Philosophy 107MFinal Draft PaperThesis: In regards to human and non-human animalsouls, Plato’s theory of forms is false.
In Plato’s description of the Universal Forms, he claims that theyare completely unique. In this paper, I will suggest an example of twoForms that possess identical sufficient conditions. In light of thispresentation, I will show how Plato’s theory of forms is false regardinghuman and non-human souls.
Plato’s Claim:If X is a Form, then X is unique.
My Argument:If two Forms have identical sufficient conditions, then Plato’s theoryof Forms is false in regards to those two forms.
The Form of Animal and The Form of Human have identical sufficientconditions; therefore Plato’s theory of Forms is false in regards tothese two forms.
In The Republic, Plato speaks of a god who created the “bed innature.” He says that the god “didn’t make more than one bed in nature, butonly one, the very one that is the being of a bed. Two or more of thesehave not been made by the god and never will be” (597c). This illustratesPlato’s theory that each and every one of the Forms is unique from all therest. In Plato and the Republic, Nickolas Pappas says that one out of thethree characteristics that identify forms is “Uniqueness.” He says, “TheForm of X is the only one of its kind” (p. 127). He also says that”whatever else he was unsure of, Plato had made up his mind that for everyproperty there could only be a single Form” (p. 201, 203). In light ofthese passages, we can assume that Plato believes every form is completelyunique.
Now I will present an example of two Forms that have identicalsufficient conditions. A human is a human if and only if he possesses asoul. The body, the brain, even the heart are not necessary conditions forthe Form of Human. The only necessary condition for Humanness is theexistence of a soul.
This is also true for the Form of Animal. The only necessary conditionfor Animalness is the presence of a soul. A monkey, for example, is stillconsidered a monkey even after he is stripped of his physical parts becausehis soul still remains. In contrast, for example; a table is not still atable but nothing more than wood and nails once it has been chopped up.
When dealing with an entity as unclear as the soul, we must definejust what a soul is. McHenry and Yagisawa defined a soul as something thathas “psychological features – they must have beliefs, desires, intentions,and so on” (p. 224). Plato believed a soul consisted of three basicproperties: reason, emotion, and appetite, with reason having the greatestvalue. These two definitions can be summed up in a single definition: asoul provides the ability to experience emotions, morality, and reason. Inlight of this definition and the universal belief that humans experienceemotions, morality, and reason, we can correctly assume that humans possessa soul. However, there is no universal belief in regards to animals andtheir possession of a soul. Therefore, I will give examples to illustratethe existence of a soul in certain animals.
Animals learn many things from experience, and conclude that the sameevents will always follow from the same causes. This is an obvious show ofreason. Animals become familiar with the properties of certain objects andgradually, from birth, build up knowledge of things such as water, fire,earth, rocks, height, depth, etc., and how to use these things to theiradvantage. It becomes obvious when watching a young animal and an olderanimal that the older is much wiser and has acquired knowledge from hisyears. A horse that has gotten used to a certain field becomes acquaintedwith the height at which he can jump the objects in that field. A primatewho is given time and a sharp rock can eventually figure out through trialand error how to manipulate an object. Through observation of virtually anyanimal, one can conclude that it learns from its environment, then usesthat knowledge to prosper and flourish. This proves that many animals havereason.
For example, in baseball, there is a sequence of hand signals given bythe coach to the batter that means “ignore this sign, the next one is theone I want you to do.” Dolphins are able to grasp the complex concept ofthis baseball sign. In light of this example, it is obvious that dolphinshave reason.
In a 1964 study, Jules Masserman ran an experiment with rhesusmonkeys. An “actor” monkey was trained to pull one of two chains to receiveits food. A “receiver” monkey was nearby, where the actor could see it. Bypulling one chain, the actor received a small amount of food. However, bypulling the other chain, the actor received more food but the receivermonkey received a severe shock, which the actor monkey observed. Mostactors pulled the chain delivering the shock far less often than the chaindelivering less food. Two of the 15 actors even stopped pulling the shockchain for up to 12 days.
This study proves that certain animals, such as these rhesus monkeys,can experience distinct moral emotion as well as reason. In light of thenumber of times the actor monkey pulled the shock chain, it seems that itfelt mercy or pity for the receiver monkey. Because of this, the actormonkey made a conscious effort to avoid causing the other monkey more pain.
This was a moral choice. The actor monkey seemed to feel that pulling theshock chain would be wrong, even though doing so would mean sacrificing thelarger amount of food. The dictionary defines reason as a tool used to”determine or conclude by logical thinking.” These monkeys seemed todetermine through logic which chain would produce the shock and concludedthat they would not pull that particular chain. Therefore, these monkeysexperienced distinct moral emotion as well as reason.
Primates are not the only animals that display a certain degree ofmoral understanding and reason. In Devon, England, Fido, an 8-month-old petrat living in the Gumbley home, was awakened at 2 a.m. one April Sunday bythe smell of smoke. An electric heater had set fire to the carpet and somefurniture. Jumping from his unlocked cage, Fido evacuated the room. Butinstead of making an easy escape out one of the many open windows, he ranup 15 stairs to scratch an alert to his sleeping family.
This account from reporter Dorothy Hoffman seems to demonstrate arat’s emotional attachment to his owners and a moral understanding of whatis right. He sacrificed his own safety in order to ensure the safety of his”family.” The rat used reason to determine that the fire could be dangerousto his family and concluded that he should try to wake them. This displayof selfless heroism and reason would seem to support the theory thatanimals have souls, even if the animal is a rodent.
Even the Bible supports the idea that animals have souls. In Genesis1:21, 24, the exact Hebrew language used in reference to animals throughoutthe Bible is “nephesh chayah,” or “living soul.” This phrase is translatedthis way four hundred other times in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:30accurately reads, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl ofthe air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is aliving soul, I have given every green herb for meat.” In light of this moreaccurate translation of the Bible, we can assume that religious Christianbeliefs support the existence of souls in animals.
In Ecclesiastes, the translation reads, “The sons of men . . . mightsee that they themselves are beasts” (v. 18) . . . “that which befalleththe sons of men, befalleth the beasts . . . a man has no pre-eminence abovea beast,” (v. 19) “all go into one place; all are of the dust and turn todust again” (v. 20). This portion of the Bible seems to support Darwin’stheory of evolution, which claims that man evolved from primates. IfDarwin’s theory is true, then man is animal. If a human is said to have asoul and humans are descendants of animals, then an animal must possess asoul as well.
In light of the previous examples, we can assume that animals havesouls. Also, we can assume that a sufficient condition for the Form ofAnimal is the existence of a soul. We can also assume that a sufficientcondition for the Form of Human is also the existence of a soul. Thesesufficient conditions are identical, contradicting Plato’s claim that everyForm is unique. Therefore, in light of this comparison, we can concludethat in regards to human and non-human souls, Plato’s theory of forms isfalse.
[pic]
