Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy

The Pythagorean conception of the soul from Pythagoras to Philolaus 43
that, unlike Empedocles who does draw the conclusion that no animal
must be killed or eaten, Pythagoras himself had a much more complicated
analysis that forbade the eating and killing of certain animals
while allowing the eating and killing of others. 62 Nonetheless, he accepted
as an important principle that all animals were akin to humans
in having a psychÞ; that kinship will have figured in moral decisions having
to do with human treatment of animals, even if, in the end, it was
judged appropriate to kill a specific animal as part of a sacrifice to a god.
These issues are too complex to discuss further here. It should be clear,
however, that, while in the area of cosmology and first principles Philolaus
appears to be the major innovator and not Pythagoras, when it
comes to the soul, the case is reversed. Philolaus does place psychÞ in a
clear hierarchy of psychic faculties, which allows for greater philosophical
rigor in the doctrine of transmigration. He also explains its physiology.
It is Pythagoras, however, who is responsible for the breakthrough
conception of the soul that is the foundation for the doctrine of transmigration.
goras had such a theory. Finally, Iamblichus says that Pythagoras based our kinship
with animals on our sharing life (VP 108) or the sort of life that is more
common (koinoteras – VP 169). It is possible that this argument is a reflection
of the view I have argued should be assigned to Pythagoras, that animals and
men share the life of sensation.
62 See Burkert 1972, 180 – 183 for a discussion of the conflicting evidence.