0
   

What is the "Soul"?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 04:18 pm
Freank, how embarassing that I revealed my shortcomings in ability to think and reason. Oh well.
But I did think I was responding to something I thought you said. Then when I went back to be sure there was some continuity between our statements, I couldn't find what I thought was yours. I guess I am also hallucinating. Oh well, again.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2004 08:00 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Freank, how embarassing that I revealed my shortcomings in ability to think and reason. Oh well.


If you read my comment on this in context...you will see that it was appropriate.


Quote:
But I did think I was responding to something I thought you said. Then when I went back to be sure there was some continuity between our statements, I couldn't find what I thought was yours. I guess I am also hallucinating. Oh well, again.


No problem. Since I took that shot in New York...I've been a bit confused myself.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 05:21 pm
Frank: I never claimed to be delivering facts, hence my insertion of phrases like "I believe" or "my views," so I'm confused as to why you thought I was. I believe my views, obviously, but I don't ask anyone else to.
As far as this goes:
Quote:
"I really do not know...and the evidence is so ambivalent it really makes no sense to make guesses based on it?"

My views on the nature of philosophy is that philosophy isn't so much about answering questions (though that is part of it, too) so much as debating and bouncing ideas off each other, not so much "proving" anything, especially if you subscribe to the subjective view of reality. I might not agree with Val, but I love the fact that he/she wanted to debate it, just as I would love it if you would indulge in the "senselessness" and tell me your views. When we stop questioning, we stop learning, though your response to JL leads me to believe that I, too misinterpreted your meaning in your above statement. elaborate, please, just so I can be sure I know your intended meaning.

Val: have you ever read Hero With a Thousand Faces? If not, you should, it deals with mythological archetypes, which is what I built my argument on. Also look over Jung's theories; they deal with the same thing. I think the soul is a poetic expression of that commonality we all have.
Follow-up: Do you believe in the collective unconscious?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 06:33 pm
Taliesin181 wrote:
Frank: I never claimed to be delivering facts, hence my insertion of phrases like "I believe" or "my views," so I'm confused as to why you thought I was. I believe my views, obviously, but I don't ask anyone else to.
As far as this goes:
Quote:
"I really do not know...and the evidence is so ambivalent it really makes no sense to make guesses based on it?"

My views on the nature of philosophy is that philosophy isn't so much about answering questions (though that is part of it, too) so much as debating and bouncing ideas off each other, not so much "proving" anything, especially if you subscribe to the subjective view of reality. I might not agree with Val, but I love the fact that he/she wanted to debate it, just as I would love it if you would indulge in the "senselessness" and tell me your views. When we stop questioning, we stop learning, though your response to JL leads me to believe that I, too misinterpreted your meaning in your above statement. elaborate, please, just so I can be sure I know your intended meaning.



Tal

I will assume that I have misunderstood some of what you have offered in this thread that caused me to write what I wrote.

I am A VERY CURIOUS individual...and I not only question everything...I also am willing to give opinions.

But there are areas that simply are so unreachable...any guesses, estimates, or beliefs about them...are really no better than coin tosses.

When I hear people going on and on about their guesses...I tend to call this to their attention....and that was the thrust of my comments.

In any case, it is my experience that people talking about things like "souls" (or gods...or "the reality") tend to get so caught up in their guesses (which for the most part are based on absolutely nothing)...that the notion of "I don't know...really have very, very little evidence to work with...and am really doing little more than making a wild guess..."...

...tends to be obscured or minimized.

I consider this to be an counterproductive to true intellectual consideration of issues of great moment.

For that reason, I think it is worthwhile to put that perspective on the table when these situtations arise...which is what I did.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2004 06:36 pm
Tal

One more point...which is a case in point:

At the end of your last post...you wrote:

Quote:
Val...Follow-up: Do you believe in the collective unconscious?


May I respectfully suggest, Tal, that this question you asked of Val pretty much reduces to:

When you tossed the coin on whether or not there is a collective unconscious...did it turn up heads or tails?


I hope you don't think I am mocking you here...I most assuredly am not.

I offer this for consideration and discussion.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:07 am
Frank, in the limit we know nothing.
We try to understand, to make coherent assumptions.
What's the alternative: returning to the trees?
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 12:10 pm
Frank: thanks for the clarification. I did sense a sort of mocking subtext, but am glad that was not the case, and I think I understand your perspective a bit more. I do, however, disagree with your interpretation of my question to val; there are historical facts that all draw eerie similarities between isolated cultures: beliefs and traditions that are universally the same. If you do not believe in the collective unconscious, then what do you believe explains these commonalities? Thanks.

