Who owns your soul?

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic;173965 wrote:

I do think you are correct, I was just being sensitive to others that find an extreme value in the word soul, hoping that they will continue to read my point of views in the future.

I apologize if it seems like I'm trying to beat you up over that line of reasoning. I realize that many theists (i know you are not one) try make their religious views seem more rational by trying to incorporate the concepts into every day life. They do this by bending the definitions in ways to try and squeeze in other concepts to give their belief more validity than it has.

I see this same sort of behavior with a lot of vegetarians. If you look at a lot of vegetarian food they are modeled after meat. Veggie dogs, veggie ground round (soi hamburger), there are even veggie bacon strips, tofurkey which is a ball of tofu in the shape of a turkey which some vegetarians eat on thanksgiving. The list goes on. They do this to try and fit in with the rest of society to not seem so drastically different.

So many theists who are christian see that the world is becoming more and more secular and giving up their religious views that they want to try and maintain their theology by trying to incorporate secular points of views. Which makes them come up with very convoluted terminology and twisted definitions.

Like saying you use faith every day, so faith is not a bad thing because you use it all the time. Which is clearly a fallacy but it doesn't stop them from trying to spread it. They want so desperately to maintain their validity claims to faith being important that they will spread lies if they have to.

Or

God is nature and the laws of nature combined. So if you dismiss god then you are dismissing that there is nature. This is also a fallacy because it's just substituting some word you have which has no clear distinction with another that has a clearly defined definition.

The list goes on and on with this sort of behavior.

@sometime sun,

I can see why some may question whether we have a soul. Personally a soul makes sense to me. Not sure I could prove my souls existence. But I am not sure a soul has to be proved to others to have value. Of course it depends on how you define value. As a Spiritual Anarchist I choose my soul as my highest value. To me not only does my soul exist but I have no higher authority than my soul.

I do not even place the hypothetical God above my soul. To me all talk about God or gods is based on "God Concepts". So even if there is a God I must remain agnostic until I can have an experience of the absolute that goes beyond concepts.This is unlikely since the absolute is itself a concept.

To me my understanding of my soul precludes any form of ownership. I don't own my soul like I do my body. I am my soul. To ask whether someone can own my soul is to ask whether I can be owned. Certainly there were times in history where a man has been sold into bondage so that all the freedoms a normal person had over their body were limited. But if these men's souls were owned then slavery never could of ended. If we are asking if God or some supernatural entity could form a contract that puts the soul in bondage then my answer would have to be no. Merely by having a soul I would be breaking the contract. To enforce such a contract my soul would have to be eliminated. If that were possible there would no longer be a soul to enter the contract. Morality of religion depends on freewill. Since I did not freely enter into any contract regarding an agreement to accepting a savior or burning in hell as a consequence (for example) I can not be held responsible for breaking that contract.

In other words there is no God that owns my soul like any artist with a copyright. If I was designed by an all knowing all powerful creator...then being a mere design I would have no freewill therefor no soul to own let alone one that could choose to enter into such an agreement. Many theist tell me that God gave me freewill so I could "Choose" to obey God's will or suffer. This does not meet my definition of "free". I have freewill as long as I don't choose to exercise it? The problems this creates far outweighs any assumed benefits of theism. To me the idea that my mind may not be what materialist assume does not seem as far fetched as an anthropomorphic God.

So as a Spiritual Anarchist I must part both with the atheist who denies my soul exist and the theist that denies my soul has any value not decided by their alleged deity. If there is God then it would have to be like Spinoza said. "There is nothing that is not God.In that case by claiming my soul as my highest authority I am not rejecting God only man made institutions and ideologies based on man made concepts. I am a true anarchist. But not a communist anarchist or social anarchist etc. But a spiritual anarchist.

@spiritual anrkst,

spiritual anrkst;173972 wrote:

I don't own my soul like I do my body. I am my soul.

