As far as I understand the Aristotelian arguments (including those made by Aquinas), they conclude from the determinacy of thoughts that intellectual thinking cannot be wholly material and so we have a soul, which is partially immaterial and incorruptible.
“Material” is just a word – it has to be filled with content. It does not seem so clear what Aristotle means with “material”, though it is obvious that it is much richer than the modern scientific conception of “material” (or rather “physical”). For example consciousness is clearly material for Aristotle.
If we look around us in the realms of physics and biology we presumably don't see anything as determinate (general, normative – thoughts are about the truth – and inherently meaningful) as our human thoughts (though, maybe, there are other intelligent species we don't know about). Some philosophers like Dennett (see his two-bitser example) would disagree, but we'll put those objections aside for now.
But imho from this we can at best conclude that humans are somehow special contrary to other animals (when – homo erectus? homo ergaster? – humans became special is another puzzling question, which probably can be turned into a counterargument, but let's leave that aside, too).
Of course we can use definitions for “material” and “immaterial” which are so, that humans have an immaterial component while other animals are wholly material. But what have we gained by this? The conclusion the Aristotelian or Scholastic wants to prove is some kind of incorruptibility of the soul.
Why should the immaterial not be corruptible, too?
It's a very defensible position to believe that our thinking can produce conclusions which are timeless: What Euclid proved is true forever and at all times. And his conclusions were about “objects” which are timeless and incorruptible, like geometrical figures, numbers or other mathematical structures (if they exist – what Plato would have accepted but Aristotle would afaik have denied).
But this does not help, either. A bit similar as Robert Pasnau argues in “Aquinas and the Content Fallacy” (thanks to the user Conifold, who mentioned it), I say: Like a teapot can contain tea, but it is not itself remotely tea-like, whatever makes it possible for us to have thoughts about what is incorruptible, it does not mean that it must be incorruptible itself.
Does all of what I wrote rest on a misunderstanding of the argument? Did some Aristotelian or Scholastic make the step from the determinacy of thoughts to incorruptibility more convincingly? Or can you give a good restatement of the argument which tackles those issues?