • 63 mins
Dan and Catherine welcome Fr. James Brent, O.P. to discuss the soul, its powers and properties. What is the soul? How can the soul survive bodily death? What makes the human soul unique? Fr. James answers these questions and more on this week's podcast.
Fr. James teaches at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. He regularly lectures for the Thomistic Institute and Aquinas 101, contributes to SpiritualDirection.com, and preaches retreats to college students and young adults. His book "The Father's House: Discovering Our Home in the Trinity" is now available for purchase.
Have your call in questions be featured on the podcast:
Leave a voicemail at 949-257-2436
Learn more and read articles:
https://www.magiscenter.com/purposeful-lab
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
There is this ultimate end.
I mean, everybody's living forsomething, everyone's looking
for what's really going to makethem happy.
And then if we ask the question, well, what is that?
Then we start to get into muchdeeper, bigger questions.
Music.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Welcome to Purposeful Lab, a Modja Center podcast.
I'm Catherine Hedro, with myco-host, Dr Dan Kiebler.
Today we're discussing thepowers of the soul.
Pretty profound topic, yeahdeep topic.
Yes, and with a guest who youknow.
He travels really around thenation giving talks on this
subject, and that's Father JamesBrent.
He's an assistant professor ofphilosophy at the Pontifical
(00:40):
Faculty of the ImmaculateConception at the Dominican
House of Studies here inWashington DC.
This is my first time gettingthe chance to meet him and speak
with him, but I've heard himspeak on this online.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Yeah, I've heard a couple of his podcasts with the
Thomistic Institute, so I'mlooking forward to talking with
him and asking him about thepowers of soul, how this relates
to what we've talked about withthe biological evolution of
humans and sort of apsychological understanding of
humans and consciousness, andI've seen how all this might fit
together in the unity of thehuman person.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yes, I should also mention Father Brent has a new
book that's out, the Father'sHouse, and it's really all these
retreat talks he's given overthe past 10 years and, anyways,
I think his wisdom really comesthrough in this episode.
So let's get to it.
Here's Father James Brent onthe powers of the soul.
Father Brent, thank you so muchfor meeting with us today.
It's a pleasure to have you onmy joy, happy to be here.
(01:33):
Thank you, do you mind startingus off and telling us about
your background?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
both professionally and personally.
I was born and raised inMichigan and as soon as I got to
, college I knew I wanted tostudy philosophy and I studied
philosophy all the way throughmy undergraduate years and I
pursued a master's degree inphilosophy and then I went to St
Louis University and I went tothe University of Washington
philosophy and then I went to StLouis University and that's
(01:58):
where I worked on my doctorateand I joined the Dominicans in
2004 and completed my doctoratein philosophy and then went on
to do theology studies at theDominican House of Studies and
then I taught for a number ofyears at the Catholic University
of America and I've gone on theroad preaching all over the
(02:19):
country with fellow Dominicans.
I've taught at the DominicanHouse of Studies now for seven
years and continued to traveland preach and teach in various
ways through the ThomisticInstitute and retreats for
college students and youngadults and writing now doing a
lot of that.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
That's great.
What drew you to the DominicansFather?
Speaker 1 (02:44):
What drew me to the Dominicans was the marvelous
combination of a life in common,full of prayer and sacred study
that's all ordered towardspreaching for the salvation of
souls.
It's a unique combination inthe life of the church and it
seemed to have all the elementsthat just suited me perfectly.
(03:04):
Yeah, that's great.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
And again, you teach philosophy, and that will be
what our conversation iscensored around is philosophy?
But, as a Dominican who hasstudied Thomas Aquinas, how
would Aquinas distinguishphilosophy and psychology and
theology?
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Oh, ok.
So philosophy is the quest tounderstand reality as deeply as
we can by the light of reason,to understand the ultimate
explanation, really the highestcauses, as Aristotle or St
Thomas would say, using thenatural light of reason that all
human beings have, just becausewe're human.
Theology is the study of whatGod has revealed in a special
(03:44):
way to the prophets of old, tothe apostles in Christ, and
that's contained in scriptureand handed on in the church.
So those who believe in thedivine revelation want to
understand the divine revelation, because when you believe you
don't cease to be human and youdon't cease to want to
understand.
So when we believe all that Godhas revealed to us, we want to
(04:06):
understand it.
And theology is the systematicquest to understand all that God
has revealed, or theology isthe quest to understand all that
God has revealed in asystematic kind of way.
Psychology can be taken in anumber of different senses.
There is psychology in theancient philosophical sense,
(04:27):
which is really the study ofsoul or the study of human
beings in particular.
But then there's a contemporarysense of psychology where we
have the theoretical andclinical psychology that's
really directed towards therapyin various ways and that's more
of a reflection upon experiencein the attempt to use
(04:49):
contemporary science tounderstand pathology in order to
diagnose and treat it, unlessyou take another specific
approach to psychology, which wecall positive psychology, which
doesn't focus on the abnormalbut on what is health overall,
positively speaking.
And then, what does it take forhuman beings to flourish?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
That's great.
I mean, this season we've beenlooking at all three of those,
but particularly we've beenfocusing on the uniqueness of
humans.
We clearly talked about theevolution of hominids and humans
and things that we share withother primates.
We've looked at evolutionarypsychology and how that affects
(05:32):
who we are and what it means forhumans to flourish, given our
connection with other animals.
But what is it that we'retrying to get at this season is
what is it that makes humansunique or different From your
perspective, from philosophicalperspective?
What is it that is the linchpinI think we have?
(05:52):
Biologically, you can come upwith some arguments.
Psychologically, you can comeup with things, but what would
you say if somebody asked that?
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Right.
It's a very common thesisthat's put forward in the
sciences certainly in biologybut other fields as well that
when it comes to living thingsthere's a difference of degree
but not a difference of kind.
So we should think of the worldof life as this spectrum of
accidental variation, butthere's no essential differences
(06:22):
between the various forms oflife out there.
Even the word form meanssomething kind of different than
what ancient philosophersunderstood it to mean, certainly
what Aristotle understood it tomean.
So we're all kind of educatedinto this worldview where
there's really a spectrumbetween lower life and higher,
(06:42):
even calling it higher and loweras passe.
Right, exactly Because there'sno hierarchy and there is no
higher and lower, and there'sbecause there's no difference of
kind.
So one of the main things weneed to sort of establish up
front is that there is adifference in kind between human
beings and other life forms, wemight say lower life forms.
(07:03):
How do we do that?
Instead of looking for like oneparticular thing, that's like a
, the zinger that will establishit definitively, a better way
to approach it, I think, is tostep back and take our whole
experience of human beings, anda simple exercise that anyone
can do is just get out a pieceof paper and start writing down
(07:26):
what are some things that onlyhuman beings do, or what are
some things that only humanbeings can do.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
And it doesn't take long to come up with a long list
.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So you can say well, only human beings have symphony
orchestras, not all human beings.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
but only human beings , as distinct from other life
forms.
So only human beings havesymphony orchestras.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Only human beings travel to the moon.
Only human beings have legalsystems.
Only human beings havetransportation system consisting
of concrete roads andautomobiles and the world of
technology that we have.
Only human beings build schools.
Only human beings use language,and we can specify more
(08:14):
specifically what that means.
Only human beings wear clothing.
Only human beings.
You just go down the list.
Only human beings die and onlyhuman beings make wine and beer.
You can just go down the list.
It doesn't take long to come upwith a pretty big list.
When this list gets so big youstart to realize this really,
(08:36):
really strongly suggests andmaybe more than suggests, it
really reveals that there is adifference in kind between us
and other life forms.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Yeah, I think that's true and, just as a biologist,
you get this sort ofevolutionary view that the
field's immersed in that reallyfocuses on.
Yeah, there are relationshipsthat you have with these other
species and whole organisms, butthere is something that's
unique in terms of, I think,like the biomass of all humans
(09:11):
on earth, dwarfs, the biomass ofall of their major vertebrates
we have dominated and spread toso many different places.
There's something differentabout humans as a species than
other species that we do so manythings.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Sometimes philosophers try to zero in on
one particular thing that reallydifferentiates us from
everything else.
So for example, at Guston, atone point zeroes in on the fact
that human beings train otheranimals, but other animals don't
train human beings.
So sometimes you can zero in onsome very special kind of
phenomena or other.
(09:49):
Sometimes the fathers of thechurch focus on fasting.
Certainly, human beings fastlike voluntarily staining food
certain diets.
But lower animals don't fast,other animals don't fast, so
fasting is sometimes singled outas a very special phenomenon,
or domesticating animals ortraining them in various ways to
(10:10):
sometimes singled out, but Iwouldn't put my stock in any one
of those.
But when you add them alltogether in a kind of cumulative
case or cumulative observation,you can see that there's a
pretty radical differencebetween human beings and other
animal forms.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
That's interesting, that they're teaching other
animals, because it's also noother animal teaches in the way
we do.
They all can learn, butactually we teach other, or
offspring and so forth, in avery active way.
So it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I will say I feel like my pets have trained me to
obey them in some way.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
I was just going to say in response to this what you
mean by teaching.
There's a properly human way ofteaching and then there is a
kind of animal teaching, butit's really more like
conditioning.
So animals can condition theiryoung and your animals can even
in a way, condition you, butthat's different from teaching
in the way that we teach oneanother Exactly yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
That's fascinating and again in this episode we'll
be looking at specifically thesoul from a philosophical
perspective and really thepowers of the soul.
So just foundational questionwhat is a soul?
And we've discussed all thedifferent kinds of living beings
.
Does every living being have asoul?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
That's a great question.
So, if we consider the ancientphilosophical tradition, in the
ancient world the word soul wasused to describe what's
responsible for life.
So this is a different way ofthinking about soul than we have
become accustomed to in themodern world.
And it is the way that thephilosophers and theologians
(11:40):
spoke up until the high-medalages was.
They spoke in terms of soul asthe principle of life.
So wherever you find life, onthis ancient understanding,
wherever you find life, there issoul.
So plants have soul in thembecause they're living things,
animals the brute animals, havesoul in them because they're
(12:03):
living, and human beings havesoul because human beings are
living.
So wherever there's life,there's soul.
Wherever there's a living body,really there's soul.
The angels don't have soul, oraren't soul for reasons we'll
get into, because they don'thave bodies, so they're not like
a physical life form.
(12:23):
Where there's a physical lifeform, there's soul.
Now, that doesn't mean thatevery soul is the same in kind,
so that human beings in grassand cats and dogs have the same
kind of soul.
So wherever there's life,there's soul of some kind or
(12:44):
another.
And then the question becomeswhat's the difference between
different kinds of soul?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
What is the difference Particularly?
Speaker 3 (12:52):
between an animal and a human.
What makes a monkey and a humandifferent in terms of soul?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Sure.
So Aristotle ends up giving ageneral definition of soul that
became pretty predominant, whichwas that the soul is the form
of life, it's the actuality oflife in a body, the first
actuality of life in a body.
Having life potentially withinit, to be technical, so the soul
(13:20):
is that which makes the body tolive rather than not live.
So what's the differencebetween, let's say, a worm
that's living and a worm corpse,the corpse of a worm that's
dead?
The difference is soul.
The soul is what forms the bodyand animates the body of the
(13:41):
worm, and so it is for all upthe various forms of life.
And then, if you start to askthe question well, what is it
that differentiates one kind ofsoul from another.
Aristotle astutely observes thatthey have different functions.
Different kinds of soul cancarry out different activities,
(14:05):
different kinds of activities,but they're related in a way
that's graded, and each one,each higher order, includes the
lower but can do more.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
So things don't have multiple souls, but they have
the properties of the.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yes, that's the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas,
but that was a very significantthesis that St Thomas
established in the 13th centuryand it was a disputed question
for many centuries.
So whether there's one soul ormultiple souls is a disputed
question.
But St Thomas says there's onesoul per substance or per living
(14:42):
substance.
But the way to think about itis that plant souls have a
certain number of functions.
There's nourishment ornutrition, so all plant life
carries out nutrition of somekind and there's reproduction.
Okay, so nutrition andreproduction are kind of
(15:02):
baseline.
Then the next grade up fromthat is animal souls.
Animal souls have nourishmentand reproduction, but in
addition they have sensation.