Whereas I am fairly sure that I am not my soul (or at any rate, even if I am my soul, my soul is not me); and so I have to ask why you have a use for the word 'soul' at all? It's not a rhetorical question, and I expect you probably have a reasonable answer, e.g. you might reply that because 'soul' means the same as 'self', you have a soul at least as much as any religious person who claims to have one, so why should you not claim the word as your own? (If so, that would be quite similar to the slightly nervous yet defiant way in which I use the word 'God'.)

spiritual anrkst;173972 wrote:

So as a Spiritual Anarchist I must part both with the atheist who denies my soul exist and the theist that denies my soul has any value not decided by their alleged deity. If there is God then it would have to be like Spinoza said. "There is nothing that is not God.In that case by claiming my soul as my highest authority I am not rejecting God only man made institutions and ideologies based on man made concepts. I am a true anarchist. But not a communist anarchist or social anarchist etc. But a spiritual anarchist.

I rather like this, even though I disagree with it. I believe there is something of a tradition of arguing with God; and you might also find this to your liking, as an alternative to your anarchism! (Call it "spiritual liberalism", perhaps?) Of course, no-one in their right mind really argues with God; but no-one has a really clear idea of who God is; so it does make sense, and indeed I think it is even a mark of sanity, to argue with whatever might present itself to you as being God. Test God - it is mad not to (and your anarchism is a safer and saner alternative to such untested belief).

@Krumple,

Krumple;173963 wrote:

Well it just seems a little strange to even bring up the word soul then. Why not just stick with biology or life then? Because if you say soul then people might confuse that with either their own interpretation or some other invested concept. However if you just stick with biology or life then these words are much more understandable.

It just seems like adding on extra baggage that is unnecessary.

You bring up a good point and you are forgetting that no one word has only one absolute meaning. life and biology are concepts too.
A word such as 'soul' or even 'biology' and 'life' has many many associations. If we use the word 'life' we are still in the same place we started because no matter what word we use it will still have 3, 5, 10 associations.

Proof of this is our case, 'soul' for me is 'life' and 'biology' they are all the same for me, but for you it has other meanings. No matter what name we give it, it will still bring about a chain of meaning. Thats why when we name something it kills that thing because it will always have a chain of other signifier's.

@Dr Seuss,

Dr. Seuss;173989 wrote:

You bring up a good point and you are forgetting that no one word has only one absolute meaning. life and biology are concepts too.
A word such as 'soul' or even 'biology' and 'life' has many many associations. If we use the word 'life' we are still in the same place we started because no matter what word we use it will still have 3, 5, 10 associations.

Proof of this is our case, 'soul' for me is 'life' and 'biology' they are all the same for me, but for you it has other meanings. No matter what name we give it, it will still bring about a chain of meaning. Thats why when we name something it kills that thing because it will always have a chain of other signifier's.

Right but when you are communicating with others your ideas, you have to keep in mind the words you use might not have the same meaning as those who you are speaking to. So it is best to use words that are the closest or "best" suiting to the discussion.

So for you, you can say, well I think everyone has a soul, which according to you means life or biology but the soul does not mean biology or life necessarily. So to talk like that would be misleading to someone who thinks the soul is something other than biology or life.

Personal definitions will always fail unless you thoroughly explain your meaning of the words you are using or you use a word that is widely accepted. The first would be the most idea method, the later is something that can be adjustable since some might question the word usage anyways.

@sometime sun,

I responded to what I felt I could respond to.

Quote:

Emphasis on SATISFACTION.
What is the quality that satisfies?

The acquisition of material necessities such that we can exercise the mental necessities.

Quote:

What is the quality of satisfaction?

On a personal level, Eudaemonia. In order to get this politically, we need...

Quote:

EQUALITY?

Specifically, material equality.

Quote:

Must the soul be paid?
Must the soul earn?

Yes, and yes.

The above is more on a personal level -- from myself -- and doesn't relate to who possesses the soul. The below is more in that vein.

Quote:

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?

To the possessor, the worth of leisure is the elongation of the lifespan of a convenient and trained investment.

Quote:

Soul is conceptualisation?