Returning to the soul, what are people's views on the reincarnation of souls?
0 Replies
 
heimdall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 08:36 am
Re: What is the "Soul"?
Taliesin181 wrote:
In today's era of science and brain mapping, the causes for emotions and thoughts are being rapidly defined. Given this new data, where does the "soul" fit in? Also, what is it?

<p>
To answer your question, "soul" must first be defined because there is no single commonly accepted definition, in spite of the fact that so many feel free to use the word with the assumption that we know what they are talking about.
<p>
To me, the soul is the center of subjective existence. It is the knower and appearance is the known. The soul receives indications, the sum of which <i>is</i> appearance, of an objective world that lies beyond appearance. I use the word "indications" here rather than more usual alternatives like "thoughts" or "impressions", because it is less naturally restricted in meaning and conveys the notion of pointing to something beyond appearance. It is through the indications that the objective world acts upon the soul that the soul may believe in the world, forecast its course, and react upon it.
<p>
As a receiver of indications, the soul is called "consciousness".
In its reactions on the world, the soul is called "will".
<p>
The soul itself is not part of appearance, but of the objective world.
You do not know it directly as you know indications, but indirectly by those indications.
What is known directly is known with certainty, but what is known indirectly is always only known only to a degree of probability.
There is, however, nothing but appearance itself that I know with greater certainty than the existence of the soul.
My soul is what I am and it is the subject when I know anything directly.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 05:31 pm
heimdall: That was a pleasingly lyrical definition of the soul. I disagree with the existence of the soul, but that doesn't diminish the quality of your style. To cut to the heart of your argument: I disagree with your statement that:
Quote:
What is known directly is known with certainty
,
since there's always a bit of doubt (you could be crazy, etc.), but that's covered in my 'Nature of Truth' thread. As I've stated,
Quote:
I think the soul is a poetic expression of that commonality we all have.
, with the "commonality" being the collective unconscious. And, coincidentally, you lent credence to that with your poetic 'definition' of the soul. Cool, isn't it? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:36 pm
val wrote:
Frank, in the limit we know nothing.
We try to understand, to make coherent assumptions.
What's the alternative: returning to the trees?


No.

How about: We simply acknowledge there are some things beyond our ability to understand right now?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2004 09:43 pm
Taliesin181 wrote:
Frank: thanks for the clarification. I did sense a sort of mocking subtext, but am glad that was not the case, and I think I understand your perspective a bit more. I do, however, disagree with your interpretation of my question to val; there are historical facts that all draw eerie similarities between isolated cultures: beliefs and traditions that are universally the same. If you do not believe in the collective unconscious, then what do you believe explains these commonalities? Thanks.


I do not do all this "believing" that you folks do.

If you are actually asking...what is your guess for this "commonality"...

...well, I don't really have a clue. But I will say this. To suppose there is only one reasonable and possible answer...is absurd.

And, I suspect your comments about "...eerie similarities between isolated cultures: beliefs and traditions that are universally the same" is probably an exaggeration...most likely, inadvertant.

To be honest, I've heard the same kind of "how do you explain" questions posed during discussion of flying saucers and crop circles.

Some people want to "believe" in a God. (That might be the answer)

Some people want to "believe" there are no gods.

Some people want to "believe" in universal commonality.

Some people are willing to highlight the "I do not know" factor...and then aver that the evidence available truly is not nearly sufficient for such guesses.


I prefer the latter. Obviously, you don't.

Hey...the difference is what makes the world an interesting place.
0 Replies
 
heimdall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2004 04:46 am
Taliesin181 wrote:
there's always a bit of doubt


Very near to probability 1, there are simple facts like "A computer monitor is in front of me." About this I could be mistaken. Perhaps a prankish alien commanding technology far advanced beyond our own has contrived an extraordinarily high quality, dynamic hologram of a computer monitor to deceive me.

Far more probable than a simple fact is this "It seems to me that a computer monitor is in front of me." I cannot imagine how even the most clever alien could be fooling me about that. It's more probable because it is a very close approximation to what I am experiencing directly. Here I'll admit to the tiniest of uncertainties only because appearance cannot be perfectly described. Appearance itself, however, is unspeakable, direct, and absolutely certain.

Quote:
I think the soul is a poetic expression of that commonality we all have, with the "commonality" being the collective unconscious. And, coincidentally, you lent credence to that with your poetic 'definition' of the soul.


The traditional senses of the word "soul" that are closest to the meaning I'm trying to convey are the philosophical concepts of the soul as the essence of an individual or as a center toward which incoming sensations, etc., converge and from which the will emanates to be elaborated by brain and body - the implicit "I" of "cogito ergo sum".

