Originally posted by MetamorphosisOf course. No one can say what "soul" is, just as no one can tell you what chicken tastes like.
According to who??
Remember, no one has authority on the meaning of the "soul". Anything you read about it -- anything, including in Wikipedia, lol -- is just someone else's idea or belief.
"The Tao that can be spoken, is not the true Tao
The name that can be named, is not the true Name."
-- Tao Te Ching
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, but the only way to confirm the description is to taste the chicken. 🙂 And, the one to whom the taste is being described would have to have some experential basis to comprehend the kind of flavors that are being described. Say that I have never tasted an apple; you are going to have to have some notion of what kind of fruits (and perhaps other foods as well) that I have tasted in order to communicate anything really meaningful to me.
There is quite a lot that can be said about the taste of chicken which would lead to understanding of what that taste is without having to taste it.
Originally posted by vistesdSort of reminds me of the discussion on seeing the color red.
Yes, but the only way to confirm the description is to taste the chicken. 🙂 And, the one to whom the taste is being described would have to have some experential basis to comprehend the kind of flavors that are being described. Say that I have never tasted an apple; you are going to have to have some notion of what kind of fruits (and perhaps other foods as well) that I have tasted in order to communicate anything really meaningful to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by lucifershammerFrom Kreeft's Summa of the Summa, p.243-244:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/107500.htm
St. Thomas Aquinas on the human soul.
"To seek the nature of the soul, we must premise that the soul is defined as the first principle of life of those things which live: for we call living things "animate," [i.e. having a soul], and those things which have no life, "inanimate." Now life is shown pr ...[text shortened]... from the "Summa of the Summa" ) once I get home.
EDIT: I hate it when " ) comes out as "😉
"We can conceive, or intellectualize, or understand the concept of soul, but we cannot imagine "soul" because our imagination is inescapably spatial; and souls, though in time, are not in space. If the soul were in space, we would lose part of our soul when we got a haircut...
The point is that there exist dead bodies as well as living bodies, and the difference between them is not a bodily entity or organ (the dead cow's body is still udderly complete), but is the difference between the presence or absence of the soul, the source of life"
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou mean life isn't just a matter of matter being in the proper
From Kreeft's Summa of the Summa, p.243-244:
"We can conceive, or intellectualize, or understand the concept of soul, but we cannot imagine "soul" because our imagination is inescapably spatial; and souls, though in time, are not in space. If the soul were in space, we would lose part of our soul when we got a haircut...
...[text shortened]... mplete), but is the difference between the presence or absence of the soul, the source of life"
arrangement? Who would of thought!?
Kelly
😉
From Kreeft's Summa of the Summa, p.243-244:
"We can conceive, or intellectualize, or understand the concept of soul, but we cannot imagine "soul" because our imagination is inescapably spatial; and souls, though in time, are not in space. If the soul were in space, we would lose part of our soul when we got a haircut...
Some remarks on this...
First, there is here the assumption that the soul is "all" of us. For example, one does not lose one's nose when getting a haircut, and yet the nose exists in space. Neither does one lose one's brain when one is getting a haircut.
So the author reveals his first unproved assumption, that being that the soul is "all of us", as opposed to, say, a particular manifestation of us, or a manifestation of the highest part of us.
He also contends that souls "exist in time". If souls exist in time, and time is non-existent at the absolute level as many wisdom traditions maintain, then souls are nonexistent at the absolute level according to this logic. Of course, the idea that "time is non-existent" at the ultimate level is just that, an idea. But, if you're going to suggest that souls exist outside of space, then why not grant them immunity from time as well -- since time and space are so clearly intertwined? (What is time but the measurement of the movements of bodies in space? No space, then no time, clearly).
This is where Kreeft begins to show his particular bias -- if souls exist in time, then there must have been a time when they did not exist. Therefore, they must have been created. This is simply thinly disguised monotheism -- Christianity, in all likelihood. It's someone's Christian theology dressed up as philosophical reasoning. It's nicely packaged dogma.
