Who owns your soul?

@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?

Leaving aside, if I may, the question of ownership, I think it is interesting to broaden your question into a consideration of how something like an individual soul might be compared to an artefact, such as a tool, or a work of art, because these are among the kind of things that can be owned.

I won't try to argue; I will just be dogmatic, i.e. I will present a point of view. (See P.P.S. below.)

I do not have, or own, an immortal soul; nor am I myself an immortal soul. When my body dies, so do I. I am over; I do not go on.

Inasmuch as I am anything at all, I am a living being; and, inasmuch as I understand anything about myself, or about life in general, I think I agree with Mad Mike's assertion (or admission) that the word 'soul' is, at least arguably, synonymous with 'life'.

(I cannot resist mentioning that I became oddly obsessed with the Greek word 'Zoe' a couple of days ago, and I oddly asked Mike a question about it almost the instant he arrived.)

Human beings, as well as being present in the physical world, and aware of it, create physical artefacts, such as tools and works of art.

Although in no sense that I understand do we have souls or own souls, nor are we souls, we are - again, as Mad Mike correctly says - in soul.

Might it be said, then, that human beings, while alive, as well as being present in soul, and aware of soul, and as well as being present in the physical world, and aware of the physical world, and having the capacity to create forms of matter, may also create forms of soul, which, like our tools and works of art, may outlive us, and may be of use to others, or bring enlightenment to others?

If so, then such individual creations might well be candidates for being called individual souls, even though they are only small parts of the one soul that is. (Also, we might then pass on to the question of considering their ownership; but for now, that would be premature, because none of what I've just written might be true, or it might even have no meaning.)

(Afterthought: might this be something like Sheldrake's "formative causation", or "morphic resonance"? I haven't yet got around to reading Sheldrake, so I have no idea if by this remark I am inadvertently advocating crackpottery!) (See P.S. below.)

But even if there is no such creation of individual 'souls' within soul, never mind. I am a bubble, and I will burst; but when I burst, the space within my bubble and the space outside it will all still be there; and I am content with that, even if after I die there is no more space than there was before.

P.S. That was written after very little sleep. I thought it all out before starting to type anything, but I forgot one obvious, straightforward part of what I had meant to write (resulting in the apparent need for the speculative "afterthought"). Now I've had a little more sleep, and remembered that I had intended, as an essential step in the account, to mention that individual innovations in soul may be transmitted via language.

I did also wonder about other possible kinds of transmission, but I hadn't intended to mention them in this post. One thing I was reminded of was the thread "Help! Confronting the Creative Colony Mind" (Thu 4 Mar), but I had meant to leave speculation about the soul of other species for another time, if indeed I had anything I wanted to say about it at all.

My lapse of memory has given what I wrote a more mysterious and speculative appearance than intended. (Now to try to get some more sleep!)

P.P.S. (Ugh, no more sleep!) I hope that no-one imagines that when I wrote "I will not try to argue'" I meant "I will not allow anyone to argue with me"! No. Of course, I only meant "I will not try to present these thoughts in the form of an argument.'" Just checking - one has to be so careful!

P.P.P.S. (Well, what else can I do?) In belated response to the OP: Does a farmer own the land on which he lives and works? Yes and no.

@Twirlip,

Quote:

Afterthought: might this be something like Sheldrake's "formative causation", or "morphic resonance"? I haven't yet got around to reading Sheldrake, so I have no idea if by this remark I am inadvertently advocating crackpottery!

According to most of the science establishment, everything Sheldrake says is crackpottery, but they said the same sort of thing about
Alfred Wegener, the father of Continental Drift. So the establishment's view alone isn't a reliable indicator. Personally, I rather like the idea of "morphogenetic fields," but I have nowhere near enough technical knowledge for my opinion to sway anyone.

@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 don't know what a soul is, therefore I am unable to answer these questions. If you could explain a soul, I would be happy to answer these questions.

@apehead,

apehead;173021 wrote:

I don't know what a soul is, therefore I am unable to answer these questions. If you could explain a soul, I would be happy to answer these questions.

Even after an explanation is given, you may still find it hard to answer the questions. Because, if you're like me, you may believe there is no justification for believing that souls actually exist.

@Zetherin,

Thanks, but I can't really think of much convincing evidence for anything existing, so that might not be the best example.

