The whole idea of the "Soul" - nonsense?

I'm a soul man.

I like mine hot and buttered...

Sam and Dave wrote:

I'm a soul man.

Correction: "We are soul men."

Sam and Dave wrote:

I'm a soul man.

Spelling and grammer wrote:

Correction: "We are soul men."

Correction: "I'm a soul man"

the difference between a soul and a spirit..

i know what it means to be in "good spirit".. but what is a spirit and how does it differ than a soul?

how can a soul have a conscience when there's no brain to give it a conscience?

for a living being a soul=conscience, but when you die so does your soul..

i think it's the spirit that guides the soul.. the spirit is some outside force or influence that guides the soul.. whether it be good or bad..

It's been a while since I had a "Religions East and West" class, but I seem to recall that Hindus believe in reincarnation. However, they do not believe that someone can remember past lives. So, it seems that the a Hindu would say the soul is the intangible "essence" of a person and is unrelated to the body, mind, personality, etc. What exactly this essence or "life force" is, I don't know. Your argument sounds logical to me, but this question is inherently religious, and therefore faith-based. Faith is belief without the requirement of logic or proof. I doubt you'll find any logical, 'compelling arguments for the existence of a soul'.

The entire concept of "soul" was a fabrication by people with delusions of grandeur. People feel themselves to be above other organisms, and therefore possess some type of higher level of being.

Soul is merely consciousness of one's mortality. People understand that they will eventually die, and therefore concoct an idea to fool themselves into believing that some part of them will exist forever.

If a "soul" is created every time a person is born, why would one not be destroyed every time a person dies?

A light is controlled by a switch. Even after the light is turned off, it continues to exist.

One cannot prove the existence of a soul, anymore than one can prove the existence of order or intelligence in the universe. But, the existence of a soul sure does explain a lot of things. And, if we already believe in God, then other immaterial things, like souls, angels and demons are believable as well.

soler wrote:

Your argument sounds logical to me, but this question is inherently religious, and therefore faith-based. Faith is belief without the requirement of logic or proof. I doubt you'll find any logical, 'compelling arguments for the existence of a soul'.

I think this sums it up pretty nicely.

Postmodern Fatigue wrote:

soler wrote:

Your argument sounds logical to me, but this question is inherently religious, and therefore faith-based. Faith is belief without the requirement of logic or proof. I doubt you'll find any logical, 'compelling arguments for the existence of a soul'.

I think this sums it up pretty nicely.

Prove to me that the mind is capable of comprehending order in the universe. Can't be done.

it can' be done... because the mind came from the universe.. the universe created the mind... the part is never greater than the whole..

so do i get a A+ ?

SC Slim wrote:

If a "soul" is created every time a person is born, why would one not be destroyed every time a person dies?

Sounds reasonable to me. If this ones belief, the sould in unecessary. We might as well just talk about the mind.

math dude wrote:

.... But, the existence of a soul sure does explain a lot of things. .

Please elaborate, this sounds interesting.

I don't know, though, it seems too easy to dismiss the soul because of bumps on the head... as is my experience, people who have chemical imbalances (depression, Alzheimer's, whatever) know that there is something wrong. There is a baseline from which the mind seems to be able to judge itself, and say "I am not how I am in nature".

From the top of my head... let me get back to you.

I recently learned in a human nature class that the concept of the soul, as it has been taught in Western civilization, is not backed up by Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. Apparently, when the Apostle Paul speaks dualistically ("that which I would not do, I do; and that which I would do, I do not"), he is actually speaking of the difference between a life lived unto oneself and a life lived unto the Lord. There is an implication of Spirit, however, which, as another poster has already mentioned, is somehow different than the soul.

The concept of the soul seems to have come down to us from Plato who, as a lover of geometry, hated the idea that geometric figures prevented us from seeing or understanding the common concept that ties each of those figures together. My question is that, the concept of all these figures being one, how can we each have individual souls? I favor the argument that there is one Spirit which ensouls all the world--I think that Hindus would agree with me here--but is not particular to any one person.

Any philosophy majors on this board? I'd love to hear from you on this topic.

I might (I stress might) agree with you on that, but why is this directed at me?

math dude wrote:

Prove to me that the mind is capable of comprehending order in the universe. Can't be done.

The periodic table and planetary orbits are just a few of the "orders" we can comprehend. Done.

sweet c wrote:

... There is a baseline from which the mind seems to be able to judge itself, and say "I am not how I am in nature".

...

Interesting idea that I have not heard before, it is kind of persuasive. Here's my thought on this one:

You are arguing that the perception of an internal problem implies out of necessity an external agent (i.e., a soul) which is capable of perceoiving the problem. While this is a possiblility, a simpler explanation is that this agent is just your memory of your own internal state prior to the illness depression. The mind has more than one "module" and damage in one area may be perceived by another.

In addition, I think it is vey likely that there exists cases where brain damage or altered mental states are in effect and the person is not aware of a problem.