INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023

LESSON 1: NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY MOTHER DISCIPLINE

PHILOSOPHY ● Philosophy is the mother discipline out of
which other disciplines emerge.
● The love of wisdom ● Phusis – investigation regarding the nature
● Philo = love & Sophia = wisdom of things in general.
● Philosophy is not an opinion but a ● But later on Mythology became separated
knowledge. from Philosophy.
● It is the knowledge of all things through
THALES OF MILETUS
their ultimate causes, acquired through the
use of reason. ● Father of Western Philosophy
● Philosophy is Science - because the ● He concurred that the underlying substance
investigation is systematic. It follows that the whole earth is made of is water.
certain steps or it employs certain ● Man went against tradition and relied on
procedures. man’s rationality ability to abstract and
● Philosophy uses natural light of reason – explain reality.
uses natural capacity to think /simply
human reason alone (unaided reason). FIRST ORDER OF THINKING
● Philosophy is the Study of all things -
● Usually done by scientists.
questions about almost anything:
● They follow strictly their methods,
multi-dimensional or holistic.
processes, and protocols in their
● Philosophy is the first cause/highest
experiments in their field of study.
principle - a principle from which something
● They must come up with legitimately
proceeds in any matter.
raisable descriptive and explanatory
○ Uncaused cause = GOD
questions as they can and answer them as
○ Reality - can be seen and unseen.
precisely as they can.
PHILOSOPHICAL ● Examples:
○ When did World War 2 happen?
● Means being able to think carefully, in a ○ What time is it?
manner that suggests a deliberate
examination not only of what we think but SECOND ORDER OF THINKING
why we think about a certain thing in a
● Usually done by Philosophers.
particular way.
● They question or criticize the assumptions
● Its questions are more essential than its
of scientists.
answers and every answer becomes a new
● Philosophy is considered as a
question.
Meta-Discipline that transcends and
PHILOSOPHERS SOPHISTS crosses over different areas and disciplines.
Lovers of wisdom Self – proclaimed “wise ● Example:
men” ○ Are the Nazis morally wrong in
Pythagoras was the first Group of intellectuals executing World War 2?
to use the term who taught a way of ○ Who invented time?
“philosophy” argumentation called BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
eristic which is aimed to
win arguments rather ● Ethics – study of morality
than arrive at the truth.