The point is that there exist dead bodies as well as living bodies, and the difference between them is not a bodily entity or organ (the dead cow's body is still udderly complete), but is the difference between the presence or absence of the soul, the source of life"
That the soul is the "source of life" is simply the author's unproved belief, nothing more.
note -- I'd never heard of "Kreeft" before, and just did a Google on him now. Sure enough, he is a philosophy professor and a Christian.
I'm not saying that the fact that he's a Christian automatically detracts from his views. I am saying, however, that this is ultimately yet another example of indoctrination and how it can so easily come to pass, even when presented as seemingly subtle philosophical reasoning.
Now do I really know it to be true that souls were not in fact created at some time? No, I don't. Perhaps they were. My whole point is to underscore the difference between experiential practice (the contemplative realm) and intellectual learning (the mental realm). "Soul" -- if it exists at all -- is not to be imagined, nor studied, but to be known. This form of "knowing" is sometimes called "gnosis" or in the East, "samadhi" or "satori". It is not in the category of intellectual knowing. It arises as the boundary between subject (consciousness) and object (matter) is eclipsed, resulting in insight or revelation. And granted, it takes great intent and sincerity to cross that river.
Originally posted by Metamorphosis
So the author reveals his first unproved assumption, that being that the soul is "all of us", as opposed to, say, a particular manifestation of us, or a manifestation of the highest part of us.
It's not an unproved assumption - it follows from the definition of the soul as the form (forma) of the human being. You can substitute the words nature (natura) or substance (substantia or ousia) if you wish.
He also contends that souls "exist in time". If souls exist in time, and time is non-existent at the absolute level as many wisdom traditions maintain, then souls are nonexistent at the absolute level according to this logic.
But Aquinas and Kreeft do not come from such a tradition. It's not surprising that mixing philosophical schools will result in absurd conclusions.
Of course, the idea that "time is non-existent" at the ultimate level is just that, an idea. But, if you're going to suggest that souls exist outside of space, then why not grant them immunity from time as well -- since time and space are so clearly intertwined? (What is time but the measurement of the movements of bodies in space? No space, then no time, clearly).
Time is measured as the movements of bodies in space, but that does not mean time is the same as movements of bodies in space.
This is where Kreeft begins to show his particular bias -- if souls exist in time, then there must have been a time when they did not exist. Therefore, they must have been [b]created. This is simply thinly disguised monotheism -- Christianity, in all likelihood. It's someone's Christian theology dressed up as philosophical reasoning. It's nicely packaged dogma.[/b]
It's Kreeft commenting on Aquinas. What did you expect? 🙄
In any case, Aquinas (and all Thomists) begin from Aristotle.
That the soul is the "source of life" is simply the author's unproved belief, nothing more.
Once again, it follows from the definition of "soul" used by Aquinas.
note -- I'd never heard of "Kreeft" before, and just did a Google on him now. Sure enough, he is a philosophy professor and a Christian.
Thomist and Catholic - to be precise. 🙂
"Soul" -- if it exists at all -- is not to be imagined, nor studied, but to be known. This form of "knowing" is sometimes called "gnosis" or in the East, "samadhi" or "satori". It is not in the category of intellectual knowing. It arises as the boundary between subject (consciousness) and object (matter) is eclipsed, resulting in insight or revelation. And granted, it takes great intent and sincerity to cross that river.
And how do you know those insights/revelations are true? Or that they are true for other thinkers?
It's not an unproved assumption - it follows from the definition of the soul as the form (forma) of the human being. You can substitute the words nature (natura) or substance (substantia or ousia) if you wish.
It is absolutely unproved as an experiential reality, precisely because it's based on abstract (non-experiential) definitions. You cannot intellectually prove the existence of the soul, period, your technical jargon notwithstanding.
Time is measured as the movements of bodies in space, but that does not mean time is the same as movements of bodies in space.
