Who owns your soul?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:57 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173204 wrote:
A soul is only worth what value others put on it? (talking of the divine and sin, again can soul reasonable be measured weighed by ethical standards, morality immorality, law)
Can the law be the yard stick for the soul?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:26 AM ----------


Is not all soul communion, community, communication?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:30 AM ----------


Perhaps we have it all wrong and the ONLY thing that can be owned or owns is the soul and all else including flesh is nought but worthless?

Perhaps soul owns us?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:33 AM ----------

And Deckard perhaps sacrifice is the ultimate souls control?
Perhaps the soul fights us all its existence to be able to sacrifice the body so as to let the soul be truly free?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:36 AM ----------

Deckard;
Perhaps the soul is looking for the other to be the sacrifice?
Perhaps the soul is working to be worth enough for someone else to sacrifice for it?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:37 AM ----------

Deckard; does a soul teach soul?
or does a soul only learn soul?
Which has the more valuable 'soul' the teacher or the pupil?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:40 AM ----------


Is the soul the sayer or the said?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:44 AM ----------


This says you own their life because you killed them.
So to say this Hitler owns the souls of all the people he killed.

Even if you want to take soul out of the picture, did not they die FOR something not because of something?

You could say here FOR is soul, but don't if you don't want to.
FOR is still a value is it not?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:51 AM ----------


Soul then is expression of self?
What is expression?
It is the measurable action or reaction of things.
Yes psychology could mean soul.
Now we delve into sanity or insanity also and whether if you are reasoned as more insane whether you have more or less soul?
Can the soul or psyche here be weighed and measure by the criteria of either the common mind or even intelligence be the weighing evaluation?
EVALUATION.
Can any one soul be heavier lighter than another one soul?
Common?
Is the soul intelligence?
Is there more or less intelligence?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 03:59 AM ----------


Emphasis on SATISFACTION.
What is the quality that satisfies?
What is the quality of satisfaction?
EQUALITY?
Opposite of equality is???
Can the soul be referenced be prejudicial?

Must the soul be paid?
Must the soul earn?
Can the soul skive off?

Is the soul the skivvy?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:05 AM ----------


Soul is....
Sublime is sublimation?
Apparent is transparent?
Reflection is deflection?
Preserved is reserved?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:09 AM ----------


Ownership is an agreement between the owner and the owned?
Possession is an entitlement between possessed and possessor?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:11 AM ----------


Karma the ultimate in debt collectors.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:13 AM ----------

Karma; what pays the life or the death? Both? soul?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:19 AM ----------


Higher auctioner adding value or cheapening it?
Is there an auctioner or is it only the seller and purchaser?
In other words do souls have choice over the body to the body over the soul?
Soul soul serving?
Self self serving?
SERVICE?
Is the soul a service?
Is this how one can measure soul by the service?
What not who is being served first or last or all instantaneously?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:21 AM ----------


Back again, the 'where'.
Can something be valued by the position it takes or is shown its seat?
Is there a place for soul?
Is it seated somewhere?
Is it waiting to be seated?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 04:24 AM ----------

Sorry Twirlip I did not quite get to you, will see you tomorrow.



Thank you Somtime sun for your response.
I would like to share with you a somewhat closer view of what comes to my mind when I think of the soul. :detective: YouTube - Naturalization of MInd (Patricia S. Churchland, UCSD), Pt.1
 
Minimal
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:57 am
@sometime sun,
I aint got no money, I aint got no woman and aint go no friends but man I have soul brother ;-)
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:12 am
@sometime sun,
It appears that ownership is strictly a human value.
I can't remember who said it but it's been said that the only sense in which anyone owns anything is that he keeps it for awhile.
 
Minimal
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:31 am
@wayne,
wayne;173333 wrote:
It appears that ownership is strictly a human value.


I do not think that is true at all. Watch various species fight for their young wholly based on genetic proximity to themselves -- they indeed feel some degree of "ownership" for their young (even note the possessive nature of "their") and for themselves. We are instinctual and our ancestry embodies this possessive territory marking.

