УДК 12
DOI: 10.22412/1993-7768-11-3-10

Two souls, two subjects: are the interests of body and soul the same?

Vasilii M. Pivoev, Dr. Sci. (Philosophy), Prof.,
All-Russian State University of Justice of the Ministry of Justice of Russia (North Branch), Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia, Russian Federation

Who is the originator of sin, the body or the soul? Does the body present the subject or only the obedient object of the soul manipulation? Does the body have its own interests that do not coincide with the goals and meanings of human life? From what point of view and in what respect does the body consider being subject? The essence of the person is associated with two unequal actors, whose interests may differ and even be opposite. Time and the rhythms of existence can also be different, since the body spends more energy than the soul, and time is a waste of energy. The deeds of the body are deterministic (“the selfish gene”), whereas the behavior of the soul does not always have any connection with reason. The distinction between the two entities allows expressing the assumption that man has two souls. One soul (ego) belongs to the body and is associated with the genetic information of the parents, the other connects to the body of the baby in the womb, coming from another, spiritual world. The soul is mortal, and the soul of the spirit after the body death leaves it and continues to exist in another world, waiting for a new incarnation.

Keywords: soul, ego, body, subject, object
For citation: Pivoev V.M., Two souls, two subjects: are the interests of body and soul the same?. Servis plus, vol. 11, no. 3, 2017, pp. 86-93. DOI: 10.22412/1993-7768-11-3-10
Submitted: 2017/05/09
Accepted: 2017/06/26



  1. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Confessions, Enchiridion, Doctrine. Vol. 4, book no. XIV. St. Petersburg: Aleteiya; Kiev: UTsIMM-Press, 1998, pp. 3–49. (In Russ.)
  2. Askol’dov S. A., The religious meaning of the Russian revolution. Milestones. From the depths. Moscow: Pravda, 1991, pp. 210–249. (In Russ.)
  3. Berdyaev N. A., Fate of Russia: essay on the psychology of war and nationality. Moscow: Filosofskoe obshchestvo SSSR, 1990, 240 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Bible: Holy Scriptures of the old and New Testament: canonical. Moscow: Rossiiskoe bibleiskoe obshchestvo, 2011, pp. 1246–1264. (In Russ.)
  5. Vigarello J. , Art of attraction: History of physical beauty from the Renaissance to the present day. Moscow: Nov. lit. obozrenie, 2013, 432 p. (In Russ.)
  6. Prokhorov G.M., Miklas X., Bil’dyug A.B., “Diopter” Philip Monotropa: an anthropological Orthodox encyclopedia of the middle Ages. Moscow: Nauka, 2008, 733 p. (In Russ.)
  7. Innocent III. On contempt for the world or the insignificance of the human condition. Italian humanists of the Renaissance: a Collection of texts. Saratov: Izd-vo Saratovskogo un-ta, 1988, Part 2, pp. 117–130. (In Russ.)
  8. Kant I., Metaphysical beginning of natural science. Vol. 6. Moscow: Mysl’, 1966, pp. 53–176. (In Russ.)
  9. Kant I. Treatises and letters. Moscow: Nauka, 1980, 711 p. (In Russ.)
  10. Mamardashvili M. K., Conversations about thinking. Moscow: Fond M. Mamardashvili, 2015, 816 p. (In Russ.)
  11. Newton M. Journey of souls. Life between lives. St. Petersburg: Budushchee Zemli, 2009, 323 p. (In Russ.)
  12. St.Palama, The triads in defense of the sacred silent. Moscow: KANON, 1995, 384 p. (In Russ.)
  13. Petrov V. V., Philosophy of man. Tomsk: Izd-vo nauch.-tekhn. lit-ry, 2002, pp. 10–170. (In Russ.)
  14. Rozanov V. V., Secluded. Vol. 2. Moscow: Pravda, 1990, pp. 7–194. (In Russ.)