1
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
○ Concerned with the study of
morality.
○ It answers, “What do I do?”
○ It is the study of right and wrong in
human endeavors.
○ How should we live our lives?
○ What are good actions?
● Aesthetics – study of beauty and art
○ The branch of philosophy concerned
with the nature of beauty and art.
○ What is art?
○ Can art be political?
● Logic – the art of reasoning
○ The art of correct thinking.
○ Serve to support in arriving at clear,
correct, valid, and consistent
answers to questions which is the
primary consideration in the other
branches of philosophy.
○ Some topics in ethics are:
■ Argument Validity
■ Argument Soundness
■ Fallacies (i.e. ad hominem,
appeal to pity, hasty
generalization)
○ Syllogism – an instance of a form of
reasoning in which a conclusion is
drawn (whether validity or not) from
two given or assumed propositions
(premises), each of which shares a
term with the conclusion, and shares
a common or middle term not
present in the conclusion.
○ Syllogism definition:
■ If A = B and B = C, then A = C.
● Metaphysics – concerned with the nature of
reality and existence
○ Nature of reality and existence.
○ The study of reality or what is real.
○ Are we free?
○ Does God Exist?
● Epistemology – concerned with truth and
knowledge.
○ Nature of truth and knowledge.
○ It answers the question “How do we
know?”
○ It encompasses the nature of
concepts, the study of knowledge
and what we can know.
● Theodicy - dealing with the issue of evil in
light of the existence of God.
○ It comes from the Greek words
Theos “God” and Dike “justice”.
○ The reasonable justification of the
nature, structure, & goal of evil in an
order of things considered to be
created by God.
LESSON 2:PRE-SOCRATIC PERIOD
MILESIANS
● They are pre-socratic philosophers who
reside in the Miletus.
● Thales is from Miletus. So, he along with his
students, and the students of his students
were called Milesians.
● First group of thinkers who gave us a
non-mythological account of the nature of
reality by merely using their rational faculty
together within their ability to speculate.
● A.K.A. Hylozoists
● Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes are
Milesians.
Thales (624-548 B.C.)
● “Father of Western Philosophy”
● First known Greek Philosopher;
mathematician
● Demythologized way of inquiry about the
nature of things.
● Asked “What are all things made of?” or
“What is the origin of all things?”
● Believed that the underlying substance or
Arkhe in this world is water – (Everything
needs water to exist.)
○ Water- Material cause
Anaximander (618 – 540 B.C.)
● Also an astronomer, mathematician, and
scientist.
● Called the first Greek map maker
● Believed that earth is cylindrical
2
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
● Believed that the arkhe, unlike water, is
external, indeterminate, and in constant
motion.
● Existence of opposites (hot & cold) was a
result of “separating off” from it.
● Believed that the arkhe is APEIRON
○ A – not
○ PEIRON – limit boundary
○ APEIRON = boundless
Anaximenes (588 – 524 B.C.)
● A pupil of Anaximander
● Believed that the arkhe is AIR.
● Believed that the air is unlimited (apeiron),
but not indeterminate, like water; in constant
motion.
● He accepts that Arkhe must be a material
cause like the belief of Thales; but he also
accepts that arkhe is apeiron just like his
teacher- Anaximander.
PYTHAGORAS (578 – 588 B.C.)
● Greek Philosopher and a Mathematician.
● Pythagorean Theorem
● Leader of a religious cult known as the
Pythagoreans.
● He treated philosophy as a religion, for him
it was a way of life.
● Considered Philosophy and Math as a
purification of the soul.
● Gave importance to contemplation.
● Primary constituent of reality is NUMBERS,
Everything can be explained through
numbers.
● From Samos
HERACLITUS (610-540 B.C.)
● From Ephesus
● Everything is constantly changing. o “You
cannot step in/into the same river twice.”
● Believed is Libertinism
● Everyone is free to make their own choice
and everyone has a free will.
● Everything is made out of FIRE.
PARMENIDES (610-540 B.C.)
● Things don’t change – the past and the
present are set.
● Time, freewill, and change are just illusions.
● The only permanent thing in this world is
Being – continually existing.
● Fatalism – we have a fate and we are stuck
to it.
● Determinism – Everything in this world was
determined by someone before us.
● From Elea.
ZENO (588 – 524 B.C.)
● A loyal follower of Parmenides.
● Supported his idea that reality is being and
that we are all interconnected with one
another.
● Created a lot of paradoxes – a statement
that, despite apparently sound reasoning
from true premises, leads to an apparently
self – contradictory, or logically
unacceptable conclusion.
● From Elea
ANAXAGORAS (610 – 540 B.C.)
● From Clazomenae
● There is not just one element reality is made
out of.
● There are many seeds of ELEMENTS as
there are kinds of things.
● All things have a portion of everything.
● The idea of nous or the mind-conceived as
external but is infinite and is self-ruled.
● It has the greatest strength and power over
all things.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONS
● Self-examination – SOCRATES
○ “An unexamined life may not be
worth living but examining mine is
exhausting.”
● Etymology - origin of words
● Will – ability of mind to choose.
● Morality – concept of right and wrong, good
and bad.
● Objective – not based on the preference of
the subject.
3
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
● Subjective – based on each and every
person’s perspective
LESSON 3: METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING
TRUTH
● It is the correspondence of something with
and in reality. It is supported by elements