And Aristotle points out thatall animals have at least the
sense of touch.
Whether they have the otherfour senses besides, touch
varies from one species to thenext, but all animals have at
(15:24):
least the sense of touch.
And then, so that's what'scharacteristic of animal soul.
Now, they also have, he pointsout, powers of locomotion, so
they can move from here to there, whereas plant souls don't move
from here to there, or plantsdon't move from here to there.
Human being, the human soul, isone step up from the animal
(15:45):
souls or the lower animal souls,and that is because the human
being has powers of nutritionand reproduction and also powers
of sensation, but in additionto that, powers of reason.
And the powers of reason or thepower of reason is really what
differentiates the human beingfrom lower forms of life and
(16:08):
it's what differentiates oursoul from lower types of soul.
So you get the notion ofrational soul or spiritual soul,
and that's the human soulproperly speaking.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
You hear this critique of sort of Aquinas'
ideas from like a materialisticperspective.
Why do you even need a soul?
Can we just say what makes aplant a plant is this particular
three-dimensional arrangementof matter, and that emergence
gives rise to a plant'sproperties, rather than saying,
(16:41):
oh, we got to put this soul ontop of the matter or inform the
matter.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So that's a really good question.
And the way that you've askedthe question is that you're
asking about soul in general.
So you're not asking aboutplant souls in particular or
animal souls in particular orhuman souls in particular, but
soul in general.
So why think they're soul?
And if we go back to theAristotle's definition that soul
is the form of the body, thefirst actuality of the body,
(17:12):
then you have in a way youranswer and everything turns on
the term form.
So it's often said that thesoul is the form of the body.
But form for Aristotle does notmean what it means for other
philosophers or even, I think,typical contemporary thinkers,
even very often Christian orCatholic thinkers, who are
(17:33):
raised in a certain sort ofscientific education in which
Aristotle's notion ofsubstantial form is left out of
consideration.
So Aristotle knew well of aposition called atomism.
Atomism is the view that theworld consists of these very
small particles, indivisibleparticles, floating in a void
and moving by chance.
And the atomists understoodthat items around us in the
(18:00):
world.
They thought of them as kind ofbundles or packages of these
atoms and you can think of themas having a kind of form, but
Aristotle would say that's morelike an accidental form.
In other words, the order thatthe atoms have one to another is
accidental to them.
(18:20):
As atoms, they can gain or losethat form and still continue to
be the atoms that they actuallyare.
So what's really real are theatoms and the form that they
have within a whole isaccidental.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
It just happened.
Santa just happened to bumpinto that form.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Yes, but also that that form can be gained or lost
without them ceasing to be whatthey are.
Okay, substantial form is adifferent thing from accidental
form.
Substantial form is unites witha principle that Aristotle
calls prime matter, a notionthat the atomists did not
recognize or acknowledge.
Substantial form unites withprime matter in such a way that
(18:58):
it constitutes the very wattnessof the matter itself.
So what makes something to beis what that which makes
something to be what it is.
Okay, so a substantial form isnot accidental to underlying
types of matter.
It constitutes matter as thekind of matter that it actually
(19:20):
is.
So what would make gold, forexample, to be gold is the
substantial form of gold unitingwith something more fundamental
than gold, a more fundamentalkind of matter or a more
fundamental matter called primematter.
So the way Aristotle thinksabout it is that substantial
form unites with prime matter toconstitute matter itself.
(19:44):
So even if you think there areatoms, even atoms are already
composed, but they're notcomposed of smaller quantitative
parts.
They're composed of differentkinds of parts, different
metaphysical principles,substantial form and prime
matter to constitute the atomitself.
Let me put it this wayAristotle doesn't have any time
(20:05):
for atomism or the idea that theworld is a bunch of atoms that
are all accidentally organizedwith one another.
It doesn't account for thetotality of our experience.
So he thinks of ordinary objectsin the world dogs and cats and
trees.
Each one of them is anirreducible primary substance
(20:27):
that has a substantial form,that unites directly with prime
matter, and that substantialform makes it to be what it is
and organizes the materialconstitution of the whole thing
all the way down to the bottom.
So when Aristotle says thatsoul is the form of the body, he
means that the soul is thesubstantial form.
(20:48):
It's that which makes theliving thing to be living.
So to get back to your basicquestion, which is why I think
that there is soul at all, wehave to ask the question do you
think that there are livingthings, do you think that living
things begin to live and ceaseto live, and do you think that
living things are different inkind from non-living things?
(21:11):
So if you think there areliving things, if you think that
living things differ in kindfrom non-living things, and if
you think that living thingssubstantially generate and
substantially corrupt, you'regoing to need to postulate a
principle like soul as thesubstantial form of them in
order to account for all thosethings?
One of Aristotle's objections toatomists which is kind of what
(21:32):
you have in mind is that theirview does not account for those
three positions.
So contemporary philosophersand biologists often end up in
the position there's really nodifference between a living
thing and a non-living thing.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
And that seems to clash with our experience.
No difference between oneliving thing and another.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
It's just a different arrangement of this underlying,
so the idea that there's just aspectrum between forms of
living things also follows evenwhen you get down to the
simplest kinds of livingorganisms and you start to ask
the question what's thedifference between the living
and the non-living?
I've had biologists tell me tomy face well, there's not really
(22:13):
, it's just a spectrum.
There too and Aristotle wouldsay nonsense Our senses tell us
there's a substantial differencebetween living things and
non-living things.
Living things come to be andpass away, and so you need a
substantial form, you need toposit a substantial form that
makes them to be living andthat's soul, to give them that
(22:35):
unity.
I don't know if that's a lot.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
No, that's great.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
I wanted to give you a thorough explanation so that
it treats all the complexitiesof the question.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
So you talk about the three different vegetative,
animal and human soul.
Then, as biologists always hear, people say, well, life doesn't
fall into those categories, asall these weird cases.
Plants sense life and can moveor being as fly trappers, so how
would you fit that in there?
(23:07):
Does that disrupt whatAristotle or Aquinas says about
the soul?
Speaker 1 (23:14):
No, when I talk I have spoken with biologists
about.
I have spoken with biologistsabout what I call borderline
cases where it's hard to tellwhere one thing falls.
And when you dig down into thematerial structure of these
things, we can still find inthings a difference between,
let's say, things that arecapable of sensation versus
(23:35):
things that are not capable ofsensation.
So when I've talked withbiologists about the Venus fly
trap, they describe a mechanismfor reacting to stimuli that's
different from sensation becauseit doesn't have any
neurological matter.
There's no neurons, there's nonervous system within the plant,
but the manner in which theplant responds to poking and
(23:59):
prodding is with a kind ofhydration pumps within the
cellular, within the subcellularsort of structures, to use my
very….
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Typical biological yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
But the biologists.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
I've spoken to said no.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
There's definitely a difference between the chemical
constitution of these things.
That tracks with the differencebetween things that have
sensation and things that don't.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
Right, particularly that nervous system decision
because you can say single cells, sense in one term of the word,
right In one sense, but it'snot in a sense that you… Not
sense that you… Like seeingtasting, smelling touching,
hearing, sensing Right Exactly.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
And then the question is always….
See, the question raises areally bigger question, which is
there's like the identitiesthat things have in themselves,
their essences, their natures,what they are in themselves,
versus how we can tell what theyare.
So, identity conditions versusidentification conditions, and
(25:02):
neither Aristotle nor St Thomasis committed to the view that we
can always tell where thingsfall.
It's fall, yeah.
Okay, it's often very fuzzy.
We have to do more research.
The answers are yet forthcomingand there can be mistakes too.
So, for example, sponges wereonce classified as plants, but
(25:23):
now, if I understand correctly,they're classified as animals.
So it took a couple thousandyears of research, but
eventually we got clear on that.
So the sponges were what theywere all along, right?
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
It just took us time to sort of catch up with proper
understanding of what theyactually are, and now we can
classify them correctly.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
So so it's pretty humbling.
You know, and in greatclarification that being said,
as we're discussing the soulfrom a philosophical perspective
, what are the soul's properties?
Speaker 1 (25:58):
If we speak about soul in general, then the first
thing soul does is actuate thebody or make the body to be
living.
Okay, so it's the differencebetween being alive and not
being alive.
That's the principle thing.
That's really what it is.
But then it's often pointed outthat the soul has additional
(26:20):
powers.
For example, if a tree is alive, it has the potential to grow
and become bigger, it has thepotential to have more branches,
it has the potential to conductphotosynthesis, for example, if
it's the right kind of treewith the right kind of leaves
and whatnot.
So soul, you say, imbues thingswith potentialities, multiple
(26:48):
potentialities for furtheractivities over and above simply
being alive rather than notalive.
And then if you start to ask,well, what are these further
potentialities?
That's precisely whatdifferentiates the kinds of soul
from one another.
So, for example, plants havepotentialities, powers,
(27:09):
sometimes called powers of thesoul.
They have powers for nutritionand reproduction.
If you talk about animals, theyhave powers of nutrition and
reproduction, but they also havepowers of sensation and
locomotion.
They can move from here tothere.
So they have potentials thatbecome activated in their life
(27:34):
according to the different kindsof things that they are.
And then human beings haveagain the powers or potential of
nutrition, reproduction.
We have powers of sensation andlocomotion, but we also have
power of reason and the thingsthat are involved in reason,
(27:55):
which are understanding and will, intellect and will, are the
activities of intellect and will.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
What are the souls' causes?
Speaker 1 (28:05):
That's a little bit of a complicated question,
because the soul itself hasunderstood to be the formal
cause of the being, the formalcause of the living thing.
It's what makes the living thingto be living and to have these
potentialities for furtheractivity.
But then if you ask, well,what's the final cause?
(28:26):
The final cause of the wholeorganism is that life form, like
fully operational, we're in itsoptimal state.
So that's the final cause.
And the soul is a formal causethat endows the whole organism
with inclinations or drives, youmight say inclinations or
(28:48):
drives to grow, develop andcarry out its own proper
activities until it reaches anoptimal state of development and
flourishing.
So that would be like the finalcause.
And then, when we talk aboutthe material cause of soul,
we've got to be very careful,because the lower forms of life,
(29:08):
like plant souls and animalsouls, the soul is the form of
the body and so it organizes thematter of the body and
activates it and makes it to beliving.
But there's nothing more tothose forms than the
organization of the matter ororganization and animation of
the matter when you start totalk about the human soul.
(29:31):
However, the human soul bringsin another measure of perfection
, which is that the soul is theform of the body.
So it organizes our body andanimates our body and makes our
body to be living.
But the human soul, unlike thesouls of plants and animals,
carries out at least two of itsown proper operations, just as
(29:55):
soul Carries out the activitiesof intellect and the activities
of will, higher knowing andloving, and those things are
tied to the body, but they aresomething that can't be reduced
to the physical causes.
Yes, that's a fair way to put it.
It's tricky.
(30:15):
We want to draw distinctions.
So the powers that the humansoul has, just as soul itself,
are the powers of intellect andwill.
Intellect carries out a higherkind of knowing, higher than
sensation, higher than seeing,tasting, smelling, touching,
hearing, imagining, rememberingor estimating signals.
(30:38):
When we can get into that we'llsee.
If we talk about the differentpowers of the soul, there's a
kind of knowing we can do that'slike a higher kind of knowing.
You might think about the kindof knowing we do in math, where
we can know the truth for aninfinite number of instances of
triangles or something like that.
The intellect carries out ahigher kind of knowing and the
(31:00):
will carries out a higher kindof loving.
So St Thomas understands thewill as essentially our ability
to love and from out of thatflows other things that we
typically associate with will.
But it's really the capacityfor love principally.
So a higher kind of loving,beyond just sensory loving or
sensory attractions to things.
(31:21):
It's the love for things liketruth, for goodness in general,
for beauty, right, for God.
That's will.
Now the activities of intellectand will.
Knowing and loving.
This higher knowing and higherloving, those activities are
intrinsically and essentiallyimmaterial.
They're spiritual activities inthat sense of the term.
(31:44):
They're immaterial, so in andof themselves they are not the
activities of organs, they'rethe activities of the soul
itself, which implies that thesoul itself has something more
than is more than just the formof the body.
It's what's called animmaterial soul in the
traditional vocabulary, or itmight better be called an
(32:07):
irreducible soul.
Okay, so it's irreducible tobeing simply the form and
animating principle of a body.
But Okay, okay, okay, okay,okay, okay, okay, okay, okay,
okay, okay, okay, okay, Okay,okay, okay, okay, okay, okay,
okay, okay.
St Thomas is very clear thatwhen intellect and will carry
out their higher activities ashigher kind of knowing and
higher kind of loving, theycannot do so without drawing
(32:31):
upon the sensory powers whichare the activities of organs and
activities of the body.
So you and I, if we could notsee, taste, smell, touch here,
imagine or remember in any waywhatsoever, you wouldn't really
be able to think, you wouldn'tbe able to have any idea, you
wouldn't be able to have anyhigher thinking at all.
It's kind of like when you'reasleep or when someone's in a
(32:55):
condition of being knockedunconscious they can't think or
know in this higher way or lovein this higher way, enact at
that moment, because there's animpediment to them doing so,
which is that their lowersensory powers have been taken
out for some reason.
So the higher powers ofintellect and will are
(33:18):
intrinsically and essentiallyimmaterial powers and immaterial
activities, but they need, as anecessary condition for their
activity, the proper functioningof the physiological powers of
sensation.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
Yeah, that's right.
We've talked about in theseason, about the properties and
the abilities that humans havecognitively and so forth, and
how some of those seem to, likeyou said, be immaterial.
They can't be reduced to thematerial.
So somewhere to ask you hey,well, how would you demonstrate
that to somebody?
How do?
You demonstrate that, oh, wehave these things that can't be
(33:57):
reduced to the material.
What would be Thomas' answer tothat, or what would you be sort
of the best argument that?
Speaker 1 (34:04):
you would have, sure, and here's a way to start
getting at it that people, Ithink, can sort of start to
think it through for themselves.
But the classic distinctiongoes like this that all
sensation, all externalsensation, is of particular
things.
So when you pet a cat, you'repetting this particular cat, you
(34:29):
see this particular cat and youtouch this particular fur, and
all sensation, if you thinkabout it, is of particular
things.
So when you smell and taste acup of coffee, or smell and
taste coffee, you're smellingand tasting this coffee, this
particular coffee.
So all sensation is of theparticular.
(34:51):
But the ancient philosophersalso realized or discovered that
this higher kind of knowing isnot of particulars, it's of
universals.
So, for example, when you knowthe formula for the area of a
triangle, you don't just knowthe formula for this particular
(35:15):
triangle, you know the formulafor all triangles.
In fact there's an infinitenumber of them and you know a
truth that extends to aninfinite set of triangles.
So this higher kind, lowersensation is of particulars.
But this higher kind of knowingis not of particulars.
(35:37):
So it's different in kind, thedifferent kind of activity,
because it's of a differentobject.
The lower sense, knowledge, thesensation, is of particulars.
The higher knowing is not.
Now you've got to get thatdistinction first.
If you get that distinction,you get clear on that.
And that takes people a longtime to get that distinction,
(35:58):
because there's a range betweenbeing of the particular and
being of the universal.
Absolutely considered, there'sa range of knowledge in between
there.
that makes things a little bitdifficult, but we can clarify
that if we need to, but then tothen go further and say that
knowing a universal, absolutelyconsidered, is a different kind
(36:20):
of activity, that itselfrequires an immaterial activity
of the mind.
We would need another step tothat, and St Thomas has his
argument, and his basic argumentis that if the universal, if
the activity of the intellectwere material, it would
(36:41):
particularize the received form.
So what you're thinking ofwould be particularized into one
thing that you're thinking of,because matter is always
particular.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Particular, not a universal.
So there is no matter for auniversal.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Exactly.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
And so you can't perceive it.
In a sense you got it.
That's the basic idea.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
Yeah, aristotle has a second argument for the claim
that the activity of theintellect is immaterial.
And I find it a fascinatingargument.
I just want people to hear it.
It really resonates with ourexperience, and Aristotle points
out that when it comes tophysical organs and
physiological activity, anexcessive amount of the object
(37:25):
of that sense damages the organ.
So the object of hearing issound, but if you hear sounds
that are too loud you go deaf.
You might think of someone whohears a very loud boom.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
Yeah right, you can lose your hearing, or if you see
light that's too bright you goblind.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
Or if you eat food that's way too spicy, you lose
your sense of taste, at leasttemporarily.
So when it comes tophysiological organs and their
activities, an excessive amountof the object damages the organ,
but, aristotle points out, whenit comes to intellect, its
object is truth, and no one'sintellect has ever been damaged
(38:12):
Too much truth.
You can know an infinite amountof truth.
You can know infinite truths,so to speak, in mathematics, and
your intellect is not damagedanyway by it.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Yeah, it's not much discussed, but it's kind of
fascinating To contemplate on.
Definitely, you mentioned thepowers of the soul and how the
powers of the vegetative souldifferentiate from animals and
humans.
I think where you want to speakto that, especially about what
makes the human soul unique whenit comes to the powers of the
soul, the human soul is uniquefor a couple of reasons.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
The human soul is unique because it has two
distinct powers that the lowerforms don't have.
The human soul has intellectand will, and those two comprise
what's sometimes called mind.
Okay, so the human soul hasmind, it's also called spirit,
or it's called the spiritualpart of the soul, and that's the
main thing that differentiatesthe human soul from plant and
(39:08):
animal souls.
Okay, we have mind, we haveintellect and will.
But because we have mind andhave intellect and will, we
should also point out that theway that we use even the other
powers which we do have incommon with plants and animals
differ.
So, for example, animals andplants, they nourish themselves,
(39:31):
they take in nutrients from theworld, and so do we.
We nourish ourselves, but themanner in which we do so is
quite different, because we haveintellect and will.
So animals will eat by humans'dine.
We have like meals bank bedsand etiquette, and there's
(39:56):
certain ways that areacceptable to eat and certain
ways that are not in decentcompany.
And the same with reproduction.
So animals reproduce, humanbeings procreate, okay, so
there's a difference in the wayin which something that's even
reproduction there's a humanmode of doing these things or
(40:18):
carrying these things out, andthat's because of intellect and
will.
So what distinguishes humansoul from the lower soul is that
we have intellect and will.
That's the primary difference.
But that difference also makesa difference throughout our
whole being, in the way that weexercise even those powers which
we do have in common with thelower plants and animals.
Speaker 2 (40:41):
You mentioned the mind.
This whole season is aboutconsciousness.
What is the soul's relation tothe mind and consciousness?
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Okay, that's a good question.
The classic way to understandit in Aristotle and in St Thomas
, is that the mind is a power ofthe soul, or really a twofold
power of the soul intellect andwill.
And consciousness, as weunderstand it, is something of a
property that goes withintellect.
(41:10):
So intellect is able to take inthe forms of things from the
world around us and understandthem in a universal and abstract
kind of way, like we've talkedabout.
Not only do we think aboutthings, but later on we can
remember hey, I was thinkingabout this or I was thinking
about that.
So we're aware of what we'rethinking about, we're aware of
(41:35):
our own intellectual activities,and not only do I want this or
want that, but later I canreflect, and later on I can
realize, or maybe even in themoment I can realize, wait a
second, I want this or I wantthat.
And so, thanks to mind and thisproperty it has of
(41:57):
consciousness, which is reallybeing present to oneself, mind
is aware of all the activitiesthat are taking place within
itself, it's aware of its ownacts of thinking, it's aware of
its own acts of willing.
And that's how we have the kindof conscious life that we have
(42:20):
because of mind.
But mind is not simplyconsciousness on the classic
understanding.
It's this power or potency ofintellect and includes will and
it has as a propertyconsciousness?
Speaker 3 (42:35):
Yeah, because consciousness seems to be shared
with other organisms in a sense, but they don't have the
ability to reflect on theirconsciousness.
It's a big difference between.
Again, we think it seems likedog is conscious, or that an ape
might have some consciousawareness of what's going on
(42:58):
around it, but it doesn't havethis ability to reflect upon.
It's almost like trapped in themoment, in a sense.
Right.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
So, like other things that we talk about, when we
start comparing plants, animalsand human beings, there are
certain imitations that kind ofgo.
There are imitations of oneorder to the next, and I think
that even for, certainly foranimals, there is something that
is similar to consciousness butis not intellectual
(43:28):
consciousness, and bothAristotle and St Thomas talk
about this.
We'd really have to dig intosome of the details about the
powers of the soul and talkabout senses, communists.
But there's a kind ofself-awareness that the common
sensory power has.
So this common sensory powertakes in not only the objects of
(43:52):
the five senses but also has akind of awareness that the five
senses are working or in workingorder.
So when you hear things, whatyou hear enters into your
general sensory awareness.
But if you were to lose yourhearing in one ear for a moment,
you'd realize it.
You'd notice wait a second, Ican no longer hear in my left
(44:15):
ear.
That is a function of thesenses, communists, or the
general sensory awareness thatanimals and human beings have.
So there's a kind ofself-awareness there, maybe a
reflexivity, but it's not thesame as intellectual reflexivity
.
Okay, okay, thank you.
(44:38):
And then we can talk about thecogitative power, which is
another power, like a step upfrom census Kamunas.
That's where we can bring inmany, many Singulars that we've
experienced in our throughoutour life and they kind of fuse
into like a generalizedexperience.
So once you start talking aboutgeneralized experience, that's
(44:59):
filled with estimations ofwhether things are threatening
or beneficial, there's also atthat level a kind of ability to
judge Is this thing a threat oris it a benefit?
And even animals have that.
So if you're walking down thesidewalk and there's a bird, the
bird just like knows yourtrouble and like flies away.
(45:23):
There's a kind of estimationthere and a kind of judgment
there, but it's not the same ashuman judgment and human
estimation of these things.
There's similarities andthere's differences and we'd
have to really dig into theweeds of what the difference is.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Yeah, we talked about this in the first episode in
the sense that animals have somesense of, maybe, you know, of
like chimps, because they havesense of.
Well, that's me and Amirrecognize that, but they don't
have.
They really lack this sense ofwanting to communicate with
other minds and thinking andreflux.
(46:01):
They can't think about thefuture and the past and they
don't seem to have that abilityfor the curse of thinking Like
you were talking about.
I'm going to reflect on why.
You know, yesterday I read thisbook.
Well, what was my part?
You know, they don't have sortof offline thinking.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
There's clearly a big difference there, Sure, and I
think that what they dodemonstrate in their behavior
that's similar to us can beaccounted for in terms of the
kind of senses communists theyhave the general sensory
awareness they have and theestimative power which they have
, which will be rathersophisticated by comparison to
animal forms beneath them.
(46:38):
For sure They'll have a highermeasure of estimating threats
and benefits and they'll have anestimative sense that is closer
to preparing experience forabstract knowledge, right, and
that when you have generalizedexperience that's kind of
suitable or close to beingsuitable for abstract knowledge,
(47:00):
then you're going to have a lotof behaviors in common with or
similar to human beings, andwhat's really going to
differentiate our consciousnessfrom that will be accounted for
by the kind of awareness we havedue to intellect, properly
speaking.
Speaker 3 (47:17):
Okay, because I think a lot of times people say, well
, animals can do this and that.
But you can see, that can beexplained at the level of….
Speaker 1 (47:24):
There is, and we have to be very careful about, the
difference between a similarityand a sameness.
Exactly and the same in kindand similar in behavior or not.
Don't follow from the otherside.
Speaker 3 (47:35):
It kind of goes back to the list of things you can
come up with.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
In discussing the soul, I think a question a lot
of listeners and viewers mighthave might be well.
What happens when the soulseparates from the body?
Speaker 1 (47:46):
That's a great question.
It's one of the perennialquestions of human race.
We all want to know whathappens after death.
If you believe that theactivity of the higher knowing
and higher loving that we talkedabout earlier, the activities
of intellect and will, areimmaterial or spiritual
activities for the reasons thatwe gave earlier or for some
(48:06):
other certain reasons, then itwould follow that the human soul
is irreducible to being justthe form of the body or the
organizational plan of the body.
It would not be a material form,to use the language of St
Thomas.
So there's something in thehuman soul, it has a kind of
subsistence of its own that'sirreducible to the body, the
(48:30):
body.
