Chapter 5: Soul and body, n.10 In considering the relations of soul and body, it was not only the conception of substance that was found difficult to reconcile with modern philosophy ; there were equal difficulties as regards causality. The conception of cause entered into theology chiefly in connection with sin. Sin was an attribute of the will, and the will was the cause of action. But volition could not itself be always the result of antecedent causes, since, if it were, we should not be responsible for our actions ; in order to safeguard the notion of sin, therefore, it was equally necessary that the will should be (at least sometimes) uncaused, and that it should be a cause. This entailed a number of propositions both as to the analysis of mental occurrences and as to the relation; of mind and body, and some of these propositions, as time went on, became very difficult to maintain. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-100.HTM
哲学がこのような中途半端な場所(a half-way house)に留まっていることは不可能だった。カントの学説の懐疑的な部分のほうが,正統説を救おうと試みた部分よりも,より永続的な価値を持っていることが証明された。まもなく,その不可知性が強調された旧い「実体」(の概念)にすぎない物自体の存在を想定(仮定)すべき必要のないことがわかった。カントの理論において、観察可能な「現象」は単なる見かけ(上のもの)であり、それらの現象の背後にある実在は、もし倫理の要請(← the postulates of ethics 倫理の公理/仮定/前提/必要条件)がなければ,単に存在(実在)するということだけ(only the bare existence)が知られるようなあるもの(何らかのもの)である(注:逆に,倫理的な問題については,その倫理の中身がわからないといけないという要請が出てくる,ということ)。カントの後継者たちにとって - カントが示唆した考え方がヘーゲルにおいて頂点に達した後 ー 「現象」は我々が知りうるいかなる実在をも(全て)持ち、知覚されえないもの(知覚できないもの)に属する上級の品質の実在(a superior brand of reality)を想定する必要はないことが明らかになった。もちろん、そのような上級の品質の実在が「あるかも」知れないが、「存在しなければならない」ということを証明する論拠は薄弱である。従って、その可能性は、現在知らている,あるいは,今後知られるかも知れないことの領域外にあることから,無視されるべき無数の単なる可能性の一つにすぎない。そうして、知られうることの領域内には、実体の概念あるいは主観や客観という実体の概念の修正版をいれる余地はまったくない。我々が観察しうる主要な事実はそのような二元論を持っておらず,また,「事物」あるいは「人物」を,現象の集合以外のものとみなす理由をまったく与えない(のである)。
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.9 It was impossible for philosophy to rest long in such a half-way house, and the sceptical parts of Kant’s doctrine proved of more lasting value than those in which he tried to rescue orthodoxy. It was soon seen that there was no need to assume the existence of the thing-in-itself, which was merely the old “substance” with its unknowability emphasized. In Kant’s theory, “phenomena,” which can be observed, are only apparent, and the reality behind them is something of which we should know only the bare existence if it were not for the postulates of ethics. To his successors – after the line of thought which he suggested had reached a culmination in Hegel – it became evident that “phenomena” have whatever reality we can know of, and that there is no need to assume a superior brand of reality belonging to what cannot be perceived. There may, of course, be such a superior brand of reality, but the arguments proving that there must be are invalid, and the possibility, therefore, is merely one of those countless bare possibilities which should be ignored because they lie outside the realm of what is known or may be known hereafter. And within the realm of what can be known there is no room for the conception of substance, or for its modification in the form of subject and object. The primary facts which we can observe have no such dualism, and give no reason for regarding either “things” or “person” as anything but collections of phenomena. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-090.HTM
