What is your Soul?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What is your soul?

What do you have to have to have one?
(One that runs well at least)

What do you not have to not have to not have one?
(One that stalls badly at least)

Example; An unquestioned soul is to not have something that needs to be investigated.
So soul is 'investigation', 'pursuit', here at least.
'Inquiry', 'curiosity' 'spontaneity' as well.

Soul is not self, even if self is contingent to experience your soul.
(realisation is not always necessary to have something/anything be real)

But please do give your Scripture references.

What are your stories that proved your soul to/for you primarily (first day) or just day to day (last night)?

For Athiests to answer easierily,
suppliment 'being' or 'consciousness' for 'soul', if you will.
What makes/made you aware of your being or consciousness or responsibility? And that it was yours alone to have and to hold, some might say only ownership of the self, (i would say ownership of future destination journey)
What made/makes you realise your center, know you are real? know you are creation? (more than creature?)
Our soul/center is also 'realisation' 'reliability', here at least.

Our soul is the only thing we own, (owns us?), as death takes all life and all body.

(Might not be 'eternal life', might only be 'eternal existence'.
Has even your own appreciated soul always still existed?
Self and personality are perishable, has a sell by date.)

How do you know you have your soul?

(Brittany Murphy and other souls are resting with God tonight)

What proves your soul to you?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,686 • Replies: 43

No top replies

@sometime sun,

Are you serious...You buy that crap about a soul???

The idea has some history, but as it survives in mankind, the belief that people have souls offers no protection to nature, and offers very little protection to them...People walk out of church thinking about how they can help to kill a Muslim and the thought that the life and soul of the MUslim might be the property of their God never enters their mind...The form of their religion allows them to conceive of the other objectively...All you need to do is conceive of some one as an object, and the conception of them as spirit can float away on the wind for all anyone cares...I neither see people as objects nor as spirits...I see them as people suffering a common life which is all we have together to experience anything...I do not need a soul to not hurt them and soul would not protect them if I did... All I need is some human sympathy... I just need to feel my way through life with them...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;113070 wrote:

Are you serious...You buy that crap about a soul???

and offers very little protection to them...

People walk out of church thinking about how they can help to kill a Muslim and the thought that the life and soul of the MUslim might be the property of their God never enters their mind...The form of their religion allows them to conceive of the other objectively...All you need to do is conceive of some one as an object, and the conception of them as spirit can float away on the wind for all anyone cares...I neither see people as objects nor as spirits...I see them as people suffering a common life which is all we have together to experience anything...I do not need a soul to not hurt them and soul would not protect them if I did... All I need is some human sympathy... I just need to feel my way through life with them...

Yes i am bought and sold. without credits or crap ever changing hands.

Who ever said anything about the soul being protectorate, it if anything is what needs to be protected, before even the self, in my opinion and truth.

Sad people would think that, and dare i say poor excuses for the soul they are equipped of, but i do not think to hope many people would think of killing just after breakfast/feast.
But you sound as if you have a grasp upon your consciouness enough in my terms to say you are centered in your self, not in others, i would say that by your 'regard' you have soul even if you dont yet know how to admit it fully, but you are where very far in your 'consideration' of all of others.
When did you first recognise the others right as your own or as more so?

0 Replies

@sometime sun,

The better of all the fair and investigated (thus shown valid) evidence out there, as it has accumulated over time, and effort, far more leaves us at the conclusion that we (H. sapiens), just like all other animals, and other life forms, are souls (if we wish to use that word). Therefore, it is more accurate to say that I, KaseiJin, do not have a soul, but, rather, AM a soul. (even if I don't dig soul music that much....hee, hee, hee.....)

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;113070 wrote:

Are you serious...You buy that crap about a soul???

Can't we find kinder ways of communicating, Fido?

Fido;113070 wrote:

The idea has some history, but as it survives in mankind, the belief that people have souls offers no protection to nature

It can stand in line with all the other things we do and believe that offer no protection from nature.

But that's sort of a cop-out. If you want a survival machine, take a look at cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, crocodiles, and archaebacteria. No souls, right, but they don't worry about it either.

Not everything about us can / must be explained in terms of survival.

MUCH more likely than the soul being a sort of natural survival mechanism is that belief in it is a natural expression of a particular stage in human social/societal development. And this, in particular, was the axial age, classically from 800-200 BC. As the world urbanized, as people became more analytical of other humans, ideas about a soul simultaneously became elaborated (variably) in Greek and Roman philosophy, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, and Daoism.

