@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
Quote:I use the word 'soul' only in the sense of the physical body of an organism.
This is a materialist view, which is, of course, your prerogative.
Regardless of whatever label one may wish to stick on it, for genre identification purposes, it is the far more realistic, practical view (
if not the most). Regardless of whatever way Aristotle or Plato may have used the word '
physkhe,' they simply did not have the knowledge nor the test of time which we have privy to today, to really be able to say much of anything else--
thus quoting them to defend a more obviously erroneous concept would surely prove questionable at best.
jeeprs wrote: My understanding is that the soul is immortal but not eternal.
What in the world might you be talking about--
unless you are using some presently unused-in-English definition?
Here's the point; if were we to look (and I would encourage you all to carefully do so, for the sake of learning, over that of argument) in a random English dictionary, we'll probably see a first entry which runs something along the lines of:
Quote:An entity which is regarded as being the immortal or spiritual part of the person, and though having no physical or material reality, is credited with the functions of thinking and willing, and hence determining all behavior.
Now how on earth would the English language have ever arrived at a word for such a notion, without the notion having first been there. Never! Therefore we can know that as English formed, the notion under consideration here had been in the public domain previously. Where did that notion thus come from? Why of course from the Animistic/Shamanic religious activities of really way back when. What valid, and practical reason, therefore, might we present to support the claim that such primitive idealism had been correct. Furthermore, by what means can we demonstrate that those few who started such had received the knowledge of such--
without appealing to supernatural superintendence? We can't !
jeeprs wrote:The spirit is both immortal and eternal, but it doesn't belong to anyone.
Thus, how can anyone say such a thing? How can
anyone make statements of knowledge towards some matter which, in the same breath, is said to be beyond grasp of knowledge? (
remember our English dictionary will tell us that spirit and soul can one and the same referent)
It would more likely works towards improving the earth-bound lot of (especially) complex life forms, for us H. sapiens to acknowledge and practice a greater respect for the individual being as a most precious and valuable, once in a universe wonder. A soul is a being which has come into formation, which lives, then dies, thus is no more. The material which formulates the soul is earthbound, is recycled, and is simply natural. Unknown and presently unknowable forces or fields which allow such will have been up to now, and will (as far as can be posited, I'd guess) go on . . .
and in the meantime souls come into existence and go out of existence, regardless (so such factors are simply givens).[quote][/quote]