ヒユーム(の問い)に答えようと企図したカントは,その難解さ(不明瞭さ)ゆえに深遠と思われた一つの方法を見つけ出した,と考えた(注:profound 深遠:簡単には理解できないことからカントの考えは深い=深遠だと思われたということ。因みに荒地出版社の津田訳では「深刻」と訳している。何が深刻?)。彼が言うには。感覚(器官)に(おいて)物(もの/事物)は我々に作用するが(act upon 影響を与える),我々(人間)はその本性上,必然的に物それ自体(the things as they are in themselves)ではなく,我々(人間)が多くの(多様な)主観的な附加物を加えた結果生ずる何か別のものを知覚するように強いられる。これらの主観的附加物のなかで最も注目に値するのは,時間と空間である。カントによれば,我々の本性は事物があたかも時間や空間の中に存在しているかのように見る(見える)ように強いるが(余儀なくするが),事物そのものは,時間や空間の中に存在はしていない。物自体としての自我(あるいは魂)も,観察可能な現象としてはその両者(時間と空間)の中に存在しているように思われるが,実際はそうではない。我々が知覚において観察できるのは,現象としての自我の現象としての対象に対する関係であるが,その両者の背後には真の「自我」と真の「物自体」が存在し,そのどちらも(ever 決して)観察することはできない。 では,なぜそれら(両者/真の自我と真の物自体)は存在する(実在する)と想定(仮定)するのか? なぜならそう想定(仮定)することが宗教と道徳のために必要だからである。人間は,科学的な手段によっては真の自我について何も知ることはできないがそれが自由意志をもつこと,有徳でありうることあるいは罪深くありうること,(時間の中においてではないが)不死であること,この世において善人が明らかに不公平な苦しみを受けていることは天国(あの世)での歓喜によって償われなければならないこと(など)を我々は知っている(とカントは言う)。 このような理由(根拠)で,カントは -彼は「純粋」理性は神の存在(実在)を証明することはできないと考えていた- その証明(神の存在証明)は「実践」理性にとっては -神の存在は我々が道徳の領域において直覚的に知ることからの必然的結果であることから(a necessary consequence 必然的結果)- 可能であると考えた。
Chapter 5: Soul and body, n.8 Kant, who undertook to answer Hume, thought he had found a way out, which was considered profound because of its obscurity. In sensation, he said, things act upon us, but our nature compels us to perceive, not the things as they are in themselves, but something else, which results from our having made various subjective additions. The most notable of these additions are time and space. Things-in-themselves, according to Kant, are not in time or in space, though our nature obliges us to see things as if they were. The Ego (or Soul), as a thing-in-itself, is also not in time or space, though as an observable phenomenon it appears to be in both. What we can observe in perception is a relation of a phenomenal Self to a phenomenal Object, but behind both there is a real Self and a Real thing-in-itself, neither of which can ever be observed. Why, then, assume that they exist? Because this is necessary for religion and morals. Although we cannot, by scientific means, know anything about the real Self, we know that it has free will, that it can be virtuous or sinful, that (though not in time) it is immortal, and that the apparent injustice of the sufferings of the good here on earth must be redressed by the joys of heaven. On such grounds Kant, who held that “pure” reason cannot prove the existence of God, thought that this was possible for the “practical” reason, since it was a necessary consequence of what we intuitively know in the sphere of morals. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-080.HTM
自分(私)は昨日の自分(私)と同じ人物であるという「ある種の」意識が明らかに存在する。また,もっと明白な例をあげれば,もし私がある一人の人を見ると同時に彼が話しをしているのを聞いたとすれば,見ている私と聞いている私とは同じ(同一人物)であるという「ある種の」意識が存在している。こうして,私がなんらかの物を知覚する時,私と事物との間には関係が存在すると考えられるようになる。(即ち)知覚する(ところの)私は「主観」であり,知覚されるもの(事物)は「客観」である。不幸なことに,(結局)主観については何も知ることができないことがわかった(turned out 半目した)。即ち,主観は常に他の事物を知覚しているが,それ自身を知覚することはできない(のである)。D.ヒユームは,大胆にも主観というようなものは存在しないと否定したが,このことで決して主観は否定されない(?)(注:but this would never do 精確な意味がよくわからない)。もし主観が存在しないとしたら不死であるものは何か? 自由意志を持っている(有している)ものは何か? 地上で罪を犯し地獄で罰せられるものは何か? これらの疑問に回答不能となる(注:なってしまう→道徳・倫理の問題がなくなってしまう)。ヒユームは答えを見出したいとは思わなかったが,他の者たちはヒュームほどの図太さ(大胆さ)(hardihood)にかけていた。
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.7 There is obviously some sense in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example, if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the I that sees is the same as the I that hears. It thus came to be thought that, when I perceive anything, there is a relation between me and the thing : I who perceive am the “subject,” and the thing perceived is the “object.” Unfortunately it turned out that nothing could be known about the subject : it was always perceiving other things, but could not perceive itself. Hume boldly denied that there was such a thing as the subject, but this would never do. If there was no subject, what was it that was immortal? What was it that had free will? What was it that sinned on earth and was punished in hell? Such questions were unanswerable. Hume had no wish to find an answer, but others lacked his hardihood, 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-070.HTM