__

Identity -- which I am going to use synonymously with "soul" but without the loaded nature of the word -- is an illusion, or at least our perception of "I" or self is. We have no static existence and we are always changing, although in essence fundamentally the same in constituency. We create this possessive idea of "ownership" to function as a more developmentally complex organism - multicellular versus cellular. By labelling our constituencies into one unit allows our components to function in a uniformed fashion and allows uniformed objectives to be clearly set for the whole organism.

We are all just verbose matter stuck in evolutionary transmission -- constantly morphing and moulding. We need to work in a uniformed unit, ergo we equate ourselves as an entire unit, this "self". "Soul" is more of a projection of moral and emotional elements and in that sense reflects a metaphysical paradigm as opposed to, what I feel, is a more physical identity of simply "self". This projecting of values allows us to function with concepts of ethicality and morality. "Soul" is just another manifestation of "self" with a moral and emotional development tacked on due to our bigger neo-cortex.


Well, that is at least how I see it.

Regards,

Minimal.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:45 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;173330 wrote:
Thank you Somtime sun for your response.
I would like to share with you a somewhat closer view of what comes to my mind when I think of the soul. :detective: YouTube - Naturalization of MInd (Patricia S. Churchland, UCSD), Pt.1

Pretty good for a Canadian, and on the money too... I would ask what she feels with if not the mind...

And, it is not just the brain, though we think of brain and mind as some what identical... The brain is as extensive as the entire nervous system which is as extensive as the cardio-vascular system... Where we have body we have brain, so while we may localize many functions of the mind as we conceive of it in the brain, you cannot begin to understand the brain without understanding the body...

If people are run ragged, if the wear and tear of their lives affects their other physiological systems, it effects the brain, and this is happening on a vast scale in our society, and we can see this easily with the young who so live in stress and fear that they eat themselves into disease as a drug, not of choice, but out of necessity... People are unhappy, pressed to their natural limits, often ill or in a state of near illness, worked to the point of slavery and beyond; and we can say this is progress, to isolate brain from mind so we can address our problems in a truely scientific way... Yet, the very complexity of the person, and of the brain itself means we must always make room for mystery, for the unknown, for the infinites of our forms and of our minds, for lack of a better word...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:45 am
@sometime sun,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krumple http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
I'll sell mine, any buyers?
[/I]

sometime sun;173288 wrote:
I'm not buying, but if you ever wanted to give it to me freely I may accept if I thought I had earned it.


Do you think I'm running some kind of charity here? I guess this proves my point that the soul is worthless.

sometime sun;173288 wrote:

Are there some humans who have no soul?
Or may it be there but unusable?


Yes, all humans have no soul.
 
apehead
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:45 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173054 wrote:
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?


I guess it depends if I am willing to suppress my doubt and take that theory on faith, similar to how I would have to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior before progressing further as a Christian. I don't understand why it is necessary to determine any facts before advancing more hypothesis about this intrasubjective experience we share.



Zetherin;173054 wrote:
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?


Well, if this whole experience was a dream, than I would've had dreams within the larger dream of which I'm unaware. Like this:

Big Dream = Reality = We are unaware of existence.

Dream Within Dream = Dream = We are aware of its status as dream.
 
Soul Brother
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:33 am
@Minimal,
Minimal;173331 wrote:
I aint got no money, I aint got no woman and aint go no friends but man I have soul brother ;-)


Thank you. ;-)












.....
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 10:11 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;173278 wrote:
I'll sell mine, any buyers?

What, that old thing? I've already got one just like it, and in better condition, too. I might take it off your hands for the price of an argument, or perhaps just a couple of contradictions and an insult. I'm not sure it's even worth an argument, but I'm feeling in a generous mood today. :devilish:
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 01:27 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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?

Can soul take on form?
Is soul art? artefact?
Do we not put soul into things?
Is soul effort?
Is soul trial?
Is soul enjoyment?
Is soul joy?
Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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.)

Yes I wonder if the plays of Shakespear are bottled souls?
What about a written drawn character?
Do not they have as much life in peoples senses as people?

Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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.

I just LOVE this.
Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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.

Does the soul sleep?
Does the soul take rest?
If it is created through effort, work, and earning surely then it must also take a day off?
Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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.

Transmission good word and I would say it could be easily describing soul.
What is picking up the reception and what is sending it?
Yes if an animal has soul and we own an animal do we own their soul?

Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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!

