Body and soul...
Hi, im new here and i have a thing for thinking. I write sometimes but i am unable to discuss maturity and ability to convey my thoughts on paper with anyone. Here is something i wrote:
"Imagine that earth is our body and moon is our soul. Both are among each other at all times but we cannot see the moon in day light and it lights our way at night and guides our oceans.
Just like we are unaware of our soul when we are occupied by worldy matters but as soon as we are in darkness and despair it guides us through it. It draws its light from the devine as the moon draws its light from the sun. Our soul has significant role in each moment of our life but we are unaware of its presence because it is present in the void and it is communicating with body through the void.
As void itself has presence and it encapsulates all that exist.
If we want to know how seperated our soul is from our body.. We should see how seperated moon is from earth, compared to the size of this whole universe. They look like they are one, yet seperated."
Please identify weak points and please guide how i can i think to think better?
"Imagine that earth is our body and moon is our soul. Both are among each other at all times but we cannot see the moon in day light and it lights our way at night and guides our oceans.
Just like we are unaware of our soul when we are occupied by worldy matters but as soon as we are in darkness and despair it guides us through it. It draws its light from the devine as the moon draws its light from the sun. Our soul has significant role in each moment of our life but we are unaware of its presence because it is present in the void and it is communicating with body through the void.
As void itself has presence and it encapsulates all that exist.
If we want to know how seperated our soul is from our body.. We should see how seperated moon is from earth, compared to the size of this whole universe. They look like they are one, yet seperated."
Please identify weak points and please guide how i can i think to think better?
Comments (118)
If you are saying that you have trouble expressing yourself in words, all I can say is you've expressed yourself very clearly in what you've written here.
Quoting ahmad bilal
There are lots of words used to describe who we are, e.g. soul, spirit, ego, self, identity, consciousness, mind, and lots more. I don't tend to think in terms of a soul. I'm not a religious person. On the other hand, I do experience myself acting in the background while I'm not conscious of myself and then the solution to problems, actions, and intentions rise up from somewhere inside me. I picture it as a spring bubbling up from beneath the ground. I'm not sure if that's the same thing you are talking about or not.
Otherwise, you have the makings of a nice metaphor. However, as with all such metaphors, there is a temptation to over extend and mix them, beyond the simple allegory they are intended to convey. As such, you lost me with the last part, when you ventured into the void, so to speak. Maybe leave out the last three sentences.
Its like we have something innate to pick ourselves up and make us do what is required..
Not everything, but where our hearts go our will follows...
You will find I quote Lao Tzu a lot. He talks about acting without acting. That's how it feels to me when it comes from inside me and moves directly into action without conscious thought.
I'll let Ahmad answer for himself, but I got the feeling those last three sentences were the most important part. I agree they could use some additional explication.
It's as clear as mud. Let's start with: what's a soul? Something like the moon that guides you, and so on, is hardly the stuff of clarity.
I interpret your reply as an expression of approval more than anything else. Sure, you could shoot back with the comment that I disapprove, but the difference is that I'm speaking the truth and not just paying lip service.
That's an understatement if I ever saw one. Overall, it could do with some additional explication.
You also seem more interested or engaged with a milder, more encouraging form of criticism, than my kind of telling it like it is. Meh.
Ahmad, I'd like to introduce you to one of our resident ....well, maybe I won't introduce you to the forum with an example of the types of insults that get passed around here, much as Sapientia deserves them.
From our back and forth, I think I understood what you wrote reasonably well. Also, when I commented on your writing, I was talking about the clarity with which you expressed yourself, not necessarily your ideas. As I indicated, they could use some additional explication.
Either its clear or it's mud, leaving only muddy resemblance of our body...
It's a hard life when you don't sugar coat everything you say here. :cry:
But I wouldn't trade it for the world.
Your interpretation is wrong. We're not all ..... Well, what I referred to obliquely before.
Some people here are too quick to pounce on what I say because it clashes with or upsets their own way of looking at things - risks throwing it out of kilter. T Clarkey is a fanboy of Lao Tzu, as he was quick to signal, so what do you expect? This stuff is his opium.
There is definitely some rough and tumble here on the forum. I guess you should get used to it.
