Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy

The Pythagorean conception of the soul from Pythagoras to Philolaus 23
visible in a sunbeam or what moves these particles (404a17), a view
which he compares to that of Democritus. 11
In this paper, I will reexamine the evidence and argue that a simple
and coherent Pythagorean conception of the soul can be constructed
from it. Moreover, this conception remained fundamentally the same
from the time of Pythagoras in the late sixth century until the beginning
of the fourth century, although in some important details it did develop
in sophistication, particularly in the case of Philolaus. My case will be
based on three sources of information: 1) the early testimonia for Pythagoras’s
views on soul (i.e. those derived from Xenophanes, Herodotus
and Ion of Chios), 2) the oral maxims known as akousmata, which may
go back to Pythagoras and formed the basis for the Pythagorean way of
life and 3) the fragments of Philolaus. These sources, so I will argue, indicate
that psychÞ was indeed the word used by Pythagoras and early Pythagoreans,
including Philolaus, to refer to the transmigrating soul,
which is also the soul that is the center of the personality during life.
This soul was conceived of primarily as the seat of emotions, which
was closely connected to the faculty of sensation; it was, however, distinct
from the intellect. Such a conception of soul fits well with the doctrine
of transmigration, since it is plausible that humans share such a soul
with animals. Indeed, the identification of the human self with a capacity
to feel and respond to such sensations as pleasure and pain, a capacity
which is shared with animals, is the foundation of the Pythagorean claim
of a kinship between animals and men, which leads to the conclusion
that human beings should take into account the pain or harm caused
to animals by human actions. What passes from body to body is thus
not the human intellect but a personality characterized by emotions
and desires, which is fashioned by human intellect, when born in a
human body.
The earliest sources of evidence, the early testimonia for Pythagoras,
are the most problematic, because we cannot be sure that we are dealing
with Pythagoras’ own terminology and see his views on the soul only as
described by others. Rather than beginning with this evidence, therefore,
I will start with the fragments of Philolaus. Although there are
considerable problems of interpretation even here, at least we are deal-
11 Philoponus (in de An. 69.24–70.32) says that it is ridiculous to think that the
Pythagoreans literally thought the motes were soul and argues that they were
speaking symbolically, but Aristotle treats it as a serious theory alongside that
of Democritus.