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.6 Take first the body. So long as the conception of substance was retained, the resurrection of the body meant the reassembling of the actual substance which had composed it when alive on earth. The substance might have passed through many transformations, but had retained its identity. If, however, a piece of matter is nothing but the assemblage of its attributes, its identity is lost when the attributes change, and there will be no sense in saying that the heavenly body, after the resurrection, is the same “thing” that was once an earthly body. This difficulty, oddly enough, is exactly paralleled in modern physics. An atom, with its attendant electrons, is liable to sudden transformations, and the electrons which appear after a transformation cannot be identified with those that had appeared before. Each is only a way of grouping observable phenomena, and has not the sort of “reality” required for the preservation of identity through change. The results of the abandonment of “substance” were even more serious as regards the soul than as regards the body. They showed themselves, however, very gradually, because various attenuated forms of the old doctrine were, for a time, thought to be still defensible. First the word “ mind ” was substituted for the word “soul,” in order to seem to avoid theological implications. Then the word “subject” was substituted, and this word still survives, particularly in the supposed contrast of “subjective” and “objective.” A few words must, therefore, be said about the “subject.” 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-060.HTM
このようにして,啓示(訳注:人知ではわからないような事を神が現し示すこと)によらなければ,我々は,ある時見られた事物や人物(人格)が別の時に見られた似通ったものと同一であるか否か,決して確信することはできないと思われた。(訳注:この前の段落と同じく It appeared that の「appeared」は辞書の2番目に出てくる意味の「思われた」。荒地出版社半の津田訳では「明らかである」と訳している。無神論者のラッセルがキリスト教の言っているように「啓示によらなければ~確かめ得ないことは明らかである」などと言うはずがないことに気づくべきであろう。)実際,我々(人間)は絶えず間違いの喜劇の(間違いの喜劇を引き起こす)危険にさらされている(のである)(訳注:『間違いの喜劇(The Comedy of Errors)』はシェイクスピア作の5幕ものの喜劇で,離れ離れになってしまった双子の兄弟とその2人に仕える双子の召使いが巻き起こす騒動を描いている)。ジョン・ロックの影響の下,彼の弟子たち(followers 信奉者たち)は,ロックがあえてやろうとしなかった一歩を踏んだ。即ち,彼らは実体という観念(概念)の効用を全否定したのである。彼らはこう言っている。(即ち)ソクラテス(という人物)は我々が彼について知りうる限りにおいて,その諸属性によって知られる(我々は知る)。ソクラテスは何時何処で暮らしていたか,彼はどんな外見・容貌をしていたか,彼は何をしたか等々について言えば,彼について語るべきことを全て尽したことになる。(つまり彼らによれば)ピンがピン刺し(=ピンを刺しておくクッション)に刺してあるように(帰属するように),ソクラテスの諸属性が内在する(帰属するところの)全く知ることができない核(となるもの)を想定する必要はまったくない(と主張する)。絶対的にかつ本質的に不可知なものは,存在することさえ知ることができず,それが存在すると想定することに意味はない(注:there is no point 無駄である/何にもならない)(と彼らは主張する)。 実体概念(観念) -いろいろな属性を持っているがそれらの属性とも,また,その全ての属性(が合わさったもの)とも異なったあるものとしての(実体概念)- は,デカルト,スピノザ,及びライプニッツによって保持された。また,その強調度合いはかなり減じられているけれども,ロックによっても保持された。けれども,それはヒュームによって斥けられ,次第に心理学や物理学の領域から押し出された(extruded)。このようなことが起った事態についてはまもなく(presently)述べる。(しかし)今のところは,実体概念説(学説)の神学的意味及びそれを斥けることによって生ずるいろいろな困難は我々に興味を感じさせるに違いない(注:its rejection must concern us. 我々の関心を引くに違いない/我々にとって重要であるに違いない)。
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.5 It thus appeared that, apart from revelation, we never could be sure whether a thing or person seen at one time was, or was not, identical with a similar thing or person seen at another time ; we were, in fact, exposed to the risk of a perpetual comedy of errors. Under Locke’s influence, his followers took a step upon which he did not venture : they denied the whole utility of the notion of substance. Socrates, they said, in so far as we can know anything about him, is known by his attributes. When you have said where and when he lived, what he looked like, what he did, and so on, you have said all that there is no say about him ; there is no need to suppose an entirely unknowable core, in which his attributes inhere like pins in a pin-cushion. What is absolutely and essentially unknowable cannot even be known to exist, and there is no point in supposing that it does. The conception of substance, as something having attributes, but distinct from any and all of them, was retained by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz ; also, though with greatly diminished emphasis, by Locke. It was, however, rejected by Hume, and has gradually been extruded both from psychology and from physics. As to the way in which this has happened, more will be said presently ; for the moment, the theological implications of the doctrine and the difficulties resulting from its rejection must concern us. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-050.HTM