@apehead,

apehead;173048 wrote:

Thanks, but I can't really think of much convincing evidence for anything existing, so that might not be the best example.

Yes, that would make quite a few questions hard to answer for you. In fact, I am in amazement that you can even participate on this forum at all, since I imagine that your mindset would prohibit you from having much of an opinion about anything.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;173049 wrote:

Yes, that would make quite a few questions hard to answer for you. In fact, I am in amazement that you can even participate on this forum at all, since I imagine that your mindset would prohibit you from having an opinion about nearly anything.

What, you've never played pretend to entertain yourself before?
Also, I'm rather indifferent to whether my experiences are real or not, they're cool either way.

@apehead,

apehead;173052 wrote:

What, you've never played pretend to entertain yourself before?

Well, I would have hoped that one of the reasons you are here is that you wish to learn and become enlightened (I don't mean that spiritually). Perhaps by the time you leave, we can get you to start understanding that having confidence in some things is reasonable, and that some things do exist. That would be a good start, don't you think?

Quote:

Also, I'm rather indifferent to whether my experiences are real or not, they're cool either way.

As opposed to your experiences being imaginary, like in a dream? If all your experiences are imaginary, then, how can we express the dichotomy between real and imaginary?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;173054 wrote:

we can get you to start understanding that having confidence in some things is reasonable, and that some things do exist. That would be a good start, don't you think?

apehead this is for you also,
If we cannot or will not concentrate on the reality or definitive of 'soul', surely you can move on to cost, worth and value. These are very real things with very real definition.
Not necessarily the availability or appearance of soul rather the condition of soul which is to say if or not soul exists one thing we can be sure of is that it values, costs and 'frees' at something.
Not what you may or not be buying, rather what is the commerce of soul worth or not.
For whether the soul is real or not matters not as much as what one is willing to go into debt for.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun wrote:

apehead this is for you also,
If we cannot or will not concentrate on the reality or definitive of 'soul', surely you can move on to cost, worth and value. These are very real things with very real definition.
Not necessarily the availability or appearance of soul rather the condition of soul which is to say if or not soul exists one thing we can be sure of is that it values, costs and 'frees' at something.
Not what you may or not be buying, rather what is the commerce of soul worth or not.
For whether the soul is real or not matters not as much as what one is willing to go into debt for.

What? Souls are commodities? Where can I buy one?

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;173061 wrote:

apehead this is for you also,
If we cannot or will not concentrate on the reality or definitive of 'soul', surely you can move on to cost, worth and value. These are very real things with very real definition.
Not necessarily the availability or appearance of soul rather the condition of soul which is to say if or not soul exists one thing we can be sure of is that it values, costs and 'frees' at something.
Not what you may or not be buying, rather what is the commerce of soul worth or not.
For whether the soul is real or not matters not as much as what one is willing to go into debt for.

This makes absolutely no sense. You can speculate all you want about the value of something that doesn't exist. But it never stops being speculation. Why even discuss the value of something before you have proven it exists?

If there is a gem that will grant one wish, how much is it worth? It turns into one of those philosophical absurdities. Because you could just wish for a million more of these gems. It becomes so abstract that discussing the value of it becomes completely pointless. A waste of time argument. Same goes for discussing the value of the soul before it has been proven.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;173063 wrote:

What? Souls are commodities? Where can I buy one?

*points up*

(Bourgeois filler)

@Huxley,

Huxley;173068 wrote:

*points up*

(Bourgeois filler)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you have any idea what the value of a soul is, or what that combination of words (the value of a soul) even means?

@Krumple,

Krumple;173064 wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense. You can speculate all you want about the value of something that doesn't exist. But it never stops being speculation. Why even discuss the value of something before you have proven it exists?

If there is a gem that will grant one wish, how much is it worth? It turns into one of those philosophical absurdities. Because you could just wish for a million more of these gems. It becomes so abstract that discussing the value of it becomes completely pointless. A waste of time argument. Same goes for discussing the value of the soul before it has been proven.

Speculation about valuable stuff that doesn't actually exist is how we went into the Great Recession. The only real difference is Wall street at least calls it speculation. Even Speculation can be valued, and it seems valued enough to topple world economies. Why are people so stuck on the extance of a soul? Value in general in an exchange is never about tangibility its about percieved use. Why would someone pay more for a mint conditiion antique car than a new car? Its about percieved prestige, aesthetics, sense of self, etc... Why does someone pay extra for a real painting versus a lithograph of that painting? etc... etc... etc...