Yes people take offence at the weirdest things don't they.
Twirlip;172895 wrote:

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.

Can you sell a 'home' after you have lived loved and learned in it?
Wont you always be the owner of that home?
Is soul home?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 08:34 PM ----------

Zetherin;173063 wrote:
What? Souls are commodities? Where can I buy one?

If you put a price on something it is then a commodity?
Is there such a thing as a free commodity?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:10 pm
@sometime sun,
apehead wrote:
Well, if this whole experience was a dream, than I would've had dreams within the larger dream of which I'm unaware. Like this:

Big Dream = Reality = We are unaware of existence.

Dream Within Dream = Dream = We are aware of its status as dream.


But dreams do not equal reality, as dreams are imaginary, and reality is not.

So, once again, if everything is a dream, how do we distinguish what is real, from what is imaginary?

Quote:
I guess it depends if I am willing to suppress my doubt and take that theory on faith, similar to how I would have to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior before progressing further as a Christian


No. If you stick around long enough, you will realize that faith is not belief with justification. Perhaps I'll help express this to you in another thread.

sometime sun wrote:
If you put a price on something it is then a commodity?
Is there such a thing as a free commodity?


Souls don't exist.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:43 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173064 wrote:
Why even discuss the value of something before you have proven it exists?

Because the discussion will add or subtract the value.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:43 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173524 wrote:
Because the discussion will add or subtract the value.



The discussion will add or subtract the value of what?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:46 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;173074 wrote:

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

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

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 10:49 PM ----------

Huxley;173077 wrote:
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.

Can a soul be worth anything in its leisure time?
Once the soul has punched out even if it will come back the next day is not the remainder of the day worth something?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 10:51 PM ----------

Zetherin;173525 wrote:
The discussion will add or subtract the value of what?

What is the gain loss of discussion? Start there.
Is not a discussion sometimes just worth a discussion?
What is a discussion?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:53 pm
@sometime sun,
If the soul is only a notion, no loss. What's to own? A word? If the soul is my life, then it is also all of my experience, the entire world as I see, hear, smell, touch, sniff, feel, and think it. And those who own my life are part of it.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:53 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173078 wrote:

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.

Could not the soul be described as art or art form or forming or formulation?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 10:56 PM ----------

Zetherin;173082 wrote:
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.

Why cannot soul be described as consciousness?
What makes human life any more value able than a soul?
Is it not the consciousness or soul that makes us believe that 'life' is worth anything at all?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 10:58 PM ----------

GoshisDead;173085 wrote:
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.

Surly there are benefits and drawbacks of believing or not that a soul exists.
Could we not place value this way?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 11:01 PM ----------

Amperage;173086 wrote:

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.

Soul is a disease?

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 11:04 PM ----------

Huxley;173092 wrote:

In my opinion, little else is more valuable, though I place the value at sentience/rationality rather than just "human" (takes care of questions about alien life forms and androids). What makes it valuable is that it has a concept of itself. It has an "I". It has a soul. This is personhood, and personhood is that set of qualities that brings a being into the moral sphere as an acting being. While I think there are other attending attributes to personhood, and I'll tell you now that I don't have a fully fleshed out defense of personhood, I think this is a major component.

Soul is conceptualisation?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:23 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173532 wrote:

Soul is conceptualisation?

Oh, let's not limit it to that.Smile

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 05:24 PM ----------

sometime sun;173532 wrote:

Soul is a disease?

An itch that wants to be scratched?
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:29 pm
@Minimal,
Minimal;173338 wrote:
I do not think that is true at all. Watch various species fight for their young wholly based on genetic proximity to themselves -- they indeed feel some degree of "ownership" for their young (even note the possessive nature of "their") and for themselves. We are instinctual and our ancestry embodies this possessive territory marking..


What you seem to be suggesting is that the instinct for survival of the species somehow translates to ownership. Just try and buy a little territory from a Tiger.
Ownership is a completely different concept. If you think that we own our children, you will someday be sadly dissillusioned.
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;173549 wrote:
An itch that wants to be scratched?

We shouldn't scratch our souls in public. :devilish:
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:32 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;173553 wrote:
We shouldn't scratch our souls in public. :devilish:


Well look at that. Our souls were metaphors after all.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 06:15:14