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.4 Soul and body, in the scholastic philosophy (which is still that of Rome), are both substances. “Substance” is a notion derived from syntax, and syntax is derived from the more or less unconscious metaphysic of the primitive races who determined the structure of our languages. Sentences are analysed into subject and predicate, and it is thought that, while some words may occur either as subject or as predicate, there are others which (in some not very obvious sense) can only occur as subjects ; these words – of which proper names are the best example – are supposed to denote “substances.” The popular word for the same idea is “thing” – or “person,” when applied to human beings. The metaphysical conception of substance is only an attempt to give precision to what common sense means by a thing or a person. Let us take an example. We may say “Socrates was wise,” “Socrates was Greek,” “Socrates taught Plato,” and so on ; in all these statements, we attribute different attributes to Socrates, The word “Socrates” has exactly the same meaning in all these sentences ; the man Socrates is thus something different from his attributes, something in which the attributes are said to “inhere.” Natural knowledge only enables us to recognize a thing by its attributes ; if Socrates had a twin with exactly the same attributes, we should not be able to tell them apart. Nevertheless a substance is something other than the sum of its attributes. This appears most clearly from the doctrine of the Eucharist. In transubstantiation, the attributes of the bread remain, but the substance becomes that of the Body of Christ. In the period of the rise of modern philosophy, all the innovators from Descartes to Leibnitz (except Spinoza) took great pains to prove that their doctrines were consistent with transubstantiation ; the authorities hesitated for a long time, but finally decided that safety was only to be found in scholasticism. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-040.HTM
古代世界においてはプラトン的(なもの)だったキリスト教哲学者たちの説も,11世紀以後は,主としてアリストテレス的(なもの)になった。最高のスコラ哲学者(scholastics)として公認されているトマス・アクィナス(1225-1274)は,今日に至るまでローマン・カトリック教会における哲学的正統説の基準とされている。バチカン(=ローマ教皇庁)の統制を受けている教育機関の教師たちは,歴史的関心の問題として,デカルト,ロック,カントあるいはヘーゲルの体系について詳しく説明する一方,唯一の「真実なる」体系は「熾天使博士」(注:the “seraphic doctor : 中世最大のスコラ哲学者の一人であるイタリアの神学者ボナベントゥラ(Bonaventure)の尊称)の体系であることを明白にしなければならない。そこで許される限度は,ボナベントゥラの解釈者がやっているように,ボナベントゥラが,両親が人食いである人食いが復活する(再生する)時に何が起こるかということを論じている時,冗談を言っているのだということを指摘すること位である。(即ち)その人食いとその両親に食べられた人々は,その人食いに対して,自分たちの肉体を新たに構築する優先権があるのは明らかであるので,(関係者の)各々の人が自分の肉体の再構成を求めている場合(には),人食いは欠けた部分があるまま残されるでろう(注:わかりにくいかも知れないがこういことであろう。人食いよりも食べられた人たちの方が良い人達なので,悔い改めた人食いを復活させるよりも前に,まず食べられた人々の肉体を復活(=再生)させてあげなければならない。その場合,人食いの子供は人食いの両親が人食いでない人々を食べることによって成長したのであるから,それらの人食いでない人々をまず復活=再生させたら,そういった人たちを食べて成長した人食いを復活させる場合には「欠けた部分」が出てくるのは必然ということになる,という冗談)。これは使徒信条(Apostles’ Creed)によってお墨付きを与えられている,肉体の再生(蘇り/復活)を信じている人々にとって本当に難しい問題である(注:使徒信条の一節に「われは聖霊、 聖なる公教会、諸聖人の通功、罪の赦し、肉体(肉身)のよみがえり、終りなき命を信じ奉る」とある)。(キリスト教の)正統信仰がそのドグマ(肉体の蘇りの教義)を保持する一方,そのドグマと結びついたぎこちない(下手な)疑問(問題)についての重大な議論を単なる冗談(pleasantry)として扱うことは,現代における(キリスト教)正統信仰の知的衰弱の一つの印(現れ)である。この信仰が今日でも生きていることは,その信仰に由来する火葬への反対においても見られるであろし,火葬に対する反対は,プロテスタント諸国の多くの人々によって抱かれており,またカトリック諸国においてはフランスのように解放されている人々の場合でさえ(も含めて),ほとんど全ての人たちによって抱かれている。私の兄がマルセイユで火葬にふされた時,葬儀屋は,神学的偏見のためにそれまで火葬はほとんどされたことはなかったと私に告げた。人間の肉体の諸部分が教会の庭(の墓地)に虫(ミミズなどの地中の虫)(に食べられてとりこまれたもの)や粘土(=土にかえったもの)の形で残っている場合より,(火葬によって)ガス(気体)として発散してしまった場合の方が,神(Omnipotence 全能者)がそれを再び集めるのが余計に困難であるらしい(注:津田訳では「apparently」を「あきらかである」と訳出しているが、ここでは辞書の2番目にあがっている意味で「神様も難しいらしい」と皮肉が込められている)。このような考え方を私が表明すれば,異端(者)の印(現れ)になるだろう。けれども,それは,実際,最も疑いもない正統信仰の人々の間で支配的なものの見方である。