If I were to value a soul, the soul's value would not rest on the tangibility of the soul just like my valueing a Matisse the value is not based on the existence of that Mattise. Just as one who doesn't believe in a soul may not value one at all while someone who does believe values one highly. My brother who does not appreciate art of any kind really would not value a Matisse as I would.

Value is a function of the self not a function of the object.

Cheers,
Russ

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;173072 wrote:

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Do you have any idea what the value of a soul is, or what that combination of words (the value of a soul) even means?

Oh, I actually meant my previous response in saying "point up". I now see how that could be confusing in discussing "the soul".

I have an idea, sure. Not what it means to some other world-view, or even in a necessary sense, but I do have an idea of what it means. The Soul is Personhood. The soul is an activity of the brain synthesizing an "I". The soul is mortal, the soul is the body. The value of a soul is equal to the value of a sentient life -- presently, in our system, I believe that puts the minimum at ~ 8 dollars/hour, with some restrictions.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;173074 wrote:

Speculation about valuable stuff that doesn't actually exist is how we went into the Great Recession.

I disagree with this argument but not to derail the topic I will bite my tongue here. (I know it's a first huh?)

GoshisDead;173074 wrote:

If I were to value a soul, the soul's value would not rest on the tangibility of the soul just like my valueing a Matisse the value is not based on the existence of that Mattise. Just as one who doesn't believe in a soul may not value one at all while someone who does believe values one highly. My brother who does not appreciate art of any kind really would not value a Matisse as I would.

Right exactly the point. However we know that art exists so you can discuss the worth and value. Even though your brother might not value art, art still exists. The soul however has not been proven to exist. Therefore discussing it's value is completely abstract.

@sometime sun,

Huxley wrote:

The Soul is Personhood. The soul is an activity of the brain synthesizing an "I". The soul is mortal, the soul is the body. The value of a soul is equal to the value of a sentient life -- presently, in our system, I believe that puts the minimum at ~ 8 dollars/hour, with some restrictions.

Ah, I would call what you describe consciousness. Not soul. Souls, as most of us understand, don't exist. They are just something the superstitious like to believe in, in order to sustain the wishful thought that we survive, in some form, after death.

So, what is the value of human life? Well, I suppose that answer varies.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;173063 wrote:

What? Souls are commodities? Where can I buy one?

It is not that you can gain one or lose one, it is that you are willing to pay for or give credit.
The payment not that purchase.

@Krumple,

Krumple;173078 wrote:

I disagree with this argument but not to derail the topic I will bite my tongue here. (I know it's a first huh?)

Right exactly the point. However we know that art exists so you can discuss the worth and value. Even though your brother might not value art, art still exists. The soul however has not been proven to exist. Therefore discussing it's value is completely abstract.

The existence is not the value, nor is it the thing upon which value is predecated. Value is based from the percieved benefit of the the object/thought/concept within a specific realm of influence. An imaginary thing can have serious value if the realm of influence treats it as if it were real. And we are discussing the worth and value of a soul right now extant or no. And what is even absolutely less sense is someone arguing in a philosophy forum that discussing the anstract makes no sense. there are entire very lucrative fields based on things that are not proven to exist, if there were not we would not have Intellectual Properties lawyers.

@Krumple,

Krumple;172514 wrote:

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?

firstly, I don't quite see the correlation. Second, I present a quote from William Kingdon Clifford's Essay, The Ethics of Belief:

Quote:

If an event really happened which was not a part of the uniformity of nature, it would have two properties: no evidence could give the right to believe it to any except those whose actual experience it was; and no inference worthy of belief could be founded upon it at all.

I actually agree with him on this and this is exactly why I don't expect someone who has not actually experienced God for themselves to do so. However I do believe that those who have had such an experience would be within their right to tell others of their experience in the hopes that others could possibly experience it too.

So in terms of you having breakfast with an Alien, no, I don't believe you because it is not something I've experienced personally and it does not conform to the uniformity of nature as I know it currently.

Having said that, think about any person who witnessed something that others did not experience and which did not conform to the uniformity of nature as they knew it(think new species, new discoveries, etc.). If such people were not supposed to tell others what they experienced then nothing new would ever be accomplished.

Philosophy Forum

Who owns your soul?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know