I don't see these concepts (or mine) as closely related to the idea of the collective unconscious. That, I think, is related to a different and distinct definition of the soul as the seat of deep emotion.
0 Replies
 
Taliesin181
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2004 10:49 am
Frank: I agree that to claim my theory is the 'truth' is absurd, though I think it holds a significant amount of merit...but I really was not exaggerating about the "eerie similarities." I did a study of different mythologies in High School that completely blew me away, and since then I've found even more occurences of this. A few examples:
The role of the God who sacrifices himself for humanity, only to rise again, is found in Greek(dionysus), Egyptian(Osiris), and especially Norse(Odin/Balder) mythology, and the Norse versions are almost exactly the same as the Jesus example. The idea of three creationary deities is found in Hindu, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and, if interpreted loosely, Judaeochristian mythology(as the Trinity). The occurence of a triple goddess is found EVERYWHERE. This is the part that freaks me out the most, because we have near identical goddess sets in almost every civilization: the Fates ( and the 7 other sets of triple goddesses, one of whose only purpose is to govern threes) in Greece, the Norns in "midgard," the insane amount of triple aspects in Celtic mythology(what we know of it, anyway...rotten monks, curse you, Patrick)All these archetypes are found in civilizations that span the globe, and are often isolated from each other(i.e., egypt) That's what makes me think there must be something more we don't know.
See, I'm with you on the Agnosticism "belief" (or lack thereof), but the only difference is that while you don't go either way on the "is there, isn't there" issue, I think it's more probable that there is a "higher power," or what-have-you, but still have shame enough to admit that I don't actually know, unlike theists.
Now, whether or not it is, in fact, the "collective unconscious" I'll happily debate to a standstill(which it probably will be).
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2004 11:37 am
Good post, Tal.

I'll probably have more to say from the agnostic perspective...but I'd like to give others a chance to get their thoughts in first.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2004 12:25 pm
Mighty white of you, Frank. I was planning to bounce off of you.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2004 03:11 pm
I don't know where you guys are up to in all this
but the concept of "soul" has had serious social repercussions throughout history. Think of all the issues regarding excommunication like Henry VIII and the establishment of Church of England, or Luthers rejection of the sale of "indulgences". In more recent years we have Army Chaplains in attendance to ensure the smooth "passage of souls"
(except of course in Catch22 where the chaplain prayed for a tight bomb pattern !). Fanatical Nazis and Islamicists alike seem to have died with the gleam of a personal Valhalla in prospect , which doesn't seem very different from the matyrdom of most saints.

It seems to me that "soul" is merely a palliative concept to allay the finality of death, but in the Judeo-Christian tradition it has no symmetrical counterpart which "preceeds life" this seems to detract from its potential coherence and/or appeal.
0 Replies
 
heimdall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 05:48 am
fresco wrote:
I don't know where you guys are up to in all this
but the concept of "soul" has had serious social repercussions throughout history.

...

It seems to me that "soul" is merely a palliative concept to allay the finality of death, but in the Judeo-Christian tradition it has no symmetrical counterpart which "preceeds life" this seems to detract from its potential coherence and/or appeal.


The immateriality of the soul has been evident to many philosophers from ancient times down to the present, although today it is more often called "consciousness" and its reaction on the world denied out of fear of provoking the ridicule of our dominant materialists. Since we only know that every material object decays and perishes, some have argued that the immateriality of the soul allows it to survive death. To the extent that their arguments were motivated to ease their own fear of death, I think you can say the immortality of the soul is a palliative concept, but this does not apply to the soul itself.

The goal of philosophers in consideration of questions regarding the soul should be only to arrive at the truth, without worrying about the social repercussions.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2004 02:54 pm
heimdall

I would argue that "truth and reality" are social constructs. Any concept, whether it be "animals", "souls" or even "facts" are ( merely) linguistic encapsulations of our interactive processes with the world. This set of linguistic spectacles is acquired through the socialization process and is reinforced through social consensus.
The meaning of "soul" must therefore be taken paradigmatically, i.e. in socio-historical context and like all concepts is subject to paradigm shifts. The religious view of soul would of course run counter to the above argument on the basis of considerations of "the eternal" as opposed to the temporal, and "ultimate" as opposed to relativistic/paradigmatic reality.
0 Replies
 
heimdall
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 03:04 am
fresco wrote:
heimdall

I would argue that "truth and reality" are social constructs.
...


Yes, but you would be wrong.

It's only the conventional meanings of "truth" and "reality" that are social constructs. Truth and reality are what they are regardless of what the dominant political party pretends. You remind me of the state that legislated PI to be 22/7 to simplify mathematics.
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Nov, 2004 04:03 am
Fresco
If truth is only a social construct, then your proposition about truth - presuming you think your proposition is true - is nothing but a social construct. So, you should have said: the claim that truth is a social construct is only a social construct. And the same goes to all your claims about the soul. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is the "Soul"?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 04:46:04
▲ ▼