RE: Disproving The Soul
August 16, 2014 at 7:04 am
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2014 at 7:38 am by Michael.)
Baqal. Firstly, the OP seems to adopt an Aristotelean model of soul, that a soul is something we have. I would say the biblical meaning is much more that we 'are' souls; that 'soul' describes the essence of our identity. So let's work with your example. You say that "abstract ideas are measurable in our reality, so they exist". What would I measure to validate that idea itself? What are the units of that idea that I need to measure?
Or take the classical philosophical position of cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. This is generally taken as a 'basic belief' that cannot actually be substantiated without circular reasoning (you need to validate it without relying on an 'I' or an 'am' to avoid begging the question). How does your idea that all ideas can be measured relate to that?
I'd encourage you to open a little more to the world of 'ideas'. Hard materialism collapses in on itself it cannot allow for ideas that cannot be measured themselves. Think, for example, of the laws of logic; measurement depends on applying some basic concepts in logic for measurement to make sense. But if you says that the laws of logic must be substantiated by measurement, you then pull the rug out from the very idea of measurement. You simply beg the question again. Science itself rests on axioms that we cannot prove or measure.
Whateverist. It seems to me you still become trapped in the same problem by trying to reduce 'identity' to a part of us and asking "where is it?" and "what is it made from?"
For example, in what part of me is the identity I had when I was seven years old? Or has that identity completely gone? What was, and is, that identity made of? Using materialism alone I can't see how we can come up with particularly satisfactory answers. This is an area where I think philosophy, and even the arts, may have more useful things to say than materialistic science. Materialistic science generally, I would say, presupposes the existence of 'I'. Indeed it must if one is to try and work from a subjective/objective division which science usually tries to do.
Ignoramus. I love science. It's my profession. But I would still disagree strongly with the idea that we need to measure something in order to explore it. When it comes to questions like "what is it to be human?" I find the arts have as much to say as science. And that's because the arts can speak from the subjective, from within humanity itself, within 'soulship', if you like. Or we might say the arts speak 'from the soul'. Indeed there have been forms of art that seem to so clearly articulate what it is to be human that we called them 'soulful', or we might even describe a type of music as 'soul'. This existential exploration of soul makes more much sense to me than asking "where is the soul?" or "what is the soul made from?". And so, going full circle to my original point , the soul, both in the bible and in the arts, is something we are and not something we have. And so I find existential exploration of 'soul' much more productive than reductionist analysis. If you insist on a reductionist and analytical approach (where you can measure things) I think you find it very hard to see something that the poet, the musician, the novelist, knows full well exists. Sometimes art gives voice to things that science finds very hard to even to begin to grapple with. Soul is one such thing, I have found.
Or take the classical philosophical position of cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. This is generally taken as a 'basic belief' that cannot actually be substantiated without circular reasoning (you need to validate it without relying on an 'I' or an 'am' to avoid begging the question). How does your idea that all ideas can be measured relate to that?
I'd encourage you to open a little more to the world of 'ideas'. Hard materialism collapses in on itself it cannot allow for ideas that cannot be measured themselves. Think, for example, of the laws of logic; measurement depends on applying some basic concepts in logic for measurement to make sense. But if you says that the laws of logic must be substantiated by measurement, you then pull the rug out from the very idea of measurement. You simply beg the question again. Science itself rests on axioms that we cannot prove or measure.
Whateverist. It seems to me you still become trapped in the same problem by trying to reduce 'identity' to a part of us and asking "where is it?" and "what is it made from?"
For example, in what part of me is the identity I had when I was seven years old? Or has that identity completely gone? What was, and is, that identity made of? Using materialism alone I can't see how we can come up with particularly satisfactory answers. This is an area where I think philosophy, and even the arts, may have more useful things to say than materialistic science. Materialistic science generally, I would say, presupposes the existence of 'I'. Indeed it must if one is to try and work from a subjective/objective division which science usually tries to do.
Ignoramus. I love science. It's my profession. But I would still disagree strongly with the idea that we need to measure something in order to explore it. When it comes to questions like "what is it to be human?" I find the arts have as much to say as science. And that's because the arts can speak from the subjective, from within humanity itself, within 'soulship', if you like. Or we might say the arts speak 'from the soul'. Indeed there have been forms of art that seem to so clearly articulate what it is to be human that we called them 'soulful', or we might even describe a type of music as 'soul'. This existential exploration of soul makes more much sense to me than asking "where is the soul?" or "what is the soul made from?". And so, going full circle to my original point , the soul, both in the bible and in the arts, is something we are and not something we have. And so I find existential exploration of 'soul' much more productive than reductionist analysis. If you insist on a reductionist and analytical approach (where you can measure things) I think you find it very hard to see something that the poet, the musician, the novelist, knows full well exists. Sometimes art gives voice to things that science finds very hard to even to begin to grapple with. Soul is one such thing, I have found.
