Reading a lot of Eckhart lately, or rather, about him – Oliver Davies, McGinn, Joseph Milne. He is one of the few who make any sense to me at the moment. Milne has a long essay on Eckhart and human nature – really trying to tease out what E means by ‘soul’. I can remember a very heated argument when I was doing theology as to whether the soul was directly created by God and infused in the body at the moment of conception, or whether the parents engendered both the body and the soul. Our professor held to the former, the Thomistic position. I realise now that we should first have sorted out what we meant by soul. We were arguing about apples and pears, two different entities. The soul, for E, which is the Thomist view, is not the person, the self, (what I took at the time to be the soul) which of course is a product of genetic inheritance and social relationships (nature + nurture). And Thomas, were he alive today would not have argued with that. What he and E meant by soul is our inmost being, which is from God and in God. It is not correct to say we have souls, we are souls. 

Leave a Reply