WTF is a soul anyway?

[conuly]

I'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.

Comments

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

Well, some people I know require self-awareness for a creature to have a soul. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but it's interesting because human babies aren't self-aware until somewhere around a year and a half, I believe (have to check the exact age but I think that's right ;) That's when they can recognize their reflection as "me" rather than some other baby.

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

I don't eat meat because I don't feel that I am right to choose to kill an animal for food, clothing, fun, whatever. How an animal lives or dies is not my business, except when that animal is me. However, I also don't believe that I should force people to believe what I believe; if you want to eat meat, I won't stand in your way. All I ask is that people who do eat meat know and understand exactly where it comes from...

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.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I don't believe in souls, per se, as opposed to some spark that keeps living things different from non-living. Like electricity.

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.

[nightsea.livejournal.com]

Yeesh, you don't ask easy questions, do you.

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.

[conuly]

Yeesh, you don't ask easy questions, do you.

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.

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

I think a soul is like a thought bubble. I can't really expand on that.

[rachelkachel]

So are you okay with a person killing another person, as long as you're not involved? (Not equating this to abortion, that's beside the point.)

[rachelkachel]

I still don't know how to answer that... I have an idea of what it means but I can't put it into words. Very frustrating.

[conuly]

Rachel, please don't say people said things they haven't.

[masterflare421.livejournal.com]

I guess I can't believe that souls exist. They are kind of in the same category as faries and dragons; I can accept them in a storytelling manner with the "suspension of disbelief" acting, in real life I can't say it is real. I don't know if there is a reasoning to this, I wasn't brought up to be spiritual and I hate the idea of organized religion. I'm also very scientific and I possibly don't believe in souls because they don't have a scientific explaination.

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.

[rachelkachel]

Sorry. Not meaning to be annoying, just asking the question...

[squittycat.livejournal.com]

Hey, I don't mind; it's a valid question.

People kill other people every day. Take, for example, the United States Armed Forces under the excellent direction of our excellent Commander-In-Chief. It's out of my control, and though I don't condone it, neither can I stop it. That doesn't stop me from not killing other people myself, or wishing it weren't the case...

[essius.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I don't believe in souls, per se

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?"

[essius.livejournal.com]

I guess I can't believe that souls exist.

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.

[conuly]

It's a category mistake to deny a nonscientific thing based on scientific grounds. Some things require metaphysical (not physical) analysis.

Like what? Calling soul doesn't count, it has to be something else. And I'm not being snotty, I'm actually curious.

[conuly]

We don't know if that means they're self-aware... by that standard, people who couldn't see their reflections could never be self-aware! Maybe they're self-aware before that but don't know that mirrors aren't real yet.

[conuly]

I know you weren't intending to be annoying, but that line of talk leads into somewhat annoying arguments sometimes. Trying to head it off at the pass. Which was apparently unnecessary.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

It's that "life spark" I mentioned. I'm not sure self-awareness really MAKES a soul (that more defines personhood, which is what most people want to use a soul to define) rather than that intangible thing that keeps the body moving. That one last bit of physiology that can't be explained away by science, and probably never will be.

[essius.livejournal.com]

The existence of God, numbers, uninstantiated Platonic essences, and other suchlike things. These must be decided by philosophy, not science. - Science can, of course, help to support or reject the possibility of the first of these three examples.

But actually, on some definitions, telling whether or not something has a soul is just a matter of asking whether or not it has life. It lives? It has a soul! On such a view (Thomistic dualism), plants have a vegetative soul, animals a sensory soul, and human beings have a rational soul.

[essius.livejournal.com]

Self-awareness is a qualification of the soul, and indicates a rational soul (as opposed to a merely vegetative or sensory soul). (In other words, I agree.)

[kuriku.livejournal.com]

[masterflare421.livejournal.com]

Everyone believes in souls if they are given the correct definition.

That's probably true, however I have yet to find a definition that fits into my beliefs.

It's a category mistake to deny a nonscientific thing based on scientific grounds. Some things require metaphysical (not physical) analysis.

I understood that as I was typing the statement in question, that is why the word "possibly" is in there. I'm not saying it is the reason why, I'm saying it could be. I know my views can be changed and I'm quite indecisive, so most things I say have some indefinate meaning phrase like "I guess" or "most of the time."


And I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to refuse to continue this conversation any further. While I like understanding other people's beliefs, I go out of my way to avoid religious debates because all I've ever seen them cause is trouble.

As well, I feel like you are trying to change my beliefs into believeing in souls and that really isn't appreciated. I'm probably wrong but that's what it feels like. Besides, I feel like I am cluttering up conuly's journal with my comments anyway.

So again, sorry, but I don't think I'm comfortable with continuing.

[conuly]

Besides, I feel like I am cluttering up conuly's journal with my comments anyway.


Don't worry about *that*. If it's the other things, you should by all means leave the conversation, but if that's what concerns you, don't worry about it, I love reading comments, so long as they aren't flamey or stupid, which yours weren't.

[conuly]

I believe that a fetus is yet to have a soul, and that an embryo has one. I am, however, pro-choice.

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.

[essius.livejournal.com]

And I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to refuse to continue this conversation any further.

Your choice, which I shall respect.

I go out of my way to avoid religious debates because all I've ever seen them cause is trouble.

Only when dogmatism enters in, and I try to avoid such.

I feel like you are trying to change my beliefs into believeing in souls and that really isn't appreciated.

Now that's rather silly. How can I change your beliefs? Only you can choose whether what I say has any validity, and whether you wish to believe that anything I say has any ounce of truth.

I feel like I am cluttering up conuly's journal with my comments anyway.

Understood. But my journal is open at any time, for what it's worth. Thank you, conuly, for putting up with the clutter! ;-)