What are souls?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given this is the religion and ethics board and we are not limited to any compulsory philosophical natural view., what do people think souls are?

My own view is that a soul is what we can term the self. There should be no problem with this definition except perhaps from hard reductionists and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.

[Nearly Sane]

Given this is the religion and ethics board and we are not limited to any compulsory philosophical natural view., what do people think souls are?

My own view is that a soul is what we can term the self. There should be no problem with this definition except perhaps from hard reductionists and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.

What do you mean by 'self'?

[floo]

I am of the opinion 'soul' is just another term for consciousness, which make us the individuals we are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by 'self'?

The fully subjectively aware spiritual and emergent, neuronal and synaptic and organised substrate which includes the subconscious philosophical zombie which does not completely define it...

...what do you mean by it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An apology

Since I was thinking of hard reductionists and illusion of self -ists...

The title of this thread should perhaps read ''What Arse'oles!'' rather than ''What are souls?''

[Nearly Sane]

The fully subjectively aware spiritual and emergent, neuronal and synaptic and organised substrate which includes the subconscious philosophical zombie which does not completely define it...

...what do you mean by it?

Apart from having an inbuilt contradiction 'fully subjectively aware' and 'subconscious', what does spiritual mean here?

And as to your question, usually a non gender specific pronoun.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apart from having an inbuilt contradiction 'fully subjectively aware' and 'subconscious'

If that were a legitimate objection one would I suppose have to exclude one's arms, spleen or gonads not part of your ''self''. Aren't you introducing dualism.

Spiritual is the immeasurable aspects of humanity and also perhaps that aspect of individual awareness which we can call ''not thou'' or ''not suddenly seeing the eyes through a sophisticated computer in another galaxy''.

[wigginhall]

I thought that it's theism that emphasizes dualism, isn't it?  You get the body/soul split, and the material/spiritual split, and so on.   Naturalism has various forms which are not dualistic, although some atheists seem to be, e.g. Chalmers.  But this kind of dualism does not have the supernatural as one part.   Having said that, I'm not very clued up about Chalmers.

One of the interesting ideas in Buddhism is the rejection of the separate self, which leaves room for an overall self.  However,  some reject that also, since some Buddhists reject nearly everything metaphysical.   This appeals to the bloody-minded, although there is no mind to be bloody.  What a laaf.

[SusanDoris]

The four letters in our particular alphabet, s, o, u and l, form what is called a 'word'. This word is used in language to talk about one aspect of our personality/character, call it whatever you like - the word spirit would do just as well, but it uses up a fraction more energy to say it. The word, soul, enables us to think more directly about the aesthetic side of humans. We know that all our ideas, thoughts, images, etc emanate from our brains, themselves made of physical matter. Without the physical brain, functioning because we are alive and it has oxygen etc to enable it to work, we do not have life, let alone an aspect labelled 'soul'.

What it is NOT is something separate from the integrated human body.

\it is a useful word, but, like God, is entirely an idea in the brain.

Will that do?!!

 

[ekim]

I believe that 'soul' is a word which has a Germanic origin and meant 'life' as it arises within a life form and that 'spirit' also symbolises 'life' in a generalised way i.e. when it enters a life form that form is inspired and when it leaves, it expires and becomes a dead form.

[Nearly Sane]

If that were a legitimate objection one would I suppose have to exclude one's arms, spleen or gonads not part of your ''self''. Aren't you introducing dualism.

No, it's a legitimate issue of your definition you posited a thing being fully conscious and not fully conscious! I have no idea why you think that had anything to do with arms etc. And since it is your definition I am not introducing anything.

Spiritual is the immeasurable aspects of humanity and also perhaps that aspect of individual awareness which we can call ''not thou'' or ''not suddenly seeing the eyes through a sophisticated computer in another galaxy''.

What are the 'immeasurable aspects of humanity'? As to the rest of the suggestion, I don't see it makes any sense.

[torridon]

Given this is the religion and ethics board and we are not limited to any compulsory philosophical natural view., what do people think souls are?

My own view is that a soul is what we can term the self. There should be no problem with this definition except perhaps from hard reductionists and the ''illusion of self'' cranks.

Equating soul to self sounds ok to me, although self is hard to pin down. Given that you recognise the nature of self as being emergent, therein lies its illusory quality. It is illusory in that we think of ourselves as persons, primarily, yet the self is not fundamental, it is derivative, emergent, and forever changing, hence hard to pin down.

[Sassy]

Soul the part of the human which never dies. The spirit leaves the body at death the soul the living consciousness...maybe?

[ekim]

Equating soul to self sounds ok to me, although self is hard to pin down. Given that you recognise the nature of self as being emergent, therein lies its illusory quality. It is illusory in that we think of ourselves as persons, primarily, yet the self is not fundamental, it is derivative, emergent, and forever changing, hence hard to pin down.

Depending upon what is meant by 'self', I think from certain religious perspectives 'soul' and 'self' are not the same.  The 'soul' is considered 'spiritual' and selfless and derived from a divine spirit or Holy Spirit which is changeless and eternal.  The 'self' is derived from inherited animal behaviour patterns and is considered 'self' centred and selfish and, as you say, changeable.

[Bramble]

It seems to me apt that words like 'soul' and 'spiritual' remain forever slippery and ill-defined, as they refer to something essentially mysterious at the heart of our lived experience that we cannot pin down. I worry more when people insist that these words have a clear definition or else they are meaningless. These are poetic images, not scientific descriptions.

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to me apt that words like 'soul' and 'spiritual' remain forever slippery and ill-defined, as they refer to something essentially mysterious at the heart of our lived experience that we cannot pin down. I worry more when people insist that these words have a clear definition or else they are meaningless. These are poetic images, not scientific descriptions.

Alan Burns doesn't use soul as poetry.

[Bramble]

That's his privilege and precisely why no single definition will do. People see things differently.

[Nearly Sane]

That's his privilege and precisely why no single definition will do. People see things differently.

Agreed but that's why you need to engage with what they mean. It's not about a single definition. It's that so often the person cannot explain what they mean in any logically coherent form.

[Bramble]

I think it's in the nature of the beast that such words may defy any kind of logically coherent explanation and the mistake may be to expect one. Logic strikes me as the wrong tool for the job. Having said that, if someone wants to argue that their position on souls is logical and clearly communicable to others then they should expect to come up with the goods. 

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's in the nature of the beast that such words may defy any kind of logically coherent explanation and the mistake may be to expect one. Logic strikes me as the wrong tool for the job. Having said that, if someone wants to argue that their position on souls is logical and clearly communicable to others then they should expect to come up with the goods.

a definition that is not logically coherent is white noise.

[Bramble]

Indeed. That's why it's a mistake to try to define such words.

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed. That's why it's a mistake to try to define such words.

Then the words are white noise and to quote Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"

[Bramble]

See my first post. If that doesn't help, have a cup of tea and move on.

[Nearly Sane]

See my first post. If that doesn't help, have a cup of tea and move on.

huggrt jummotou gaseklvir buntejcop

[Bramble]

I said tea.