In some sense, yes. Though, metaphysically, I would still say that the soul is the body, and that we use the word soul to refer to a set of internal states related to motivation, morality, and self-perception. (though, as another has pointed out in this thread, self-perception can be, and often is, terribly off the mark)

@Krumple,

Krumple;174028 wrote:

So to talk like that would be misleading to someone who thinks the soul is something other than biology or life.

Personal definitions will always fail unless you thoroughly explain your meaning of the words you are using or you use a word that is widely accepted. The first would be the most idea method, the later is something that can be adjustable since some might question the word usage anyways.

All discourse is misleading in nature as it only reveals a half truth. That which you 'say' and that which is lost in the process of speaking it.

@Dr Seuss,

Dr. Seuss;174033 wrote:

All discourse is misleading in nature as it only reveals a half truth. That which you 'say' and that which is lost in the process of speaking it.

Yeah I agree, but there's no sense in making it more complicated than it needs to be.

@Krumple,

Krumple;173963 wrote:

Well it just seems a little strange to even bring up the word soul then. Why not just stick with biology or life then? Because if you say soul then people might confuse that with either their own interpretation or some other invested concept. However if you just stick with biology or life then these words are much more understandable.

It just seems like adding on extra baggage that is unnecessary.

Extra baggage??? You could stuff a mountain down any rat hole of any definition of a moral reality, and still have the rat hole... There is no soul... There is life, but that too is an infinite, and a moral form... I can't even say you are alive... You have to do that for yourself unless you are looking for a face full of dirt...

If you want to define one moral reality, the best you can do is compare it to another moral reality... There are no de-finit-ions for in-finit-es... It is a simple fact of life...

@Dr Seuss,

Dr. Seuss;174033 wrote:

All discourse is misleading in nature as it only reveals a half truth. That which you 'say' and that which is lost in the process of speaking it.

Oh, I disagree.
.......................

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;174040 wrote:

Oh, I disagree.
.......................

Can you elaborate some more?

@Krumple,

Krumple;174036 wrote:

Yeah I agree, but there's no sense in making it more complicated than it needs to be.

Unfortunately, truth is often very complicted, and Seues is half true in what he says... No one tells the truth... Truth may be a sense people build up with many layers as one does with a painting in oil... I think it is much easier to present the truth as a fiction giving no expectation of truth... Call it an allagory, or an analogy... Quasi Truth beats the crap out of truth that will not stand a test, or of a subject upon which truth can not possibly apply... A good lie is better...It is impossible to accept that the truth of a complicated situation should be less complicated than the subject... Copernicus showed that the truth of the matter was certainly more elegant and less complicated than the Ptolemaic system... Can we say that in advance of the problem we are working on???

@Fido,

Fido;174067 wrote:

Unfortunately, truth is often very complicted, and Seues is half true in what he says... No one tells the truth... Truth may be a sense people build up with many layers as one does with a painting in oil... I think it is much easier to present the truth as a fiction giving no expectation of truth... Call it an allagory, or an analogy... Quasi Truth beats the crap out of truth that will not stand a test, or of a subject upon which truth can not possibly apply... A good lie is better...It is impossible to accept that the truth of a complicated situation should be less complicated than the subject... Copernicus showed that the truth of the matter was certainly more elegant and less complicated than the Ptolemaic system... Can we say that in advance of the problem we are working on???

Eh, this might be true in some cases but it is not universal. It can't be because your own talking about it would be considered half based then. Think about it. Quasi truth is better than actual truth and that is the truth? Self contradiction.

@Fido,

Fido;174067 wrote:

Unfortunately, truth is often very complicted, and Seues is half true in what he says... No one tells the truth... Truth may be a sense people build up with many layers as one does with a painting in oil... I think it is much easier to present the truth as a fiction giving no expectation of truth... Call it an allagory, or an analogy... Quasi Truth beats the crap out of truth that will not stand a test, or of a subject upon which truth can not possibly apply... A good lie is better...It is impossible to accept that the truth of a complicated situation should be less complicated than the subject... Copernicus showed that the truth of the matter was certainly more elegant and less complicated than the Ptolemaic system... Can we say that in advance of the problem we are working on???

