Who owns your soul?

@sometime sun,

There is no soul

@Krumple,

No such thing as a carbon credit, but people buy and sell them anyway.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;172498 wrote:

No such thing as a carbon credit, but people buy and sell them anyway.

Believing in an illusion doesn't make the illusion real.

People can cry watching a Muppet impersonating a death scene in a movie. Is the muppet real? No. It is an illusion within immersion of the fake reality.

Just because people want to believe there is a soul it doesn't make it a fundamental truth. They can believe it all they want, make choices accordingly but it does not create it as a reality.

@Krumple,

The soul is something remarkable in human conception. Aristotle would say that the soul was the actual form of the body, that it was one in the same with the body and could not be separated from it since it possessed its own inherent behaviors. And this was not only applied to humans, but to trees, daisies, dogs, cats, and the noble platypus, natures D-student. Absolutely fascinating notion though, especially at this point in intellectual history since you have this genuine attempt to mesh a burgeoning scientific inclination to abstract principles. Aristotle would call this the pneuma, the breath of the cosmos that, at least in my opinion, gave animation to the deeper ontological designs of the human. Even Descartes commented on this in the form of the spiritus, from the stoic conceptions of this grand immaterial "something" that was both the causal form of the cosmos and the reason why Timmy grew one inch taller this year, why Timmy hates cheese sticks, or why Timmy believes that spinach is bad.

But Descartes, Plato, and most everyone else and their mom would say that the soul is an immaterial part of a body that shared a connection but was not necessarily bound to it permanently. Saint Thomas Aquinas even mentioned that in the corporeal realm, the unification of body and soul was the foremost natural way. But even with the fact that the soul may have a relationship with the body in the case of Descartes, the soul is substantial. It is in the respect of tangibility that the issue prevails I suppose in this case.

Could someone own my soul? Depends on your conception of a soul. If you were to believe, for example, that the soul shares only a passing relationship with the body, then perhaps not. However, even in this respect, that is not to say that there is some entity which could exist and have some bond with my soul. In such a case, I don't know, but it would be wise for me to think that it could happen. Why? Because if I find out, when I do find out eventually, that there is something that has a bond with my soul, I acknowledge beforehand that it is so. If there is not something, I do not lose anything in affirming that bond, only if I deny that bond and find out that the bond does exist.

In many ways then, ownership of the soul is either absolute in the terms of this bond that we don't know we have or non-existent. Then, a sort of implied ownership, with nothing explicitly stating that "x owns my soul." And this is to say that someone on earth in my corporeal realm could most likely not own my soul, unless they had some way to tangibly say "here is your soul, check it out." But if anything, there are still major issues with ownership of physical certainty. Do I really own my body, and if so, am I not subject to this or that law. Do I have ownership of my land ad astra

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;172487 wrote:

Who owns your soul?

Can a soul be owned?

Can a soul be bought or sold?

Can you give it away?

How much do you think your soul is worth?

Do you think a soul is ultimately worthless?

Hi Sun,

I think we would need to define "soul" firstly- to give it an identity, before we try to ascertain its' values.

Shine on, Sun.

Mark...

@Krumple,

The OP never asked if the soul existed, it asked how is it valued. One can value the non-existent. I can't prove that I have love for my children. I can't prove the actual substance of speculative high yield futures. But I can place value on them. It would be a shame if this turned into yet another. "oh you are stupid for believing X" thread.

@Krumple,

Krumple;172502 wrote:

Believing in an illusion doesn't make the illusion real.

People can cry watching a Muppet impersonating a death scene in a movie. Is the muppet real? No. It is an illusion within immersion of the fake reality.

Just because people want to believe there is a soul it doesn't make it a fundamental truth. They can believe it all they want, make choices accordingly but it does not create it as a reality.

Upton Sinclair wrote a book called The Jungle about the plight and conditions of the meatpacking industry during the 1900s. This book was, I would say in most experts opinions, a large proponent to the reforms that were brought to the industry. Tell me, should such a thing be considered an illusion....or not real?

