On the other hand, Aristotle thought that the soul is the Form of the body and that the soul is simply all of the operations happening that make us human. In contrast to many philosophers and religious men, Aristotle believed that all living things had souls, but different stages in a hierarchy. His belief was that plants have a vegetative soul, animals are above plants because they have appetites, but humans are above all animals and plants alike because people have the power of reason. If a rationalist was to take Aristotle’s theory at face value, they would find a great deal of difficulty justifying souls being separable from the body, as that would mean before plants germinate they have their own vegetative ideal realm and so on. This would also contradict both Aristotle & Plato’s theistic point of views which argued that God only blew the breath of soul in to people.
A problem comes for philosophers including Aristotle in the distinction between the body and soul. Aristotle quite elegantly put through his theory using an analogy of an axe. Arguing that is a person were a metaphorical axe, then its body would be made of metal & wood, however the soul would be the thing to actually make it an axe, without it, it would be nothing but metal and wood, the soul adds the swinging capacity that gives it use. If it lost its soul it would no longer be an axe. For Aristotle what was really important was the end purpose of the object. An axe to chop, an eye to see, a teacher to teach. Aristotle, unlike Plato dualist theories, believed that the body and soul are different parts of the same overall being. This does not allow for the immortality of the soul. As the soul is nothing but the simple form of the body, as seeing is the form of the eye. The swinging of an axe cannot happen without the wood and metal that are the body of the axe, as can’t the soul live on without the body, when the body dies as does the soul.
Per contra, some may argue against Aristotle not using theories of afterlife but before life. Arguments of innate, pre-existing knowledge. Knowledge of which we acquired when we were bodiless and brainless, thus proving a pre-existing soul. Aristotle arguments rely heavily on sensory experience, which many rationalistic philosophers would argue is faulted. Noam Chomsky took this stance regarding language, arguing that the fact that three year olds have a near mastery of language seems impossible with some pre-acquired knowledge possibly picked up by a pre-existing soul in Plato’s ideal realm, or, although farfetched, possibly the souls drink from the river Lethe is never satisfactory and always leaves the basic ground rules of language embedded in our souls. Chomsky argued that there is a Language acquiring device within our brain, maybe this in another form of our soul which had pre-existed.
However, the soul can be argued to be inseparable from a Christian standpoint. As upon death, God is said to judge both the body and the soul together. Although this disagrees with the first premise it agrees with the fact that the body and the soul never actually separate. Meaning the body and soul are inseparable.
A stronger argument also incorporating immortality however it relies on the soul being an absolute and unassailable. As Plato argues that opposite forms may not exist in the same object. For example an axe cannot be both sharp and blunt. As the soul derives life through association with the form of life it cannot admit death. This association leads to an immortal soul trapped in a constant cycle of being embodied then escaping at death to return to the ideal realm, and then reborn into another human body.
In conclusion I disagree with Aristotle’s view that the soul is mortal and inseparable from the body, although I credit him for his strong arguments and analogy of the axe. The main reason for my support of Plato does not come from Plato himself, but from a rationalist standpoint. My key concern with Aristotle’s work on this matter is that it doesn’t fully combat the idea of innate knowledge of which is key. Chomsky’s linguistic arguments have also been backed up by experiments with animals of which are smarter than a three year old child yet have not been able to learn a basic form of language. Proving to me that there is some form of pre-existing soul possibly from the soul having lived before or from the ideal realm.