I could not had said it better. I dont want to keep sounding like a broken record but again truth is the mask of nothingness.

@Dr Seuss,

Dr. Seuss;174071 wrote:

I could not had said it better. I dont want to keep sounding like a broken record but again truth is the mask of nothingness.

Taking the bait (just once): is that true?

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;173556 wrote:

And we're back on topic:
Robert Johnson (musician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, I know Mr. Johnson. "Hellhound on my trail." I had a heavy old blues phase once. Do you know Blind Willy McTell? A great great singer. More modern than Johnson, but still fairly old.

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 03:13 AM ----------

Yes these words are mighty slippery. Words like "soul." Words like "truth." Words like "right" and "wrong." None of these have in meaning in the absence of sensation and desire. If you want absolute truth, you are always welcome to empty/abstract identity/unity. 0 is a great symbol for this. The presence of an absence.

That said, we still live by our pragmatism, by our metaphors and approximations. I suppose the danger is in forgetting that we are wrestling with approximations. As far as this soul issue goes, the afterlife is really the issue, isn't it? Some believe and others don't. I personally don't. I do have mixed feelings about attacking this belief, especially if this belief belongs to a kind person who thrives with it. Because how can I be sure? The Other is always a bit of a mystery. How often are we cruel when we think we are doing good?

I've always thought it was obvious that desire/motive was a primary factor in epistemology. I think we are biased. But maybe that's just my bias. That's the funny thing about skepticism or any doubt concerning the possibility of Truth. It does turn back on itself to some degree. And yet a certain looseness feels like Wisdom. And perhaps this feeling, whether we want to admit it or not, is the real judge of "truth." And maybe this is a good thing. I suppose it depends on the feeling. It does seem like a person with sympathy and awareness in regards to the other is going to be happier and more social. Beware the man who puts his Truth above sympathy?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;174124 wrote:

As far as this soul issue goes, the afterlife is really the issue, isn't it?

I was going to say no, but probably yes, it is; and I think this might be a way to get a clear sense of what is meant by 'soul', as opposed to 'self'.

Going back to my own (tentative, provisional, metaphorical, and vague) view, for a moment (if only to check that I really do agree with you):

I don't think that my own individual or personal soul will survive my death. But if my soul is a small patch of light, then that which is illuminated by that small patch light will survive, along with all the rest that is not illuminated, or is illuminated by other lights.

(I must re-read Plato's Phaedo some time, to see where I disagree with Socrates. I only read it for the first time quite recently, but I didn't attempt to argue with it, I was only concerned to take in the gist of it.)

So, in my case at least, it comes down to having to be a lot clearer than I have been so far as to what the 'light' is, and what it is that is 'illuminated' by that light.

Also, this is of course only a metaphor, like my other metaphor of the bubble; and both metaphors might leave out something truly vital, such as creativity, in the sense of a possibility that what is 'illuminated' only fully comes into being because of its illumination, in which case death is more of a loss and a tragedy that it is if what is temporarily illuminated is, was, and will be always there.

Leaving aside my own amateur mystical ponderings:

It probably is true that in every case the use of the word 'soul' is associated with some thoughts about something surviving death; but we need to think about this and look at some examples to be sure.

One objection that is easily taken care of is that 'spiritual anrkst' (I hope I am not misrepresenting him) wishes to use the word 'soul' as a synonym for the word 'self', without any implication of immortality (at least, none that he has stated, to my recollection). And even if 'spiritual anrkst' is not doing this, someone else might do it, so it has to be considered as a possibility. But if course someone who uses the word 'soul' in this way will, ipso facto, be perfectly happy to use the word 'self' instead, and we are free to give the word 'soul' another meaning.

Reconstructo;174124 wrote:

Some believe and others don't. I personally don't. I do have mixed feelings about attacking this belief, especially if this belief belongs to a kind person who thrives with it. Because how can I be sure? The Other is always a bit of a mystery. How often are we cruel when we think we are doing good?

