| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Week 4 - Soul Theories

Page history last edited by KJA 10 years, 5 months ago

One Page for Monday, to be posted in the comment section below.

 

Write an argument in response to this question: What do you think the soul actually is? Consciousness, thought, mind, awareness, an ideal construct, etc -- or an emergent quality of the body (considering today’s arguments about whether computers can attain consciousness). Where does the soul reside? Feel free to draw on logical arguments, analogies, literary strategies, and the theories of any of the thinkers we have read so far in the course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is Soul?

by KJA

 

I usually dont think about the soul as a thing or as a measurable quality. I think I have

several different, overlapping, and contradictory ideas of the soul or of soul as a quality and/or condition of

being in the world and being among other beings in the world and these are what I'd like to describe below. I'm

not sure that the theories I will describe can each be reconciled with the others but I will try and be faithful

to my conceptions of the soul/soul.

 

I think first when I don't think too deeply about soul, the initial conception which presents itself is of an

oceanic, swelling feeling overflowing beyond the barriers of the body. The feeling presents itself to me as

very old and benevolent and common to All. Like a thought that is put into words for you and explains to you something which you

yourself have had trouble recognizing or absorbing. All this is to say that my initial conception of the soul 

aligns with a conception of something that is soulful: a voice, a movement, a paragraph, a gesture, a rhyme. And it is

a conception that is more or less a worldview embedded in the black vernacular of something that's 'got soul'.

One of those words whose idea you either get/recognize, or don't.

I like this idea of the soul for one or two reasons. For one, it means that things aren't always necessarily full of

soul or soulful. It means that soul-being and being soulful is something that gets done rather than something which

is simply given in all of us/all everything. I like that because it means that soul as a quality rather than a 

thing can be elicited and recognized (in this way it is common) at the same time that it can be absent and forgotten. But to say I like this

aspect is childish. I don't 'like' in the quaint sense this flickering soul. What I think is: it is a Good 

quality of this kind of soul that it isn't ever-present because in this way it attains to the possibility of 

having meaning and value. And I think it goes without saying that though this value may only be social yet that doesn't

diminish its value by much (if at all). In this sense, 'soul' is real and created by people who recognize and consider soul,

instead of real and given as we will see below. 

 

The next thing that comes to mind when I refer to my ready-given theories of the soul is the one about it being

some thing embedded deep within my being, deathless and autonomous. I think that this is a rather old type of way of

considering the soul and I would be surprised if I have ever sat comfortably with the idea that there is another

'me' which also surpasses 'me' living, for the time, within me. The whole soul flying out of your body; the soul

that chooses for you, knowing best; the soul that goes to God; the soul that comes back to another body. These are 

all somewhat elaborate and weird thoughts which I haven't been able to find a) necessary, and b) even really

thinkable while I am 'here on Earth, alive'. Yet, this is a pretty widespread sketch-conception of the soul and I must do it some justice. I think 

that this broad theory kind of branches off into many little rivulets each highly specific in how it denotes what 

exactly the soul is, and then what it is there to do. Is it dust that floats away in the air as in the famous doubt of Cebes in Plato's Phaedo?

Is it an actually conscious (meaning, like us in its day-to-day discernment of living and feeling that it is an

autonomous, sentient entity) mind-ing (excuse the Heideggerism) little imp? Or are we who believe this theory meant

to believe it in a literary sense, metaphorically or in some other 'sense'? Who can tell? Is this kind of mirror-me perhaps the only

one of its kind and we've all got one? I think my own personal reason for not immediately ascribing to this theory is simply that

I'm not sure I would have had the idea of that kind of soul-within-me had someone (read: culture) not told me what about it first.

It just doesn't seem intuitive, and in that sense -the sense that I feel the soul would be intuitively felt- I feel set apart from this theory and

closer to the first one. Closer to the first one 'in my heart', a euphemism I suppose for my soul. More accurately, closer to the first one

in my 'me'. All sorts of questions are opened up by this conception of 'a' soul, like who it belongs to, what it knows already or needs 

to be taught, where it is going and how it works with and/or against me. There are, to be sure, several 'competing' theories that

answer these questions and more and yet as I said, it just doesn't seem plausible or meaningful to talk that way about souls except as

an artful exercise or disciplining of people's habits on the ground, while they are here living on Earth.