Imagine yourself in an environment with no space. No matter. No body. Nothing but your consciousness, just pure being -- and nothing (or no one) there with you either. Clearly there would be no time. Nothing aging (no body), nothing passing (nothing to pass), nothing arising (nothing to arise). Space-time is an indivisible matrix. If something does not exist in space, it does not exist in time either.
It's Kreeft commenting on Aquinas. What did you expect?
Who he is commenting on is irrelevant -- he could be commenting on Yogi Berra. The point is, he is passing on dogma, belief systems. In this case, Christian belief systems, yes, but all that matters is that people understand that they are belief systems.
In any case, Aquinas (and all Thomists) begin from Aristotle.
So what? What has that to do with anything? You're too impressed with so-called authority figures.
Once again, it follows from the definition of "soul" used by Aquinas.
And once again, though I'm beginning to doubt that you can get this point, you are talking about a definition. I am pointing toward that which is beyond "definitions".
And how do you know those insights/revelations are true? Or that they are true for other thinkers?
I'm not talking about "truth", and I'm not talking about "thinking". I'm talking about contemplative practice.
People can say all kinds of things about "what" the "soul" is, just like they can about the "taste of chicken". But I'm not referring to about "what" something is, in this case. I'm talking about direct experience -- that's what I'm referring to by "authority on the meaning of the soul".
For example, the Tao Te Ching, or the Upanishads, talk about the ultimate truth all the time. They (and other sacred texts) say all kinds of things about it. But none of this translates into direct experience, any more than a recipe book in itself translates into the direct experience of a chicken dinner.
Best analogy I know of about this whole conundrum is the Zen idea of the fingers pointing toward the Moon. The "fingers" represent words, ideas, systems, methods, sutras, texts, and so on. The "Moon" represents ultimate reality, or the soul, or God, etc.
The fingers direct one's attention toward the Moon, but they can't take us there. They are only pointers. Useful (or useless), but not to be misunderstood as the experiential truth itself.
What is really problematic is when we get attached to the fingers pointing toward the Moon. This is what happens when people simply pass on definitions of God, or soul, or spirit, etc., from religious doctrines -- "religious authority figures" -- and then assume it is the truth. That does't mean that these words in the texts are invalid, it just means that there is the real risk of mistaking them for the reality that they point toward. This is what it is to suffer under the effects of religious indoctrination. The word or name becomes a substitute for the spiritual experience.
In integral philosophy this is sometimes called a "category error". The idea there is that there are three basic realms of knowledge -- body, mind, spirit; or, physical, rational, contemplative. The soul, assuming it exists, belongs to the third category -- spirit/contemplation. To try to grasp it via the second category (mind/reason) is useless and will yield nothing, because it's a category error, same as it would be to apply something from the physical category (say, learning how to drive a car). You can no more understand "soul" via concepts about it read in a book, then you can via driving a car. "Soul" is only understood via contemplative practice (meditation, prayer, etc.).
This works the other way as well, of course. We can't understand how to drive a car (physical) or learn chess (mental) by sitting in meditation or praying to God (spiritual).
In religion, it's very common to try to apply reason/memory (mind) in attempting to grasp God (spirit). This is a category error and has led to profound problems all throughout history, especially when religious doctrines from different cultures appear to clash because of different mental interpretations of them. Many wars and much suffering have derived from these category errors.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisI agree with everything you’re saying. And lucifershammer ceded the point at least somewhat in his “taste-of-chicken” post. But—
[b]It's not an unproved assumption - it follows from the definition of the soul as the form (forma) of the human being. You can substitute the words nature (natura) or substance (substantia or ousia) if you wish.