And so when the soul separatesfrom the body at death, the soul
is able to continue to subsistor exist on its own without the
body.
But St Thomas is also veryclear that because the soul is
the form of the body althoughit's not just that, because the
soul is the form of the body,it's like in an unnatural
(48:55):
condition for the body, or fromsorry, for this human soul, to
exist without the body is a veryunnatural state, and to
motivate this it's very simple.
I mean, if you start to thinkabout amputations, like losing
an arm or losing a leg is veryunnatural for the people who
experience it.
Now imagine if you had acomplete body amputation, where
(49:19):
your entire body is removed.
Your soul is continuing tosubsist, but you would naturally
ask where's my body?
So it's not a natural conditionfor us to be in, and this is
why it's very fitting for us toreceive, by the grace of God,
(49:41):
the resurrection of the body inthe end, and so there will be an
interim state where the humansoul survives after death and
awaits the final resurrection,the resurrection of the body,
and will be in a more completecondition after the resurrection
(50:03):
of the body.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
Yeah, there's this theory I recently learned that I
want to give you the chance torespond to at panpsychism, and
it's this idea that the universeis animated by a ubiquitous
mind and consciousness and thateven atoms have a small spark of
consciousness.
Do you have some thoughts onthat?
Speaker 1 (50:24):
Yes, it's a view that's out there.
It's very common in the FarEast.
It has some defenders inWestern philosophy.
You can see what motivates it,and that is plants, animals,
even the elements seem todisplay purpose-driven activity
or goal-driven activity.
They have a kind ofteleological activity.
(50:45):
So it seems and this issomething both Aristotle and
Saint Thomas picked up on, butthey took that not as evidence
that things themselves have mind, for all the reasons we
explained.
There's different kinds ofactivities between these grades
of soul and whatnot.
There's different kinds ofactivities that really
(51:06):
differentiate them from humanbeings that, properly speaking,
have mind.
Nonetheless, they displaysomething that's kind of
mind-like or looks likeintelligent activity.
That's not evidence that theyhave mind, but it's evidence
that they are being directed bya higher mind.
So this is really the premisefor the teleological argument
(51:29):
for the existence of God, thefifth way.
And so everything in the world,from the atoms up or whatever,
the lowest material, stuff isfrom the lowest material stuff
all the way up.
All of it participates in aworld of wisdom and love which
is ultimately directed by God.
So they participate in thedivine wisdom, but they are not
(51:54):
properly constituted as beingswith mind themselves.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
But they act towards an end.
Speaker 1 (52:00):
They act towards an end.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (52:03):
So thinking about ends and purpose here.
So if the human soul has theseunique properties compared to
other souls of intellect andwill, what does that shed any
light on?
What is the purpose of human?
Because clearly that's whatmakes us unique.
Speaker 1 (52:22):
Sure One of the unique abilities that human
beings have, if we could speakto this, or one of the unique
activities that human beingshave because we have intellect
and will, as we make freechoices.
We choose to follow this courseof action or that, and I can
always ask you you did something, why did you do that?
You can say well, I did it forthe sake of something further.
(52:44):
Hopefully, I can have a reasonfor that yeah.
If it's a deliberate activity,you have a purpose for it
Actually, what's the purpose ofthat, and then what's the?
Purpose of that and what's thepurpose of that?
And so we have a chain, so tospeak, of purposes, or embedded
purposes, or sequences ofpurposes.
But this chain of purposes A isfor the sake of B, b is for the
(53:07):
sake of C, c is for the sake ofD cannot go on an infinitum.
So there must be some ultimateend for the sake of which you
and I act.
And then we can ask ourselveswell, what's this ultimate end
for which you and I are acting,and the classic answer that is
(53:27):
given to us in the perennialtradition of philosophy is the
attitude Everyone's looking forwhat's really going to make them
happy, Everyone's looking forthe one thing that satisfies
completely.
And then if we ask the questionwell, what is that?
Then we start to get into muchdeeper bigger questions.
(53:49):
But there is this, thisultimate end.
I mean everybody's living forsomething Right?
Speaker 3 (53:55):
yeah.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
What are you living for?
If you're a human being, you'reliving for something.
What are you living for?
Speaker 3 (54:01):
Right another question of what is it that
satisfies Right?
Speaker 1 (54:03):
what is it that's ultimately going to satisfy?
Speaker 2 (54:07):
I know you're a sought-out preacher and it's
obvious why this has been such agift of a discussion.
Speaker 1 (54:13):
Praise God.
Speaker 2 (54:13):
Absolutely, and I want to let our viewers and
listeners know how they can findmore of your work.
Tell us about the ThomisticInstitute.
Speaker 1 (54:21):
Well, the Thomistic Institute is run by the
Dominican Friars and it'sdesigned.
Its mission is to bring theteachings of the Catholic faith
and the theology of St Thomasthe philosophy and theology of
St Thomas to college campuseseverywhere and to make that
truth available to the public atlarge.
And so, if you go to well,there's a whole network of
(54:42):
professors and friars thattravel the country and give
talks, and all of that'sgathered on the Thomistic
Institute SoundCloud site, aswell as on the Thomistic
Institute YouTube site andAquinas 101.
And there's an endless amountof material there for people to
go and learn.
It's all made available forfree thanks to the generosity of
(55:05):
benefactors, and if any one ofthe topics we brought up today,
you can find a specific talk bya professor or a Dominican that
goes on about that topic atgreat length and detail.
Speaker 3 (55:21):
Yeah, that's great.
You also have a new book outthat is sort of a compilation of
sort of your efforts over thelast decade or so.
Speaker 1 (55:29):
Yeah, so I have a new book out called the Father's
House.
I've traveled a lot over thelast 10 years preaching a lot of
weekend retreats to collegestudents and young adults, and I
gathered up all the weekendretreat material into a single
book.
It's a short little book, notterribly long, available from
Pauline Books and Media.
It's about our filial adoption.
(55:49):
It's the gospel of Jesus Christjust sort of presents it all
for people.
It's based on the three I callit the three questions right,
what is the purpose of life?
The purpose question who am I?
The identity question and howdo I find love?
The love question.
And the gospel of Jesus Christis the answer to all those
questions.
(56:10):
So I lay that out and then thesecond half gets into.
Well, how do I live this?
How do I live according to thegospel of Jesus Christ?
I talk about the way offriendship, walking on the way
of friendship with Christ in thechurch, and we're walking
together towards the Father'sHouse.
So that's what it's about.
Speaker 2 (56:28):
Well, thank you for answering those big questions
and our big questions here today.
Speaker 1 (56:32):
Father James.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
Brent, thank you.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
Thank you, it's been great to be here.
Yeah, it's a great happeningyeah.
Speaker 2 (56:38):
And that conversation gave me a lot to contemplate on
, especially about our capacityfor truth is really unlimited as
well, that stood out to me.
What stood out to you, dan?
Speaker 3 (56:47):
Yeah, it's interesting when we're talking
about the difference between ananimal soul and a human soul
with them, because there's atendency either hey, let's
compress the two that humans arejust another animal and sort of
bring them down to that level,or other people to say, to push
animals down and make humans wayup here.
And I think it's interestingthat when you look at the powers
(57:10):
that you talked about, thatanimal sound of cognition, that
they have some really coolthings that they can do, but
that doesn't bring them up tothe level of humans, so we can
elevate both in a sense, likeanimals have very cool
properties of being able to makesense of the world, learn, and
some cognitive powers and soforth, and you can see sort of
(57:30):
the powers that humans have sortof bubbling there but not quite
there.
Then the idea of just hey,let's list things that humans do
that are unique, and that listgets pretty large pretty quickly
, and I think that's a greatmental exercise to really drive
home that hey, there's something, some difference in kind
between humans and animals andthat doesn't diminish animals in
(57:52):
any sense.
Speaker 2 (57:54):
And again some of our powers.
For example, I can't lead anorchestra but there are humans
who can have that capacity.
Speaker 3 (58:00):
I'm done with the animals.
Speaker 2 (58:03):
I didn't have the chance to ask them if all dogs
go to heaven.
But I'll have to have thatconversation another time and I
imagine that was really helpfulfor you as a biologist in just
different conversations you havewith scientists in the field as
well.
Speaker 3 (58:15):
Yeah, that's great.
It's interesting he's had someof the same conversations, the
critiques that biologists whoare steeped in this evolutionary
worldview, and how do youreconcile that with some of the
things that we know about thepowers of the soul that he's
talking about?
Speaker 2 (58:30):
Well, speaking of questions and answers, that
brings us now to the officehours segment, and this first
question we got actually fromsomeone online.
Had this specific question foryou, Dan, pretty big one, but
I'll throw it out there how doesone distinguish a purposeful
act from a physically causalevent?
(58:50):
That is, can one choose to doother than what physics dictates
?
Do you have an answer for thisA million-dollar question there?
Speaker 3 (58:58):
yeah, the idea is are we acting with freedom and
purpose?
Are we just doing what thephysics is telling us to do?
Do we not have freedom?
And I think, is there a way toscientifically know the answer?
But how do we do that?
Well, it's simple as askingsomebody Are you doing something
purposeful?
(59:20):
What is the purpose behind youractivity?
It's a sense that we know whenwe're doing purposeful activity
and that's not to say that it'snot influenced by prejudice,
biases that we might have oraddictions and things like that.
But purpose is one of thosethings that everybody.
It's interesting Father Brentwas talking about that in this
(59:42):
episode that we all live ourlives with purpose.
We do things for a reason,there's a purpose, there's a
purpose behind that.
So we either have to say that'sall just an illusion or we do
have purpose, although it iscircumscribed, because we don't
have freedom to do everything,because of our evolutionary
(01:00:03):
psychology, for example, thatwe've talked about in previous
episodes this season.
So I think from humans itreally comes down to ask
somebody is that purposeful anddo you have a sense of purpose?
And that's something that we canknow, even though we can't
scientifically prove it.
So the idea that there'scertain things we know that go
(01:00:24):
beyond the science and thatwould be one and there isn't
neuroscience is not tell uswhether we have purpose or not,
or actions are purposeful.
Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
Yeah, Okay.
So this next question is one Iwas curious about.
We've been in this Lentenseason and as Christians it's a
time that we're more intentionalabout fasting.
There's also prayer andalmsgiving, but with fasting we
know, we believe that there arespiritual benefits to that.
But, as a biologist, are therephysical benefits to that as
well?
Speaker 3 (01:00:54):
Yeah, definitely there are.
There's clear physical benefitsof fasting.
There's two that I hit on.
One is if you don't eat, say,for 24 hours, do a day long fast
, your body switches from usingsugars to rely on ketones, and
your brain in particular has torely on ketones.
(01:01:14):
And that leads to the studiesthat show when you're in that
state there's more mentalclarity, there's sort of
different activities going on inthe brain.
It kind of makes sense in asense, if we don't have any food
, like evolutionarily, you getmore clarity trying to find.
Speaker 2 (01:01:28):
To survive, to survive Right.
Speaker 3 (01:01:31):
But there is clear evidence of that causes enhances
cognition and, interestingly,but also if you're fasting and
taking in fewer calories thannormal, it tends to shift the
body into a state of repair andmaintenance rather than growth.
And so there's a lot ofevidence where you reduce the
amount of calories, the bodyrepairs itself and there's
(01:01:52):
disease prevention and longevityseem to increase there.
So there's clear benefits ofperiodic fasting.
Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
And that seems to go really hand in hand for what
we're called to as Christians.
If we're praying more duringthis time and our mind is more
clear from fasting, it seemslike they'll contribute to one
another.
And if it is really this timeof our body being repaired, this
time of preparation, preparingfor Easter.
Speaker 3 (01:02:16):
Yeah, a lot of synergy between the theology and
the biology.
Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
And again Father James Brent just today, telling
us how it's only humans whointentionally fast.
That's right.
Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
Seems like there's a purpose.
It might be, might be.
Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
Well, with that, I want to remind you all that if
you have a question for DrKiebler, you can submit it by
either emailing us at info atModgesCentercom or leave us a
voicemail.
You can go ahead and call us at949-257-2436 and you might just
hear your question here onPurposeful Lab.
Well, with that, that concludestoday's episode.
(01:02:49):
Make sure to subscribe on yourfavorite podcast platform and
we'll see you next week.