 

Exercises and disciplines brings me to my next theory of the soul, like the others which I have caught wind of and pocketed

with the rest. This theory maintains that the soul is the prison of the body, that is is a network of mind-controls or habit-controls operating

incessantly and on infinitessimally small scales sometimes by individuals and sometimes by groups. The soul is in this theory another 'thing' but a

composite which only arises amongst the chaos of a billion little operations of the reflexes of thought. Taken to its absolute extreme, this is a de-

terministic view of living here on Earth in the day-to-day (by now the reader might have noticed that the day-to-day is one of my favorite pet

topics) though deterministic in the sense of Heraclitus's random assortment of objects thrown into the air: the outcomes of so many little determin-ites

could theoreticaly be measured, but the tools and wherewithal to go about executing a project like this would be endless. On the other hand, this theory

does, in its negative way, point out that when soul-talk drifts into a discussion of some mirror-you mirror-me it is easily 

pictured and manipulated in words that don't necessarily have any obligation to correspond with reality. This is important I think because as I

mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the idea that the soul is somehow separate but contained in my being simply does not come intuitively

(at least to me) and therefore I must have been told about this at some point. What the possibility of my being told means in relation to my life, to the life I live every day as me, is that I could have been told something or other about the soul simply because it was received wisdom that has proven convenient for others to have me believe. A bit of a paranoiac conception of cultural, discursive transmission- but whoever said that being paranoid was always inadvisable? This conception of souls can only refer to the preceding conception of the soul as an image or thing which is its own. It does not exactly cover the ground contained in the

first theory in which the soul is a sort of common fabric of the universe which is accessed and not accessed, felt all over and not at all, glimpsed

in a batted eyelash or a turn of phrase. Then again, perhaps my recognition of these things and others is itself that prison of my body, my immediate

apprehension of what Heidegger will call thing-ness in all its "inging" glory and nearness having been foregone by an immense flickering system of

markers, cognitions, that produce and delineate that which is called soul. Who knows? Who can tell? 

 

Finally, sometimes I think soul is that thing which when all is said and done and quiet and you're alone and alone and alone surrounded by things but still 

alone you apprehend in the world as being a covering nearness that connects -that is the connection- of All. This is the oceanic feeling I mentioned at 

the beginning. Sure, I get this impression, like a glimpse under the cover of what I take to be given all the time, but what of it? I ask, of what 

good on the ground among other beings and in life does this feeling mean? It is empty and perhaps also old and benevolent and 

permissive but I've gone too far now to go back to some degree zero of existence; and not just me, but our civilizing world in this time. Who among us

can afford to dwell on this vast emptiness and indifference without being immediately seized by a feeling of surplus and therefore guilt? Who? 

 

Comments (29)

jenneke_olson@berkeley.edu said

at 11:42 am on Feb 7, 2010

Imagine for a moment, a substance that always is and always was and isn’t tangible or imaginable, but exists. In the platonic myth we read, the idea of where souls come from and where they go after a body dies was detailed. My suggestion, or idea, is what if where the soul comes from and whence it goes is one and the same? I like to think that that substance that always is and always was is the origin from which a soul comes from, and once the human it corresponds to dies, it is returned to that substance. You could think of that substance as a sort of life force from which is created a soul with a sort of borrowed amount of time for a human to spend on Earth after which the soul returns to the origin. The soul would be a kind of instinct, or preordained ability to adapt and form a sense of right/wrong, within a human. In that sense, some of the Platonian theories of the immortality of the soul might make sense in that the soul itself might not be immortal so much as its’ source would be.

Heraclitus wisely noted that “the beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle” (on page 36 of the Presocratics reader). This can be applied to the notion that if souls are borrowed from the life source, you could imagine it as a sort of circle in which souls are constantly leaving and returning from the source, or rather the source could be seen as both the beginning and the end. Similarly, Parmenides commented that “from where I am to begin; for to there shall I come back again” (on page 46 of the Presocratics reader). He was applying that comment to the idea that when your surroundings are common, they don’t change and you can know that no matter when you return to them they will have remained unchanged. I choose to apply that comment to the idea that where our souls begin, that is where they shall come back to again.

jenneke_olson@berkeley.edu said

at 11:42 am on Feb 7, 2010

(cont'd.)
To describe the source/substance itself is difficult for me, because I cannot claim to know what it would be. But if it does exist, I would imagine it to be beyond the senses, something without any physical properties. As a result of that, the souls which it emits would be without physical properties as well. I described the soul as a kind of instinct, and by that I mean to suggest that it doesn’t control its’ humans’ life but it is present in it and has a sort of influence over it. Perhaps that would explain the idea of a conscience. The soul would live a life tangent to its’ human attached to it in every sense and basically running a parallel life. Just as the people you love in your life bear somewhat of an influence on your choices, your soul would be able to have a say in it as well. Heraclitus said “thinking is common to all” (on page 33 of our Presocratics reader) and that is applicable to the idea that every being, human or soul, can think for themselves. If I am imagining correctly, than both souls and human beings think individually but act collectively. Of course, this is all just a musing of mine in light of the reading that we have done.