I point this out essentially to agree with GoshisDead's point about value in that which may not necessarily be ''real''.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;172506 wrote:

The OP never asked if the soul existed, it asked how is it valued. One can value the non-existent. I can't prove that I have love for my children. I can't prove the actual substance of speculative high yield futures. But I can place value on them. It would be a shame if this turned into yet another. "oh you are stupid for believing X" thread.

Yeah I am aware that it was not the intention of the post. I think the question itself is not a balanced question. It presupposes that there is a soul but how can you ask questions about something for which you can not know?
So why should we assume that the soul exists and then ponder it's attributes?

I honestly don't think you can actually prove that you have love for your children though but I guess I shouldn't nitpick or I'll cause the thread to derail.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;172506 wrote:

The OP never asked if the soul existed, it asked how is it valued. One can value the non-existent. I can't prove that I have love for my children. I can't prove the actual substance of speculative high yield futures. But I can place value on them. It would be a shame if this turned into yet another. "oh you are stupid for believing X" thread.

I have no idea who this is directed towards, but I find that the existence of the soul and its inherent value are inextricably connected, and any subsequent notion of ownership is simply logical. It is a matter of ownership and rationality in some respects. Maybe I place value on ownership.

@Amperage,

Amperage;172507 wrote:

Upton Sinclair wrote a book called The Jungle about the plight and conditions of the meatpacking industry during the 1900s. This book was, I would say in most experts opinions, a large proponent to the reforms that were brought to the industry. Tell me, should such a thing be considered an illusion....or not real?

I point this out essentially to agree with GoshisDead's point about value in that which may not necessarily be ''real''.

I find it a little interesting that you are trying to use an example that clearly leaves behind traces evidence that can be determined. Where as the soul has absolutely no trace evidence and can't be determined.

@Krumple,

Krumple;172511 wrote:

I find it a little interesting that you are trying to use an example that clearly leaves behind traces evidence that can be determined. Where as the soul has absolutely no trace evidence and can't be determined.

The soul is a personal element much like my "liking what I like". It cannot be shown to someone, but only be.

The fact that I am here is my evidence. Without negating me, you cannot negate my soul.

I cannot show you the evidence that I like what I like....it may be the case either but would you deny my likes?

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;172510 wrote:

I have no idea who this is directed towards, but I find that the existence of the soul and its inherent value are inextricably connected, and any subsequent notion of ownership is simply logical. It is a matter of ownership and rationality in some respects. Maybe I place value on ownership.

I like this perspective, but how would you ever determine it? How would you know if you were the self owner, or that some other being was the owner of it? How could you ever be certain? And if it were the case that some other "thing" owned your soul by what criteria would it be bound? Is there some sort of contract? Do you not have a choice in the matter? If you don't have a choice of who owns it, wouldn't you be considered a slave to that entity then?

@Amperage,

Amperage;172512 wrote:

The soul is a personal element much like my "liking what I like". It cannot be shown to someone, but only be.

The fact that I am here is my evidence. Without negating me, you cannot negate my soul.

I cannot show you the evidence that I like what I like....it may be the case either but would you deny my likes?

I had breakfast with aliens this morning. Would you object to that claim? The evidence I have is that I say that it happened. Is that not enough evidence?
So do you believe that I had breakfast with aliens this morning?

@Krumple,

Krumple;172513 wrote:

I like this perspective, but how would you ever determine it? How would you know if you were the self owner, or that some other being was the owner of it? How could you ever be certain? And if it were the case that some other "thing" owned your soul by what criteria would it be bound? Is there some sort of contract? Do you not have a choice in the matter? If you don't have a choice of who owns it, wouldn't you be considered a slave to that entity then?

Exactly! Great points! How do you really determine the value of a soul, let alone the fact that a soul could be owned, bought, sold, etc.? In my mind, it seems as though it is logical to establish that, if granted that the soul exists (and based on the contingencies of its conception), and that it could be bought, sold, etc. (basically in terms of hypothetical), then perhaps concepts of ownership could apply. I think that rarely value is objective, but most of the time subjective. Subjective theories of ownership may give some type of answer here. For example, would there be some sort of implicit ownership of my soul? Funny enough and in an amusing way, one could argue (not that I believe this, but heck the devil's advocate is an advocate none the less) that because an extended period of time has elapsed without proof of ownership, does that mean that I have full ownership of my soul? Happens with real-estate all the time, why not incorporeal real-estate! LOL!

