WTF is a soul anyway?
Mar. 15th, 2004 12:07 pmI've asked this before, and I'll likely ask it again. What is it? Everytime something even remotely philosophical comes up, people justify whatever they do by calling "soul!".
They eat meat because animals don't have souls.
They don't eat meat because animals do have souls.
They are anti-abortion because the soul exists from conception.
They aren't anti-abortion because the soul develops later.
Well, that's about it, but man, people shout loudly on those subjects. Soul this, soul that, and nobody ever stops to ask "what on earth is so important?" because they think they know. That's nice. I don't know, and would like to actually understand all these nifty little arguments about whether or not embryos and animals and whatnot have souls. Maybe even participate.
They eat meat because animals don't have souls.
They don't eat meat because animals do have souls.
They are anti-abortion because the soul exists from conception.
They aren't anti-abortion because the soul develops later.
Well, that's about it, but man, people shout loudly on those subjects. Soul this, soul that, and nobody ever stops to ask "what on earth is so important?" because they think they know. That's nice. I don't know, and would like to actually understand all these nifty little arguments about whether or not embryos and animals and whatnot have souls. Maybe even participate.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 11:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:45 am (UTC)Seeing as it's highly unlikely I would ever be able to have an abortion myself, due to circumstances above and beyond my control, the fact that I don't terribly like the having one myself is probably a moot point. However, I will not stand in the way of a person who chooses to abort an embryo she carries in her own body; that's her business, not mine.
I guess you could say then that I'm pro-choice, and pro-life. I'd rather that people didn't eat meat, and didn't have abortions, but I won't stand in the way of people choosing to do either. It would be nice if people who didn't want babies didn't get pregnant in the first place, but that's not how it works...
Whatever this has to do with soul or no soul, I don't know. People can argue it however they want, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 10:13 am (UTC)When most people consider something ensouled, it's given the rights of personhood. I think by "soul" they just mean "this is a person in a way we can't define." My rule for personhood is: self-aware. This means that humans, dolphins, apes and kia (parrots) are all "people." I'm cool with that. With self-awareness comes intelligence (and all this species are amazingly intelligent) and infinite possibility.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:32 pm (UTC)I think everyone is inclined, given the right definitions, to believe in souls. It's all about defining it correctly. The question is not "Do souls exist?" but "What are souls?"
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 10:30 am (UTC)I agree that self-awareness plays a large part in that concept that we call a 'soul,' and yes, that also applies to animals that have self-awareness. However, most animals are not self-aware (at least to the best of our knowledge which I feel is highly lacking), yet ask any pet owner and most of them would say that their beloved pet does have a soul. When I look into my dog's eyes, I could swear that there's something in there, but that's just me.
By and large, though, I think that people use the word 'soul' to refer to that which makes humans 'unique' in the world. Yes, we are animals, but we are also more than animals at the same time - the soul is what transforms us. Can we pinpoint what a soul is, and where it resides? Not yet. I can't point to a part of my body and say 'Here's where my soul is,' but yet many people don't claim that they lack a soul because of this.
In a similar vein, I recall reading something that the instant a person dies, they inexplicably lose a set amount of weight. This isn't tied to the last breath, or the expulsion of bodily waste - it's as if a part of them is simply.. gone. Could that be the soul escaping? Who knows. But it's still interesting.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 11:29 am (UTC)No, not really. But I feel that if you're using a word, you should at least know what you mean when you say it.
In a similar vein, I recall reading something that the instant a person dies, they inexplicably lose a set amount of weight. This isn't tied to the last breath, or the expulsion of bodily waste - it's as if a part of them is simply.. gone. Could that be the soul escaping? Who knows. But it's still interesting.
I think that was disproven. I guess I could kill somebody to find out, but I doubt the state would sanction my experiments.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 03:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:48 pm (UTC)And excuse my language, but if anybody gave me an answer of "I don't do such and such because it has a soul" I would tell them that is crap, specifically for the reason you said of not everyone agrees on what a soul is. I think the real reason is "I have my own set of morals" and that makes a helluva lot more sense to me.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 10:00 pm (UTC)As I mentioned to another in a comment above, the question is not whether souls exist, but what the proper analysis of the soul is. Everyone believes in souls if they are given the correct definition. For instance, if a soul is merely the principle of life (with a few other specifications), then to deny the soul's existence is self-refuting.
I wasn't brought up to be spiritual and I hate the idea of organized religion.
Many people have felt the same way and still believed in the existence of souls. But just to understand better where you are coming from, what do you hate about organized religion?
I'm also very scientific and I possibly don't believe in souls because they don't have a scientific explaination.
It's a category mistake to deny a nonscientific thing based on scientific grounds. Some things require metaphysical (not physical) analysis.
And excuse my language, but if anybody gave me an answer of "I don't do such and such because it has a soul" I would tell them that is crap, specifically for the reason you said of not everyone agrees on what a soul is.
