Body and Soul

Anand Mangal – November 14, 2022

Now which of these is really the natural philosopher? The man who ignores the formula and is
only concerned with the matter, or the man who is only concerned with the formula?
– On the Soul (403b)

Book 1 of On the Soul reads as a kind of preamble, an introductory overview of previous

theories to pave the way for Aristotle’s positive statements in Book 2; however, Aristotle
manages to hide his most fundamental ideas of the essence of the soul in this preliminary
chapter. In the preliminary treatment of the affections, Aristotle presents two images that
prefigure his definition of the soul in Book 2, all contained in the first five pages of the volume.
The first image is Aristotle’s definition of anger. His methodical investigation starts from
the premise that the soul must have some connection to the affections, such as anger, grief,
and fear. The connection is not altogether clear, as the body and soul sometimes accord with
one other in the expression of an emotion, such as anger, but at other times appear to act in
total independence. This requires explanation: if the soul is separate from the body, then there
should be some aspect of affection that is wholly unique to it; but if the soul and body are one,
this would preclude times when “no irritation… is expressed, though the provocations are
strong and obvious. (403a15)” To clear up this confusion, Aristotle attempts to define anger. He
predicts that a logician would define anger as “craving for retaliation,” while a natural
philosopher would insist it was a “surging of the blood and heat round the heart. (403a30)”
Both of these definitions are valid, if partial, since “one is describing the matter, the other the
form.” Without fanfare, Aristotle declares that if anger “is to exist, [the form] must appear in
appropriate matter. (403b1)” Existence as the unity of form and matter is the very foundation
of Aristotle’s understanding of the soul throughout the rest of the treatise, but he has slipped
this idea into the first chapter under the guise of “digression (403b15)”.
Aristotle’s second image is his definition of a house, and in a move of Socratic subtlety,
he includes it as an addendum to the discussion on anger. To further develop the idea of form
and matter, Aristotle considers how a logician would say a house is “a covering to protect from
damage by wind, rain, and heat,” while a carpenter would say, “stones, bricks and timber.”
These definitions are quite sensible, but Aristotle asks whether philosophy can afford to ignore
the importance of form, as in the latter definition, or matter, as in the former. As he sets up his
argument in book 2, Aristotle urges that the real natural philosopher, ὁ φυσικός, “is the man
who bases his concept on both. (403b10)”
Aristotle acknowledges that the inquiry of the soul is both highly important and highly
challenging. To make this challenge surmountable, Aristotle uses his definitions of anger and a
house as images to prefigure his core beliefs. The diligent student of Book 1 will find the
philosophy of Book 2 to be logically coherent and therefore a “substantial contribution to the
whole body of truth.”