I've been thinking about this for a while. If a person's gender, culture, and all life experiences were taken away, would anyone really have different beliefs and morals? I believe that people are a product of their enviornment, so honestly, I don't believe that souls exist. Give me some replies below, I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this!
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Do we really have souls?
- Thread starter WeedDxm
- Start date
Jackeh
Bluelighter
Due to what I currently know about brain chemistry, I believe there is a soul. From what I know, if there wasn't a soul then everything in life is just one huge long uncontrolled chemical chain reaction and we have absolutely 0 free will. I don't believe we have no free will with how I have consciousness.
Note: I don't mean a soul in the religion sense, I just mean something that influences the reactions going on in our brain. How it exists or what it is made up of I honestly don't know and won't guess.
Note: I don't mean a soul in the religion sense, I just mean something that influences the reactions going on in our brain. How it exists or what it is made up of I honestly don't know and won't guess.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
What's a soul?
ebola
ebola
webbykevin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,720
who is asking the question ?
Foreigner
Bluelighter
If a person's gender, culture, and all life experiences were taken away, all you'd have is soul, with no "person" questioning whether or not it exists. All there would be is what was there before "you" happened.
Ego questioning whether or not Awareness exists is ironic.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
The long answer is yes; the short answer is no
pmoseman
Bluelighter
No.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Perhaps there are some aspects of consciousness that are not intrinsic to the animal/human brain? When one peers into the field of psychology, there are constructionist and evolutionist viewpoints, there is not a 100% consensus on how to approach the mind; it may be regarded as a science with subjective opinions based on previous opinions and objective data - it seems to take a life of its own in this sense.
If considering whether there is a non-religious soul (or not), one may want to consider the past discussions on this matter by philosophers such as Aristotle; is the soul a single entity or is there a soul for each physical being? If there is a soul, would it have knowledge? A deeper understanding of its own composition and its relation to the observable world (the world we live in, the world we are 'conscious' of)? If one soul interacts with another (or itself) through sentient beings via senses or otherwise, do those souls gain some kind of benefit from one another? If a soul could be studied, how would its age be determined (theoretically, the universe has an age)...
Is there a collective wisdom accumulating between the interaction of sentient beings (and perhaps the soul(s) of such beings)?
Last edited by a moderator:
verso
Bluelighter
This is a question I think about constantly, all the time, and, coupled with the other question I think about obsessively -- whether or not there is a "life" after death -- well, I'm stumped.
I would like to think that we have souls. Shit, we all share something like, what, 99.98% of our genetic code with one another? So, genetically-speaking, we're all incredibly similar to one another, remarkably similar, and yet we're all so different. There's something makes me me, and something that makes you you, and what is it exactly? I'm not sure, but it could be what we've been referring to as "souls."
Now, whether or not these "souls" are able to transcend the physical realm, conquer death, I haven't the slightest idea.
I would like to think that we have souls. Shit, we all share something like, what, 99.98% of our genetic code with one another? So, genetically-speaking, we're all incredibly similar to one another, remarkably similar, and yet we're all so different. There's something makes me me, and something that makes you you, and what is it exactly? I'm not sure, but it could be what we've been referring to as "souls."
Now, whether or not these "souls" are able to transcend the physical realm, conquer death, I haven't the slightest idea.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
'Next stop wonderland' 
Spinoza and Kierkegaard made significant contributions to this line of thinking.
Spinoza and Kierkegaard made significant contributions to this line of thinking.
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
I do not have a body, I AM a body.
I equate the concept of the soul with our consciousness. An eternal soul is what you make of your conscious abilities, the things you create, the love your instill in friends and family, the ideas and expressions you leave behind. I don't believe in consciousness after death.
From a constructionist point of view, these differences exist because you live and have lived under different circumstances from everyone else. You've been around certain people, in a certain environment, taught a certain way and experienced the world in a certain and unique way. The tiniest difference can affect a personality. Look at siblings. One may be extremely aggressive while another extremely passive. There are biological variables at play along with sociological variables.
I equate the concept of the soul with our consciousness. An eternal soul is what you make of your conscious abilities, the things you create, the love your instill in friends and family, the ideas and expressions you leave behind. I don't believe in consciousness after death.
From a constructionist point of view, these differences exist because you live and have lived under different circumstances from everyone else. You've been around certain people, in a certain environment, taught a certain way and experienced the world in a certain and unique way. The tiniest difference can affect a personality. Look at siblings. One may be extremely aggressive while another extremely passive. There are biological variables at play along with sociological variables.
Last edited:
verso
Bluelighter
That makes sense. But even still, there seems to be something there that's beyond all biology and beyond all environmental factors and everything else. It's hard to explain, and difficult to put a finger on, exactly, but in moments when an individual murders someone, for example, and not for jealousy, rage, for money, or for any ultimate end or purpose -- an individual making the decision to murder for no greater reason than very simply to see the light in another being's eyes go out -- that's a certain soullessness, I believe. Because it's hard to attribute something like this to some minute, tiny difference in upbringing, some environmental factor, or even some biological factor.
It's scary, scary to think that there are people out there who can do things like this seemingly for no purpose at all, and sometimes there's nothing there to point your finger at and say, 'aha! this is where the impulse came from!'
I don't know whether or not it's an individual's "soul," but it's something that I think has, as of right now, been left unidentified. But, who knows, maybe that's all bullshit and I'm talking straight out of my ass; maybe there really is an underlying factor, however big or small, for an individual's attributes, characteristics, impulses and such. I'm just throwing ideas out there, and the girlfriend has been watching a lot of the ID channel recently, so I've been thinking a lot lately about how one could commit such terrible, horrific crimes when there seems to be no reason for their ferocity.