Whether or not people agree on the analysis of the soul, most generally agree that whatever it turns out to be analyzed as, it has certain properties that imply the sanctity of the ensouled being.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-03-16 12:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-16 02:23 pm (UTC)Embryo comes first. Then fetus. Your set-up, if I read it correctly, says that they're conceived, they have a soul, they lose a soul, and then they get a soul.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-19 06:31 pm (UTC)I have no idea if souls exist. I think it's more of a state of mind than a real tangible thing. There is a difference between a furby and a hand - is it more than the blood that is surging through the latter that separates the two?
God I hope so, 'cause I don't wanna be sharing my eternal Christian hell with a furby.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 11:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:45 am (UTC)Seeing as it's highly unlikely I would ever be able to have an abortion myself, due to circumstances above and beyond my control, the fact that I don't terribly like the having one myself is probably a moot point. However, I will not stand in the way of a person who chooses to abort an embryo she carries in her own body; that's her business, not mine.
I guess you could say then that I'm pro-choice, and pro-life. I'd rather that people didn't eat meat, and didn't have abortions, but I won't stand in the way of people choosing to do either. It would be nice if people who didn't want babies didn't get pregnant in the first place, but that's not how it works...
Whatever this has to do with soul or no soul, I don't know. People can argue it however they want, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:05 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 10:13 am (UTC)When most people consider something ensouled, it's given the rights of personhood. I think by "soul" they just mean "this is a person in a way we can't define." My rule for personhood is: self-aware. This means that humans, dolphins, apes and kia (parrots) are all "people." I'm cool with that. With self-awareness comes intelligence (and all this species are amazingly intelligent) and infinite possibility.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 09:32 pm (UTC)I think everyone is inclined, given the right definitions, to believe in souls. It's all about defining it correctly. The question is not "Do souls exist?" but "What are souls?"
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 10:30 am (UTC)I agree that self-awareness plays a large part in that concept that we call a 'soul,' and yes, that also applies to animals that have self-awareness. However, most animals are not self-aware (at least to the best of our knowledge which I feel is highly lacking), yet ask any pet owner and most of them would say that their beloved pet does have a soul. When I look into my dog's eyes, I could swear that there's something in there, but that's just me.
By and large, though, I think that people use the word 'soul' to refer to that which makes humans 'unique' in the world. Yes, we are animals, but we are also more than animals at the same time - the soul is what transforms us. Can we pinpoint what a soul is, and where it resides? Not yet. I can't point to a part of my body and say 'Here's where my soul is,' but yet many people don't claim that they lack a soul because of this.
In a similar vein, I recall reading something that the instant a person dies, they inexplicably lose a set amount of weight. This isn't tied to the last breath, or the expulsion of bodily waste - it's as if a part of them is simply.. gone. Could that be the soul escaping? Who knows. But it's still interesting.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 11:29 am (UTC)No, not really. But I feel that if you're using a word, you should at least know what you mean when you say it.
In a similar vein, I recall reading something that the instant a person dies, they inexplicably lose a set amount of weight. This isn't tied to the last breath, or the expulsion of bodily waste - it's as if a part of them is simply.. gone. Could that be the soul escaping? Who knows. But it's still interesting.
I think that was disproven. I guess I could kill somebody to find out, but I doubt the state would sanction my experiments.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 03:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 04:48 pm (UTC)And excuse my language, but if anybody gave me an answer of "I don't do such and such because it has a soul" I would tell them that is crap, specifically for the reason you said of not everyone agrees on what a soul is. I think the real reason is "I have my own set of morals" and that makes a helluva lot more sense to me.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-15 10:00 pm (UTC)As I mentioned to another in a comment above, the question is not whether souls exist, but what the proper analysis of the soul is. Everyone believes in souls if they are given the correct definition. For instance, if a soul is merely the principle of life (with a few other specifications), then to deny the soul's existence is self-refuting.
I wasn't brought up to be spiritual and I hate the idea of organized religion.
Many people have felt the same way and still believed in the existence of souls. But just to understand better where you are coming from, what do you hate about organized religion?
I'm also very scientific and I possibly don't believe in souls because they don't have a scientific explaination.
It's a category mistake to deny a nonscientific thing based on scientific grounds. Some things require metaphysical (not physical) analysis.
And excuse my language, but if anybody gave me an answer of "I don't do such and such because it has a soul" I would tell them that is crap, specifically for the reason you said of not everyone agrees on what a soul is.
Whether or not people agree on the analysis of the soul, most generally agree that whatever it turns out to be analyzed as, it has certain properties that imply the sanctity of the ensouled being.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2004-03-16 12:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-16 02:23 pm (UTC)Embryo comes first. Then fetus. Your set-up, if I read it correctly, says that they're conceived, they have a soul, they lose a soul, and then they get a soul.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-19 06:31 pm (UTC)I have no idea if souls exist. I think it's more of a state of mind than a real tangible thing. There is a difference between a furby and a hand - is it more than the blood that is surging through the latter that separates the two?
God I hope so, 'cause I don't wanna be sharing my eternal Christian hell with a furby.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 10:18 pm (UTC)