As for any question about "soul", great minds have been exhausted in search of their linguistics answers. So my thought might not have any significance, but here is what i think soul is: "Soul is the life inside this body, the most complex and engineered form of life that exist. It creates joy where mind create happiness. It creates love where mind can only create affection. It creates pain while mind work too hard with its defence mechanisms to fight it. It is something that you identify in the state of flow or mindfulness when your brain is on standby."
I can go on but again i don't think it will make any difference.
What you say?
Yes, there is some truth in that.
Quoting ahmad bilal
I say that we'd be better off dispensing with the word "soul" altogether, as in my assessment it is rarely helpful in getting to the crux of the matter. I do not believe in anything that I would feel it necessary to call "soul". I say that metaphors and poetic language are not always the best tools at our disposal. I prefer precision to rough comparisons or pointers. It's like you're speaking in riddles.
If I say that thought is like a torch, how much does that tell you about thought? If I say that thought creates joy, how much does that tell you about thought? Couldn't you say the same thing about many other things besides thought?
There are experiences that are probably only expressible in what you call "metaphors and poetic language." You don't explain them, you tell a story about them. I don't call what Ahmad is talking about "soul" but I think he and I share a common experience.
It's not really an idea, it's an experience. At least it was an experience before it was an idea. That's how it is for me.
So I must concur with T Clark. If the intention here is not to be philosophically exacting, but rather to be poetically allegorical, then it may be best to avoid the tendency to over analyze, as it becomes like dissecting an intricate and lovely insect to discover what makes it so, and in the process destroying it. Sure, terms like 'soul' can be ambiguous, nebulous and mystical; but poetry surely must allow for some subjective and intuitive leeway in interpretation. So go with what intuitively and integrally feels right to you, as your heartfelt expression, and let the interpreters read into it what they may.
That's what I don't like about mysticism. It feels like an easy way out. It might even be a kind of defence mechanism. You could say the same thing about God or spirituality or paranormal experiences.
What if it's just bogus? What if it's just a kind of redundant umbrella term for other things? Are you talking about consciousness? Being alive? What is it? Do you even know? And if you don't know what you're talking about, then how is one to make any sense of it? "It's like the moon. You'll have to experience it yourself", just doesn't do it for me. It's the elusive or imaginary "something more" that's the problem for me. Nothing you've tried to describe or explain so far would make me think: "soul". If there's an alternative explanation which is plausible and does away with the addition of "soul", I'll go with that, and I think that that would be reasonable.
As for me that if i know what I'm talking about, "all i know is that i know nothing" Thanks Socrates to put it words.
What I take issue with is [i]less[/I] that there are things that you can know without knowing [i]how[/I] you know them - or without being able to adequately [i]explain[/I] how you know them - and [i]more[/I] with the assumption that you know [i]what you think you do[/I], in this instance, because there is what I would describe as what seems to be only an outward appearance of meaning.
If this outward appearance of meaning falls apart upon examination and no real meaning is found or can be produced, then I don't think that you [i]can[/I] know it at all, let alone that you [i]actually do[/I] know it. I think that you'd just be deluding yourself. This does indeed relate somewhat to the Socratic method and that famous quote attributed to Socrates.
I think that it's a problem if you can't produce a means of distinguishing between nonsense and conveying some sort of deep insight which allegedly can only be expressed in metaphors and poetic language. I think that it's a problem if the word "soul" is like the nonsense word "shleaf".
Wittgenstein is relevant here, I think. "What can be said at all can be said clearly", "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
In my experience, the feeling, intuition comes first. Then we can be "philosophically exacting." So they're not mutually exclusive. I'd even say they are inseparable. Seems like your and Sapientia's experiences are different.
I don't think it is correct to call this "mysticism." It's just the way the mind works, at least for some of us. Intuition is what bubbles up from inside us. It is as much a part of us as consciousness or rational thought.
Quoting Sapientia
How do you know if anything you experience, believe, or know is bogus? We talk about perception, consciousness, and other mental experiences/phenomena here all the time. Why is this any different? Do you really experience your internal life as conscious and rational? Do you feel as if your body and feelings are separate from your intellect? I certainly don't.
Isn't this just as true for rational thought as it is for intuition?
Quoting Sapientia
Except the soul is a mental experience. By "mental" I include emotions and intuitions. I have experienced it, although I generally call it something else. Do you deny your own mental experience?
Quoting ahmad bilal
Many native speakers have started off their threads with writing about the same as yours. It's OK. A grammar point: " maturity" and "ability" are nouns here intended to describe the infinitive. verb "to discuss". They should be adverbs, words that modify verbs. So, "I am unable to discuss maturely and ably".
Calling the earth our body and the moon our soul is a metaphor, a very common device in poetry and prose both. The earth is a concrete thing, solid, the soul isn't a solid thing. You make them both solid, earth and moon. You could also say the earth is our body, the wind is our soul -- the wind being lighter and different than the earth.
One hopes the soul can do that -- maybe the soul has it's own dark nights of despair, then where does guidance come from?
It's my life, singular, or our lives, plural. Native speakers have problems with this too. I don't know what you mean in this paragraph -- a soul in the void communicates with the body through the void, and then the void itself is present... Just don't get that part. The meaning is obscure.
Please identify weak points and please guide how i can i think to think better?[/quote]
So, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a soul, and I am pretty sure nobody knows what it is, exactly, whether they believe in it or not. It's the "spirit" or "essence" of someone or something. We can refer to the soul, spirit, and essence and get away with vague meanings because there is a general agreement that "soul" has a private meaning for individuals. We all don't have to agree about what the soul is. It is "something that people think is an important part of themselves" even if it is invisible in both substance and action.
Some police won't wave "soul" through the intersection; they'll stop and question it. "Just what do you mean be "soul" they'll ask. They'll protest "There is no such thing as the soul". They will demand you justify the use of the word "soul". Most people will, however, wave your soul on, and won't demand explanations.
Be aware that "soul" and "spirit" have a lot of religious connotations. The "soul" is loaded with issues in other words. Soul is by no means the only word that causes unexpected reactions. For instance, the word "race" has been known to give certain moderators of the site seizures and severe rashes. They twitch, foam at the mouth, proclaim various nonsensical ideas, and break out in painful blisters, something like severe herpes infections. So be careful about using the word "race".
And I don't think it's correct to try to pass this off as "intuition" or "just the way the mind works". It comes close to the definition of mysticism as "vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief", and other definitions specifically include mention of intuition.
Quoting T Clark
Why would I think that perception or consciousness is bogus?! How could I be reading your reply without either of those? Soul, on the other hand, is ill-defined and seemingly mythical and/or redundant.
That's not the way I experience it.
Quoting Sapientia
For you, but not for all of us.
Are you suggesting that what I said would equally apply to the term "rational thought" as it would with "soul"? :brow:
I'm not sure I follow.
Quoting T Clark
Yeah, so is the shleaf, as it happens. Like the word "soul", people use it as a placeholder.
Quoting T Clark
No, of course I don't deny my own mental experience. Why would you ask me such a question? Why don't you make this easier and call it by this other term you use if that will shed more light on it. I already said something along the lines that there's nothing I acknowledge the existence of which I would think it necessary or proper to call "soul".
Soul is going to stay ill-defined because it is a vague mythical concept. As I said to Ahmed above,
Quoting Bitter Crank
"Spirit" is another one of those vague words people get away with using; it has so many meanings. The "spirit" of the law, a horse with "spirit", "spirit" duplicator (used in schools for duplicating souls), wine, beer, and "spirits", "she's very spiritual", wtftm, and so on.
Then explain it clearly. Or else remain silent. I do not believe in mystical experiences of the ineffable.
Yes.
Quoting Sapientia
And so is rational thought.
Quoting Sapientia
I gave examples of other terms - self, identity, spirit, consciousness, me, myself, I. I would probably use the word "self," most often, but might use the others also.
Sapientia get's fairly itchy around "the" and "and."
If I say "remain silent" to you, will you do it? It's almost worth it to trade silences. Not quite. I like the sound of my own voice too much.
Sometimes I get so itchy that it feels as though my soul's about to shoot right out of my mouth and float off up into the sky!
Go on, then.
The word "rational" is an adjective which means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" and the word "thought" means "an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind" or "the action or process of thinking".
What's the problem?
Quoting T Clark
No, I don't think they're comparable.
Quoting T Clark
So, which is it? Those words are not all equivalent in meaning. And one of them, "spirit", is just as bad as, "soul", both of which are quite like, "shleaf". Pick whichever word the meaning of which defines soul. Are you going with "self"?
It exists in your reality if you believe in it.
Happiness, love and all other feelings comes from inside. We can never identify a feeling we have not felt before. Even if it is there, we wont be able to identify it. Only through rigorous encounters with these emotions aid us to understand them.
Such is the case with soul, only those moments that stir your soul and you feel fluctuations inside(personal experience) help to identify your soul. Same principle applies, after enough encounters with soul, only then can one pin point it.
If you believe that soul exists, only then you have a chance to find it.
You're wrong. Blind.
I sort of take inspiration here from Aristotle, but my best understanding of the term is the wholeness of a person -- so that includes my mental life, my emotional life, my physical life, my social life. And as much as I am philosophically inclined to avoid the word in the everyday use of the word I have encountered expressions that couldn't be expressed better without the use of "soul" -- "You and I have seen eachother's souls" is such a sentence that could not be translated into another sentence. It was the perfect expression.
It goes against my intuitions, but there does seem to be something to the word in the everyday sense that gives me pause.
That would seem to be the case ... so be it. I don't see it as any less valid than my experience, but just accept that it too plays its integral role.
Yes. And so does god, the devil, hell, heaven, angels, and all other heavenly unworldly or otherworldly things.
On the other hand, the physical world exists whether you believe in it or not
The soul, then, belongs to that part of the world where believing is seeing, rather than seeing is believing.
That's not the way I experience it. Internal is as real as external. Also - everything external is also internal. We only know the world through our internal perceptions, thoughts, ideas, emotions, feelings, intuitions, etc., etc.
Not differentiating the reality of the physical world (which is external, perceived by the senses) with the reality inside our heads (which include imagination, wishes, delusion, emotions, ideas, etc.) can get us into trouble pretty quickly.
We have to test reality carefully sometimes to make sure our perceptions are not wrong. The strong wish coupled with a delusion and backed up by emotions isn't as easily testable as whether or not the water is really deep, or only looks deep... whether ice is really thin or is very thick... because the rational machinery is involved in the delusion itself. That's why we can go off half cocked about something, and stay that way for a long time.
Granted, sane intelligent people do manage to self-monitor the traffic between their ears and identify screwy thinking reasonably often. But we same people can also miss the boat on self-monitoring fairly often.
Quoting Bitter Crank
the "believing is seeing" principle isn't limited to other-worldly things. When my partner drove downtown he could never find a parking place on the street. I kept telling him (and pointing at them) there were parking places -- it's Sunday night at 9:00 for christ's sake -- the only people down here are guys at the gay bars, and they aren't taking up all the parking places. "If you don't believe there are any parking places, you won't see them."
I would have used Billy Holiday's version of Body and Soul, but David Sederis ruined Billy Holiday with his Oscar Meyer wiener song, and Away in a Manger sung in his Billy Holiday voice.
This reminds me of the poem Invictus, here which I have turned to in some dark moments. :up:
but this is just another perspective based on scientific knowledge humans have acquired till date.
Branch of quantum physics is contributing to reveal truth more than ever, all matter which we can comprehend in our reality is 99.9% empty space because atom is 99.9% space. if we dig deeper we can find "Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter."
- Lipton, H Bruce. The Biology of Belief. United States: Hay House INC. 2008
Doesn't quantum physics go by "believing is seeing"(no one has ever took a picture of quarks or photons)? because we don't believe that we are an illusion rather then something physical.
If you believe you can do something only then you can see yourself doing it. This is what I'm saying, if you believe soul exists, only then it is possible than you can be sure about whether or not it exists. So, "Believing is seeing" can generate interesting results even it is possible to discover some truth only by believing and looking for it.
So, a day might come when folk would be thinking that "believe it or not physical world do not exist", we must think that what if all knowledge we have till date collapses? Where do we stand then?, only to speed up the process.
Why calm?
