Philosophy

The body and the soul has long been vague subject matters both in the fields of science and philosophy. As it appears, these two ideals possess some of the worlds most encompassing, broad and complex details and features that would easily seem incomprehensible for average humans. Over the years, a lot of philosophical debates and postulates have already been pioneered in order to create a more concrete understanding of the nature and reality of the human body and soul. Two of the most reviewed and criticized views on these ideals are those of Plato and Aristotle. Through the years, their perspectives on encompassing and universal concepts such as body and soul have been immovable parts of the academe. This discussion shall then center on the explication of the body and the soul from the perspectives of the two aforementioned thinkers.

Plato Dualism  Body versus Soul
In Platos quest for the true understanding of the body and the soul, most of his contemplations on this matter was shared with discussions with another great thinker, Socrates. It can be recalled that Socrates once dared Plato to prove that the soul never dies. Socrates believed that the body and the soul can be seen as two different entities that are capable of existing on its own. However, Plato knew better than to assume from an uncertain ground. This is where his notion of Dualism was born. By dualism, it can be easily inferred that two separate and distinct figures or entities are involved. Similarly, this is the exact point of view that Plato wanted to seek in talking about the concepts of the body and the soul.   According to Plato, the body and the soul cannot be considered as one entity just because they reside in the body of an individual. He believed that these two entities possess different and distinct functions and criteria. Rather, he saw the relationship of the body and the soul to be contradicting for they follow opposing objectives. In Phaedo, this assumption can be observed to root from Simmias proposition that the body and the soul are two different entities that can exist independently. Specifically, Simmias notes,

And what about the very attainment of thoughtfulness Is the body an impediment or not when somebody takes it along as a companion in his search Heres the sort of thing I mean. Do sight and hearing possess any truth for human beings, or is it the case we neither hear nor see anything precise  the sort of thing even the poets are always babbling about us And yet if among the bodily senses seeing and hearing are neither precise nor clear, the rest scarcely are, for, I suppose, there are all inferior (Plato 36).

Just like how Simmias voiced his views, Plato also held the notion that the body and the soul cannot be identical as they follow different objectives. As the soul reaches out for wisdom, the body interferes and tends to give the soul confusing perceptions of things due to the unreliability of the senses  that for Plato gets easily deceived by worldly images. Furthermore, Plato would even point to the body as a vehicle for worldly and evil thoughts. This has been very apparent through his agreement when Socrates delivered,

And I suppose the soul reasons most beautifully when none of these things gives her pain  neither hearing nor sight, nor grief nor any pleasure  After all, nothing other than the body and its desired produce wars and factions and battles for all wars come about for the sake of getting money, and were compelled to get money for the sake of the body, to whose service were enslaved (Plato 38).
Clearly, Plato emphasizes on the distinction of body and soul through their varying goals, functions and significance to human existence.

Arisotle Body and Soul  Attributivism
If the Platonist perspective of the relationship or distinction between the body and the soul was more inclined on the dualism perspective, the Aristotelian notion on the body and the soul appears to be more attributive. To explicate this more clearly, it is important to note that unlike Platos notion of having the body and the soul as two contrasting entities, Aristotle preferred seeing the relationship between the two as benefiting of each other. In Aristotles De Anima, the thinker notes that the body and the soul play different functions, but these functions are nevertheless in assistance to each other. He regards the function of the body as highly complex and dynamic for it also serves highly dynamic and complex purposes. However, Aristotle thinks that the body cannot work on itself alone, for it needs a driving force and a guide that will empower and run it. And thus, this is the soul. In the De Anima, this was specifically emphasized in this passage

Let us then proceed on the assumption that to be acted upon or moved is identical with active operation. For movement is in fact active operation. For movement is in fact active operation of some sort, though incomplete, as we have elsewhere explained. But in every case things are acted upon and moved by an agent in actual operation (Aristotle 50).

The agent being mentioned in this passage is the soul. Thus, unlike Platos view of the soul as a prisoner of the material and worldly body, Aristotle would like to see is an agent which drives the body to more meaningful, spiritual and sensible directions. Considering this perspective, unlike Platos antagonistic view of the body, Aristotle points out that the body works not just according to its worldly needs but also according to the objective and to the function of the soul. With this, the relationship apparently becomes more positive in some sense.

If the discussion about the body and the soul will be seen on the spiritual manner  meaning that perspective which involves the notion of the gods and heaven and earth  Platos argument may appear more significant as it looks as the soul as peoples key to achieving the never ending life after death. However, under the general perspctive of studying the concepts of the body and the soul as two different ideals and entities, the Aristotelian view of it may seem more compelling as it holds a more positive and optimistic view of both concepts. Rather than seeing the other as evil, this perspective allows people to consider both as significant in fulfilling peoples objectives and goals in life.