Something about communal living caused thinkers of that age to start wondering about the self in metaphysical terms.

Well, traditions stick, and we're not exactly that removed from this kind of self-reflection. That's why people are interested in it.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;113112 wrote:

Can't we find kinder ways of communicating, Fido?

It can stand in line with all the other things we do and believe that offer no protection from nature.

But that's sort of a cop-out. If you want a survival machine, take a look at cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, crocodiles, and archaebacteria. No souls, right, but they don't worry about it either.

Not everything about us can / must be explained in terms of survival.

MUCH more likely than the soul being a sort of natural survival mechanism is that belief in it is a natural expression of a particular stage in human social/societal development. And this, in particular, was the axial age, classically from 800-200 BC. As the world urbanized, as people became more analytical of other humans, ideas about a soul simultaneously became elaborated (variably) in Greek and Roman philosophy, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, and Daoism.

Something about communal living caused thinkers of that age to start wondering about the self in metaphysical terms.

Well, traditions stick, and we're not exactly that removed from this kind of self-reflection. That's why people are interested in it.

Considering that the concept of a soul in all of nature did put a natural limit on destruction of other species, I would say it served a valueable purpose...Now we must substitute for that ineffective form, of humans having souls, a more rational understanding: That we all have life, we all feed on life, and we are and share a common environment essential to cintinued life...The adaptation of the species, evolution, suggesting that the fittest survive neglects the fact that we as a species are eliminating other plants and animals, and wrecking our environment...Our religion and our economy rob us of our perspective through time, and robs future generations of a chance at life....The two sources of knowledge both deny the reality... Science says the fittest will survive, and the religious say God will provide... Well; the theory of the soul does nothing more than support the churches which are an attack on humanity, and all life...What science suggests is true generally, does not take into account our terrible destructiveness which no longer knows no limits, physical or moral...If some of Society survives we will be a weaker and more fragile species...Humanity is already inbred, and over bred...Our own genes are our worst enemy...Isn't it time to give up the metaphysical nonsense for good and all, and start taking care of business rationally???...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;113122 wrote:

Isn't it time to give up the metaphysical nonsense for good and all, and start taking care of business rationally???...

Makes perfect sense to me. But what's that worth when you consider the following:

1) We are not fundamentally rational -- we are partially rational

2) It may be an inescapable part of our nature to generate metaphysical nonsense

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;113127 wrote:

Makes perfect sense to me. But what's that worth when you consider the following:

1) We are not fundamentally rational -- we are partially rational

2) It may be an inescapable part of our nature to generate metaphysical nonsense

Rationality is a moral choice; and it does not just happen... We can't count on spectral evidence though it may be inescapable it should be discounted...

---------- Post added 12-21-2009 at 10:14 PM ----------

I tried to sell my soul; but the devil woudn't bite
cause he could get two for half the price...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;113390 wrote:

Rationality is a moral choice; and it does not just happen....

Fido I would love this statement to be fact, as it would suit my personal compass when it comes to making the individual carry the onus of personal ownership for their actions. We know the choices we make are an amalgam of environmental upbringing, individual character, and the extent to which we will be selfless in that particular transaction (ie. what we do for some we will not do for others even given identical scenarios).

I as most have an expectation of reciprocal morality to the morality I practice, but it isn't always forthcoming....why? Is it that they did not have the environmental upbringing I had that engenders the basis for moral rationality? Do they perhaps not have the even nature of character that I possess that gives you more than a myopic view of the situation. Do they carry biases that affect their decision making......usually all of the above is what we face when we are making decisions.

My point is that we are not generated to a decision based on our souls, which if there is such a critter he must be at the base of human consciousness, and if one human has it we all do. I do not believe that "rationality and irrationality" are as "objective and subjective" are in juxt of each other. Rationality is open ended based on position of view, that is why we fight, and the moral compass swings on circumstance.

None of this really addresses "do we have a soul" so to that end I will mention that three thousand years before Aristotle pondered on the soul they called the soul the "vital breath" so it's been around as long as we have been able to ponder and in all civilizations.
I think the question could be....did our consciousness begat the soul....or did our soul begat consciousness.