Whatever we do, no matter how much we test our reality we can never know the absolute reality. All we know of reality is that it's bound to someone's perception and their way to thinking.
And you feel peace and calmness in those moments of thoughtlessness. This is the core of your life, all else (worry, anxiety, pressure) is created by the mind as its defenses or survival instinct.
Quoting ahmad bilal
True, quantum physics doesn't sit well with the naive picture of atoms as hard bits of matter in tiny little solar system atoms. Fortunately quantum physics works when it comes to us sitting down on a chair; the chair keeps us from landing on the floor; all those strong forces, weak forces, chair-supporting quarks and so forth.
Quoting ahmad bilal
I agree that "absolute reality", whatever that is, is something we can not perceive, nor can we penetrate it with theory, like physicists did with quantum physics. (Unless quantum physics is ultimate reality, but I'm over my head here... best say no more.)
Getting back to souls...
I don't believe souls exist, but I would define "soul" as something that exists within us, is not physical, and continues to exist after we are physically dead. In common usage (everyday religion), it is "our soul" that goes to heaven. Christians claim to believe in "the resurrection of the body" -- that's what it says in the creed. What Christians actually seem to believe is that their "soul" will be transmitted directly to heaven (or hell, as the case may be). I don't believe in heaven or hell either, though heaven is a nice idea.
Whether we exist as bodies alone with all our mental apparatus, or whether we are physical beings plus a soul is a matter of belief; believing is seeing, in the case of the soul. Believers see it, non-believers don't. Well, believers don't "see it" because it isn't visible, but you probably get what I mean.
i agree with this definition as most of the religions do. (including Christianity)
what religions refer to soul is our consciousness, they say that consciousness is separate from body as it is the only trait that distinguishes humans from other living creatures and consciousness will be put to sleep upon death and resurrected on judgment day, like we wake up from sleep.
And visa versa, although I'm guessing you disagree.
Then it doesn't exist, which is how I see it. I think the case can be made that objective reality does not exist. That's not a particularly exotic idea. Of course, it's also a matter of choice. Here are quotes I just used in another discussion - from R.G. Collingwood "An Essay on Metaphysics."
Metaphysics is the attempt to find out what absolute presuppositions have been made by this or that person or group of persons, on this or that occasion or group of occasions, in the course of this or that piece of thinking.
Absolute presuppositions are not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them....
For me, the existence of objective reality is an absolute presupposition.
I know that this might come as a surprise, but I don't call consciousness "soul", unlikely events "miracles", love or the universe "God", and so on.
All teaching of meditation teach that in deep meditative state, you are connected to your soul.
Soul is that authoritative voice in your head that saves you in survival situations, like something has taken over for your survival. People who engage in dangerous or potentially activities know that.(Myself as a mountaineer). To get the feeling, imagine getting so angry that you are out of control. Next day you think "Man! that was not me!!". Just like that, something takes over to save you, albeit its not successful every time.
Soul is hiding till it's necessary to come out, either you are looking out for it or extreme emotion has provoked it. Extreme emotional pain, extreme joy and so on...
But I think "soul" is more than emotions, insight, or meditation. It's as much an entity as mind, self, or identity. You might prefer one of those words, but a lot of people, including me, don't consider "soul" provocative at all, even though it's not the word I normally use.
Well, yes, that comes as no surprise, because you're one of those people who are more sympathetic to that sort of thing, and I'm one of those people who are more critical of it.
Which was my point.
A point which did not need to be made.
Punctiliousness.
It makes sense if you think of it in terms of quantum physics. In my response about quantum physics i said:
- Lipton, H Bruce. The Biology of Belief. United States: Hay House INC. 2008[/quote]
And then i did some research on our energy systems, only to find out that it states about same thing i.e. Chakras, Flow of Energy, Energy Healing and so on...
And i found this piece of text explaining soul:
I know it is a long post, but this effort has been put in order to clarify the idea of soul.
What do you guys think about it?
It's comparing apples and oranges. One is literature on quantum physics, the other some sort of New Age pseudophilosophy. Kill it with fire. :fire:
Well, if you imagine viewing them from some distance, both are spherical...
And according to text i posted, dreams are related to only astral body.