Last edited:
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
One definition of soul: some sort of 'spark of consciousness' that develops to observe the bases of its processes through an imperfect lens. Yeah, this exists (we have consciousness). Another definition: an immaterial essence that persists after death. No, I don't see why this would exist.
ebola
ebola
It's really interesting to think of what could happen to us after death. If we don't have a soul or anything that will left behind after our physical body dies, what happens next? How are souls created, if they exist? The world population keeps increasing, so there has to be more souls then, say, 200 years ago.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Good questions.
Last edited by a moderator:
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
My guess is non-being. By definition, this is something that those who are (ie, those living) cannot comprehend. This is a mystery we might continue to wrestle with eternally.
ebola
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
^I think this concept may be difficult to comprehend, but not really too difficult to acknowledge or be made familiar. It's sort of like asking who you were before you were born. Going in reverse, we know the biological mechanisms of reproduction so we know what physically exists before conception and birth, but what happens before conception? I don't particularly struggle with the idea that one day I will be a non-being. We've all been there before 
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
But we're not hurtling forward toward the time before our birth, and we don't have a concept of what it was like to not have been born yet; we lack a phenomenology of non-being, despite being able to conceptualize the conditions it entails from a hypothetical objective, third-person standpoint.
ebola
ebola
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Well put. There are so many perspectives on 'the soul' (or non-existence of such a thing). I love to hear the opinion of as many people as possible on this matter in order to investigate the possibility that a soul may or may not exist.
Souls...do we have one? Aristotle's form of discussion in 'On the Soul' formed foundations of reasoning that we still use to investigate phenomena of all sorts today. Throughout history, the discussion of the soul has assisted people to become better 'strong sense critical thinkers'. See:
On The Soul
According to Aristotle, "To attain any assured knowledge about the soul is one of the most difficult things in the world."
Reading of and thinking about the 'soul', it is clear that no objective facts are known of 'soul'; it a preconceived phenomenon, that is still investigated today, as we are doing on this forum. Quite often, any assumed knowledge of the 'soul' may be an error or mistake of mind/thought. One cannot apply "all men are mortal, Socrates is mortal, and therefore Socrates is a man" (deductive reasoning in other words) to investigating the soul, because a soul has never been observed with 100% certainty. However, I sense that it is important to investigate this discussion of the soul by Aristotle, as well as other discussions through writing that came before Aristotle (for example, Socrates and Plato; although many of Socrates' ideas and views came as a result of Plato’s works, and were reflections on these).
When Aristotle writes: "As the form of question which here presents itself, viz. the question 'What is it?', recurs in other fields, it might be supposed that there was some single method of inquiry applicable to all objects whose essential nature (as we are endeavouring to ascertain there is for derived properties the single method of demonstration); in that case what we should have to seek for would be this unique method" is interesting as it is the question "what is it" that seems most important. Not so much the question of whether a soul exists or not...
More telling, with relation to modern day philosophy, is when he writes: "But if there is no such single and general method for solving the question of essence, our task becomes still more difficult; in the case of each different subject we shall have to determine the appropriate process of investigation. If to this there be a clear answer, e.g. that the process is demonstration or division, or some known method, difficulties and hesitations still beset us-with what facts shall we begin the inquiry? For the facts which form the starting-points in different subjects must be different, as e.g. in the case of numbers and surfaces.", as it is demonstrative of critical thinking to take this approach to "attain assured knowledge" of any physical objects. This "appropriate process of investigation" is further demonstrative of constructing the many foundations of critical thinking and informal reasoning as known today.
Aristotle also discusses the works before him, as shown when he writes: "For our study of soul it is necessary, while formulating the problems of which in our further advance we are to find the solutions, to call into council the views of those of our predecessors who have declared any opinion on this subject, in order that we may profit by whatever is sound in their suggestions and avoid their errors." More evidence of what may be regarded as 'informal', as well as 'formal', reasoning is apparent in this part of the discussion. Critical thinking, by calling "into council the views of those of our predecessors who have declared any opinion on this subject, in order that we may profit by whatever is sound in their suggestions and avoid their errors." shows the way in which one builds on the knowledge of one's predecessors. One may see, in this piece of writing, an association with previous philosophical works, such as Democritus, Anaxagoras, Thales, Diogenes, Heraclitus, Alcmaeon, and other writers. It is also interesting that Democritus and Anaxagoras discuss the mind with differing views.
I've had recent discussions with other students studying psychology, with the two prominent schools of thought being the evolutionist perspective and that of the constructionist (social impacts on emotions, thoughts etc.). Depending on the person, one might consider 'en-mattering' (in the language of Aristotle) of reason important.
The en-mattering of reason may be important in other contexts, e.g. when considering the metaphysics (i.e. the hylomorphic composition of matter). However, a purely formal account of reasoning is beneficial in the sense that it can be used by thinkers from different schools of thought, such as psychology and the legal system (as well as science, engineering, mathematics etc.). As time has progressed, and knowledge has accumulated, there has evolved a greater demand for a 'formal' account of reason.
While he babbles on, it is still interesting to read, and reflect, on the views of a philosopher from so long ago. The soul has been a topic of discussion for several millennia...and still we are discussing the soul, and the question "Do we really have souls"!! How profound!
Last edited by a moderator: