@ThomasShields Doing alright at the moment. Have a significant fever, but I'm confident that it will break tonight. Maayyybe tomorrow. On the plus side, I don't have to work! ('cause I work in a restaurant, and they wouldn't let me work with a fever for obvious reasons.)
@FMS thought discussion was better in here. I'm not sure (but haven't really investigated) whether Aquinas thinks that animal and vegetable principles are "souls" in the same sense that human souls are.
To say that the soul of an animal is not "subsistent" is to say effectively (as I understand it) that it has no existence independent of the animal's body.
Now whether that's still current theology is a different question.
Not sure yet; I think so. The existence of the animative/vegetative soul is a consequence of the existence of the body; hence it is corruptible in the same sense that the body is.
I guess wondering whether the distinction needs to be made between ceasing to exist and annihilation, it appears beings come and go into and out of existence but your answer seems to suggest that God does not annihilate.
@FMS Well, let's see. A human body is corruptible, it can cease to exist as a body. In that sense you could say that it "goes out of existence". But as matter, it doesn't cease to exist.
But the soul isn't corruptible; it can't (on its own) cease to exist.
It seems though that Aquinas is arguing that the "soul" of an animal is corruptible in the same way that the body of the animal is.