Upon death, your "atoms" are alive and doing what they usually do, but you are not alive. That "energy", "life", "soul" is not present anymore.
It always bothers me when people conflate spiritual entities with scientific principles. Prime example - Discussions of the illusions of self discussed in eastern philosophies with quantum mechanics. The existence and meaning of the soul was being discussed thousands of years before anyone imagined QM. If the two have anything in common, it is purely metaphorical. The seat of consciousness and free will is not a function of the behavior of subatomic particles.
I will repeat my habitual refrain - One (spiritual entities) is a metaphysical phenomenon. It's a matter of value, choice, faith. The other (physical entities) is a physical phenomenon. It's a matter of fact.
You can choose whether or not you have a soul? Perhaps you really mean that you can choose whether or not to believe that you have a soul. So how is this different from any principles of physics, which you can also choose whether or not to believe?
You actually can't do any of that with sincerity, but we've had that argument before and I'm not in any rush to have it again.
Principles of physics are matters of fact. Principles of metaphysics are not. They are "...not verifiable. This does not mean that we should like to verify them but are not able to; ·it means that the idea of verification is an idea which does not apply to them... (R.G. Collingwood)
I don't understand, some ideas we can verify and some we can't? What do you mean? Doesn't it seem more reasonable just to believe that different types of ideas get verified in different ways?
It was T Clark who suggested soul is a matter of choice. I know you believe in determinism, so you can't with sincerity choose to believe anything. But that's your problem not mine.
How do you verify:
To be clear, I said using the word, concept of, "soul" is a matter of choice.
To be clear: I don't understand you at all.
I went back over my last few posts on this discussion. I think I expressed myself clearly. I've responded to your questions and comments. I don't know what else to say.
Here's my problem. You seem to be implying that some ideas (matters of fact) can be verified and some other ideas (matters of metaphysics) cannot be verified. But you don't say what verification is. Let's say for example, "the sky is blue" is a matter of fact. How would you verify this?
Here's a definition of "verify" from the web - "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified."
Is "the sky is blue" a true statement? Let's clarify - By "the sky is blue," I mean the color of the light in the visible spectrum that enters my eye falls within the range of wavelengths normally classified as "blue."
Here are several ways of verifying:
That's just confirmation bias. I want verification, as you say, a demonstration that it is true that the colour of the sky is blue. That there is a range identified as "blue", and the light from the sky fulfills this condition, does not verify that the range identified as "blue" is the true blue. All this does is confirm that the defined range is consistent with the colour of the sky. It verifies the definition.
If this were all it takes to "verify", we could easily verify that people have souls. "Soul" is defined as the immaterial part of the living human being, which all human beings have. Therefore to be a human being is to have a soul.
To deny that people have souls, is to deny the definition, just like one could deny the definition of blue, and say that the sky isn't really blue. Why do you say one is a fact and the other is not?
This doesn't seem like a very fruitful discussion. I can't tell if you believe what you say or or are being intentionally obtuse as a rhetorical device.
"Blue" is something created, conceptualized, defined by human beings. It corresponds to a range of wavelengths of light visible to humans in general. Acknowledging the usual level of uncertainty associated with observations of the physical world, it's not hard to determine whether something reflects, defracts, or emits light in that range of wavelengths.
Right, "blue" is something created, conceptualized, and defined by human beings. It corresponds to the colour that the sky is. Likewise, "soul" is something created, conceptualized, defined by human beings. It corresponds to the immaterial aspect of the human being.
I'm not being obtuse, my question is very simple. On what principles do you base your assertion that it's a fact that "blue" refers to the colour that the sky is, but not a fact that "soul" refers to the immaterial aspect of human beings?
I went back through my posts on this subject. I don't think I said that the existence of a soul is a matter of choice. If I did, I was wrong. I said that the use of the word "soul" was a choice. There is something, as real as "blue," although some would disagree. I don't usually call it a "soul," although I sometimes do. I usually just call it "me." Other names include self, identity, ego, spirit, essence, and lots more.
OK, maybe I misunderstood your point.
But don't you think that "me", "self", "identity", etc., refer to a composite body and soul, not just the soul?
