The Soul

@Paracelsus,

The soul seems to be the notion of self-governance and self-conscience as a presiding agglomerate. Many concepts of soul do not view it as a force that decides for the individual, but as something practically impossible - a section of personal energy entirely without force. Judeo-Christian soul would appear to subscribe to this view, but Buddhism for example sees a 'soul' as something that could be inhabited, and which could provide great aid in this ongoing suffering of life (as the sanctity of nirvana).

@Paracelsus,

An honest discussion here when it comes remotely close to Christianity is called, Christian baiting, That's not at all the case, boagie, and you, of all people, should know better.

Surely it is not, its sugar and spice and everything nice :p
[RIGHT]

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/misc/progress.gif

[/RIGHT]

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus wrote:

Yes but do you think that the Soul is an ego based entity? I dont subscribe to the notion that I will enter paradise after death to live in some verdant lands, its just too absurd a notion for if that's the case why would a Creator design such a world as this? For his own amusement? Hmm? I don't think God is into S&M.

And yes your right about moving beyond dualism, the Buddhists have such an approach its called the Middle Way, but there are other non dualist thought structures, if you haven't read some Deleuze. A Thousand Plateaus.

I wouldn't say that the soul was ego based. But I would say that ego would be a contingent of the of the soul itself. For example, the ego could present outspoken personality, the personality you show to others, where as the soul would represent a true vision of self, knowledgeable to anyone else through sense experience, but only available to the body which that soul inherits.

If that's understandable.

But then again, I would also say the soul, was a product of the body. But I wouldn't say I had a materialist view.

@Ramsey phil,

Ramsey;17567 wrote:

I wouldn't say that the soul was ego based. But I would say that ego would be a contingent of the of the soul itself. For example, the ego could present outspoken personality, the personality you show to others, where as the soul would represent a true vision of self, knowledgeable to anyone else through sense experience, but only available to the body which that soul inherits.

If that's understandable.

But then again, I would also say the soul, was a product of the body. But I wouldn't say I had a materialist view.

CG Jung used the term Psyche to describe the Self/Soul unity. What I was pointing out is the absurd notion held by some religions that our souls, are us and that once we enter the paradise, the western lands, then that part of us that survived physical death, which is the soul, has our ego based personality, which is totally absurd.

@de budding,

de_budding;17261 wrote:

All I gather from you so far is that a soul does not exist, is that all there is to it in your opinion?

Actually, I just found a 'soul' a few nights ago.
I find that the term 'soul' (as used by the mystics and other 'practitioners' thoughout the millennia...) to be 'Conscious Perspective'!
So, as 'Conscious Perspectives', we are all 'Souls'!
How's that for a definition? It seems rather concise.
I am, literally, a 'Soul' as are we all, 'Conscious Perspectives'. There seem to be no definitions that do not fall within the 'set' named. Are there?
There seems to be egoic 'self-images' that seem to give impressions (images) that deviate from 'who we actually are', 'Conscious Perspective'.
Ok, so I found 'soul', I think...
I still don't 'believe' it! I 'think' it.. tentatively...
*__-

@nameless,

Yeah that doesn't sound too far from how I entertain the idea. I also considered the soul as the 'you' that is developed by the conscious perspectives of every one else. Only you know the real 'you'- unless you are able to communicate every emotion and experience with the world, hence the masses generate a separate you as a thought-object in their heads that varies from you depending on their focus. Sometimes I ask if that is my 'soul'.

Dan.

@de budding,

de_budding;17918 wrote:

the masses generate a separate you as a thought-object in their heads

The 'you' that I see is in this mind. The I that I see is in this mind. The 'me' that you see is in your mind. The 'you' that you see, likewise. No one generates, no one 'creates' anything. We observe... We are Perspective.
When someone askes me something like "is your work exceptional?" the only person qualified to answer is he, as 'I' and my work resides within his mind. The 'me' that he (you) sees, is no more than a reflection of his (your) 'own' Perspective (self).

@nameless,

... so if you've found the soul, and the soul is "Conscious Perspective", and perspective is in the mind, does that mean the soul is in the mind? or the soul is the mind? or ... ?

@paulhanke,

We don't find the soul, we have a soul, lol.

Or maybe we don't. The soul is just the part of the mind that moves on after death, or rather survives death, or whatever. But that would imply that the soul is not a part of the mind because the mind does not process after death. Death is the end.

I'm confused, which definition are we talking about.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday,

I think some of us have our own definitions which don't entertain the concept of the soul existing after death. They are more directly related to questions of the self: What makes you, you?
The soul for me is an idea closely related to personality and character. Therefore this leads me to embrace subjective experience as the key ingredient in soul-seeking- but that's just me.

I don't think there will be many on this forum who'll apply such a traditional definition of the soul to themselves, if at all!

Dan. :meuh:

@de budding,

de_budding wrote:

I don't think there will be many on this forum who'll apply such a traditional definition of the soul to themselves, if at all!

Dan. :meuh:

... the opening post of this thread asks if the concept of "soul" is defunct ... if it isn't quite defunct yet, does the content of this thread indicate that the concept of "soul" is at the least so relative as to be useless? ... if so, what should we be talking about in its place?

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;18227 wrote:

... the opening post of this thread asks if the concept of "soul" is defunct ... if it isn't quite defunct yet, does the content of this thread indicate that the concept of "soul" is at the least so relative as to be useless? ... if so, what should we be talking about in its place?

Concept of Self?