1 Reply

@Psycobabble,

Psycobabble;113412 wrote:

Fido I would love this statement to be fact, as it would suit my personal compass when it comes to making the individual carry the onus of personal ownership for their actions. We know the choices we make are an amalgam of environmental upbringing, individual character, and the extent to which we will be selfless in that particular transaction (ie. what we do for some we will not do for others even given identical scenarios).

I as most have an expectation of reciprocal morality to the morality I practice, but it isn't always forthcoming....why? Is it that they did not have the environmental upbringing I had that engenders the basis for moral rationality? Do they perhaps not have the even nature of character that I possess that gives you more than a myopic view of the situation. Do they carry biases that affect their decision making......usually all of the above is what we face when we are making decisions.

My point is that we are not generated to a decision based on our souls, which if there is such a critter he must be at the base of human consciousness, and if one human has it we all do. I do not believe that "rationality and irrationality" are as "objective and subjective" are in juxt of each other. Rationality is open ended based on position of view, that is why we fight, and the moral compass swings on circumstance.

None of this really addresses "do we have a soul" so to that end I will mention that three thousand years before Aristotle pondered on the soul they called the soul the "vital breath" so it's been around as long as we have been able to ponder and in all civilizations.
I think the question could be....did our consciousness begat the soul....or did our soul begat consciousness.

To think before acting is the sinequanon of civilization...Morality is not rational, and it runs in the other direction...What is unjust is alway justified, as if, as long as you have a good excuse you are Okay...People learn morality prerationally... You cannot teach people sympathy, or empathy... Some of it is natural, making most people sensitive even to the pain of animals...In particular, to hold your own people in high regard, and even love, is natural morality, and to encourage such behavior toward the larger society is good, but is not natural morality...The individual as a concept has been a failure for society...To try to make it work is a waste of time...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;113390 wrote:

Rationality is a moral choice

That makes no sense. Rationality is a state of mind. Reason is a process. It can be applied irrespective of moral concerns -- and its application is subject to all the irrational things that take away any choice in the matter.

0 Replies

@sometime sun,

You cannot slip a blade between a man and his morals, and to behave morally when there is no obvious reason to some times takes effort, thought and choice... Rationality may well be considered as a state of mind, and when the common current in most lives, and our own is toward irrationality, -acting without rational consideration, it is clearly a choice, and like all choice, it is suffered...The best situation to be in is one where we have natural reasons for moral behavior, and modern society offers us few such situations, so just as people rationalize bad behavior, moral people should try to rationalize moral behavior toward people for whom they have no natural connection...

Let me give you an example...I am a retired ironworker...When I was young, full of piss and vinigar I was out with a pretty cool girl who had no natural inclination toward men... Now; my job being what it was, exacting and demanding with seldom an encouraging word often left me in a sour mood... Well; on a date with this woman I was rude to a waiter... As a worker, it was hard to deal as a sort of boss to other workers; and I did not know I was being rude because I was generally rude...But this women pointed out to me that I was being rude, and with that simple act she expanded my consciousness a little...In such circumstance of commerce it is easy to find reasons if we are looking for them to be rude because having the money around people who have none is an advantage...If we reason that these people are not so far from ourselves, are deserving of respect rather than contumely, and that they are suffering through their social circumstances as we suffer through ours then our behavior may be radically changed...I am fifty six... It is amazing the number of men or women I meet who are reduced to some sort of service job, often something they are ill suited for because of the loss of some job far better... I joke with them, try to call them by name, ease their existence, and generally try to make a connection...I am no more comfortable than before with being a master...Instead, I try to not make them suffer what I am feeling... Rationality may well be a state of mind, but it is not the most natural one, and is one which must be chosen...People need to look for a reason, sometimes, to be human...

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;113095 wrote:

The better of all the fair and investigated (thus shown valid) evidence out there, as it has accumulated over time, and effort, far more leaves us at the conclusion that we (H. sapiens), just like all other animals, and other life forms, are souls (if we wish to use that word). Therefore, it is more accurate to say that I, KaseiJin, do not have a soul, but, rather, AM a soul. (even if I don't dig soul music that much....hee, hee, hee.....)