When I think of any of those terms as they apply to me, there is just one thing. All of me. Body, mind, soul, whatever else there is. There is only one me, undivided. I feel myself that way viscerally. I wouldn't know where to draw a line.
How can you, on the one hand, suggest that your soul is [i]part[/I] of you, and on the other, that it [i]is[/I] you? Don't you think that it's misleading to call something what it's not?
What you're doing seems to be a more subtle version of calling a dog, "doggy", "hound", "pooch", "mutt", and "cat". It's like a game of "spot the odd one out".
Using [I]any[/I] word in [I]any[/I] way is a matter of choice. One can choose to use words sensibly or otherwise. Conventionally, the words that you use interchangeably are not equivalent in meaning. That's why I asked you to pick one earlier on.
A car is a car. What's important is that it works when I need it to. That's it. A car. That doesn't mean I don't recognize a steering wheel when I see one. Love that metaphor. The world is all one thing. I feel that too. But I also recognize what the Taoists call "the 10,000 things." Gotta love Lao Tzu.
Quoting Sapientia
Synonyms or near-synonyms add a lot to language. Even if their definitions are exactly the same, they generally are different in tone, emphasis, mood. That's one of the things that allows descriptions and explanations to be subtle and meaningful. For me, soul, spirit, mind, me, ego, and the rest, refer to an experience or set of experiences. "Soul" has a particular feeling to it. I use it in certain situations. I have a friend whom I think of as having great depth of soul, spirit. The things she tells me help me see the world in a different way than I normally do.
[I]No it isn't![/I] :angry:
:chin:
Wait, yes it is. :up:
Quoting T Clark
So, you recognise that a car is not a steering wheel, and, analogously, you are not a soul? Or, should we be calling cars "steering wheels"? "Excuse me, do you know where I can park my steering wheel?", "Does this steering wheel run on petrol or diesel?", "How many seats does this steering wheel have?".
Quoting T Clark
Okay, but I did not get the impression that we were talking about soul in that sense, which seems more sentimental, and not so literal. I understand that the word is used in a variety of ways, with different senses and connotations. I got the impression that we were talking about soul in more of a metaphysical sense, as in, "Do we have souls?".
There is an experience. I've had it. Many others have. Some people call it "soul." Sometimes I do.
Can you be any more vague? Again, the criticism is that that could be said about virtually anything, from the mundane to the farfetched, and it is therefore a weak attempt at justification.
I've had an experience, as have many others. Some people call it "ghosts", some people call it "telepathy", and some people call it "God". Sometimes I call it "baloney".
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to explain. Have you had the experience I'm describing? The feeling of yourself. When you say "me," what does that refer to? Just a body in the mirror, or is there an experience, feelings, a sense of your own presence associated with it? That's the experience I'm talking about. If you haven't had the experience then all I can say is many of us have. We use different words to talk about it. "Soul" is one of those words. You can think of it as a sociological phenomenon to study and understand if you're interested.
If the question here has to do with "does the soul exist" what sort of evidence is acceptable?
Only empirical?
Only anecdotal?
Both empirical and anecdotal?
It's just a couple of questions, as the standard of measure for acceptable evidence is somewhat unclear in this dialog.
Meow!
G
Sure, who hasn't? I call it what it is. I prefer to speak plainly and avoid misunderstanding. That's why I don't say "soul" when I mean personal identity or consciousness, and that's why I don't call the profound experiences that I've had "spiritual" or "godly".
Some of us do sometimes. People experience the phenomenon or phenomena differently. They feel and think differently about it. Why is that hard to understand?
That's not hard to understand. The point is about interpretation and terminology. Which is better, or more correct, or more appropriate, or more accurate, or less problematic... I have an opinion on that, and I'm expressing it, as well as talking about the reasons behind it. Why is [I]that[/I] so hard to understand?
Quoting Sapientia
then the ones other people choose. Depends on the situation.
Yes, to some extent. But if the situation is one which calls for clarity and accuracy, rather than an opportunity to speak obscurely or poetically, then my choice of terminology wins. And I am of the opinion that philosophy is better approached by aiming for the former than using it for the latter.
I guess I've said my piece for now. I'm satisfied with where we've ended up.