I think I understand why atheists paid for a campaign to put advertisements on the side of London buses, saying, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." (Aside: they should probably fund free Prozac as well!) They are fighting back against evangelical advertising campaigns which sell false hopes, coupled with oppression, irrationality, and bigotry. In a way, it seems fair. But aren't individuals being made casualties of a war? I don't know if I am being too soft, and in any case I am biased, but I don't like that advertising campaign (even though it is funny); I think I dislike it more than I dislike evangelical advertising (and that's saying something). I think my reason for feeling this way is probably that even if what the atheist advertisers are saying is true, it gives no reason for anyone reading the advertisement to feel more able to stop worrying and enjoy their life. (This, at least, I can say with some certainty on my own behalf, as someone who worries a very great deal, and hardly enjoys life at all!) The evangelical advertisers, on the other hand, presumably (apart from any deliberate, conscious con artists among them) genuinely believe that their "good news" will of itself make a person less worried, and more able to enjoy life. They don't have to trade on the knowledge of the existence of a culture of secular counselling, psychotherapy, psychiatry, and mood-altering drugs, to guarantee that there are indeed ways to worry less and enjoy life more in the absence of belief in God. (Is one of my obsessions coming through again?) Smile

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;174131 wrote:

So, in my case at least, it comes down to having to be a lot clearer than I have been so far as to what the 'light' is, and what it is that is 'illuminated' by that light.

One thing I must add: we mystics (and I know what an infernal cheek that "we" is, jeeprs!) tend, as I've complained before, to get too hung up on the light, the illumination, and what is illuminated. But the darkness is equally important, and equally should be described - even if necessarily perhaps in terms of metaphors derived from other senses than sight! To ignore the darkness is precisely to confuse the self with the soul, I think.

@Krumple,

Krumple;174069 wrote:

Eh, this might be true in some cases but it is not universal. It can't be because your own talking about it would be considered half based then. Think about it. Quasi truth is better than actual truth and that is the truth? Self contradiction.

Please do not confuse me with some one telling the truth... I am only constructing a certain narative of our lives and our experience... My object is a readable fiction full of fantastic monsters and larger than life heroes.... It presents a certain problem for me that if there is not enough truth in my story then no one will relate to it, and so it can only be useless, and that, I do not want... If I were thinking of telling truth, and making a point of it, I would use math, and only talk of the physical world... Since I deal in the moral world with words, truth cannot possibly be my object, but happiness, or love, or survival in a spiritual as well as a physical sense..

---------- Post added 06-07-2010 at 07:34 AM ----------

Dr. Seuss;174071 wrote:

I could not had said it better. I dont want to keep sounding like a broken record but again truth is the mask of nothingness.

You know, I have a great library of books, and many I have read... And this is strange because I could not learn to read when I was young, and no one could find the time to teach me... So Dr. Seuss taught me; and when he died, I happened to mention the fact that Dr. Seuss taught me to read during an exchange at a market, and the women there asked if I had anything signed by him... No... But he has my respect for opening a door upon the world for me...

Truth is a moral form... No one has any to show, and in the long run we are all dead, and the truth- which we value so highly- becomes meaningless... With moral forms one cannot ask what is it, and get a definitive answer; but we should ask instead: What does it mean??? Truth is only a certain meaning...

@Fido,

Fido;174163 wrote:

You know, I have a great library of books, and many I have read... And this is strange because I could not learn to read when I was young, and no one could find the time to teach me... So Dr. Seuss taught me; and when he died, I happened to mention the fact that Dr. Seuss taught me to read during an exchange at a market, and the women there asked if I had anything signed by him... No... But he has my respect for opening a door upon the world for me...

Truth is a moral form... No one has any to show, and in the long run we are all dead, and the truth- which we value so highly- becomes meaningless... With moral forms one cannot ask what is it, and get a definitive answer; but we should ask instead: What does it mean??? Truth is only a certain meaning...

Awww, that's very nice you learned through Dr. Seuss.

I agree with the last statement that what we call truth is always open to interpretation and meaning because since we are all subjects in this world truth can only be subjective. Who is the say the psychotic's truth is false? To me their truth is closer to the Real 'truth' we call.

Philosophy Forum

Who owns your soul?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know