On the Immortality of the Soul

...[concluded]; and he decrees that this itself belongs to man—that is, is inherent in him—by which he wished man to possess immortality. And, to use his own word, apathanatizein [to immortalize]; but what Aristotle decreed regarding this matter will become very clear shortly through both the names and the opinions of the Greek Peripatetics. Let it suffice to have shown in few words that Aristotle indicated by its origin, its essence, and its actions that the rational soul is not subject to corruption. Those who have held it suspect with the mark of mortality, lest they be condemned by the delivered sentence, are seen to withdraw from the very law of nature. It is never deprived of its own function of understanding, whether it uses a corporeal aid or does not. They maintain that understanding with a phantasm is proper to it insofar as it is a soul, but without a phantasm insofar as it is an intelligible substance, and thus it does not depend on the body. For the body is not its cause, even though it provides phantasms for its understanding. For that thing would be called a dependence through great use, which that which excels and dominates uses as an instrument.

Therefore, Alexander also impiously decreed that the part of man by which we are wise, and which power or faculty has been given the name "intellect," perishes with the body; and the followers of Averroes also impiously judged that this same part is single, and yet immortal, in all men. For in this way, they abolish by death that which is most proper to man. For either we would not be men by that single part, or we would not understand by that part, but that same separate mind would understand in our stead and would rightly be said to be understood; or if we were placed in the human species through that form, we would not be many men, but one man. But since, as we were saying above, various considerations and various distinctions provide an opportunity for disputants so that each might be able to cause trouble What must be done next. for his adversary, let us therefore bring forward what Aristotle felt concerning the immortality of the soul, especially from his disciples and followers; afterwards, we shall not only show that those who have striven to introduce mortality from the words of Aristotle are in error, but we will demonstrate that from those very words most powerful arguments are drawn for asserting the immortality of the soul, and that it is held to be far more likely that the soul was thought by Aristotle to be immortal. Nor do I labor at this so that we might think a great addition is made to our Christian religion from that business. For what has it to do with Aristotle, who insofar as...