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.3 The doctrine of Christian philosophers, which was mainly Platonic in the ancient world, became mainly Aristotelian after the eleventh century. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274), who is officially considered the best of the scholastics, remains to this day the standard of philosophical orthodoxy in the Roman Catholic Church. Teachers in educational institutions controlled by the Vatican, while they may expound, as matters of historical interest, the systems of Descartes or Locke, Kant or Hegel, must make it clear that the only true system is that of the “seraphic doctor.” The utmost permissible licence is to suggest, as his translator does, that he is joking when he discusses what happens at the resurrection of the body to a cannibal whose father and mother were cannibals. Clearly the people whom he and his parents ate have a prior right to the flesh composing his body, so that he will be left destitute when each claims his own. This is a real difficulty for those who believe in the resurrection of the body, which is affirmed by the Apostles’ Creed. It is a mark of the intellectual enfeeblement of orthodoxy in our age that it should retain the dogma while treating as a mere pleasantry a grave discussion of awkward problems connected with it. How real the belief still is may be seen in the objection to cremation derived from it, which is held by many in Protestant countries and by almost all in Catholic countries, even when they are as emancipated as France. When my brother was cremated at Marseilles, the undertaker informed me that he had had hardly any previous cases of cremation, because of the theological prejudice. It is apparently thought more difficult for Omnipotence to reassemble the parts of a human body when they have become diffused as gases than when they remain in the churchyard in the form of worms and clay. Such a view, if I were to express it, would be a mark of heresy ; it is in fact, however, the prevailing opinion among the most indubitably orthodox. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-030.HTM
プラトンの著作から(を読んで判断すると),キリスト教によって後に説かれたのとかなり似通った説が,プラトンが生きた時代には、哲学者たちの間よりも一般民衆の間に広く抱かれていたように思われる(It appearss that ~のように思われる/因みに,荒地出版社刊の津田訳では「~ことがわかる)。プラトン(著)「国家」(Republic 共和国=国家)の中のある登場人物は次のように言っている。「ソクラテスよ,こう思ってください。人は自分が死につつある(死が迫っている)とほぼ確信すると,それまではその人に決して影響を与えなかったような事に恐れを感じたり案じたりする(feels alarmed and concerned)。その時までは,その人はこの世(here)で悪いことをした者はあの世(the other world)で苦しまなければならないというあの世に旅立つ者のお話(those stories about the departed)を嘲笑してきた。しかし,その時(死に際)になると、そのような話は多分真実に違いないという恐怖に苦しむ(ことになる)」。(同書の)他の一節にも次のようなものがある。「ムーゼウスとその息子エウモルプスは,(ギリシアの)神々が正しき者たちに与えると言い表している祝福はこれらのもの(即ち,この地上における富)よりもさらにもっと喜ばしいものである,と説明している」。「なぜなら,彼らは,正しい者たちをハデス(ギリシア神話の冥界の神)の住処に連れて行き,そうして,信心深い者たちの饗宴で長椅子(couches)に寄りかかり,頭に花冠(garlands)をかぶって永遠に酒を飲んで暮すと描いているからである」。 ムーゼウスとオルフェウスは,次のことに成功したように思われる。(即ち)「(二人は)単に個々の人々だけでなく,都市国家全体を,生きている間も死んだ後でも,ある種の生贄や彼ら(都市国家の市民たち)がミステリーと呼ぶ楽しい娯楽によって,人々は罪を免れかつ浄化されるだろう,と説得した(注 Mysteries:ギリシア語の「ミューステリオン」を語源としており、古代ギリシアや古代ローマの秘密の儀式)。ミステリーは我々をあの世の苦しみから救うが,ミステリーを疎かにすると,恐ろしい審判(doom 最後の審判)によって罰せられる」。「(プラトンの)「国家」の中で,ソクラテス自身は,戦いにおける士気(valor, valour 武勇)を鼓舞するため,次の生(あの世の生)を楽しいものとして描くべきだと考えている。しかし,彼(ソクラテス)はそれを真実だと信じているかどうかについては何も述べていない。