Mazzin said

at 3:55 pm on Feb 7, 2010

Socrates views the soul as being divine, and in its independent form he calls it wisdom. He states that the soul exists after the death of the body and goes into the afterlife. He also says the soul directs and governs the body, and the body simply serves. I do not agree with this theory. I see the connection between the soul and the body as a partnership that begins not at birth but at the early stages of infant development. One does not govern and one does not serve, they form a perfect partnership. However, if one were eager to deem either the soul or the body as being fundamental I would deem the body. I say this because the body can exist without the soul but the soul cannot exist without the body. Allow me to explain. The soul is an entity, which is unique to the human race only. From the billions of years this earth has existed and the millions of different life forms who came and went, we, humans are the only life with a soul. A soul allows us to think, it allows us to make decisions, but most importantly it enables us to be self-aware. It gives us a consciousness. No other animal in the whole kingdom is aware of its own existence. These soulless, un self-aware animals are very similar to the state in which humans are in, at the time of birth. Contrary to Socrates’ beliefs humans are not born with a soul, it is developed over time.

Mazzin said

at 3:56 pm on Feb 7, 2010

It is vital towards the argument of souls to discuss the period of human infancy. The period of human infancy is one of the rare times in human life where the soul did not exist, and if we understand the time when there was no soul we can better understand what a soul is. Now, between the time of birth and the age of two, infants roam around with only a body, no soul. They rely on their five primary senses. They have no concern for others point of view, they are egocentric. Most importantly infants before the age of two do not yet have a conscious, they are un-self aware. Just observe an infant’s behavior for a few hours and these facts will become self-evident. Infants will throw food on the ground, will take others’ toys and smash them, they will break any object within reach. They do all of this without the ability to have concern for the victims of their acts. If you were to give an infant a mirror and allow it to look at its own reflection, it would not be aware that the reflection comes from itself. Also an infant in early stages is not aware of its role in the result of its actions. For example, if there is a book separating the infant from a piece of candy, the infant will move the book and get the candy. The infant is aware that the book moved and the candy became available, however, the infant is not aware that because of the actions of itself did the book move. It believes simply the object is gone and the candy is its. Only later, once the infant becomes more developed does the infant see itself in a subjective view, and realize that its actions effects certain outcomes. Language is a vital element in the development of a consciousness and a soul.

Mazzin said

at 4:00 pm on Feb 7, 2010

According to the psychologist Vygotsky “The emergent regulatory function of speech is inherently self-conscious, and it allows children to organize and plan their behavior, essentially rendering them capable of consciously controlled behavior…. With the help of speech children, unlike apes, acquire the capacity to be both the subjects and objects of their own behavior” These early infant behavioral traits are almost identical to the apes’ fully developed mind. Therefore if we believe that humans are born with a soul that we must also believe that most animals have a soul, and this is certainly not so.
Now, after the age of two humans develop a soul. This means that humans are now self-aware. They can see themselves in a subjective, third person view. They know the consequences of there actions.
If one were to state that humans are born with a soul then they would have to admit that a soul is not conscious or aware, at least for limited time. They would have to admit that the soul is at the mercy of the human body; it must wait until the human brain is developed before the soul can exist. This, however, is not what Socrates believes. He says that the soul enters the body at birth. It is proven that infants have no conscious at birth; therefore they have no soul at birth. The soul is created, and if the soul is created it is likely that the soul will be destroyed upon the death of the body. Proof in the souls destruction is evident in very rare cases. Take for instance a point in time other than birth when someone can lose their awareness, their consciousness, their soul. After a severe car accident or any other accident which causes severe head trauma, the human body may be induced to a coma. At this point the body is still alive but the soul has been destroyed. This proves the partnership that the body and the soul share. With out the soul the body seems lifeless, and without the body there is no soul.

Karena Ajamian said

at 10:18 pm on Feb 7, 2010

As Socrates describes it, the soul is an immortal, continuing entity. Though “continuing” may suggest a physical movement, the soul remains stationary. Existing between bodies’ births, it seems complete, waiting in vacation for its next bodily occupation.

Surviving death, the soul doesn’t decay with the body. As the body moves, the soul remains in place -- vacant to some other (new) body to (potentially) contain it.

There is only one soul proper, and being as big as it is, the soul appears as smaller fragments once individual bodies rotate through. That is, the soul exists in rotation, in which new lives are to house its room.

The soul is distinguished from the body insofar as the body exists. Without it, the soul is the endless sky, free from any containment. “It could be distinguished from the body either by its being non-material or by its being a finer, more mobile type of matter. But in general it was contrasted with our bodies and with body in general” (104). The soul has its own experiences, while bodies, or “societies” (as Harold Tarrant would have it) move in and out of its space. “Sometimes it tends to be identified with the person -- with the continuing entity which underlies all changes to our physical and mental being through growth, injury, learning or character denegration” (105). The soul is singular under the umbrella of a body, where it recalls basic sensory knowledge.