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;172520 wrote:

Exactly! Great points! How do you really determine the value of a soul, let alone the fact that a soul could be owned, bought, sold, etc.? In my mind, it seems as though it is logical to establish that, if granted that the soul exists (and based on the contingencies of its conception), and that it could be bought, sold, etc. (basically in terms of hypothetical), then perhaps concepts of ownership could apply. I think that rarely value is objective, but most of the time subjective. Subjective theories of ownership may give some type of answer here. For example, would there be some sort of implicit ownership of my soul? Funny enough and in an amusing way, one could argue (not that I believe this, but heck the devil's advocate is an advocate none the less) that because an extended period of time has elapsed without proof of ownership, does that mean that I have full ownership of my soul? Happens with real-estate all the time, why not incorporeal real-estate! LOL!

Funny, I like your sense of humor, but can I play along too? How about another being can claim squatters rights to your soul? If this is the case I want to sell my soul to feed the homeless.

@Krumple,

Krumple;172522 wrote:

Funny, I like your sense of humor, but can I play along too? How about another being can claim squatters rights to your soul? If this is the case I want to sell my soul to feed the homeless.

I suppose it depends on what state (corporeal, incorporeal, Pennsylvania, New Jersey) you are in! LOL!

@VideCorSpoon,

I was reading in Bergson's the Creative Mind last night the chapter titled INtroduction to metaphysics. He noted that metaphysics is the (paraphrasing because I'm at work) the non-empirical science. By this he means that it is singularly subjective. It is the study of the intuitive. I know that there are materialist folks here that will automatically scoff at the non-empirical study of anything, but I propose 9as in I have the opinion that) that the soul as presupposed by the OP is just such a thing, an intuitive knowledge of self.

Whether one defines it as consciousness, spirit, soul, mind whatever, it the recognition of said in oneself. It is a simple act that encompasses a plethora of information such as duration, past, experience, speculation, being, fear, hope, doubt. That if we were to experience our duration, our past could be analyzed contains discrete instances. It is like a stretched out rubber band with discrete points written on it and all those instances are visibly discrete but in experiencing duration or (living life) we experience our past as that same rubber band without tension. One can no longer discern individual experiences so easily but they are still there.

I am not necessarily saying that our soul is our memory. I am simply using the bergson rubber band thing as a rough shod analogy for the manner in which our metaphysical study of the soul may be experienced.

To answer Sun's question about the worth and transferability of the soul, I would say. My soul's worth to me is exactly how much I value myself within the context of my belief structure. My eternal soul (as I do have one, because I have intuited it) I have no idea how much it is worth, as I am not a player on the eternal open market soul exchange. Can i sell it? I think I can barter it. In a more religious sense, that would be non-repentant sinning. In a more personal sense it would be commiting actions that would undermine my idealized sense of self.

@GoshisDead,

Hi Sun,

This is along similar lines to your OP

How often, alone, in your thoughts do you need to be you?
Where in the world do you fit?
And, To whom are you true?

This helped me answer a lot of my own questions once. The answers have never changed.

Shine On, Sun

Mark...

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;172487 wrote:

Who owns your soul?

Can a soul be owned?

Can a soul be bought or sold?

Can you give it away?

How much do you think your soul is worth?

Do you think a soul is ultimately worthless?

I was going to say "Property is Theft" but owning souls is more like murder by Proudhon's formulation.

Quote:

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first? - Proudhon opening paragraph of What is Property?

If owning a soul has any meaning it would apply to slavery in the sense that a slave master owns the soul of the slave and the slave-trader buys and sells the souls of slaves.

Can you give your soul away? Well you can lay down your life for another but self-sacrifice is something else entirely.

Philosophy Forum

Who owns your soul?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know