known as “facts”.
● Facts are statements that are verifiable, can
be checked or backed up with empirical
evidence, logical reasoning, based on reality,
and cannot be refuted. It is verifiable from
observation and experience.
● What we believe or say is true if it is based
on facts and corresponds to how things
actually are. It challenges the notion that
what corresponds to reality is true. For
example, if I say it is raining today and then I
look outside and see that it is indeed
raining, then my statement is true.
● A statement that can be proven true or false
is true.
● Truth expresses reality; Truth can be
verified; Truth is discovered.
● Truth is mostly objective but sometimes
subjective.
● Truth is a property and quality of being true.
● Truth should be in a form of language.
● Truth is backed up with evidence, facts, and
correspond with reality.
OPINIONS
● Opinions are statements that express
feelings, attitudes or beliefs.
● They are one person's view about a topic or
issue.
● Take note that it is important to remember
that while an opinion is not necessarily
wrong, it is merely NOT a provable fact.
● Viewpoint, Assumption, and a judgement or
a belief about something.
● Opinion is subjective
● It is simply an unjustified belief that may
turn out to be true.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH
● Truth is a property attributed to statements
that have claims or assertions. Only
propositions can be said to possess truth
value.
● Statements are those that have claims or
assertions.
● Statements are also considered to be
propositions, because like statements,
propositions, have claims as well.
● Statements and Propositions have truth
value.
● Truth value – something in a
statement/proposition has the possibility to
possess the quality of truth.
○ It means that something, statements
or propositions could be true, false,
or indeterminate.
● When the statement is not true, it doesn’t
mean that it is false.
● If the statement is false, it doesn’t
necessarily mean that it is opinion.
THE BEARERS OF TRUTH
● Bearer – nagdadala, siya yung mga
posibilidad na maging truth
BELIEFS
● Mental expressions of our claim.
● Belief – it’s only in your mind, once you have
authored or written that belief into a
particular sentence that has been claimed,
then it becomes a statement.
STATEMENT
● Also called a ‘proposition’.
● Refers to a linguistic expression whose
function is to advance a certain claim.
SENTENCES
● Not all sentences can be either true or false.
● The only sentence that has truth value is the
declarative sentences which are
statements.
4
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
● All statements are sentences but not all
sentences are a statement.
● All statements has truth value but not all
sentence has a truth value
TYPES OR KINDS OF SENTENCES
● Interrogative sentences - these are
sentences that are intended to ask or
interrogate someone.
● Imperative sentences - are meant to issue
commands. Expletive sentences It is
meant to issue a wish.
● Exclamatory sentences - an expression that
means to express surprise.
● Declarative Sentences - are meant to
express or to declare something/claim.
Declarative sentences are statements. Only
statements that has truth value
FACTS
● Something that occurs in the world, and is
what makes a certain statement true.
● Facts are truths but not all truths are facts.
WAYS OF KNOWING
How do we know that something is true?
● It can be distinguished into general or
particular.
○ The general method of truth refers to
the theories of truth consisting of
correspondence, coherence, and
pragmatic theory.
○ Theories of truth are actually ways
of explaining what makes a
statement or belief true; but since
they also include general ways of
knowing, we shall refer to these
theories as the three general
methods of truth.
○ Pragmatic methods of truth are used
to determine whether the general
methods are satisfied.
THREE GENERAL METHODS OF TRUTH
GENERAL METHODS OF CORRESPONDENCE
● We can know whether a statement/belief is
true by examining whether the
statement/belief corresponds to or
represents a fact in the world.
● Ex. The sky is blue.
GENERAL METHOD OF COHERENCE
● We can know whether a statement/belief is
true by examining whether the
statements/belief coheres to the rules of
the relevant system.
● Ex. A square has four sides.
○ Square is the subject.
○ Has four sides is the predicate.
GENERAL METHOD OF PRAGMATISM
● We can know whether a statement/belief is
true by examining the consequences of
holding or accepting the statement/ belief
to be true.
● Ex: Some people think that ghosts or
vampires base their beliefs in the fact that
they find it useful to hold such a belief.
PARTICULAR METHODS OF TRUTH
OBSERVATION OR PERCEPTION
● The method used to check if an empirical
statement correctly represents a fact in the
world.
● Observation can be external or internal.
1.) Internal Observation
○ Observation of our own thoughts
and feelings.
○ Also called introspection.
○ It can determine the truth or
psychological statements.
2.) External Observation
○ Observation of things outside our
mind or consciousness, the physical
objects using our five organs of
sense.
● Empirical – these are statements about
external reality; based on, concerned with, or
verifiable by observation or experience
rather than theory or pure logic; statements
of fact.
5
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
REASONING
● The process of knowing or establishing
truth by means of our reason.
● It includes testing coherence, whether two
statements are contradictory or cannot be
held to be true at the same time.
● This process is called inference, can be
done deductively or inductively depending
on whether the truth being proven is
regarded to be certain or merely probable.