Yes but how do you know you are soul?
A soul gives more credits towards the self and the individual, something that by having individuals all learning different things, the unifying Am soul you speak of truthfuly, all the more learning this Am soul gan gather when it is through a billion billion different eyes and minds and experiences.
Soul may have its own agenda, Soul being what God is made from, it is a substance, God can leanr what God need to know as man, but what if soul as both God and man can learn more with this ever growning crowd to please, this ever spreading crowd has more to say/teach/learn than one man or one God.
So does this make God no longer monotheistic rather polytheistic, no because as you say soul is one unifying thing/substance of being.
Soul God is the Farmer (which does not even need to tend just needs to plant), we are the harvest, each grain adds more to the bounty.

I am really interested in where when and what showed/enlightened your soul the it, are, it is soul to your soul.
Not when was your soul born, when did you/self know you were in possession of or of possessed by or for your soul?
When did you know soul was a factor and a reality?
What came about, what proof is you as soul?
What word or meaning of a word do you encapsulate as being soul, am, are, at, is, my soul?
I only acredit 'knowing your soul' to 'knowing you are alive' broadly.

Thanks

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 12:19 AM ----------

Psycobabble;113412 wrote:

I think the question could be....did our consciousness begat the soul....or did our soul begat consciousness.

Or are they same thing because we cant remember/realise which came first?
(if ever there was time?)

---------- Post added 12-23-2009 at 12:34 AM ----------

I hear the word nature alot here.
nature; all living and non-living matter and energy that forms part of the physical world and is not made by man, eg plants, animals, mountains, rivers2 what something is, or consists of 3 a fundamental tendency; essential character, attitude or outlook: human nature/ a person modest by nature 4 a kind, type etc - be second nature to be instinctive. one's better nature ones kinder or nobler side. the call of nature euphemistic colloq. a need to urinate. in the nature of... with the characteristic of...;like Form Latin 'natura'.

Is this not soul? Is 'nature' not soul?

What this learns soul is or may be, 'matter', 'energy', 'forms', 'world', 'not made by man', 'consistence', 'fundamental tendency', 'essential character', 'attitude', 'outlook', 'kind, type etc', 'instinctive', 'kindness', 'nobility', not the colloq unless just 'need',
are not all that i have highlighted what some might ascribe soul as being?

0 Replies

@sometime sun,

I would say, sometime sun, that you may have a tendency to do what we might call 'streaming,' a bit into overkill. Be that as it may, however, I know that I am a soul by definition, just as I know that I am a body, by definition.(1)

Additionally, I know, by definition WITHIN A GIVEN CONTEXT (and it is the case that this cannot be overemphasized, actually . . . we cannot take all the sense entries of just any word, totally out the contextual setting which gives that word being used, its sense [thus meaning-within-context], and force all senses into a single, working definition [and the modifier 'working' is important]), that a spoon is not a soul, just as I know a river is not a soul. I hope this not only answers your question, but also helps give incentive to better clarify your investigation methodology.

Regarding the question posed by Psycobabble, I'd bet we'd have to choose a level of looking at it. The perhaps most fundimental aspect, on level of looking at it, could simply be that of developing language. Otherwise, being a soul requires being a 'have-become-living' animal (from a certain level of complicated organization...a gray zone span of possible starting points). This may, or may not, entail having the state of brain build with gives us consciousness, but will almost always give us some degree of functioning brain (at least up to some point).

1. Just in case; I had used the first person singular form of the copula be; and am not sure if you were trying to make a point of that, in particular, or not, but I hope not. Also, it would be impossible to do anything but merely make a claim, void of any empirical manner of demonstrating publicly, that some said-to-exist-in-nature-outside-the-[internal-only]-imagination, insensible entity, is of such and such a nature (and please note the context which sets the sense of this word 'nature' here). To claim that 'god is such and such,' then amounts to describing/prescribing (akin to providing a definition of) that term. To offer such definition, in turn, is fair enough, although to demonstrate a material degree of pragmatic application, incapable of being better served by some other idea, may be very, very hard, at the best.

0 Replies

@sometime sun,

How twoo... Reality is real by definition; and why??? Because we provide the essential of all reality with the definition...We make it real, and it makes us real, and isn't that the point of all our forms???

1 Reply

@Fido,

KaseiJin;
Agreed i can be 'flighty', please define 'streaming' for me and what are the pit falls and what are the advantages? please if you dont mind.