Karena Ajamian said

at 10:19 pm on Feb 7, 2010

The soul keeps with it all experiences from the body-womb (including even sensations involving the bodily, as they would not be the same experiences without them). The soul remembers its experiences with the body even once it has been completely deprived of it. “And he can scarcely be the same person without the memory of what he experienced in this life or the ability to experience new surroundings there. He does not need to leave behind all these functions of the soul; what he must leave behind is the direct influence of the body, and the sensations to the extent that their intensity and their preoccupation with physical reality interferes with his mental processes” (106). Anything projected by the heart and mind by combining with some external source (e.g. a book) is the soul -- as it is the product of the fusion between body and the immaterial. The soul, then, could never have had any knowledge to boast of if it had first been of a certain body, where it certainly gained some if not all of its sense experiences.

Once the soul has acquired its necessary sensations, the body becomes disposable. The body takes its place in space, first empty but progressively to be filled by the soul in its space (imagine a ziploc bag filling with air through a hole in its side). In this way, if a man were to live his life in a state as close a possible to death (as if the body didn’t exist), the death of the body will almost seem never to have occurred. The body doesn’t cling to the soul, leaving it unpinched by the bounds of the body, and instead remains an unmelded layer above another. The band-aid that was never pressed is much easily removed.

Karena Ajamian said

at 10:20 pm on Feb 7, 2010

As Socrates argues about the way in which we recognize equality, an original knowledge must exist in order for another reminder to designate itself as “reminder.” At the same time, the soul will never recall its experiences (in this case, knowledge of sense perceptions) unless it re-experiences sensations of the body. Though Socrates’ case is meant to argue that a prior knowledge exists, his argument forgets to explicitly claim that prior knowledge cannot be reminded without its counterpart -- the reminder. That is, we cannot remember that we’ve known something unless we experience that knowledge again. That is the necessary contradiction about the soul’s recollection in Socrates’ body-soul paradigm.

Michael Pruess said

at 11:33 pm on Feb 7, 2010

What's a soul? It's that thing you trade for a position of power in a capitalist 'democracy.' Did I say that? Whoopsy daisy.

What's a soul? Baby don't hurt me—don't hurt me—no mo'.

What's a soul? It's the part of a shoe where you keep your diamonds.

I think the most useful definition of what soul is is that it is a fancy idea thrown around by philosophers. Philosophers of the romantic kind, of the artistic kind, of the religious kind, and of the philosophical kind. When an idea is used day in and day out by all kinds of people, it attains a significance "in itself." Rather than turning to platonic ideals to explain this significance, I turn to the work of Richard Dawkins. Enough people babble about the soul, and soon it will have a meaning with that group that it doesn't have amongst other groups.

What was a soul to Socrates and his compatriots?

Whatever they thought it was, it was certainly a unit of their culture. The existence of souls itself is never questioned. All the reasoning in Phaedo is done given the existence of the soul. As Davy said in class on Friday, you need to play by Socrates's rules, or he doesn't care about what you think. This was in the context of Recollection and the response to Simmias and Cebes (the responses hinge on Recollection, and if you disagree with Recollection you don't get anything out of them), but I believe it also applies to the Socratic soul (soulcratic, anyone? hahahaaaha. ha. hurrrr.) in general. If you don't agree with the Socratic soul, what business do you have analyzing Socrates's arguments for its immortality? If you're going to dispute its immortality, you had better at the very least believe in its existence! You can't say "it's not immortal because IT'S NOT THERE HAHA IN YOUR FACE!" (Well, ya could, and I'm tempted often, and, as Wilde said, 'I can resist everything except temptation'—to be fair, I blast Socrates in sophomoric manner quite frequently. But this is besides the point.)

Michael Pruess said

at 11:34 pm on Feb 7, 2010

(cont)

What do I think the soul is?

I have no belief in it, personally. I am fine with a mechanistic view of the body and the brain. Descartes tried to link the soul to the body by inventing nonexistent lobes in the brain. Realizing what a failure Descartes was (I mostly jest. Mostly.), dualists since have generally avoided making physical claims regarding the soul's relationship to the body. That gives them little ground to stand on, as far as I'm concerned. If it's not physical, if you can't interact with it, it's as good as imagined.

As we decided in class, imagined things still exist. But they exist qua imagined things. And imagined things still hold power—belief in the soul's immortality might allow some hack philosopher to anticipate his death happily, for instance. That said, I suppose I'm in the ideal construct camp. There's no proof for its existence (qua 'real thing') for me. It just seems too superstitious, like if I were to accept souls I'd have to accept all sort of other truck. Voodoo, ghosts, mana, and so on. It's definitely a slippery slope, and one to be approached with skepticism. The only mildly convincing argument for the soul that I've ever read is exactly Recollection, and Locke's tabula rasa is a lot more palatable for me.

Sara Sol said

at 12:55 am on Feb 8, 2010

What is the soul?
The word itself acquires an endless amount of personalized definitions created in the minds of all of those who hear it. It is attributed to an enormous quantity of qualities and feelings and causes that can also be defined by scientific explanations of chemical or biological processes, it is attributed as the force behind consciousness, which is equally incomprehensible. But each of those definitions does not come close to what the soul is, because like Calvino’s un-distinguishable void of sings in “a sing in space”, it is not comparable to anything understood “now”, or rather, it is incomparable to anything outside of itself. In the world of endless definitions, definitions of space and time and creation, “soul” is the indistinguishable unsolvable puzzle because it itself is what is doing the solving, and in its inability to look in at itself it is indistinguishable. I am not avoiding defining it by saying this, but rather, I am defining it as this- the soul is what can’t be compared to something else because it is what compares. It protects itself from the defining nature of distinction, which makes a different river “the same” just to make it easier to comprehend. The soul is that which can’t be distinguished and can’t be understood or placed into a mathematical or scientific equation and nevertheless it exists because without it what is the indefinable but definite distinction between what has soul and what doesn’t? Because it is indistinguishable, it is all the same, because one soul can’t be distinguished itself, much less from another soul. So the souls are all one soul, all indistinguishable.

Sara Sol said

at 12:56 am on Feb 8, 2010

To proceed on this track of logic, this would mean that the soul is one, and that all souls come from one, like the point in space, all of them are one and are many simultaneously, and in being that, they connect all things which contain “soul”, which may or may not be the body, but it seems to be the body because the body contains an indistinguishable/indefinable quality like the soul, but because “soul” is indistinguishable it can’t be known.
Because the soul is indistinguishable, how can an end or beginning be distinguished? It is all one and it is everlasting. But to further this question, can something exist if doesn’t first come into being? If it can’t then the soul is nonexistent, but if it can it is everlasting. So the soul is everlasting OR nonexistent and it may or may not be in the body and it is one and it is the only thing that any being is unable to define or approach satisfyingly with a definition because it is indefinable

Sara Sol said

at 1:01 am on Feb 8, 2010

disclaimer: This is not necessarily what i think the soul is, but I did enjoy following this sort of ridiculously entraping Parmenides-like logic around to try and define the soul. my other thoughts were- what if the soul really doesnt exist, andwhat about the soul as a unifying structure in beings, but alternately what about the soul as structure of separation in beings? I just chose to follow the one i followed because i'd been reading Calvino and it is so fun to dwell in the uncomfortable parts of your brain where you cant come up with imagery or sounds or words de describe what something is.....

Jack Gedney said

at 1:22 am on Feb 8, 2010

“Enough people babble about the soul, and soon it will have a meaning with that group that it doesn't have amongst other groups.” –Michael

Yes, I agree completely. The multiplicity of meanings assigned to the word “soul” is in itself an indication of its status as merely an ideal construct (construct = constructed, essentially).

“If it's not physical, if you can't interact with it, it's as good as imagined…And imagined things still hold power—belief in the soul's immortality might allow some hack philosopher to anticipate his death happily, for instance.” –Michael

Here, I disagree. First, with the initial claim of the impossibility of interaction, which I think the later part disproves. Second, with the scornful tone of the second part, which I think is really the base sentiment behind your whole position. (Before I go further, I hope my repeated approach of responding to Michael isn’t taken as any kind of aggression; he clearly puts his personal opinions out strongly, and raises the crucial issues that I think are worth discussing. I also don’t mean to quibble about details of phrasing by quoting him directly—it was merely a convenient way to get at the same issues we have been discussing on the other Plato page.)

Jack Gedney said

at 1:22 am on Feb 8, 2010

Yes, the soul is an imagined construct. I think replies like Mazzin’s are correct insofar as they are taken as definitions of the word soul rather than explanations of independent realities. Some will call the soul self-consciousness, and that, for example, is a term which is probably a little more usable from a psychological perspective. Or, like Socrates in the Phaedo, one can view the soul as something indivisible and immortal and beautiful. But the controversial question is: why does he believe this? Is it an honest result of his logical inquiry? Is it merely the result of fear? Or weariness of life? Or is there another, extra-rational cause for this belief? Is anything other than pure and faultless reason adequate justification for believes? Should one, can one, choose to believe in the idea of the immortal soul?