There is this ultimate end.
I mean, everybody's living forsomething, everyone's looking
for what's really going to makethem happy.
And then if we ask the question, well, what is that?
Then we start to get into muchdeeper, bigger questions.
Music.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Welcome to Purposeful Lab, a Modja Center podcast.
I'm Catherine Hedro, with myco-host, Dr Dan Kiebler.
Today we're discussing thepowers of the soul.
Pretty profound topic, yeahdeep topic.
Yes, and with a guest who youknow.
He travels really around thenation giving talks on this
subject, and that's Father JamesBrent.
He's an assistant professor ofphilosophy at the Pontifical
(00:40):
Faculty of the ImmaculateConception at the Dominican
House of Studies here inWashington DC.
This is my first time gettingthe chance to meet him and speak
with him, but I've heard himspeak on this online.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Yeah, I've heard a couple of his podcasts with the
Thomistic Institute, so I'mlooking forward to talking with
him and asking him about thepowers of soul, how this relates
to what we've talked about withthe biological evolution of
humans and sort of apsychological understanding of
humans and consciousness, andI've seen how all this might fit
together in the unity of thehuman person.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yes, I should also mention Father Brent has a new
book that's out, the Father'sHouse, and it's really all these
retreat talks he's given overthe past 10 years and, anyways,
I think his wisdom really comesthrough in this episode.
So let's get to it.
Here's Father James Brent onthe powers of the soul.
Father Brent, thank you so muchfor meeting with us today.
It's a pleasure to have you onmy joy, happy to be here.
(01:33):
Thank you, do you mind startingus off and telling us about
your background?
Speaker 1 (01:36):
both professionally and personally.
I was born and raised inMichigan and as soon as I got to
, college I knew I wanted tostudy philosophy and I studied
philosophy all the way throughmy undergraduate years and I
pursued a master's degree inphilosophy and then I went to St
Louis University and I went tothe University of Washington
philosophy and then I went to StLouis University and that's
(01:58):
where I worked on my doctorateand I joined the Dominicans in
2004 and completed my doctoratein philosophy and then went on
to do theology studies at theDominican House of Studies and
then I taught for a number ofyears at the Catholic University
of America and I've gone on theroad preaching all over the
(02:19):
country with fellow Dominicans.
I've taught at the DominicanHouse of Studies now for seven
years and continued to traveland preach and teach in various
ways through the ThomisticInstitute and retreats for
college students and youngadults and writing now doing a
lot of that.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
That's great.
What drew you to the DominicansFather?
Speaker 1 (02:44):
What drew me to the Dominicans was the marvelous
combination of a life in common,full of prayer and sacred study
that's all ordered towardspreaching for the salvation of
souls.
It's a unique combination inthe life of the church and it
seemed to have all the elementsthat just suited me perfectly.
(03:04):
Yeah, that's great.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
And again, you teach philosophy, and that will be
what our conversation iscensored around is philosophy?
But, as a Dominican who hasstudied Thomas Aquinas, how
would Aquinas distinguishphilosophy and psychology and
theology?
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Oh, ok.
So philosophy is the quest tounderstand reality as deeply as
we can by the light of reason,to understand the ultimate
explanation, really the highestcauses, as Aristotle or St
Thomas would say, using thenatural light of reason that all
human beings have, just becausewe're human.
Theology is the study of whatGod has revealed in a special
(03:44):
way to the prophets of old, tothe apostles in Christ, and
that's contained in scriptureand handed on in the church.
So those who believe in thedivine revelation want to
understand the divine revelation, because when you believe you
don't cease to be human and youdon't cease to want to
understand.
So when we believe all that Godhas revealed to us, we want to
(04:06):
understand it.
And theology is the systematicquest to understand all that God
has revealed, or theology isthe quest to understand all that
God has revealed in asystematic kind of way.
Psychology can be taken in anumber of different senses.
There is psychology in theancient philosophical sense,
(04:27):
which is really the study ofsoul or the study of human
beings in particular.
But then there's a contemporarysense of psychology where we
have the theoretical andclinical psychology that's
really directed towards therapyin various ways and that's more
of a reflection upon experiencein the attempt to use
(04:49):
contemporary science tounderstand pathology in order to
diagnose and treat it, unlessyou take another specific
approach to psychology, which wecall positive psychology, which
doesn't focus on the abnormalbut on what is health overall,
positively speaking.
And then, what does it take forhuman beings to flourish?
Speaker 3 (05:10):
That's great.
I mean, this season we've beenlooking at all three of those,
but particularly we've beenfocusing on the uniqueness of
humans.
We clearly talked about theevolution of hominids and humans
and things that we share withother primates.
We've looked at evolutionarypsychology and how that affects
(05:32):
who we are and what it means forhumans to flourish, given our
connection with other animals.
But what is it that we'retrying to get at this season is
what is it that makes humansunique or different From your
perspective, from philosophicalperspective?
What is it that is the linchpinI think we have?
(05:52):
Biologically, you can come upwith some arguments.
Psychologically, you can comeup with things, but what would
you say if somebody asked that?
Speaker 1 (06:00):
Right.
It's a very common thesisthat's put forward in the
sciences certainly in biologybut other fields as well that
when it comes to living thingsthere's a difference of degree
but not a difference of kind.
So we should think of the worldof life as this spectrum of
accidental variation, butthere's no essential differences
(06:22):
between the various forms oflife out there.
Even the word form meanssomething kind of different than
what ancient philosophersunderstood it to mean, certainly
what Aristotle understood it tomean.
So we're all kind of educatedinto this worldview where
there's really a spectrumbetween lower life and higher,
(06:42):
even calling it higher and loweras passe.
Right, exactly Because there'sno hierarchy and there is no
higher and lower, and there'sbecause there's no difference of
kind.
So one of the main things weneed to sort of establish up
front is that there is adifference in kind between human
beings and other life forms, wemight say lower life forms.
(07:03):
How do we do that?
Instead of looking for like oneparticular thing, that's like a
, the zinger that will establishit definitively, a better way
to approach it, I think, is tostep back and take our whole
experience of human beings, anda simple exercise that anyone
can do is just get out a pieceof paper and start writing down
(07:26):
what are some things that onlyhuman beings do, or what are
some things that only humanbeings can do.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
And it doesn't take long to come up with a long list
.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
So you can say well, only human beings have symphony
orchestras, not all human beings.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
but only human beings , as distinct from other life
forms.
So only human beings havesymphony orchestras.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
Only human beings travel to the moon.
Only human beings have legalsystems.
Only human beings havetransportation system consisting
of concrete roads andautomobiles and the world of
technology that we have.
Only human beings build schools.
Only human beings use language,and we can specify more
(08:14):
specifically what that means.
Only human beings wear clothing.
Only human beings.
You just go down the list.
Only human beings die and onlyhuman beings make wine and beer.
You can just go down the list.
It doesn't take long to come upwith a pretty big list.
When this list gets so big youstart to realize this really,
(08:36):
really strongly suggests andmaybe more than suggests, it
really reveals that there is adifference in kind between us
and other life forms.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Yeah, I think that's true and, just as a biologist,
you get this sort ofevolutionary view that the
field's immersed in that reallyfocuses on.
Yeah, there are relationshipsthat you have with these other
species and whole organisms, butthere is something that's
unique in terms of, I think,like the biomass of all humans
(09:11):
on earth, dwarfs, the biomass ofall of their major vertebrates
we have dominated and spread toso many different places.
There's something differentabout humans as a species than
other species that we do so manythings.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
Sometimes philosophers try to zero in on
one particular thing that reallydifferentiates us from
everything else.
So for example, at Guston, atone point zeroes in on the fact
that human beings train otheranimals, but other animals don't
train human beings.
So sometimes you can zero in onsome very special kind of
phenomena or other.
(09:49):
Sometimes the fathers of thechurch focus on fasting.
Certainly, human beings fastlike voluntarily staining food
certain diets.
But lower animals don't fast,other animals don't fast, so
fasting is sometimes singled outas a very special phenomenon,
or domesticating animals ortraining them in various ways to
(10:10):
sometimes singled out, but Iwouldn't put my stock in any one
of those.
But when you add them alltogether in a kind of cumulative
case or cumulative observation,you can see that there's a
pretty radical differencebetween human beings and other
animal forms.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
That's interesting, that they're teaching other
animals, because it's also noother animal teaches in the way
we do.
They all can learn, butactually we teach other, or
offspring and so forth, in avery active way.
So it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
I will say I feel like my pets have trained me to
obey them in some way.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
I was just going to say in response to this what you
mean by teaching.
There's a properly human way ofteaching and then there is a
kind of animal teaching, butit's really more like
conditioning.
So animals can condition theiryoung and your animals can even
in a way, condition you, butthat's different from teaching
in the way that we teach oneanother Exactly yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
That's fascinating and again in this episode we'll
be looking at specifically thesoul from a philosophical
perspective and really thepowers of the soul.
So just foundational questionwhat is a soul?
And we've discussed all thedifferent kinds of living beings
.
Does every living being have asoul?
Speaker 1 (11:17):
That's a great question.
So, if we consider the ancientphilosophical tradition, in the
ancient world the word soul wasused to describe what's
responsible for life.
So this is a different way ofthinking about soul than we have
become accustomed to in themodern world.
And it is the way that thephilosophers and theologians
(11:40):
spoke up until the high-medalages was.
They spoke in terms of soul asthe principle of life.
So wherever you find life, onthis ancient understanding,
wherever you find life, there issoul.
So plants have soul in thembecause they're living things,
animals the brute animals, havesoul in them because they're
(12:03):
living, and human beings havesoul because human beings are
living.
So wherever there's life,there's soul.
Wherever there's a living body,really there's soul.
The angels don't have soul, oraren't soul for reasons we'll
get into, because they don'thave bodies, so they're not like
a physical life form.
(12:23):
Where there's a physical lifeform, there's soul.
Now, that doesn't mean thatevery soul is the same in kind,
so that human beings in grassand cats and dogs have the same
kind of soul.
So wherever there's life,there's soul of some kind or
(12:44):
another.
And then the question becomeswhat's the difference between
different kinds of soul?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
What is the difference Particularly?
Speaker 3 (12:52):
between an animal and a human.
What makes a monkey and a humandifferent in terms of soul?
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Sure.
So Aristotle ends up giving ageneral definition of soul that
became pretty predominant, whichwas that the soul is the form
of life, it's the actuality oflife in a body, the first
actuality of life in a body.
Having life potentially withinit, to be technical, so the soul
(13:20):
is that which makes the body tolive rather than not live.
So what's the differencebetween, let's say, a worm
that's living and a worm corpse,the corpse of a worm that's
dead?
The difference is soul.
The soul is what forms the bodyand animates the body of the
(13:41):
worm, and so it is for all upthe various forms of life.
And then, if you start to askthe question well, what is it
that differentiates one kind ofsoul from another.
Aristotle astutely observes thatthey have different functions.
Different kinds of soul cancarry out different activities,
(14:05):
different kinds of activities,but they're related in a way
that's graded, and each one,each higher order, includes the
lower but can do more.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
So things don't have multiple souls, but they have
the properties of the.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yes, that's the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas,
but that was a very significantthesis that St Thomas
established in the 13th centuryand it was a disputed question
for many centuries.
So whether there's one soul ormultiple souls is a disputed
question.
But St Thomas says there's onesoul per substance or per living
(14:42):
substance.
But the way to think about itis that plant souls have a
certain number of functions.
There's nourishment ornutrition, so all plant life
carries out nutrition of somekind and there's reproduction.
Okay, so nutrition andreproduction are kind of
(15:02):
baseline.
Then the next grade up fromthat is animal souls.
Animal souls have nourishmentand reproduction, but in
addition they have sensation.
And Aristotle points out thatall animals have at least the
sense of touch.
Whether they have the otherfour senses besides, touch
varies from one species to thenext, but all animals have at
(15:24):
least the sense of touch.
And then, so that's what'scharacteristic of animal soul.
Now, they also have, he pointsout, powers of locomotion, so
they can move from here to there, whereas plant souls don't move
from here to there, or plantsdon't move from here to there.
Human being, the human soul, isone step up from the animal
(15:45):
souls or the lower animal souls,and that is because the human
being has powers of nutritionand reproduction and also powers
of sensation, but in additionto that, powers of reason.
