34 to 37.

[II]

(Pages)

There is another word about which it likewise matters that everyone come to an understanding, because it is one of the cornerstones of every moral doctrine, and it has been the object of countless controversies for lack of a well-determined meaning: the word soul.

The divergence of opinions about the nature of the soul arises from the particular application that each one makes of this word. A perfect language, in which each idea had its representation by a proper term, would avoid many discussions; with one word for each thing everyone would understand one another.

According to some, the soul is the principle of organic material life; it has no existence of its own and ceases with life: this is pure materialism.

In this sense and by comparison, they say of a cracked instrument, which no longer produces sound, that it has no soul. According to this opinion, everything that lives would have a soul, plants as well as animals and man. 64

Others think that the soul is the principle of intelligence, a universal agent of which each being absorbs a portion.

According to them, there would be in the whole Universe but a single soul, distributing sparks among the various intelligent beings during their life; after death, each spark returns to the common source, merging with the whole, as the brooks and rivers return to the sea, from which they came.

This opinion differs from the preceding one in that, in this hypothesis, there is in us something more than matter, with something remaining after death; but it is almost as though nothing remained, since, no longer having individuality, we would no longer have consciousness of ourselves.

Within this opinion, the universal soul would be God, and each being a portion of the Divinity; it is the doctrine of pantheism.

According to others, finally, the soul is a moral being, distinct, independent of matter, and which preserves its individuality after death.

This meaning is, beyond dispute, the most general one, because, under one name or another, the idea of this being that survives the body is found in a state of instinctive belief, and independently of any teaching, among all peoples, whatever their degree of civilization.

This doctrine is that of the spiritualists.

Without discussing here the merit of these opinions, and placing ourselves for a moment on neutral ground, we shall say that these three applications of the word soul constitute three distinct ideas, each of which would call for a different term.

This word has, then, a threefold meaning, and each one is right, from his point of view, in the definition he gives it; the harm comes from the fact that the language has but one word to express three ideas.

In order to avoid all ambiguity, it would be necessary to restrict the meaning of the word soul to one of these three ideas; 15 the choice is indifferent, provided everyone comes to an understanding, since all this is a matter of convention.

We judge it more logical to take it in its most common meaning; therefore we shall call SOUL the immaterial and individual being that resides in us and survives the body.

For lack of a special word for each of the two other ideas to which the word soul corresponds, we designate:

Vital principle, the principle of material and organic life, whatever its source, and which is common to all living beings, from plants up to man.

The vital principle is a distinct and independent thing, since there can be life with abstraction from the faculty of thought. The word vitality would not express the same idea. For some, the vital principle is a property of matter, an effect that is produced when matter is found in given circumstances.

According to others, and this is the more common idea, it resides in a special fluid, universally spread out, and of which each being absorbs and assimilates a part during life, as we see inert bodies absorb light.

This would then be the vital fluid which, in the opinion of some, would be none other than animalized electric fluid, also designated by the names magnetic fluid, nervous fluid, etc.

Be that as it may, there is a fact that could not be contested, since it results from observation: it is that organic beings have within them an intimate force that produces the phenomenon of life, so long as that force exists; 23 that material life is common to all organic beings and that it is independent of intelligence and thought; 24 that intelligence and thought are faculties proper to certain organic species; 25 finally, that among the organic species endowed with intelligence and thought there is one, endowed with a special moral sense that gives it an incontestable superiority over the others: the human species.

We call, finally, animal intelligence the intellectual principle common in various degrees to men and animals, independent of the vital principle and whose source is unknown to us.

The soul, in the exclusive meaning we adopt, is a special attribute of man.

It is to be understood that, with a multiple meaning of the term soul, the soul excludes neither materialism nor pantheism. The spiritualist himself may very well understand the soul according to one or the other of the first two definitions, without prejudice to the distinct immaterial being, to which he will then give some name or other. Thus, this word does not represent an opinion: it is a Proteus, which each one shapes at will. Hence so many interminable disputes.

Confusion would likewise be avoided, even by making use of the word soul in all three cases, provided one added to it a qualifier specifying the point of view under which we regard it or the application that is made of it.

It would then have a generic term, like gas, for example, which is distinguished from another by adding to it the words hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.

One could thus say (and perhaps it would be best) the vital soul, indicating the principle of material life, 32 the intellectual soul, the principle of intelligence; 33 and the spiritist soul, the principle of our individuality after death.

As is seen, all this is a matter of words, but a matter very important for us to understand one another.

In accordance with this, the vital soul would be common to all organic beings: plants, animals, and men; 36 the intellectual soul would be proper to animals and men, 37 and the spiritist soul would belong only to man.

We judge it our duty to insist on these explanations for the reason that the Spiritist Doctrine rests naturally upon the existence, in us, of a being independent of matter and which survives the body.

Since the word soul must recur frequently in the course of this work, it was important for it to be fixed in the sense we attribute to it, in order that we may avoid all mistake.

Let us now pass to the principal object of this preliminary instruction. >>> [64] T.N.: In the definitive edition of 1860, the last sentence of this paragraph came to read as follows: “According to this opinion, the soul would be an effect and not a cause.”