Jack Gedney said

at 1:23 am on Feb 8, 2010


Fear of death is a latent, suggested motivation in the Phaedo. But it is mostly felt by Simmias and Cebes. They are willing to be convinced because they have a strong, taught conception of the unpleasantness of death, and prevented with an alternative, they choose the less unattractive explanation. Or maybe they are just being polite, in which case it is not a belief at all, as well as being non-rational. For Socrates, the directly claimed motive is his desire to explain things on the basis of Intelligence: that things are the way they are because it is best that they be that way (around 98a in particular). Emerson, speaking on Plato, said this as “To the study of nature he therefore prefixes the dogma ‘All things are for the sake of the good, and it is the cause of everything beautiful.’” I agree; I admit the dogma is prefixed (rather than a result of the study); I admit that it is a dogma; I believe that it serves an admirable urge. Later, Emerson said: “The intellect is stimulated by the statement of truth in a trope, and the will by clothing the laws of life in illusions.” What is the truth in Socrates’ trope of the immortality of the soul? The human urge to philosophize, to imagine the perfect, to believe in a comprehensible and ordered universe. Is it false? Sure, the details are fantastic, but this impulse does exist, I believe ineradicably and necessarily. Or if you are concerned about heading towards deism, think of Nietzsche’s “life can only be justified as an aesthetic phenomenon.” Socrates’ conception of the soul is a lot more satisfying by this measure than many soulless deconstructions; I also like to think of myself as sitting here

because I choose to.

Stacy said

at 4:28 am on Feb 8, 2010

What is the soul? Up until now I have refused giving it much thought because I would never come to a conclusion. I would become entangled by all sorts of different thoughts and ideologies. In any case, I will attempt to define the soul as I have learned to define it, though it does not necessarily mean that this is what I believe. I was born a Catholic which meant that the soul was defined as life to me. The soul was created by God and it was given a body to inhabit. Thus, this means that it was not created at birth but before and it also means that it did not exist all along. Essentially, what happens is that as soon as the soul enters the body, the body is given life. I know that this explanation leaves a lot of loose ends but please bear with me. So, throughout life, the soul acts like your conscience dictating what is wrong and what is right. The belief is that the soul is set free to do as it wants on earth as a sort of test. In the end, the body dies and the soul is set free but it undergoes a divine trial in which it will be held responsible for its actions on earth. So the soul is judged and it either goes to heaven or hell. So, to recap, the soul goes into the body giving it life then leaves the body when the body dies but is not destroyed. In a way it parallels what Socrates was saying about the soul governing the body and that after it leaves the body it goes to Hades.

Stacy said

at 4:29 am on Feb 8, 2010

(cont'd)
However, this theory on what a soul leaves us with a bunch of unanswered questions. For example, does this mean that a new soul is created with a new child that is born? According to Catholicism it would have to be because there is no reincarnation. This explanation would counter the theory of recollection. We simply have nothing to recollect. So what happens to the soul whose body has perished and has been judged? I don’t know how I feel about believing that the soul simply goes to heaven or hell for eternity. It would seem like there is not purpose for the soul but to be stored in one place for eternity. Also, how can the soul be conscious without the five senses of the body? So then, is the soul reduced to being an entity without purpose? If so, then why create it in the first place? I suppose that if you look at it objectively, it is pretty depressing to look at a soul that will exist forever for no reason at all. It would even seem better to think that the soul is destroyed once your body dies. In any case, I will go as far as to say that the idea that there is a soul that commands your body serves us as an explanation of our conscience and our reasoning/logic. We have not been able to provide a scientific explanation for our intellect the way we have for our instincts. Throughout history we find that we are prone to attribute that which we cannot explain to vague, abstract ideals, i.e. the elusive soul.

Michael Pruess said

at 9:10 am on Feb 8, 2010

@Jack—I write scornfully of Socrates for comedic effect more than anything else. Perhaps it is inappropriate, and for that I apologize. I only say this because I think interpreting that sentence of mine as 'scornful' just because I have yet again blasted Socrates is incorrect. I was trying to concede that even ideas have power and 'reality.' So really what I was trying to set up there is was something along the lines of:

A. I don't believe in the existence (or rather, the usefulness of believing in the existence) of things that I can't interact with physically.
B. Nonphysical things are still real so long as people believe in them.
C. But seeing as I'm not one of them, that belief isn't coming from me, and that reality isn't for me.

