Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
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.
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...
I was going to say "Property is Theft" but owning souls is more like murder by Proudhon's formulation.
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.
This is a topic that's sort of near and dear to me, so I was browsing this thread with some interest, but unless I missed it, I still haven't seen anyone propose a definition of soul. So what the heck, I'll offer this as an opener:
"Soul is that which, when it is present in a physical object, the object is said to be living, and when it is absent, the object is said to be dead."
For me, it's not a problem that this means soul is synonymous with life, but I suppose someone else might object to that.
Ah, so all living organisms have souls? Even tiny amoebas, since they are considered living? Interesting. And where do all the souls go after they leave the organism upon death? I must have removed at least a dozen souls from the ants I stepped on today. I suppose you could even say I now own their souls! What do you think?
When I think of the word soul this is what comes some what close to what I have in mind.
The word psychology literally means, "study of the soul".[1] It derives from Ancient Greek: "ψυχή" (psychē, meaning "breath", "spirit", or "soul"); and "-λογία" (-logia, translated as "study of").[1] The Latin word psychologia has likely origins in mid-16th century Germany. The earliest known referernce to the English word psychology was by Steven Blankaart in 1693 in The Physical Dictionary which refers to "Anatomy, which treats of the Body, and Psychology, which treats of the Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(psychology
(1) My stomach confines my body to the set of actions that will satisfy the stomach.
(2) Given our current economic model, my body must then act such that it remains employed.
(3) In order to remain employed, one must do as their employer directs.
(4) Due to (1) and (2), one must always have an employer.
(5) Ownership of an object is the ability to direct that object.
(6) Whatever the soul is, it is confined to the body (at least in this life)
(7) The body is an object.
Putting things together: My employer directs my body (an object), which houses the soul, and this is, by definition proposed in (5), ownership. Further, this is a necessary condition of existence due to (1), (2). Therefore, My employer owns my soul.
A soul is but a thing/
That withers through time/
Within man's being/
Oh how we make it sublime/
When it becomes apparent/
That our face reflects it/
A portal to the spiritual/
Perceived through the material/
If it could be bought/
I scarce think one would want/
The one he has withered and worn/
But a bright one, newly born/
Oh if man knew of the soul/
Perhaps he would not be so bold/
To not let his folly run afoul/
And preserve the soul, thus extolled/
Silly silly.
Ownership is a legal construct. Possession might be more accurate.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. It just occurred to me that it may be useful to distinguish between ownership and possession.
I think all living organisms have a share of soul, even tiny amoebas, yes. But I don't think "where" has anything to do with what happens to the bits of soul in organisms at death, because I think everything living is always "in" soul. As for those ants, I don't think you "own" their souls by killing them, but you might "own" the karma of killing them.
Is this associated with anything in particular, for example, self organisation, self direction?
I think all living organisms have a share of soul, even tiny amoebas, yes. But I don't think "where" has anything to do with what happens to the bits of soul in organisms at death, because I think everything living is always "in" soul. As for those ants, I don't think you "own" their souls by killing them, but you might "own" the karma of killing them.
I'm not being mean, I'm just poking fun at how unclear you've been.
I'm sorry, maybe it is just me, but I have absolutely no clue what many of your posts mean.
I asked for clarification earlier:
So, no, I didn't immediately give up on you.
Prove the soul so I may lay claim to it...
If you can understand this you can still come to understand me.
There's life in the old dog yet.
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 06:23 AM ----------
I hadn't gotten to you yet, you must have seen I going from start to finish and that I had to stop at Twirlip, and Twirlip came before your request for clarification, I will tomorrow try.
You didn't 'immediately' give up on me, which you have to some degree now?
---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 06:28 AM ----------
It may be the very nature of soul which claim cannot be layed which is to mean you may also not prove.
For if we were to prove, would it not then be able to be sold?
It cant be proven for the reason it does not want to be sold?
