The Human Being as Subject and Object

Contra both the materialists and solipsists/Gnostics, human nature is composed of two parts–body and soul–and a human nature, or being, exists in the world as both an object and a subject.  

As Stratford Caldecott observed in his book Beauty in the Word: Rethinking the Foundations of Education:

Being, not the self, is prior to the distinction between object and subject, and the reason why Descartes and his successors were left needing to prove the existence of the external world, whereas the medievals (and other 'sane men') were not, is that he started on the purely subjective side of the divide. He reduced being to thinking. But the act of being which makes something what it is does not simply depend on me. And this in turn implies that to know a thing as given in reality involves not just the intellect but the will and the memory; not just an automatic awareness of it, or an intuition, but a yielding and giving to it, a bringing close and a standing-back-from, which transforms both subject and object in something like the way a marriage transforms the couple.

In the above passage, Caldecott was focused on the philosophers following Descartes who felt the need "to prove the existence of the external world". After Descartes' time, perhaps in reaction to such philosophical speculations divorced from the external world, scientists began to focus only on the external world, leaving aside philosophy (as classically understood). They began to focus on the purely objective side of the divide. In an analogous but different way from philosophers, the post-Cartesian scientists also imply that "to know a thing as given in reality" involves just the intellect (in a cataloguing mode), without adequate consideration of other aspects of the soul, which would involve the scientist in questions of morality and love that would challenge their materialist assumptions.

Toward the Reality of the External/Material World

On the drink table, there were clear plastic cups full of ice and either Coke or tea. The ice had been melting in the Coke for awhile, making it pale, so that the drinks were pretty much visually indistinguishable. Thirsty, you take a big gulp of what you think is sweet tea, only to almost gag on watered-down cola.

On a Friday evening, after a hard week at work, you decide to watch a Netflix show in order to relax, only to quickly fall asleep on the couch. You wake up and decide to go on to bed. Still groggy, you reach for the wall to turn off the living room light, but then realize that you reached for the wrong wall; you had misremembered the geography of the room, thinking of where the switch had been in your previous apartment.

Walking through the basement as a young child, your older brother jumps out of the closet yelling, which makes you scream aloud. Your brother considers this a hilarious joke. You are not amused.

Though the scientific/intellectual community may be largely populated by materialists, denying (at least for any practical consideration) the non-physical soul, there are people who entertain theories about the non-reality of the external or material world. The types of miscues/surprises mentioned above, which we all experience, may not—in themselves—provide irrefutable evidence for the external/material, but they do seem to point in that direction. We must also consider the fact that those doubting the external/material world must still practically function at every moment as if the material other exists.

Observable Evidence of the Soul, Contra the Materialists

A non-material part to human nature is indicated in our apprehension of truth (through higher-order thinking skills), love and appreciation of beauty, and striving for goodness.

Current Challenges to the Classical View of Human Nature

The classical soul/body view of human nature is challenged today by materialists—denying the non-

physical soul—and (to a much smaller degree) by solipsists (and those holding related ideas, such as Elon Musk and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who advance Bostrom's simulation hypothesis)—denying (known) external (material) reality. 

Of Justice and Social Media

In Book IV of The Republic, Plato has Socrates define justice as "the minding of one's own business and not being a busybody... the having and doing of one's own and what belongs to oneself".

Plato's Socrates believes a just society is one in which each person is focused on his own responsibilities and property, not meddling in the affairs of others or stealing their property.

Inasmuch as the reader may see that there is some validity to this definition (though there may be other aspects of true justice we should add to the definition), we must—nevertheless—acknowledge that individuals seeking to live justly in society are necessarily faced with serious challenges regarding what it means to 'mind one's own business'.  What "belongs to oneself" (intellectually and conversationally speaking) versus what belongs to the interests of others? Whether one is a carpenter, shoemaker, or soldier (or whatever vocation), one will interact with others in daily life in a way that will often make murky the border between what's part of my proper focus versus what is yours.

Regardless of the exact boundary/boundaries between what's my business and yours, we must acknowledge that there is a pull to improperly involve ourselves in others' business: to become unduly focused on matters not relevant to our own vocation; to—in effect—become busybodies. This pull is exacerbated by mass media. And this pull has gained blackhole-force strength with the advent of social media.

Consider, dear reader: does your social media consumption help you to focus on your vocation (speaking of your job, but also your other community callings: within your family, church, etc.)? Does your social media consumption draw your attention to controversies that you would never even know about if it weren't for your smartphone? Does social media help you to mind your own business, or is it making you a busybody? Is social media helping you to become a just person, positively contributing to your community in your vocation(s)?

Fundamental Differences Between Body and Soul

The basic parts of human nature are body and soul. The body is material and perishable. The soul is immaterial and everlasting.

The Classical, Christian View of Human Nature

The classical, Christian account of human nature is dualist. Human nature is understood as composed of two basic parts: body and soul.