I regard all you said as well put and definate.
But for me to define, the question i asked is not necessarily how to define souls completeness (all to all, so it is understood) but rather what is it that is souls experience, what is it that you recognise your soul (you to me, so i can understand you) to be?
even if it is is the overall we all wear, what is your fashion? what are you made up of? if you accept that soul and consciousness are all we have?
Or have you answered this and i just cant read tonight? Smile

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido;113493 wrote:

You cannot slip a blade between a man and his morals, and to behave morally when there is no obvious reason to some times takes effort, thought and choice... Rationality may well be considered as a state of mind, and when the common current in most lives, and our own is toward irrationality, -acting without rational consideration, it is clearly a choice, and like all choice, it is suffered.

Fido the Shakespearean adage of "to thine own self be true" is a hard one to live up to. Because what we should do and what we actually do are not always mutually compatible, so we ask ourselves who are we?
Are we the one that did the "right" thing, or are we the one who took an advantage when we could? Our interpretation of ourselves and our place in our further personal interpretation of others is generally the rationale we use for the actions we take. An example is the individual who would not take advantage of another person, but would supplement the items reported stolen to their insurance company.
I would surmise that this person would consider themselves reasonably moral even though they stole from the corporation, and justify it to themselves morally given that the corporation is not a singular human entity.

Other than sociopaths we are all able to understand and convey empathy, the degree to which we apply it is as you said a "choice" and the reassuring aspect of others that we look for when interacting is that their choice is consistent, be it morally correct or immoral we like to know what we are dealing with, fore warned is fore armed as is said. Because we make a judgment about the veracity of others, our interactions with them is modified to run in tangent with our belief of reciprocal behaviour, we consider any dishonesty from them towards us as betrayal. Emotionally deceit from a stranger is nothing compared to the deceit from a friend.

You said that our state of minds tends to lay with irrationality, I disagree. I believe it lies with self preservation and any empathic decisions we make is over and above our normal programming.

---------- Post added 12-25-2009 at 08:20 PM ----------

sometime sun;113621 wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycobabble
I think the question could be....did our consciousness begat the soul....or did our soul begat consciousness.

Quote:

sometime sun; Or are they same thing because we cant remember/realise which came first?
(if ever there was time?)

I do not consider human holistic consciousness in the same vein as animal consciousness, including the apes and other top mammals. That we can wonder and know of our mortality are attributes that set us apart from the animals who have a consciousness employed totally for the survival of the species, there are no other levels to it.
What I meant by the above is did we, when we knew that we were "unique" on earth explain it by inventing a soul that further distanced us from the genetic cousins we share this globe with. Or are we spiritual beings and the soul is the imperative and our holistic consciousness a morality test allowing us to venture somewhere after we die (the basis for most faiths).

Sometimes to answer your question, whatever consciousness and souls are, they are not the same thing to my mind.

1 Reply

@Psycobabble,

Psycobabble;114163 wrote:

---------- Post added 12-25-2009 at 08:20 PM -------
I do not consider human holistic consciousness in the same vein as animal consciousness, including the apes and other top mammals. That we can wonder and know of our mortality are attributes that set us apart from the animals who have a consciousness employed totally for the survival of the species, there are no other levels to it.
What I meant by the above is did we, when we knew that we were "unique" on earth explain it by inventing a soul that further distanced us from the genetic cousins we share this globe with. Or are we spiritual beings and the soul is the imperative and our holistic consciousness a morality test allowing us to venture somewhere after we die (the basis for most faiths).

Sometimes to answer your question, whatever consciousness and souls are, they are not the same thing to my mind.

It is all 'consciousness' for me or none at all, animals have a degree of soul if i am correct in attributing KaseiJins words and meaning as my own.
But what i hear form from you is that you if you were to ascribe soul to anything it is moralisation, to know right from wrong, which we may be wrong, maybe the animals know better than we for they have no need to ask or doubt, dose this give them more hold upon soul or again doe sit in a way disprove the whole argument?. Or maybe as you say i give the soul my animals have, as well as my own. I call this realisation of the soul not invention even if the two are tightly knit. The gift is not the soul itself itsstuff it is the awareness to 'invent' to use your word but my intention of it. Inspiration is the mother of all invention. Where does 'inspiration' come from if not from something a part of but not fully recognised/realised by that which holds it in their frame, still suprised. Making it 'a' unique soul rather than 'the' soul unique. 'The' soul makes it not unique at all to the person to the indivudal rather than the uniqueness that we all share.
I think i've got you wrong here but what what makes us moral does not
make us survivors. Unless it is a kind of morality that even the animals share (or neither has).
Does it distance us or connect us? give us the responsibility over all our environment especially when considering the soul as something realised rationalised and that because others do not realsie we must do it for them?
We do not share when we are these individuals, we own, this is where we have gone wrong with the realisation of the soul, that we own the understanding therefore we own the universe and all who obey are owned.
I like your term 'holistic consciousness' even if i am confused by it.
Holistic; adj, denoting an approach to medical treatment that considers a person as a whole, and takes social and psychological factors into account as well as the pysical symptoms.
Still takes more than one to agree on the treatment and cure.
What makes you know you, what made you know you were conscious even if by none others agreement? There is one.
This uniqueness that you speak of, which is your and none other i would hazard you are saying.

