In the Treatise of man, Descartes did not describe man, but a kind of conceptual models of man, namely creatures, created by God, which consist of two ingredients, a body and a soul. “These men will be composed, as we are, of a soul and a body.’
….. Descartes’ criterion for determining whether a function belongs to the body or soul was as follows: “anything we experience as being in us, and which we see can also exist in wholly inanimate bodies, must be attributed only to our body. On the other hand, anything in us which we cannot conceive in any way as capable of belonging to a body must be attributed to our soul.
Not a point you will find support for in any of the sources you’ve quoted, as far as I can discern.My point was that for Descartes held the soul and body to be held by one ego — Gregory
And thanks to the threadstarter for the topic! — Julian August
The soul forms the body for Aquinas while Descartes the ego is completely united by the pineal gland with all the rest of the entire body. Any differences are in language and presentation, not concept — Gregory
Does not a Thomist say his arm is his body, not partly his soul? — Gregory
As I said above, a Thomist will say that his arm is not his soul and in fact he will say that the soul is simple and therefore nowhere in space (and yet the body is in space). — Gregory
While it’s true that the description of his position in terms of other schools of though might be a matter of debate, Descartes’ dualism is a fact of his philosophy. — Wayfarer
Where do they say this? If you claim to have been reading the Summa since you were 12, why can't you provide any citations for your opinions? — Leontiskos
What citations do you want? — Gregory
. And I don't believe any of that supports this contention: — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.