I hope that clarifies my stance (though I expect you will still disagree; this -is- a matter of opinion after all).
And I don't take your replies as a kind of aggression. I think discussion is great. You might be wasting your time on someone like me because my approach is so brutish, but that's between you and your soul, as the saying now goes. ;P

Michael Pruess said

at 9:13 am on Feb 8, 2010

Oh one last thing worth noting—I don't think 'the soul' is necessary for consciousness and decision-making, in response to Jack's last point. I don't agree with Socrates that were it not for a soul his sinews and bones would decide everything. I'm not going to write a treatise on free will here, but I think it's worth noting that there might be some less extreme interpretations of why we sit here than "we sit here because of our bodies sitting here" or "we sit here because we have soul."

Chris said

at 10:05 am on Feb 8, 2010

Throughout Phaedo, it would seem the soul exists both within the body and, upon death, attains a separation from the body. Simmias’ statement “what is purification but the separation from the soul” and Socrates’ reply “And what is that which is termed death, but this very separation and release from the body” establish that the idea of a soul is of one that exists within the confines of the body and is freed from these confines upon death (67d). Another characteristic of the soul addressed in Phaedo is that of its existence prior to one’s birth. Socrates argues that “If all these things which we’re for ever talking about, a Beauty, a Goodness, and all such entities really exist— […] does it not follow that our souls too must exist even before our birth” (76e). This argument results in the extrapolation that the soul must exist after one’s death as well. To borrow from the introduction, if one does not “share Plato’s concepts of soul and of its desired objects of knowledge […] the whole work might in that case be found irritating and pointless, a logical exercise based on unacceptable premises” (p. 99). Of course the introduction argues that if one is able to “enter fully into its compelling drama—then they may be able to bright the gulf between our world and Plato’s.” Yet, seeing as the Phaedo is exactly that—“a logical exercise based on unacceptable premises” it would seem redundant to merely disagree with the arguments it makes about the soul without presenting my own. While I tend to agree with Michael’s “mechanistic view of the body and brain,” I am not opposed to the existence of something beyond aesthetic experience—that the soul is capable of being imagined, but that it is not necessarily imaginary. I am hesitant to believe the soul exists prior to one’s birth, but I do not believe this makes it an emergent property of one’s body.

Chris said

at 10:05 am on Feb 8, 2010

(continued) I remain skeptical about the immortality of one’s soul, but adamant that this does not require the soul to be “confined to one’s body.” It would seem that the soul exists outside of our physical universe and is capable of interacting with it at times, points, and ways it deems fit. As such, the souls of individuals are capable of having an impact on this universe as a through the points at which they interact with it. How exactly the soul interacts with this universe is anyone’s guess, I am merely suggesting that it is possible for the soul to influence the physical universe in which it does not exist. I suppose that this is best I am able to address what I think the soul is, clarifying of course that this is probably what I think, not believe.

Ana Corral said

at 10:29 am on Feb 8, 2010

The concept of a ‘soul’ is something that I prefer not to really think about because I find it really hard to explain and understand. Whenever I think of what a soul is, I think of a person’s consciousness, personality, essence and thoughts all rolled up into one intangible entity. The soul is something that I also believe, like Mazzin, is unique to humans. Yes animals are conscious that they exist but I don’t believe that they have any concept of themselves as individuals and as a whole human race as people do.

Anaximenes wrote that “just as our soul, being air holds us together and controls us…” (pg. 14) of the Prescocratics Reader, I don’t agree that souls are made up of air but I do somewhat agree with his idea of souls ‘controlling’ people. Controlling, is the wrong word to use; guiding or helping people out along the journey of life is what I am more inclined to believe.

Souls are a part of people that are present at birth and as we grow older, souls grow and develop along with us. Their purpose is not to control a body and use it as a master would its slave but to help people see right and wrong, to encourage growth the way a mentor would for its pupil. This however doesn’t mean that the soul is all knowing but learns, alongside and with the body.

Ana Corral said

at 10:30 am on Feb 8, 2010

(continued)

After a person dies, I agree with Pythagoras when he says that souls move into different things but I don’t agree that they move into animals. After a person dies, I believe that their soul goes back to where it came from [no idea where] or goes into another person. When the soul goes into another person, it still acts like a mentor/guide to the body despite the fact that it has already done so for other people. The soul keeps all of the knowledge and information from the other bodies and places it has been but it does not know everything; it only knows what the body that it was in was able to learn in its lifetime. So when the body goes somewhere else, say another body, it retains its knowledge but doesn’t pass it on to the new body; it lets the other person/body learn for itself