Chapter V Soul and Body, n.1 It appears from Plato that doctrines very similar to those subsequently taught by Christianity were widely held in his day by the general public rather than by philosophers. “Be assured, Socrates,” says a character in the Republic, “that when a man is nearly persuaded that he is going to die, he feels alarmed and concerned about things which never affected him before. Till then he has laughed at those stories about the departed, which tell us that he who has done wrong here must suffer for it in the other world ; but now his mind is tormented with a fear that those stories may possibly be true.” In another passage, we learn that “the blessings which Musæus and his son Eumolpus represent the gods as bestowing upon the just, are still more delectable than these “[i.e., riches here on earth] ; “for they bring them to the abode of Hades, and describe them as reclining on couches at a banquet of the pious, and with garlands on their heads spending all eternity in wine-bibbing.” It appears that Musseus and Orpheus succeeded in “persuading not individuals merely, but whole cities also, that men may be absolved and purified from crimes, both while they are still alive and even after their decease, by means of certain sacrifices and pleasurable amusements which they call Mysteries ; which deliver us from the torments of the other world, while the neglect of them is punished by an awful doom.” Socrates himself, in the Republic, holds that the next life should be represented as pleasant, in order to encourage valour in battle ; but he does not say whether he believes this to be the truth. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-020.HTM
Chapter 5: Soul and body, n.1 Of all the more important departments of scientific knowledge, the least advanced is psychology. According to its derivation, “psychology” should mean “the theory of the soul,” but the soul, though familiar to theologians, can hardly be regarded as a scientific concept. No psychologist would say that the subject-matter of his study is the soul, but when asked to say what it is he would not find it easy to give an answer. Some would say that psychology is concerned with mental phenomena, but they would be puzzled if they were required to state in what respect, if any, “mental” phenomena differ from those which provide the data of physics. Fundamental psychological questions quickly take us into regions of philosophical uncertainty, and it is more difficult than in other sciences to avoid fundamental questions, because of the paucity of exact experimental knowledge. Nevertheless, something has been achieved, and much ancient error has been discarded. Much of this ancient error was associated with theology, either as cause or as effect. But the connection was not, as in the matters we have hitherto discussed, with particular texts or Biblical errors as to matters of fact ; it was rather with metaphysical doctrines which, for one reason or another, had come to be thought essential to the body of orthodox dogma. The “soul,” as it first appeared in Greek thought, had a religious though not a Christian origin. It seems, so far as Greece was concerned, to have originated in the teaching of the Pythagoreans, who believed in transmigration, and aimed at an ultimate salvation which was to consist of liberation from the bondage to matter which the soul must suffer so long as it is attached to a body. The Pythagoreans influenced Plato, and Plato influenced the Fathers of the Church ; in this way the doctrine of the soul as something distinct from the body became part of Christian doctrine. Other influences entered in, notably that of Aristotle and that of the Stoics ; but Platonism, particularly in its later forms, was the most important pagan element in patristic philosophy. 出典:Religion and Science, 1935, chapt. 5: 情報源:https://russell-j.com/beginner/RS1935_05-010.HTM