What the hell is a 'soul' anyway?

[Mudhammam]

1. The self; the faculty through which apprehension of sense data forms experiences that cohere and possess meaning.
2. Nothing that can be defined beyond calling it abstract... abstract-stuff? ...Which leaves it as, if not more, peculiar as getting to the bottom of whatever it is this matter-stuff is made of... because it's abstract. And thinking about the abstract in the abstract is hard.
3. Yes, in that it renders the material world rational, beautiful, and good to itself.
4. It remains to be discovered if the tools of science and philosophy, developed by the successive toil of selves actuating thoughts, will ever be capable of granting knowledge in full.
5. What is matter? What is it made of? How does it interact with the abstract? If it does, how can we measure its activity based on - or vice versa, apart from - its interactions with the abstract? If it doesn't, why should anyone feel the urge to commit to a dogma which only allows matter - whatever that is - to exist?

Makes sense and I kinda agree, except for the last point. Having a bit of a brain drain atm so I won't elaborate, but I think the distinction between matter and abstractions is pretty clear - in that the existence of matter is pretty self evident, even if we only define it axiomatically... I dunno lol, feel free to bash me

No need to bash. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I would say that the existence of thoughts and objects which exist in a much different manner than those perceived to be external, i.e. the physical world, is self evident too though. Different versions of idealism would give consciousness and/or concepts precedent to whatever matter is, and while I don't think I'm quite there, there certainly are issues I don't think materialism adequately explains or accounts for.