Sam Tobis said

at 1:12 am on Feb 9, 2010

Writing a Soul Theory is a peculiar project since I have been educated as a western scientist. By that I mean to say that much of my academic training has come from a worldview that understands truth a mater of progressive revelation; proper scientific method, good analysis, will reveal the wisdom of yesterday as ignorance tomorrow. This worldview detaches theories from identity in an impossible dissociation I work to undo. I realize now I have not posted yet because I have been tentative to pick up the pen anew. What do I think about the Soul? I think that when I am most in touch with my soul, the connection is not a matter of thought; in fact, it is precisely in not thinking but in feeling that one finds ones soul. This idea came up in class today when we were talking about an embedded analogy in Socrates myth. The myth images humans within a bounded world figured by fish in the sea unaware of the world outside the ocean. This analogy claims a limit to the scope of human understanding. It seems to me that to think on the nature of the world outside the ocean is similarly impossible to the project of thinking on the nature of the soul itself. My soul is never completely accessible, sometimes I get in touch with what I would call my soul when I am with another, laughing, crying and or eating. Soul is what finds fulfillment; soul is the real juice that drives you.

Karena Ajamian said

at 1:29 am on Feb 9, 2010

Sam, I totally understand your difficulty in trying to begin to answer this question. My cursor definitely spent its time blinking in blankness. I thought it had something to do with my training in the Rhetoric department, but as I'm sure you've considered while writing this, a different challenge can be good! "Claim, claim, claim" can be significant by looking at their implications.

Sergio Cárdenas said

at 10:04 pm on Feb 9, 2010

How can one begin to speak about the soul if you’ve never seen it, touched it or felt it? As I begin to describe it, it reminds me of a theoretical explanation of something that I’ve never seen but ever since I was a little kid I was always taught to believe in it, to care for it and protect it from anything that could damage the purity of it. As you’ve might of guessed, I was brought up under catholic believes which I am not here to discuss. However, what I do find interesting is the similarities that I found between what I learned as I was growing up and Socrates explanation of the soul. In the Phaedo, Socrates describes the soul as a living life force that never seizes to exist. He states that as the body comes into being, an everlasting soul inhabits the body and leaves when the body seizes to exist. Although Socrates theory does hold against both Simmias theory of attunement and Cebes theory of endurance, I believe that Socrates explanation of the soul falls into a dualistic explanation of existence as he tries to use language to address something that lies outside of the realm of existence. What I mean by this is that as Socrates tries to describe the soul, it seems to me that he falls into a type of anthropomorphic description of a living force that exists as an individual being. As he does this, he aligns the soul with the notion of life and the body with the notion of death as a way to prove that even thought the body dies, the soul (which to me sounds more like he’s talking about the mind) continues on.

Sergio Cárdenas said

at 10:05 pm on Feb 9, 2010

The problem that I see in Socrates argument is that as much as one wants to, one cannot frame something that we cannot perceive. If we do, I believe that we will encounter the same problem that Odysseus encountered in the Odyssey when he tries to embrace his mother in the underworld. In other words, as the word/symbol/idea tries to embrace/frame something that has no form, it will only slip away from the embrace. Why I believe Socrates or anyone who tries to address something that lies outside of their perception would try to frame something like the soul has to do with the notion that it is easier to frame something in order for it to be controlled. If you frame it and conceptualize it, then, one can understand it and manipulate it in a way that it can be understood. So, to speak of the soul as an immortal being not only does it provide us with the comfort of thinking that there is life after death but also that our soul/mind will continue to come into being every time the soul/mind inhabits a body.
In my opinion, what we call a soul resembles Calvino’s story of the point. Like the point, everything that exists comes from a source that expands from a single essence/point. As opposed to trying to frame it into an individual existence that contains an unaccountable amount of data, I believe that because it all belongs to a single source, like a fractal, it doesn’t matter if it is big or small; everything is part of the same thing/essence. As I say this however, I’m aware that this is again another theory that tries to explain something that to me sounds manageable in order for me to understand it. Whether there is a soul or not, I do not know, all I know is that as much as we believe that language can provide us with the medium through which we can interact with the what now see as the outside world is only but a shadow of something that is no longer there.

Sergio Cárdenas said

at 10:18 pm on Feb 9, 2010

On a side note:
The more I think about the subject of the soul, the more I begin to understand why we begin to see the body as a mechanical being. A couple of months ago, I went to this body exhibition in a natural science museum which I thought was pretty cool. However, along with this exhibition, there was this 30 min. video that I saw in an IMAX theater that explained why the body is the perfect machine. Why I bring up the subject, is that I started to think about Socrates description of how the soul/mind is what inhabits the body and the body is the vessel. Now, according to Socrates explanation, it is the soul who can control the body. Although I could be wrong, I began to think about our talk regarding Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and the IMAX video that I just mentioned. Whether Socrates conception of the soul has anything to do with what is now beginning to be seen as a “natural” explanation of the human body I do now know, however, this is just an idea that popped into my head and just wanted to put it out there and see what you guys think..

cheers

You don't have permission to comment on this page.