And the powers of reason or thepower of reason is really what
differentiates the human beingfrom lower forms of life and
(16:08):
it's what differentiates oursoul from lower types of soul.
So you get the notion ofrational soul or spiritual soul,
and that's the human soulproperly speaking.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
You hear this critique of sort of Aquinas'
ideas from like a materialisticperspective.
Why do you even need a soul?
Can we just say what makes aplant a plant is this particular
three-dimensional arrangementof matter, and that emergence
gives rise to a plant'sproperties, rather than saying,
(16:41):
oh, we got to put this soul ontop of the matter or inform the
matter.
Speaker 1 (16:47):
So that's a really good question.
And the way that you've askedthe question is that you're
asking about soul in general.
So you're not asking aboutplant souls in particular or
animal souls in particular orhuman souls in particular, but
soul in general.
So why think they're soul?
And if we go back to theAristotle's definition that soul
is the form of the body, thefirst actuality of the body,
(17:12):
then you have in a way youranswer and everything turns on
the term form.
So it's often said that thesoul is the form of the body.
But form for Aristotle does notmean what it means for other
philosophers or even, I think,typical contemporary thinkers,
even very often Christian orCatholic thinkers, who are
(17:33):
raised in a certain sort ofscientific education in which
Aristotle's notion ofsubstantial form is left out of
consideration.
So Aristotle knew well of aposition called atomism.
Atomism is the view that theworld consists of these very
small particles, indivisibleparticles, floating in a void
and moving by chance.
And the atomists understoodthat items around us in the
(18:00):
world.
They thought of them as kind ofbundles or packages of these
atoms and you can think of themas having a kind of form, but
Aristotle would say that's morelike an accidental form.
In other words, the order thatthe atoms have one to another is
accidental to them.
(18:20):
As atoms, they can gain or losethat form and still continue to
be the atoms that they actuallyare.
So what's really real are theatoms and the form that they
have within a whole isaccidental.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
It just happened.
Santa just happened to bumpinto that form.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Yes, but also that that form can be gained or lost
without them ceasing to be whatthey are.
Okay, substantial form is adifferent thing from accidental
form.
Substantial form is unites witha principle that Aristotle
calls prime matter, a notionthat the atomists did not
recognize or acknowledge.
Substantial form unites withprime matter in such a way that
(18:58):
it constitutes the very wattnessof the matter itself.
So what makes something to beis what that which makes
something to be what it is.
Okay, so a substantial form isnot accidental to underlying
types of matter.
It constitutes matter as thekind of matter that it actually
(19:20):
is.
So what would make gold, forexample, to be gold is the
substantial form of gold unitingwith something more fundamental
than gold, a more fundamentalkind of matter or a more
fundamental matter called primematter.
So the way Aristotle thinksabout it is that substantial
form unites with prime matter toconstitute matter itself.
(19:44):
So even if you think there areatoms, even atoms are already
composed, but they're notcomposed of smaller quantitative
parts.
They're composed of differentkinds of parts, different
metaphysical principles,substantial form and prime
matter to constitute the atomitself.
Let me put it this wayAristotle doesn't have any time
(20:05):
for atomism or the idea that theworld is a bunch of atoms that
are all accidentally organizedwith one another.
It doesn't account for thetotality of our experience.
So he thinks of ordinary objectsin the world dogs and cats and
trees.
Each one of them is anirreducible primary substance
(20:27):
that has a substantial form,that unites directly with prime
matter, and that substantialform makes it to be what it is
and organizes the materialconstitution of the whole thing
all the way down to the bottom.
So when Aristotle says thatsoul is the form of the body, he
means that the soul is thesubstantial form.
(20:48):
It's that which makes theliving thing to be living.
So to get back to your basicquestion, which is why I think
that there is soul at all, wehave to ask the question do you
think that there are livingthings, do you think that living
things begin to live and ceaseto live, and do you think that
living things are different inkind from non-living things?
(21:11):
So if you think there areliving things, if you think that
living things differ in kindfrom non-living things, and if
you think that living thingssubstantially generate and
substantially corrupt, you'regoing to need to postulate a
principle like soul as thesubstantial form of them in
order to account for all thosethings?
One of Aristotle's objections toatomists which is kind of what
(21:32):
you have in mind is that theirview does not account for those
three positions.
So contemporary philosophersand biologists often end up in
the position there's really nodifference between a living
thing and a non-living thing.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
And that seems to clash with our experience.
No difference between oneliving thing and another.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
It's just a different arrangement of this underlying,
so the idea that there's just aspectrum between forms of
living things also follows evenwhen you get down to the
simplest kinds of livingorganisms and you start to ask
the question what's thedifference between the living
and the non-living?
I've had biologists tell me tomy face well, there's not really
(22:13):
, it's just a spectrum.
There too and Aristotle wouldsay nonsense Our senses tell us
there's a substantial differencebetween living things and
non-living things.
Living things come to be andpass away, and so you need a
substantial form, you need toposit a substantial form that
makes them to be living andthat's soul, to give them that
(22:35):
unity.
I don't know if that's a lot.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
No, that's great.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
I wanted to give you a thorough explanation so that
it treats all the complexitiesof the question.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
So you talk about the three different vegetative,
animal and human soul.
Then, as biologists always hear, people say, well, life doesn't
fall into those categories, asall these weird cases.
Plants sense life and can moveor being as fly trappers, so how
would you fit that in there?
(23:07):
Does that disrupt whatAristotle or Aquinas says about
the soul?
Speaker 1 (23:14):
No, when I talk I have spoken with biologists
about.
I have spoken with biologistsabout what I call borderline
cases where it's hard to tellwhere one thing falls.
And when you dig down into thematerial structure of these
things, we can still find inthings a difference between,
let's say, things that arecapable of sensation versus
(23:35):
things that are not capable ofsensation.
So when I've talked withbiologists about the Venus fly
trap, they describe a mechanismfor reacting to stimuli that's
different from sensation becauseit doesn't have any
neurological matter.
There's no neurons, there's nonervous system within the plant,
but the manner in which theplant responds to poking and
(23:59):
prodding is with a kind ofhydration pumps within the
cellular, within the subcellularsort of structures, to use my
very….
Speaker 3 (24:08):
Typical biological yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
But the biologists.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
I've spoken to said no.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
There's definitely a difference between the chemical
constitution of these things.
That tracks with the differencebetween things that have
sensation and things that don't.
Speaker 3 (24:23):
Right, particularly that nervous system decision
because you can say single cells, sense in one term of the word,
right In one sense, but it'snot in a sense that you… Not
sense that you… Like seeingtasting, smelling touching,
hearing, sensing Right Exactly.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
And then the question is always….
See, the question raises areally bigger question, which is
there's like the identitiesthat things have in themselves,
their essences, their natures,what they are in themselves,
versus how we can tell what theyare.
So, identity conditions versusidentification conditions, and
(25:02):
neither Aristotle nor St Thomasis committed to the view that we
can always tell where thingsfall.
It's fall, yeah.
Okay, it's often very fuzzy.
We have to do more research.
The answers are yet forthcomingand there can be mistakes too.
So, for example, sponges wereonce classified as plants, but
(25:23):
now, if I understand correctly,they're classified as animals.
So it took a couple thousandyears of research, but
eventually we got clear on that.
So the sponges were what theywere all along, right?
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
It just took us time to sort of catch up with proper
understanding of what theyactually are, and now we can
classify them correctly.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
So so it's pretty humbling.
You know, and in greatclarification that being said,
as we're discussing the soulfrom a philosophical perspective
, what are the soul's properties?
Speaker 1 (25:58):
If we speak about soul in general, then the first
thing soul does is actuate thebody or make the body to be
living.
Okay, so it's the differencebetween being alive and not
being alive.
That's the principle thing.
That's really what it is.
But then it's often pointed outthat the soul has additional
(26:20):
powers.
For example, if a tree is alive, it has the potential to grow
and become bigger, it has thepotential to have more branches,
it has the potential to conductphotosynthesis, for example, if
it's the right kind of treewith the right kind of leaves
and whatnot.
So soul, you say, imbues thingswith potentialities, multiple
(26:48):
potentialities for furtheractivities over and above simply
being alive rather than notalive.
And then if you start to ask,well, what are these further
potentialities?
That's precisely whatdifferentiates the kinds of soul
from one another.
So, for example, plants havepotentialities, powers,
(27:09):
sometimes called powers of thesoul.
They have powers for nutritionand reproduction.
If you talk about animals, theyhave powers of nutrition and
reproduction, but they also havepowers of sensation and
locomotion.
They can move from here tothere.
So they have potentials thatbecome activated in their life
(27:34):
according to the different kindsof things that they are.
And then human beings haveagain the powers or potential of
nutrition, reproduction.
We have powers of sensation andlocomotion, but we also have
power of reason and the thingsthat are involved in reason,
(27:55):
which are understanding and will, intellect and will, are the
activities of intellect and will.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
What are the souls' causes?
Speaker 1 (28:05):
That's a little bit of a complicated question,
because the soul itself hasunderstood to be the formal
cause of the being, the formalcause of the living thing.
It's what makes the living thingto be living and to have these
potentialities for furtheractivity.
But then if you ask, well,what's the final cause?
(28:26):
The final cause of the wholeorganism is that life form, like
fully operational, we're in itsoptimal state.
So that's the final cause.
And the soul is a formal causethat endows the whole organism
with inclinations or drives, youmight say inclinations or
(28:48):
drives to grow, develop andcarry out its own proper
activities until it reaches anoptimal state of development and
flourishing.
So that would be like the finalcause.
And then, when we talk aboutthe material cause of soul,
we've got to be very careful,because the lower forms of life,
(29:08):
like plant souls and animalsouls, the soul is the form of
the body and so it organizes thematter of the body and
activates it and makes it to beliving.
But there's nothing more tothose forms than the
organization of the matter ororganization and animation of
the matter when you start totalk about the human soul.
(29:31):
However, the human soul bringsin another measure of perfection
, which is that the soul is theform of the body.
So it organizes our body andanimates our body and makes our
body to be living.
But the human soul, unlike thesouls of plants and animals,
carries out at least two of itsown proper operations, just as
(29:55):
soul Carries out the activitiesof intellect and the activities
of will, higher knowing andloving, and those things are
tied to the body, but they aresomething that can't be reduced
to the physical causes.
Yes, that's a fair way to put it.
It's tricky.
(30:15):
We want to draw distinctions.
So the powers that the humansoul has, just as soul itself,
are the powers of intellect andwill.
Intellect carries out a higherkind of knowing, higher than
sensation, higher than seeing,tasting, smelling, touching,
hearing, imagining, rememberingor estimating signals.
(30:38):
When we can get into that we'llsee.
If we talk about the differentpowers of the soul, there's a
kind of knowing we can do that'slike a higher kind of knowing.
You might think about the kindof knowing we do in math, where
we can know the truth for aninfinite number of instances of
triangles or something like that.
The intellect carries out ahigher kind of knowing and the
(31:00):
will carries out a higher kindof loving.
So St Thomas understands thewill as essentially our ability
to love and from out of thatflows other things that we
typically associate with will.
But it's really the capacityfor love principally.
So a higher kind of loving,beyond just sensory loving or
sensory attractions to things.
(31:21):
It's the love for things liketruth, for goodness in general,
for beauty, right, for God.
That's will.
Now the activities of intellectand will.
Knowing and loving.
This higher knowing and higherloving, those activities are
intrinsically and essentiallyimmaterial.
They're spiritual activities inthat sense of the term.
(31:44):
They're immaterial, so in andof themselves they are not the
activities of organs, they'rethe activities of the soul
itself, which implies that thesoul itself has something more
than is more than just the formof the body.
It's what's called animmaterial soul in the
traditional vocabulary, or itmight better be called an
(32:07):
irreducible soul.
Okay, so it's irreducible tobeing simply the form and
animating principle of a body.
But Okay, okay, okay, okay,okay, okay, okay, okay, okay,
okay, okay, okay, okay, Okay,okay, okay, okay, okay, okay,
okay, okay.
St Thomas is very clear thatwhen intellect and will carry
out their higher activities ashigher kind of knowing and
higher kind of loving, theycannot do so without drawing
(32:31):
upon the sensory powers whichare the activities of organs and
activities of the body.