● To form an argument the statements should
be related in a certain way, in which there is
a part that functions as a premise and a
part that functions as a conclusion.
○ Premise - provides justification for
the conclusion.
○ Conclusion - what follows from or is
proven by the premise.
● The fundamental goal of reasoning is to
prove the truth of conclusion by means of
its premises.
EXAMPLES
➢ All carabaos are mammals.
➢ All mammals have mammary glands.
➢ Therefore, all carabaos have mammary
glands.
The truth of a conclusion can either be certain (or
necessary), meaning, we are sure about its truth for
there is no possibility that it is false; or merely
probable, meaning it is likely to be true for there is a
possibility that it is false
INTUITION
● Direct grasping of the truth, we mean that
they immediately know that something is
true without going through the process of
observation and reasoning.
● Some us it in the area of decision-making
when using ‘heuristics’ or mental short-cuts
MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE
● Spiritual and Religious
● Means of knowing something which cannot
be known using the usual methods of
observation by our sense organs or
reasoning.
● It is usually spiritual (dealing with the
nonphysical aspect of life) and religious
(dealing with the divine and sacred) such as
the experiences with our union and
connection with God, and of the
interrelatedness of things.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
● It may take the form of a testimony of a
reliable eyewitness, information provided by
an appropriate expert, and reliable
documents, among others.
● Reliable authorities for you to be able to
know if it's true
KNOWLEDGE
CONDITIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
Knowledge takes in different forms as shown by
how we use the word ‘know’ in different situations.
● Knowledge by acquaintance
○ The use of words known to mean
acquaintance or our familiarity with
a place or person.
○ Ex. I know this place Practical
● Knowledge (knowledge-how)
○ The use of words means knowledge
of skills.
○ Ex. I know how to cook adobo.
● Propositional Knowledge (knowledge-that)
○ The use of the word know to mean
knowledge of fact, situation or
anything that can either be true or
false.
○ Ex. I know that you like spicy food
1. Justification
a. One is justified in believing X to be
true.
2. Truth
a. X is indeed true.
3. Belief
a. One believes X to be true.
6
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
EXAMPLE #1
1. Jose believes that Manila is the capital of
the Philippines.
2. It is true that Manila is the capital of the
Philippines.
3. Jose is justified in believing that Manila is
the capital of the Philippines.
EXAMPLE #2
1. The earth is spherical.
2. It is indeed that the earth is spherical.
3. The spherical shape of the earth is formed
because of the pull of gravity.
TYPES OF DISAGREEMENT
1. Disagreements in belief
a. Disagreements about facts, which
are properly resolved by verifying the
facts at issue.
2. Disagreements in attitude
a. Disagreements over preferences;
and that they are usually resolved by
persuasion, if not by compromise.
3. Verbal Disagreements
a. Disagreements that arise out of the
misunderstanding of the meanings
of our linguistic expressions.
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
● The truth of the premises is intended to
prove the truth of the conclusion is true.
● Either valid or invalid and sound or
unsound.
● Valid - If the truth of the premises
successfully proves the truth of the
conclusion is certain.
● Invalid - if it does not do so
● Sound - A deductive argument that is valid
and contains premises that are all true.
○ If German shepherds are dogs, then
German shepherds are animals.
○ German shepherds are dogs.
○ Therefore, German shepherds are
animals
● Unsound - A deductive argument that is
valid and contains i.e. at least one premise
that is false.
○ If elephants are birds, then elephants
can fly.
○ Elephants are birds.
○ Therefore, elephants can fly.
INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT
● The truth of the premises is intended to
prove the truth of the conclusion highly
probable.
● Either strong or weak.
● A strong inductive argument can be either
cogent or uncogent.
● Strong
○ If the truth of the premises
successfully proves that the truth of
its conclusion is highly probable.
○ The probability of the conclusion to
be true is above 50%.
● Weak
○ If it does not do so.
○ The probability of the conclusion to
be true is below 50%.
■ Former Pres. Estrada is a
movie actor.
■ Former Pre. Estrada is a
politician.
■ Therefore, all or most actors
are politicians.
● Cogent
○ A strong inductive argument in
which all the premises are true.
■ Most Filipino boys like to play
basketball.
■ Mario is a Filipino boy.
■ Therefore, Mario likes to play
basketball.
● Uncogent
○ A strong inductive argument in
which at least one of the premises
is false.
■ Most Filipino boys like to play
basketball.
■ Justin Bieber is a Filipino
boy.
■ Therefore, Justin Bieber likes
to play basketball.
7
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
SOME COMMON FALLACIES
● Errors or mistakes in reasoning.
● Two kinds of Fallacies: Formal and Informal
● Formal Fallacies - errors in reasoning due
solely to the invalid deductive arguments.
● Informal Fallacies – also known as material
fallacies, are errors in reasoning due solely
to an anomaly or defect in the content (or in
the meaning of the words or sentences) of
an argument.
● Fallacy of Equivocation
○ Committed when several meanings
of a word or phrase become
confused in the context of one
argument.
● Fallacy of Composition
○ Committed when one reasons from
the qualities of the parts of a whole