That is if we acknowledge that there is such an aspect of the totality of our existence, which encompasses the fabric of our mind and body which is not just reduced to language. And if this is the case then shouldn't this thread be in Metaphysics, because Self is not Mind.

@Paracelsus,

Quote:

... the opening post of this thread asks if the concept of "soul" is defunct ... if it isn't quite defunct yet, does the content of this thread indicate that the concept of "soul" is at the least so relative as to be useless? ... if so, what should we be talking about in its place?

I don't see how. If anything, the variety of perspectives mentioned in this thread, and the many others not covered, show that the word 'soul' is used in different ways. English is a tricky language. Words can have many meanings. Words can even have meanings that seem contradictory; cleave. I can cleave something in half or cleave to something. There is also the matter of liberally using 'soul' in translations when the text will likely clear up the confusion as to the word's more precise meaning.

Quote:

Concept of Self?

Soul and self are not always interchangeable.

Quote:

That is if we acknowledge that there is such an aspect of the totality of our existence, which encompasses the fabric of our mind and body which is not just reduced to language. And if this is the case then shouldn't this thread be in Metaphysics, because Self is not Mind.

Mind factored in to Descartes' theory of the self, and in a spiritual way.

@Didymos Thomas,

Haven't we moved past Descartes?

@Paracelsus,

Quote:

Haven't we moved past Descartes?

Some have.

I'm having a hard time making out your objection. Self might be mind, but not necessarily - depends on who you ask. And even then, self is not necessarily equivalent to the soul.

@Didymos Thomas,

Self if it exists as the constituted entity of singular existence is made of body and mind, Self is the interiority of Being, in psychological terms for Freud, the Id and for Jung the Psyche.

Self is that which we realise and manifest during the course of our life. We actualise the interiority of our being through our actions and our development as human beings, in our particular case we express the ideas of the Self in l dialectical process of language which enables the the action of the mind to be revealed.

But Self in my opinion is never fully realised but as we grow and develop we incorporate more of it into our lives, personally i believe that he conflict of the human condition revolves around the Self- Ego dichotomy.

Soul is if it exists, is that which survives the physical death of the body, but what proof do we have of this?

@Paracelsus,

The notion of "soul" does indeed seem akin to Wittgenstein's 'beetle in a box'. Most of us have a 'concept box' for soul, and we all move our lips and throat muscles in the same way when we repeat the name for what's in that box. But there are a whole lot of different things in those boxes, including nullity (i.e., no such thing as soul), as it turns out.

Personally, as someone with a substance-dualist view of consciousness (more or less), I don't feel the need for 'soul'. Not that I don't make use of the word sometimes; it still has some usefulness in my own social circles, implying the "true essence of a person". But my own view of consciousness allows for "true essence" and "self", so I really don't have intellectual use for "soul". As to whether my "substance of consciousness" survives death, as in the old time definition of soul, I'm not going there right now. (Or at least I hope not!) But when you believe, as I do, that mental life occurs at least partly in a "place" that is "somewhere else" (in an abstract phase-space or dimension-space sense, not in a tangible 4D time-space sense), and that this mental life gives one a distinct "self", then there isn't much need for a retro-fit concept to regain some of what's lost in denying such things.

E.g., as with certain Buddhist thought systems, where self is denied, but various concepts of 'soul' make up partly for what is lost in that. Most Buddhism appears to soundly reject "atta", the eternal soul; but other not-so-eternal versions seem to show up in places. The Tibetan Book of the Dead sure seems 'soulful' to me! And perhaps those who attain the ultimate enlightenment of Buddhahood finally find their soul? As with all Buddhist questions -- maybe yes, and maybe no.

Just my $0.02.

Jim G Eternalstudent2

home page: index

@paulhanke,

Sorry for the delay in answering, I didn't see my name..

paulhanke;18042 wrote:

... so if you've found the soul, and the soul is "Conscious Perspective", and perspective is in the mind, does that mean the soul is in the mind? or the soul is the mind? or ... ?

Actually 'mind' is manifested in/as Perspective.
'Thoughts' and 'memories' give the appearance of a 'personal mind'.
The One Mind is observed by Soul/Perspective. That is why all (Perspectives) are 'necessary' for a full view of Mind for Consciousness.

@eternalstudent2,

eternalstudent2;18301 wrote:

But when you believe, as I do, that mental life occurs at least partly in a "place" that is "somewhere else" (in an abstract phase-space or dimension-space sense, not in a tangible 4D time-space sense), and that this mental life gives one a distinct "self", then there isn't much need for a retro-fit concept to regain some of what's lost in denying such things.

Could you elaborate upon the above idea? What place is there that is somewhere else? Are you talking about a Platonic plane or Deleuze and Planes of Consitencey? Immenence? Becoming?

Personally just shifting my perceptual awareness of the action of my mind does not give rise to a 'somewhere else.'

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Sorry for the delay in answering, I didn't see my name..

I think there's a philosophical joke in there somewhere - something having to do with the the nameless one seeing his own name ... Wink

nameless wrote:

Actually 'mind' is manifested in/as Perspective.
'Thoughts' and 'memories' give the appearance of a 'personal mind'.
The One Mind is observed by Soul/Perspective. That is why all (Perspectives) are 'necessary' for a full view of Mind for Consciousness.

... do animals other than humans have thoughts and memories? ... and if so, do they have 'personal mind'? ... 'The One Mind'? ... 'Soul/Perspective'?

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know