So you and I, if we could notsee, taste, smell, touch here,
imagine or remember in any waywhatsoever, you wouldn't really
be able to think, you wouldn'tbe able to have any idea, you
wouldn't be able to have anyhigher thinking at all.
It's kind of like when you'reasleep or when someone's in a
(32:55):
condition of being knockedunconscious they can't think or
know in this higher way or lovein this higher way, enact at
that moment, because there's animpediment to them doing so,
which is that their lowersensory powers have been taken
out for some reason.
So the higher powers ofintellect and will are
(33:18):
intrinsically and essentiallyimmaterial powers and immaterial
activities, but they need, as anecessary condition for their
activity, the proper functioningof the physiological powers of
sensation.
Speaker 3 (33:34):
Yeah, that's right.
We've talked about in theseason, about the properties and
the abilities that humans havecognitively and so forth, and
how some of those seem to, likeyou said, be immaterial.
They can't be reduced to thematerial.
So somewhere to ask you hey,well, how would you demonstrate
that to somebody?
How do?
You demonstrate that, oh, wehave these things that can't be
(33:57):
reduced to the material.
What would be Thomas' answer tothat, or what would you be sort
of the best argument that?
Speaker 1 (34:04):
you would have, sure, and here's a way to start
getting at it that people, Ithink, can sort of start to
think it through for themselves.
But the classic distinctiongoes like this that all
sensation, all externalsensation, is of particular
things.
So when you pet a cat, you'repetting this particular cat, you
(34:29):
see this particular cat and youtouch this particular fur, and
all sensation, if you thinkabout it, is of particular
things.
So when you smell and taste acup of coffee, or smell and
taste coffee, you're smellingand tasting this coffee, this
particular coffee.
So all sensation is of theparticular.
(34:51):
But the ancient philosophersalso realized or discovered that
this higher kind of knowing isnot of particulars, it's of
universals.
So, for example, when you knowthe formula for the area of a
triangle, you don't just knowthe formula for this particular
(35:15):
triangle, you know the formulafor all triangles.
In fact there's an infinitenumber of them and you know a
truth that extends to aninfinite set of triangles.
So this higher kind, lowersensation is of particulars.
But this higher kind of knowingis not of particulars.
(35:37):
So it's different in kind, thedifferent kind of activity,
because it's of a differentobject.
The lower sense, knowledge, thesensation, is of particulars.
The higher knowing is not.
Now you've got to get thatdistinction first.
If you get that distinction,you get clear on that.
And that takes people a longtime to get that distinction,
(35:58):
because there's a range betweenbeing of the particular and
being of the universal.
Absolutely considered, there'sa range of knowledge in between
there.
that makes things a little bitdifficult, but we can clarify
that if we need to, but then tothen go further and say that
knowing a universal, absolutelyconsidered, is a different kind
(36:20):
of activity, that itselfrequires an immaterial activity
of the mind.
We would need another step tothat, and St Thomas has his
argument, and his basic argumentis that if the universal, if
the activity of the intellectwere material, it would
(36:41):
particularize the received form.
So what you're thinking ofwould be particularized into one
thing that you're thinking of,because matter is always
particular.
Speaker 3 (36:52):
Particular, not a universal.
So there is no matter for auniversal.
Speaker 1 (36:56):
Exactly.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
And so you can't perceive it.
In a sense you got it.
That's the basic idea.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
Yeah, aristotle has a second argument for the claim
that the activity of theintellect is immaterial.
And I find it a fascinatingargument.
I just want people to hear it.
It really resonates with ourexperience, and Aristotle points
out that when it comes tophysical organs and
physiological activity, anexcessive amount of the object
(37:25):
of that sense damages the organ.
So the object of hearing issound, but if you hear sounds
that are too loud you go deaf.
You might think of someone whohears a very loud boom.
Speaker 3 (37:40):
Yeah right, you can lose your hearing, or if you see
light that's too bright you goblind.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
Or if you eat food that's way too spicy, you lose
your sense of taste, at leasttemporarily.
So when it comes tophysiological organs and their
activities, an excessive amountof the object damages the organ,
but, aristotle points out, whenit comes to intellect, its
object is truth, and no one'sintellect has ever been damaged
(38:12):
Too much truth.
You can know an infinite amountof truth.
You can know infinite truths,so to speak, in mathematics, and
your intellect is not damagedanyway by it.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Yeah, it's not much discussed, but it's kind of
fascinating To contemplate on.
Definitely, you mentioned thepowers of the soul and how the
powers of the vegetative souldifferentiate from animals and
humans.
I think where you want to speakto that, especially about what
makes the human soul unique whenit comes to the powers of the
soul, the human soul is uniquefor a couple of reasons.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
The human soul is unique because it has two
distinct powers that the lowerforms don't have.
The human soul has intellectand will, and those two comprise
what's sometimes called mind.
Okay, so the human soul hasmind, it's also called spirit,
or it's called the spiritualpart of the soul, and that's the
main thing that differentiatesthe human soul from plant and
(39:08):
animal souls.
Okay, we have mind, we haveintellect and will.
But because we have mind andhave intellect and will, we
should also point out that theway that we use even the other
powers which we do have incommon with plants and animals
differ.
So, for example, animals andplants, they nourish themselves,
(39:31):
they take in nutrients from theworld, and so do we.
We nourish ourselves, but themanner in which we do so is
quite different, because we haveintellect and will.
So animals will eat by humans'dine.
We have like meals bank bedsand etiquette, and there's
(39:56):
certain ways that areacceptable to eat and certain
ways that are not in decentcompany.
And the same with reproduction.
So animals reproduce, humanbeings procreate, okay, so
there's a difference in the wayin which something that's even
reproduction there's a humanmode of doing these things or
(40:18):
carrying these things out, andthat's because of intellect and
will.
So what distinguishes humansoul from the lower soul is that
we have intellect and will.
That's the primary difference.
But that difference also makesa difference throughout our
whole being, in the way that weexercise even those powers which
we do have in common with thelower plants and animals.
Speaker 2 (40:41):
You mentioned the mind.
This whole season is aboutconsciousness.
What is the soul's relation tothe mind and consciousness?
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Okay, that's a good question.
The classic way to understandit in Aristotle and in St Thomas
, is that the mind is a power ofthe soul, or really a twofold
power of the soul intellect andwill.
And consciousness, as weunderstand it, is something of a
property that goes withintellect.
(41:10):
So intellect is able to take inthe forms of things from the
world around us and understandthem in a universal and abstract
kind of way, like we've talkedabout.
Not only do we think aboutthings, but later on we can
remember hey, I was thinkingabout this or I was thinking
about that.
So we're aware of what we'rethinking about, we're aware of
(41:35):
our own intellectual activities,and not only do I want this or
want that, but later I canreflect, and later on I can
realize, or maybe even in themoment I can realize, wait a
second, I want this or I wantthat.
And so, thanks to mind and thisproperty it has of
(41:57):
consciousness, which is reallybeing present to oneself, mind
is aware of all the activitiesthat are taking place within
itself, it's aware of its ownacts of thinking, it's aware of
its own acts of willing.
And that's how we have the kindof conscious life that we have
(42:20):
because of mind.
But mind is not simplyconsciousness on the classic
understanding.
It's this power or potency ofintellect and includes will and
it has as a propertyconsciousness?
Speaker 3 (42:35):
Yeah, because consciousness seems to be shared
with other organisms in a sense, but they don't have the
ability to reflect on theirconsciousness.
It's a big difference between.
Again, we think it seems likedog is conscious, or that an ape
might have some consciousawareness of what's going on
(42:58):
around it, but it doesn't havethis ability to reflect upon.
It's almost like trapped in themoment, in a sense.
Right.
Speaker 1 (43:07):
So, like other things that we talk about, when we
start comparing plants, animalsand human beings, there are
certain imitations that kind ofgo.
There are imitations of oneorder to the next, and I think
that even for, certainly foranimals, there is something that
is similar to consciousness butis not intellectual
(43:28):
consciousness, and bothAristotle and St Thomas talk
about this.
We'd really have to dig intosome of the details about the
powers of the soul and talkabout senses, communists.
But there's a kind ofself-awareness that the common
sensory power has.
So this common sensory powertakes in not only the objects of
(43:52):
the five senses but also has akind of awareness that the five
senses are working or in workingorder.
So when you hear things, whatyou hear enters into your
general sensory awareness.
But if you were to lose yourhearing in one ear for a moment,
you'd realize it.
You'd notice wait a second, Ican no longer hear in my left
(44:15):
ear.
That is a function of thesenses, communists, or the
general sensory awareness thatanimals and human beings have.
So there's a kind ofself-awareness there, maybe a
reflexivity, but it's not thesame as intellectual reflexivity
.
Okay, okay, thank you.
(44:38):
And then we can talk about thecogitative power, which is
another power, like a step upfrom census Kamunas.
That's where we can bring inmany, many Singulars that we've
experienced in our throughoutour life and they kind of fuse
into like a generalizedexperience.
So once you start talking aboutgeneralized experience, that's
(44:59):
filled with estimations ofwhether things are threatening
or beneficial, there's also atthat level a kind of ability to
judge Is this thing a threat oris it a benefit?
And even animals have that.
So if you're walking down thesidewalk and there's a bird, the
bird just like knows yourtrouble and like flies away.
(45:23):
There's a kind of estimationthere and a kind of judgment
there, but it's not the same ashuman judgment and human
estimation of these things.
There's similarities andthere's differences and we'd
have to really dig into theweeds of what the difference is.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Yeah, we talked about this in the first episode in
the sense that animals have somesense of, maybe, you know, of
like chimps, because they havesense of.
Well, that's me and Amirrecognize that, but they don't
have.
They really lack this sense ofwanting to communicate with
other minds and thinking andreflux.
(46:01):
They can't think about thefuture and the past and they
don't seem to have that abilityfor the curse of thinking Like
you were talking about.
I'm going to reflect on why.
You know, yesterday I read thisbook.
Well, what was my part?
You know, they don't have sortof offline thinking.
Speaker 1 (46:17):
There's clearly a big difference there, Sure, and I
think that what they dodemonstrate in their behavior
that's similar to us can beaccounted for in terms of the
kind of senses communists theyhave the general sensory
awareness they have and theestimative power which they have
, which will be rathersophisticated by comparison to
animal forms beneath them.
(46:38):
For sure They'll have a highermeasure of estimating threats
and benefits and they'll have anestimative sense that is closer
to preparing experience forabstract knowledge, right, and
that when you have generalizedexperience that's kind of
suitable or close to beingsuitable for abstract knowledge,
(47:00):
then you're going to have a lotof behaviors in common with or
similar to human beings, andwhat's really going to
differentiate our consciousnessfrom that will be accounted for
by the kind of awareness we havedue to intellect, properly
speaking.
Speaker 3 (47:17):
Okay, because I think a lot of times people say, well
, animals can do this and that.
But you can see, that can beexplained at the level of….
Speaker 1 (47:24):
There is, and we have to be very careful about, the
difference between a similarityand a sameness.
Exactly and the same in kindand similar in behavior or not.
Don't follow from the otherside.
Speaker 3 (47:35):
It kind of goes back to the list of things you can
come up with.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
In discussing the soul, I think a question a lot
of listeners and viewers mighthave might be well.
What happens when the soulseparates from the body?
Speaker 1 (47:46):
That's a great question.
It's one of the perennialquestions of human race.
We all want to know whathappens after death.
If you believe that theactivity of the higher knowing
and higher loving that we talkedabout earlier, the activities
of intellect and will, areimmaterial or spiritual
activities for the reasons thatwe gave earlier or for some
(48:06):
other certain reasons, then itwould follow that the human soul
is irreducible to being justthe form of the body or the
organizational plan of the body.
It would not be a material form,to use the language of St
Thomas.
So there's something in thehuman soul, it has a kind of
subsistence of its own that'sirreducible to the body, the
(48:30):
body.
And so when the soul separatesfrom the body at death, the soul
is able to continue to subsistor exist on its own without the
body.
But St Thomas is also veryclear that because the soul is
the form of the body althoughit's not just that, because the
soul is the form of the body,it's like in an unnatural
(48:55):
condition for the body, or fromsorry, for this human soul, to
exist without the body is a veryunnatural state, and to
motivate this it's very simple.