It is absolutely unproved as an experiential reality, precisely because it's based on abstract (non-experiential) definitions. You c ...[text shortened]... l interpretations of them. Many wars and much suffering have derived from these category errors.[/b]
We all talk about this stuff. The trap is getting caught in the talk (thinking, intellectualizing, philosophizing, etc.) and stopped by the talk; and it is the particular trap I get caught in most often. But the talk can be more than just the finger pointing at the moon—it can also be an aesthetic way of reflecting on the moon, even in the midst of experiencing the moon. Talmudic and kabbalistic Jews are great talkers; talmudic argument has a spiritual aesthetic value of its own—quite frankly, I think it can have its own contemplative aspect, just as do various religious rituals, song and dance. Study can also be contemplative (using that term loosely, yes): I have been led to experience ein sof while delving deeply into Hebrew words and texts (for me, Hebrew is a language well-suited to that), as well as by sitting in silent meditation or contemplating a koan (Hebrew can be a very “koanic” language). Also an "opening" once (I'm not going to use a "big" word like kensho or satori) in the midst of carrying on intense conversation; and the opening lasted for well over an hour, well past the conversation, which I continued on.
Silence, yes—but not only in silence. Talk, yes—but not to get trapped in the talking-points.
Originally posted by vistesdYes, good points, without question intellect/concepts can be a jumping point into contemplation/meditation/experiential (as can music, art, nature, etc.), but I've found that this "passing over" is akin to a quantum leap -- a jump, something like from one state to another (say, how water changes property, from liquid to gas, at the boiling point). There is nothing gradual about it, although the preparatory period can be long. The actual insight however is always sudden, a movement outside of time, into the timeless or eternal realm.
I agree with everything you’re saying. And lucifershammer ceded the point at least somewhat in his “taste-of-chicken” post. But—
We all talk about this stuff. The trap is getting caught in the talk (thinking, intellectualizing, philosophizing, etc.) and stopped by the talk; and it is the particular trap I get caught in most often. But th ...[text shortened]...
Silence, yes—but not only in silence. Talk, yes—but not to get trapped in the talking-points.
So yes, a word can be a tool of contemplation, and that word can be anything -- "ein soph", or "satori", or "soul", or "coca-cola". But the movement from reason to experience is not dependent on the meaning of the word. It is more dependent on the mind relinquishing its tight grip on known conceptual reference points (doctrine, in all its forms), relaxing that hold and then moving into the unknown. I believe that this is what Jesus meant by "he who has ears, let him hear", and what Buddha meant by calling his advanced students "shravakas" ( "those who can hear" ).
Originally posted by MetamorphosisAgreed on all points. In terms of working with words, etc., it’s almost as if the mind is “held in abeyance” with the directed focus, and then suddenly “turns over,” and…. Since I tend to be a person whose mind is continually running, things like koans, some Sufi poetry, mantra or rosary, and “kabbalistic”* playing with the Hebrew seem more helpful than “just sitting.”
Yes, good points, without question intellect/concepts can be a jumping point into contemplation/meditation/experiential (as can music, art, nature, etc.), but I've found that this "passing over" is akin to a quantum leap -- a jump, something like from one state to another (say, how water changes property, from liquid to gas, at the boiling point). T ...[text shortened]... and what Buddha meant by calling his advanced students "shravakas" ( "those who can hear" ).
My biggest problem is that I compulsively (and somewhat unconsciously) resist all of it, sometimes for months. I don’t know why; I just can’t seem, to bring myself to just let go for more than relatively short periods. It is a little like Sisyphus rolling down the hill again…
*Kabbalistic is in quotes just because so many people have come to associate it with “occult” stuff, that I hesitate to use it.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
All this debate over the definition of "soul" is making me dizzy.
To find a biblical definition, use a concordance.
You will find that soul is breathlife...exactly what that is, I don't know...I just know it is what gives life.
If you look at the Genesis account and see where God created sea creatures, the word for creatures is the same word used for soul, as in man...nephesh.
If I remember correctly, so do trees and every living thing...same word...since I believe trees don't go to heaven, a lot of speculation is dismissed.
The bible explains itself usually right in the verse where it is written.
If not, then it will be in the context.
When that doesn't work, a definition will be given in previous usage.
These three keys are a big help, used in that order, to understand a great deal of the bible....🙂