24 Apr 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI was addressing your phrase, "temporary total dissolution of the soul." As the soul lives forever, regardless its locale and as 'dissolution' is another word for termination, the phrase is non-sensical... whether or not you have correctly 'construed' the essence of Swinburne's argument.
I suggest you read Christian theologian Richard Swinburne's book "The evolution of the soul" (1987) for a modern construal of the soul identical to that contained in my silly blatherings.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAt most, my phrase is empirically false, not nonsensical; and you haven't tried to give anyone reason to believe either. I think you are merely disagreeing with me voluably, rather than constructing an argument for your position.
I was addressing your phrase, "temporary total dissolution of the soul." As the soul lives forever, regardless its locale and as 'dissolution' is another word for termination, the phrase is non-sensical... whether or not you have correctly 'construed' the essence of Swinburne's argument.
Swinburne accepts that the soul dissolves at death, or prior to it in the case of say dementia, as the soul is fully dependent upon neurological architecture here on earth; but he leaves upon the possibility that it could be reinstated later, without that neural architecture; and he further thinks that that is something that God would be likely to do.
Do you think that if someone cut out half your brain, but left you alive, your soul would be unaffected?
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe ideas that I was trying to express were the following: (a) the sharp division between "soul" on the one hand, and "mind" on the other, often articulated today, is artificial and bogus, and the result of a sort of hyper-Cartesianism, which permits the postulation of entities like souls, that are not only conceptually divorced from the body, but also apparently conceptually divorced from the mind; and (b) that when Aquinas and Augustine referred to the soul, they weren't just referring to an entity separate from the mind, but to one that encompassed it and its characteristics. You went on to point out that the Thomist soul in fact encompassed the whole person, body and soul, and not just the mind; and as you rightly point out, this is, in a strong sense, a non-Cartesian view. So I am now thinking that the formal Thomist notion of the soul, as the essence or form of the person, may also be the cause of what I regard as the illegitimate splitting of the folk notions of soul and mind. I seem to recall Swinburne asserting that his view of the soul, essentially the mind, was more in line with classical Christian thinking; but if you are correct, then this is perhaps not so.
No - what you're describing is the Cartesian notion of soul.
The Thomistic relation between soul and human being is that between essence and being. I presume the Augustinian conception was that of form (idea) and object. The soul is simply the essence/form of a living being.
It follows, then, that all living beings have a soul. The only q ...[text shortened]... ersonality plus his/her physical attributes. In other words, the essence of the person.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOoooh, I am so humiliated, I will have to get therapy, you barbs struck soooo deep.
If this is the sum total of your reasoning powers, bring some justice to the world and refrain from procreation upon reaching adulthood in the next ten (or so) years.
Your arrogance proves my point.
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is at its root, arrogance that humans put themselves on a higher plane than animals. If humans have souls than all life forms have souls. Which I seriously doubt in the first place. I attribute the whole concept to wishful thinking. There is no proof of this supposition other than the blathering of the religions of the world who desparately want to believe it so. Believing it so by every human on earth will not make it so if it isn't true. Conversely, believing it to be not so by unbelievers will not make it false if its already true. I just happen to think the whole thing can be laid at the feet of human arrogance, thinking their place in the universe is somehow divine or leading to divinity.
You're still talking from the Cartesian frame. In Thomistic philosophy, what we call form in rocks is called soul in living beings. It's just a matter of terminology. It says nothing about "inherent superiority".
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI give up - you've not read anything I've written so far.
It is at its root, arrogance that humans put themselves on a higher plane than animals. If humans have souls than all life forms have souls. Which I seriously doubt in the first place. I attribute the whole concept to wishful thinking. There is no proof of this supposition other than the blathering of the religions of the world who desparately want to beli ...[text shortened]... human arrogance, thinking their place in the universe is somehow divine or leading to divinity.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by OmnislashI really do hope that wasn't sarcasm. And in the siprituality forum too! ðŸ˜
I'm sorry. I failed to appreciate the originality in the content of your post. No one ever speaks sarcastically about religion in here. My bad.
If you would be kind enough as to let me know the prerequistes for my PHD in whit evaluation, I will apply immediately. Hopefully, my ability to "blast everyone else like a complet F___wit" with my first post i ...[text shortened]... l as your kindness in putting up with my inflammatory remarks.
Best Regards,
Omnislash
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
24 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess its like that argument between Jesus and the Saducees (reference ???). A Saducee approaches Jesus and asks something like "what will happen to a widow, who marries her dead husband's brother? Will she have two husbands in the after-life?" Jesus responds by explaining that this life and the after-life are completely different and that he cannot understand because blah, blah, blah.
I have never really understood the concept of the soul. I would like to know from people who think that such a thing exists, whether human memories are recorded with the soul. I know that the human brain stores memory. I know that that memory can be erased or lost during a persons lifetime, sometimes, in the case of cirtain diseases, a large part of the m ...[text shortened]... ifferent from our conciousness then why would we have any incentive to get our soul into heaven?
But that doesn't help anyway.
25 Apr 06
I dont think that anyone who actually believes in the existence of a soul has actually tried to answer my question.
The key question for me is:
If the soul does not include my conciousness and memories then I have absolutely no incentive to desire an immortal soul. If the soul does include these things then to what extent? As in the example of dementia, if memories are lost to the conciousness are they lost to the soul? If so, is it not desirable to die before old age takes away your faculties? If not, is your soul really you or some other being?
Are souls divisible? What would the implications be if they are?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is becoming too speculative. Any theist could give a number of reasons. It's the supernatural be creative!.
I dont think that anyone who actually believes in the existence of a soul has actually tried to answer my question.
The key question for me is:
If the soul does not include my conciousness and memories then I have absolutely no incentive to desire an immortal soul. If the soul does include these things then to what extent? As in the example of dementia, ...[text shortened]... ly you or some other being?
Are souls divisible? What would the implications be if they are?
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI do not have a specific notion of what a soul is. That is what I am trying to find out. Why don't you explain your notion rather than trying to avoid the question?
Not every person who believes in the existence of a soul shares your notion of what a 'soul' is.
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not trying to avoid the question - if you'd actually bothered reading what I've posted in this thread you'd see that. Your original question is not applicable to what my conception of what a soul is - so there is nothing to answer.
I do not have a specific notion of what a soul is. That is what I am trying to find out. Why don't you explain your notion rather than trying to avoid the question?
If you want to rephrase your question so it ties up to the Thomistic or Augustinian notions of the soul, then do so. But, in the meanwhile, don't blame me for your laziness.
25 Apr 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerMaybe I dont understand your posts. In what way does my question not apply to your concept of the soul? Either a soul stores memories or it doesnt.
I am not trying to avoid the question - if you'd actually bothered reading what I've posted in this thread you'd see that. Your original question is not applicable to what my conception of what a soul is - so there is nothing to answer.
If you want to rephrase your question so it ties up to the Thomistic or Augustinian notions of the soul, then do so. But, in the meanwhile, don't blame me for your laziness.
You still dont specifically state whether you believe in the Thomistic or Augustinian notions of the soul.