Restated: Assuming the soul exists (I know it's a big leap for some), Would the soul be eternal or temporary? eternal is self defining and we'll define soul as any of the following or your own definition :
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4. The part of self that is intangible or spiritual and distinct from the brain and mind or any intellecual, feeling or willing aspects thereof.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the assumption that the soul exists, and I'd have to argue along the lines of theological noncognitivism. I don't think you've given us enough information about what the "soul" is, what states it can / cannot exist in, for me to even consider the question of whether it can be eternal as valid.

To me, it's like asking "Assume X exists (where X is a new flavour of ice-cream). Is X tasty?"

I have absolutely no reason to even attempt an answer to that question, given that I've got nothing to go on. All you've told me is that we are assuming the flavour exists; whether my taste-buds would respond well to it can't be answered with that assumption. Likewise with your question; I've got absolutely nothing to go on when you ask whether this assumed "soul" would be eternal or not.

Damnit, I answered the poll before reading your premise.

Obviously, I don't believe in a soul. If a soul did exist, I wouldn't claim to know or understand the nature of a soul.

I'm open minded to the possibility that a "soul" might exist as the x factor to explain consciousness. I'm also open minded to the possibility that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I just don't know.

Neuroscience will one day answer this question. If "souls" exist, they should have properties that can be eventually explained by science.

(September 10, 2010 at 9:35 am)tackattack Wrote: Restated: Assuming the soul exists (I know it's a big leap for some), Would the soul be eternal or temporary? eternal is self defining and we'll define soul as any of the following or your own definition:
1.the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.
2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.
3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.
4. The part of self that is intangible or spiritual and distinct from the brain and mind or any intellecual, feeling or willing aspects thereof.

None of your definitions actually seems to have much meaning. What on earth is 'the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans'? This seems like vague theological waffle to me. Indeed, I can't see how a soul can meaningfully be associated with a person unless it has his or her personality traits. Certainly definition 4) seems to be a very strange thing, and, if neither body nor mind, I can't see what it would be.

For any of these definitions, I'd have no idea how to start deciding whether the soul was eternal or not. Sorry. Presumably, as it wouldn't be subject to the laws of physics, it could exist eternally. But it might not, if it were governed by some supernatural laws.

Who knows? Who cares?

Quote:(I know it's a big leap for some

It's an impossible chasm.

Sorry Tacky, there are some things I will not assume for the sake of argument .The existence of the soul is one. I will change my mind as soon as I see some evidence, but not a second before.

Speaking of evidence, I also have problems with Freud's construct of Ego Id Superego.

Wow, so it either exists and is eternal, exists and is not eternal or we "refuse to accept"... very fair poll.

How about the option "belief in substance dualism is entirely unsubstantiated"?

(September 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm)padraic Wrote: Sorry Tacky, there are some things I will not assume for the sake of argument .The existence of the soul is one. I will change my mind as soon as I see some evidence, but not a second before.

Speaking of evidence, I also have problems with Freud's construct of Ego Id Superego.

Freud is a chump but at least he admitted his theory wasn't science.

Quote:Freud is a chump but at least he admitted his theory wasn't science.

---not to mention an intellectually dishonest misogynist.

EG Did you know his theory of female hysteria was only developed in response to the hostile academic reaction to his original paper? The title(I think) was "What are we doing to our children?" He accepted the claims of widespread sexual abuse and incest by female patients. THAT outraged academia.

Freud probably realised the general public's reaction might be extreme,especially as few would bother to actually read it. A lot like the critics of Darwin who are able to read without moving their lips.


PS Not that it's necessarily relevant to his work,but it seems Siggy was an absolute arsehole in his private life.

Sigmund Freud was a nut and an asshole. At least that's my opinion of him and his work.

ANyway, as for the original question: I believe that the personality transcends death, so my answer is yes.