I mean, if you start to thinkabout amputations, like losing
an arm or losing a leg is veryunnatural for the people who
experience it.
Now imagine if you had acomplete body amputation, where
(49:19):
your entire body is removed.
Your soul is continuing tosubsist, but you would naturally
ask where's my body?
So it's not a natural conditionfor us to be in, and this is
why it's very fitting for us toreceive, by the grace of God,
(49:41):
the resurrection of the body inthe end, and so there will be an
interim state where the humansoul survives after death and
awaits the final resurrection,the resurrection of the body,
and will be in a more completecondition after the resurrection
(50:03):
of the body.
Speaker 2 (50:04):
Yeah, there's this theory I recently learned that I
want to give you the chance torespond to at panpsychism, and
it's this idea that the universeis animated by a ubiquitous
mind and consciousness and thateven atoms have a small spark of
consciousness.
Do you have some thoughts onthat?
Speaker 1 (50:24):
Yes, it's a view that's out there.
It's very common in the FarEast.
It has some defenders inWestern philosophy.
You can see what motivates it,and that is plants, animals,
even the elements seem todisplay purpose-driven activity
or goal-driven activity.
They have a kind ofteleological activity.
(50:45):
So it seems and this issomething both Aristotle and
Saint Thomas picked up on, butthey took that not as evidence
that things themselves have mind, for all the reasons we
explained.
There's different kinds ofactivities between these grades
of soul and whatnot.
There's different kinds ofactivities that really
(51:06):
differentiate them from humanbeings that, properly speaking,
have mind.
Nonetheless, they displaysomething that's kind of
mind-like or looks likeintelligent activity.
That's not evidence that theyhave mind, but it's evidence
that they are being directed bya higher mind.
So this is really the premisefor the teleological argument
(51:29):
for the existence of God, thefifth way.
And so everything in the world,from the atoms up or whatever,
the lowest material, stuff isfrom the lowest material stuff
all the way up.
All of it participates in aworld of wisdom and love which
is ultimately directed by God.
So they participate in thedivine wisdom, but they are not
(51:54):
properly constituted as beingswith mind themselves.
Speaker 3 (51:58):
But they act towards an end.
Speaker 1 (52:00):
They act towards an end.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (52:03):
So thinking about ends and purpose here.
So if the human soul has theseunique properties compared to
other souls of intellect andwill, what does that shed any
light on?
What is the purpose of human?
Because clearly that's whatmakes us unique.
Speaker 1 (52:22):
Sure One of the unique abilities that human
beings have, if we could speakto this, or one of the unique
activities that human beingshave because we have intellect
and will, as we make freechoices.
We choose to follow this courseof action or that, and I can
always ask you you did something, why did you do that?
You can say well, I did it forthe sake of something further.
(52:44):
Hopefully, I can have a reasonfor that yeah.
If it's a deliberate activity,you have a purpose for it
Actually, what's the purpose ofthat, and then what's the?
Purpose of that and what's thepurpose of that?
And so we have a chain, so tospeak, of purposes, or embedded
purposes, or sequences ofpurposes.
But this chain of purposes A isfor the sake of B, b is for the
(53:07):
sake of C, c is for the sake ofD cannot go on an infinitum.
So there must be some ultimateend for the sake of which you
and I act.
And then we can ask ourselveswell, what's this ultimate end
for which you and I are acting,and the classic answer that is
(53:27):
given to us in the perennialtradition of philosophy is the
attitude Everyone's looking forwhat's really going to make them
happy, Everyone's looking forthe one thing that satisfies
completely.
And then if we ask the questionwell, what is that?
Then we start to get into muchdeeper bigger questions.
(53:49):
But there is this, thisultimate end.
I mean everybody's living forsomething Right?
Speaker 3 (53:55):
yeah.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
What are you living for?
If you're a human being, you'reliving for something.
What are you living for?
Speaker 3 (54:01):
Right another question of what is it that
satisfies Right?
Speaker 1 (54:03):
what is it that's ultimately going to satisfy?
Speaker 2 (54:07):
I know you're a sought-out preacher and it's
obvious why this has been such agift of a discussion.
Speaker 1 (54:13):
Praise God.
Speaker 2 (54:13):
Absolutely, and I want to let our viewers and
listeners know how they can findmore of your work.
Tell us about the ThomisticInstitute.
Speaker 1 (54:21):
Well, the Thomistic Institute is run by the
Dominican Friars and it'sdesigned.
Its mission is to bring theteachings of the Catholic faith
and the theology of St Thomasthe philosophy and theology of
St Thomas to college campuseseverywhere and to make that
truth available to the public atlarge.
And so, if you go to well,there's a whole network of
(54:42):
professors and friars thattravel the country and give
talks, and all of that'sgathered on the Thomistic
Institute SoundCloud site, aswell as on the Thomistic
Institute YouTube site andAquinas 101.
And there's an endless amountof material there for people to
go and learn.
It's all made available forfree thanks to the generosity of
(55:05):
benefactors, and if any one ofthe topics we brought up today,
you can find a specific talk bya professor or a Dominican that
goes on about that topic atgreat length and detail.
Speaker 3 (55:21):
Yeah, that's great.
You also have a new book outthat is sort of a compilation of
sort of your efforts over thelast decade or so.
Speaker 1 (55:29):
Yeah, so I have a new book out called the Father's
House.
I've traveled a lot over thelast 10 years preaching a lot of
weekend retreats to collegestudents and young adults, and I
gathered up all the weekendretreat material into a single
book.
It's a short little book, notterribly long, available from
Pauline Books and Media.
It's about our filial adoption.
(55:49):
It's the gospel of Jesus Christjust sort of presents it all
for people.
It's based on the three I callit the three questions right,
what is the purpose of life?
The purpose question who am I?
The identity question and howdo I find love?
The love question.
And the gospel of Jesus Christis the answer to all those
questions.
(56:10):
So I lay that out and then thesecond half gets into.
Well, how do I live this?
How do I live according to thegospel of Jesus Christ?
I talk about the way offriendship, walking on the way
of friendship with Christ in thechurch, and we're walking
together towards the Father'sHouse.
So that's what it's about.
Speaker 2 (56:28):
Well, thank you for answering those big questions
and our big questions here today.
Speaker 1 (56:32):
Father James.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
Brent, thank you.
Speaker 1 (56:34):
Thank you, it's been great to be here.
Yeah, it's a great happeningyeah.
Speaker 2 (56:38):
And that conversation gave me a lot to contemplate on
, especially about our capacityfor truth is really unlimited as
well, that stood out to me.
What stood out to you, dan?
Speaker 3 (56:47):
Yeah, it's interesting when we're talking
about the difference between ananimal soul and a human soul
with them, because there's atendency either hey, let's
compress the two that humans arejust another animal and sort of
bring them down to that level,or other people to say, to push
animals down and make humans wayup here.
And I think it's interestingthat when you look at the powers
(57:10):
that you talked about, thatanimal sound of cognition, that
they have some really coolthings that they can do, but
that doesn't bring them up tothe level of humans, so we can
elevate both in a sense, likeanimals have very cool
properties of being able to makesense of the world, learn, and
some cognitive powers and soforth, and you can see sort of
(57:30):
the powers that humans have sortof bubbling there but not quite
there.
Then the idea of just hey,let's list things that humans do
that are unique, and that listgets pretty large pretty quickly
, and I think that's a greatmental exercise to really drive
home that hey, there's something, some difference in kind
between humans and animals andthat doesn't diminish animals in
(57:52):
any sense.
Speaker 2 (57:54):
And again some of our powers.
For example, I can't lead anorchestra but there are humans
who can have that capacity.
Speaker 3 (58:00):
I'm done with the animals.
Speaker 2 (58:03):
I didn't have the chance to ask them if all dogs
go to heaven.
But I'll have to have thatconversation another time and I
imagine that was really helpfulfor you as a biologist in just
different conversations you havewith scientists in the field as
well.
Speaker 3 (58:15):
Yeah, that's great.
It's interesting he's had someof the same conversations, the
critiques that biologists whoare steeped in this evolutionary
worldview, and how do youreconcile that with some of the
things that we know about thepowers of the soul that he's
talking about?
Speaker 2 (58:30):
Well, speaking of questions and answers, that
brings us now to the officehours segment, and this first
question we got actually fromsomeone online.
Had this specific question foryou, Dan, pretty big one, but
I'll throw it out there how doesone distinguish a purposeful
act from a physically causalevent?
(58:50):
That is, can one choose to doother than what physics dictates
?
Do you have an answer for thisA million-dollar question there?
Speaker 3 (58:58):
yeah, the idea is are we acting with freedom and
purpose?
Are we just doing what thephysics is telling us to do?
Do we not have freedom?
And I think, is there a way toscientifically know the answer?
But how do we do that?
Well, it's simple as askingsomebody Are you doing something
purposeful?
(59:20):
What is the purpose behind youractivity?
It's a sense that we know whenwe're doing purposeful activity
and that's not to say that it'snot influenced by prejudice,
biases that we might have oraddictions and things like that.
But purpose is one of thosethings that everybody.
It's interesting Father Brentwas talking about that in this
(59:42):
episode that we all live ourlives with purpose.
We do things for a reason,there's a purpose, there's a
purpose behind that.
So we either have to say that'sall just an illusion or we do
have purpose, although it iscircumscribed, because we don't
have freedom to do everything,because of our evolutionary
(01:00:03):
psychology, for example, thatwe've talked about in previous
episodes this season.
So I think from humans itreally comes down to ask
somebody is that purposeful anddo you have a sense of purpose?
And that's something that we canknow, even though we can't
scientifically prove it.
So the idea that there'scertain things we know that go
(01:00:24):
beyond the science and thatwould be one and there isn't
neuroscience is not tell uswhether we have purpose or not,
or actions are purposeful.
Speaker 2 (01:00:34):
Yeah, Okay.
So this next question is one Iwas curious about.
We've been in this Lentenseason and as Christians it's a
time that we're more intentionalabout fasting.
There's also prayer andalmsgiving, but with fasting we
know, we believe that there arespiritual benefits to that.
But, as a biologist, are therephysical benefits to that as
well?
Speaker 3 (01:00:54):
Yeah, definitely there are.
There's clear physical benefitsof fasting.
There's two that I hit on.
One is if you don't eat, say,for 24 hours, do a day long fast
, your body switches from usingsugars to rely on ketones, and
your brain in particular has torely on ketones.
(01:01:14):
And that leads to the studiesthat show when you're in that
state there's more mentalclarity, there's sort of
different activities going on inthe brain.
It kind of makes sense in asense, if we don't have any food
, like evolutionarily, you getmore clarity trying to find.
Speaker 2 (01:01:28):
To survive, to survive Right.
Speaker 3 (01:01:31):
But there is clear evidence of that causes enhances
cognition and, interestingly,but also if you're fasting and
taking in fewer calories thannormal, it tends to shift the
body into a state of repair andmaintenance rather than growth.
And so there's a lot ofevidence where you reduce the
amount of calories, the bodyrepairs itself and there's
(01:01:52):
disease prevention and longevityseem to increase there.
So there's clear benefits ofperiodic fasting.
Speaker 2 (01:02:00):
And that seems to go really hand in hand for what
we're called to as Christians.
If we're praying more duringthis time and our mind is more
clear from fasting, it seemslike they'll contribute to one
another.
And if it is really this timeof our body being repaired, this
time of preparation, preparingfor Easter.
Speaker 3 (01:02:16):
Yeah, a lot of synergy between the theology and
the biology.
Speaker 2 (01:02:19):
And again Father James Brent just today, telling
us how it's only humans whointentionally fast.
That's right.
Speaker 3 (01:02:24):
Seems like there's a purpose.
It might be, might be.
Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
Well, with that, I want to remind you all that if
you have a question for DrKiebler, you can submit it by
either emailing us at info atModgesCentercom or leave us a
voicemail.
You can go ahead and call us at949-257-2436 and you might just
hear your question here onPurposeful Lab.
Well, with that, that concludestoday's episode.
(01:02:49):
Make sure to subscribe on yourfavorite podcast platform and
we'll see you next week.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com