Abstract
This discussion piece responds to the recent criticisms of the analytical concept of mind offered by Tomáš Machula and questions his recommendation that we return to the Thomist concept of the rational soul. In particular, it is argued that Machula overlooks the central role of consciousness both in his criticisms of Descartes' concept of the mind and of recent analytical philosophy of mind.
In addition, it is argued that Machula ignores the work of dual-attribute theorists in his mapping of contemporary theories of mind, and that his critique of physicalism, while it may be effective against identity theory, fails to properly address functionalism, the most popular form of physicalism since the 1960s. It is also argued that the Thomist rational soul - no less than the Cartesian mental substance - creates serious difficulties for an account of human evolution.
In this latter context doubt is raised about Machula's claim that the Thomist concept of soul can be understood and appreciated independently of the theological framework in which it was developed.