100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.
matter and form. Further clarifying that matter is identical with potentiality, whereas, form with actuality. And the two meanings of actuality are defined by knowledge as knowledge defines the one whereas exercise of knowledge the other. The body being a ‘matter’ which itself not being a power of subject but it does stand for the quality of subject, i.e., a matter. It thus follows that soul is substance in the sense as it is the form of a natural body possessing the capacity of life. Thus, such substance is actuality. The soul being the actuality of the body described above. It should be noticed that Aristotle did not distinguish between soul and body in a way that they exist differently. Instead he emphasizes on clarifying that which is the first actuality, i.e., the soul or the body, as is evident that the soul being the first actuality and the body is second. Sorabji believed that Aristotle’s conception of soul was ‘biological’. He also believed that Descartes was mistaken when he thought that Aristotle used the term ‘soul’ for both, ‘nutrition’ and ‘consciousness’. Later on, Aristotle did admit that soul is incorporeal/ immaterial and body is corporeal and at the same time his biological concept of soul and body maintained that the soul and body, in some points interacted together. In the Meditations, Descartes argued that mind and body are completely aloof from each other as according to him body is an extended thing. In his writing Meditation I he begun with his doubts about