Arguments against Soul

[possibletarian]

@Belaqua

Let's try this ..

Do you think there is anything you feel comfortable calling a soul ?
If so, how would you describe it ?

I'm willing to use the word "soul" in the way I describe above. Nowadays it's probably misleading, though, because of the strange "spirit energy" idea.

Its history then ?

[Belacqua]

I'm willing to use the word "soul" in the way I describe above. Nowadays it's probably misleading, though, because of the strange "spirit energy" idea.

Its history then ?

Its history is what? I don't understand your question. 

The concept of soul as used by Aristotle makes sense to me, and requires nothing magic. If people use it in that way, it's a useful term. The modern "spirit energy" version isn't persuasive.

[possibletarian]

Its history then ?

Its history is what? I don't understand your question. 

The concept of soul as used by Aristotle makes sense to me, and requires nothing magic. If people use it in that way, it's a useful term. The modern "spirit energy" version isn't persuasive.

Okay, let's see if we can come to some common understanding, what is a 'persons being' that you seem to favour ?

[Belacqua]

Its history is what? I don't understand your question. 

The concept of soul as used by Aristotle makes sense to me, and requires nothing magic. If people use it in that way, it's a useful term. The modern "spirit energy" version isn't persuasive.

Okay, let's see if we can come to some common understanding, what is a 'persons being' that you seem to favour ?

Here's what I wrote two pages ago:

So, to repeat, here is Aristotle's definition. "Soul" is the morph part of hylomorphism. It is the form of the body, as opposed to its matter. In this case "form" means more than "shape." (A newly-dead body has the same shape, but not the form, in this sense, of a living body.) Form here means shape but also the functions, interactions, and operations. The things that the body does, by its nature. 

When the body dies, the matter is still there (at first) but the soul is gone, because it is no longer capable of doing human things. 

I think using the word "soul" in this way is still useful, because it gives a more general word to the totality of a person. It includes habits, mental memory, body memory, dispositions, many other things. If you wanted to avoid the word "soul" because of its modern implications you could substitute some longer phrase, like "all the memories, thoughts, habits, and dispositions of what I am." 

The only thing spooky about soul, in this sense, is the Christian idea that at death the soul is transferred from its first, fleshly body into a different body, made of some different matter. And the Christians who assert this, if they're honest, recognize that this belief about the transfer of the soul is not at all provable, but only faith-based.

[EgoDeath]

@Belaqua

So, let's try again. You seem to be real slippery in answering any questions, but I'd like to take you to task. Please read all of the questions before you reply. I'll number them to save you any confusion.

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

2. What do you think the soul is exactly, if it does indeed exist?
2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?
2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua

So, let's try again. You seem to be real slippery in answering any questions, but I'd like to take you to task. Please read all of the questions before you reply. I'll number them to save you any confusion.

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

2. What do you think the soul is exactly, if it does indeed exist?
2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?
2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

All of these are answered, above.

[GrandizerII]

@Belaqua

So, let's try again. You seem to be real slippery in answering any questions, but I'd like to take you to task. Please read all of the questions before you reply. I'll number them to save you any confusion.

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

2. What do you think the soul is exactly, if it does indeed exist?
2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?
2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

All of these are answered, above.

I believe Nietzsche himself also referred to the soul in the way you described. At least that's what I remember reading in one of his works.

[Belacqua]

All of these are answered, above.

I believe Nietzsche himself also referred to the soul in the way you described. At least that's what I remember reading in one of his works.

Nietzsche was extremely knowledgable about Greek philosophy. He was a gifted philologist, offered a professorship at Basel at age 24. Which means he had read all the important Greek literature in the original language. As well as the classics of Latin and Hebrew, in those languages. 

Unlike so many people today, he knew and respected ancient thought, even when he felt he had to argue against it. So it's no surprise that he would use the standard classical definition of soul.

[Jehanne]

I already posted that -- Conservation of Energy.

I missed your argument as to why conservation of energy applies to the soul.

When you typed the above sentence (presumably) on a keyboard, which caused your fingers to select the keys which you selected?  Trying tracing that line of causality from your fingers to your brain and then to your "soul".

[LadyForCamus]

@Belaqua

So, let's try again. You seem to be real slippery in answering any questions, but I'd like to take you to task. Please read all of the questions before you reply. I'll number them to save you any confusion.

1. Do you believe that a soul exists? Why or why not?

2. What do you think the soul is exactly, if it does indeed exist?
2a. Do you consider the soul to be an observable phenomenon? Why or why not?
2b. Or, even if it doesn't exist, how are you defining the concept in order to decide that it doesn't exist?

I don’t think he’s trying to be slippery. There’s nothing slippery about his answer. It was pretty detailed and explicit, in fact. I just think we aren’t used to folks like Bel on the forums. I made similar hasty presumptions about him when we first started engaging and I’ve come to realize that I was wrong. His answer here is honest (at least to me), and he’s made himself clear that he’s not asserting any kind supernatural life post body death.