{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}} \viewkind4\uc1\pard\b\f0\fs24 Passage # 4\b0 . (Aristotle, \i On the Soul\i0 , I, 1, 403a, 5)\par \par Donald Dang\par Allen Almachar\par Sofya Goykhman\par Sarah Elliott\par Kevin Clement\par \par \par \i It appears that in most cases the soul is not affected nor does it act apart from the body, e.g. in being angry, being confident, wanting, and perceiving in general; although thinking looks most like being peculiar to the soul. But if this too is a form of imagination, it would not be possible even for this to exist apart from the body.\par \par \i0 To Aristotle, the soul and the body are integral to each other's being, at least in most observable cases. Aristotle assumes that our emotions reflect the states of our soul. As a result, these emotions manifest themselves in our body. Emotions (the state of one's soul) can thus be seen in the physical world through the expression on one's face or the action one\rquote s body takes. It is clear that, although the soul is ruler of the body, the body is what allows the soul to exist in the physical world and is thus an important element of humanity and existence. One should not completely shun the body but rather strive to keep it healthy. A well-nutritioned, frequently used body will be free from the distractions of pain or weakness and allow the soul to achieve greater clarity in its thoughts. \par \par This contradicts Plato's idea that the body is a despised vessel hated by the soul. Rather than a jail cell that the soul struggles to escape from, the body resembles a shrine where the soul resides and expresses itself. In Plato's dialogues, we are told to ignore the body in order to gain true knowledge. In contrast, Aristotle would see us take good care of our physical selves rather than ignore the world around us or deny ourselves bodily pleasures.\par \par From our (modern American) viewpoint, Aristotle's way seems practical to our lives and allows us the freedom to engage in some physical pleasure. Compared to Plato, Aristotle's ideas are more applicable to the physical world, and thus seem to mesh better with America's ideology of physical pleasures and material wealth.\par \par There are some key deficiencies in Aristotle's thinking. To begin with, he presupposes that the soul even exists. Moreover, he doesn't explain how the soul causes physical events; how do the soul's intentions and states lead to the physical movements of our bodies? This can go the other way as well; how do events in the physical world effect the soul directly? Furthermore, how does he know that the soul is not effected apart from the body? \par \par Aristotle admits that he can only observe physical phenomena in order to discover the nature of the soul. Yet he is making statements about the soul that are unsubstantiated from the physical evidence he has compiled. "\i It appears that in most cases the soul is not affected nor does it act apart from the body," \i0 says Aristotle. How does it appear that this is true? How can Aristotle tell that the soul is never affected apart from the body if he can't see the soul when it is not with the body. Perhaps souls act apart from the body in ways unobservable to Aristotle. \par \par Let us suppose that souls and bodies do exist dependent on each other. Aristotle admits that he isn't quite sure what to do about imagination: \i "Thinking looks most like being peculiar to the soul. But if this too is a form of imagination, it would not be possible even for this to exist apart from the body." \i0 He's not sure if thinking is a part of imagination, if imagination is part of thinking, or if thinking is even peculiar to the soul. Furthermore, even if we knew that thinking was a form of imagination, perhaps thinking would be peculiar to the soul but imagination could exist without thinking (because in this case thinking could not exist without imagination whereas imagination could exist independent of thinking) and this brings up all sorts of new, unresolved problems.\par \par Aristotle was no doubt a great thinker and revolutionary for his time. He was meticulous and careful about everything he said. It is important to note that on issues where he wasn't quite sure, he would refrain from stating his ideas as fact and would rather suggest ideas (i.e. "(It \i looks like\i0 ; but \i if \i0 this) to the reader. Aristotle drew on the rather limited philosophical landscape of his time and created a philosophical system rivaled by few other great thinkers. \i\par \i0\par \par }