1 Reply

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;114296 wrote:

It is all 'consciousness' for me or none at all, animals have a degree of soul if i am correct in attributing KaseiJins words and meaning as my own.
But what i hear form from you is that you if you were to ascribe soul to anything it is moralisation, to know right from wrong, which we may be wrong, maybe the animals know better than we for they have no need to ask or doubt, dose this give them more hold upon soul or again doe sit in a way disprove the whole argument?.

Sometime, because we produced the noun "soul" and the noun "consciousness", I believe the thinkers must have made a distinction between two different ethereal phenomenon that compliment each other in humanity. You quite rightly point out that animals have no self doubt, and that point alone suggests to me that animal consciousness is a pedestrian survival mechanism, without a further level of consciousness that allows them to grasp the ethereal as we can.

Some would argue that animals can exhibit selflessness, feel empathy and concern for others as we humans do, but I disagree with that. People have exampled to me the sharing of resource and selfless social interaction with pack or gene clan groups. I agree they look to act as if they are being selfless, but they are just filling their role in the survival of the gene pool.....it's hard wired into their brains it is not a choice. Yet man will send aid to other countries whose well being or not does not affect the donor in any way other than the empathic satisfaction we ourselves realize from such acts. While animals will drive off members of their own species if not a direct relative.

This difference of our consciousness and animal consciousness may be generated from having a soul....or not, who the hell knows but we have two words and I think there are two entities. So the morality I attribute to the soul to my mind comes from our ability to discern right from wrong and the free will to make judgments.

Quote:

Where does 'inspiration' come from if not from something a part of but not fully recognised/realised by that which holds it in their frame, still suprised. Making it 'a' unique soul rather than 'the' soul unique. 'The' soul makes it not unique at all to the person to the indivudal rather than the uniqueness that we all share.

Animals that use tools must have had an inspiration but that inspiration is purely at a survival level, it is that single level of consciousness that I bleat on about. Why is human consciousness unique? Because we can ponder on things that have no relationship to our next meal, or shelter from the predators and elements. When you consider that we and all that live on earth are made from the same gene pool, and our brains employ the same structures and use the same chemical transponders why do we not see the same "holistic consciousness" in animals. They have evolved as we have, why did evolution leave them with a consciousness that understands nothing except their present environment?

What physiologically hidden essence do we have that elevates us from them, and why is it not biologically evident...we have looked but found nothing remarkable in regard to ourselves and animals. Did the early bi peds have it too? If so why did they die out, we didn't. I do not know what it is, I do not know when we got it, but we have something no creature on earth has and philosophers and clerics deem it a soul.

Quote:

I think i've got you wrong here but what what makes us moral does not make us survivors.

Luckily our forefathers had been able to make value judgments on the suspension of morality for survivals sake in the past, and I am sure we will make it again.

Quote:

We do not share when we are these individuals, we own, this is where we have gone wrong with the realisation of the soul, that we own the understanding therefore we own the universe and all who obey are owned.

Sadly having the consciousness we have matched with opposing digits has made us king of the hill, but take heart because it won't last.

Quote:

I like your term 'holistic consciousness' even if i am confused by it.
Holistic; adj, denoting an approach to medical treatment that considers a person as a whole, and takes social and psychological factors into account as well as the pysical symptoms.

Feel free to use it, as a descriptive "holistic" engenders a "wholeness" to the subject matter. Smile

1 Reply

@sometime sun,

Hi in my opinion the soul and mind are different words describing the same non-material ethereal part of our being

1 Reply

What is your Soul?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know