to the qualities to the whole itself.
● Fallacy of Division
○ Reverse of composition, committed
when one reasons from the qualities
of a whole to the qualities of the
parts of the whole.
● Fallacy of Ignorance
○ Committed when it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proven
false, or that it is false because it
has not been proven true.
● Fallacy of Inappropriate Authority
○ Committed when one appeals to an
authority whose field of expertise
does not include the nature of the
conclusion being established.
● Fallacy of Appeal to Person
○ Committed when one evaluates an
argument by means of citing
something about the person who
asserts the said argument.
● Fallacy of Appeal to Pity
○ Committed when one appeals to pity
to cause the acceptance of a
conclusion.
● Fallacy of Appeal to Popular Will
○ Committed when one appeals to
general, common, popular, or
stereotypical prejudices or beliefs
to cause the acceptance of some
conclusion.
● Fallacy of Appeal to Force
○ Committed when one appeals to
force, often with subtlety, to cause
the acceptance of a conclusion.
● Appeal of Complex Question
○ Committed when one asks a
question that contains unapproved
assumptions.
● Fallacy of False Cause
○ Committed when one attributes a
wrong cause to something, which is
often due to a mere temporal
succession of two events.
● Fallacy of Begging the Question
○ Committed when reasoning is
circular in that the conclusion is
already assumed in the premises.
● Fallacy of Accident
○ Committed when one applies a
general rule to individual cases,
which, because of their special or
accidental nature , the general rule
does not properly apply.
● Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
○ Committed when one makes
generalizations from a special case
of accidental case or simply from
insufficient number of cases.
INFORMAL FALLACIES
● Fallacies of Ambiguity
○ The error in reasoning is brought
about by the occurrence of
ambiguous terms whose meanings
are confused in an argument.
● Fallacies of Relevance
○ The error in reasoning is brought
about by the irrelevance of the
premise or premises to the
conclusion of an argument.
● Fallacies of Presumption
8
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023
○ The error is brought about by the
occurrence of complex or loaded
expressions whose assumptions are
questionable or have not yet proven
to be true.
LESSON 4:THE EMBODIED SPIRIT
EMBODIMENT
● Embodiment - is the central concept in
discussing the nature of the human soul.
● It refers primarily to how the body, its
senses, and perception define human
function and consciousness
● Embodied Cognition
○ This argues that man is able to
perceive and experience reality
through his/her physical body.
○ The notion of the self arises through
the interaction of an individual to
his/her environment.
● Soul or Spirit
○ The human soul or spirit is the
immortal or the noncorporeal
essence of man.
PLATO
● Believes that the human spirit or soul is
composed of three parts (tripartite soul):
○ logos (the mind or the reason)
■ Seeks truth and is swayed by
facts and arguments.
○ thymos (spirit)
■ How feelings fuel your action
○ epithymia (appetite)
■ Drives you to eat, have sex,
and protect yourself
● Disembodied Spirit View
○ Claims that the soul must be
immortal otherwise we can never
explain the nature of knowledge.
○ ‘TO LEARN IS TO REMEMBER’
○ He also claims that since our souls
are immaterial (nonphysical) then
they are not composed of parts. And
if they are not composed of facts.
RENE DESCARTES
● Who proposed that the mind and the body
exist as two separate entities that interact
with one another.
● He used that methodic or systematic doubt,
doubting everything he knows to remove
false knowledge and opinion.
● ‘I think therefore I am.’
● Disembodied Spirit View
○ Views reality as composed of two
different substances, namely, mind
(the nonphysical kind) and matter
(the physical kind).
○ MIND is conscious but not extended
in space.
○ MATTER is extended in space but
not conscious.
ARISTOTLE
● Rejected Plato’s explanation and believed
that the soul is independent of the body but
is integrated into the human being.
● He explained that the individual is
composed of form and matter.
● Matter refers to the components that make
up an object
● Form refers to the structure and
arrangement of matter that actually give
rise to the object itself.
● He explained that the individual is a
combination of form and matter.
● Embodied Spirit View
○ Three Division of the Soul
1. Nutrition – refers to nourishment
which man shares in common with
plants .
2. Sensation – refers to senses which
man shares in common with
animals.
3. Intellection–refers to man’s
rationality which makes him distinct
from plants and animals.
9
INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
LIANNE SOPHIA R. GUEVARRA | ABM 1 - 4 | 1ST SEMESTER A.Y 2022-2023

ARISTOTLE’S LEVELS OF THE SOUL

SOUL ABILITIES

PLANTS Vegetative or Nourishment,

Nutritive soul growth, and
reproduction.

ANIMALS Sensitive Soul Nourishment,

growth,
reproduction,
sensation, and
locomotion.

HUMAN Rational Soul Nourishment,

growth,
PERSON reproduction,
sensation,
locomotion,
intelligence or
rational
thinking, and
freedom or
free will.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

● Embodied Spirit View

○ Thinks that the rational soul of
humans has a dual nature. There is
a part of it that is not dependent on
the body, but there is also a part of it
that is dependent on the body.
○ The Rational Soul’s vegetative and
sensitive abilities are dependent on
the body, but its rational ability to
think is not dependent on the body.
○ He calls the human soul as
‘subsistence’ rather than a
substance to indicate that the
human soul, though immortal, is
incomplete in nature.

10