Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[JackDaydream]

It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology. This may be partly a reflection of the transition from religious thinking to secular humanism. However, as well as having a bearing on aspects of the philosophy of religion it is also an issue relating to the the way in which 'mind' is understood.

I was reading R Swinburne's entry in the 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy', which includes the following,
'The human soul is that which gives life to the human being. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of the body, i.e. the way the body behaved, and thus not capable of existing separate from it; plants and animals also had souls of their kinds.'
He also says,
'Most modern philosophers deny the existence of an immaterial soul.'

I find these considerations extremely difficult for thinking about the nature of life, consciousness and life and death. There may have been problems arising from seeing souls as immaterial as opposed to imminent or as a separate entity, and it may have led to the classic mind-body problem, as the concepts of soul and mind include a fuzzy overlap.

The idea is the self may be seen as being about subjectivity and the seat of consciousness. However, in a way it may be dismissive of the reality and importance of conscious experience, and the 'spark of consciousness'.

It also is important to consider that the idea of a soul may be applicable to animals and all living forms. This may also be applicable to issues of systems, including the ecosystem, with some nodding towards the concept of panpsychism in its soft form. It may be useful for thinking of the planet and the 'world soul', and James Lovelock's concept of Gaia may capture this. The idea of the soul may be important in issue of 'deep ecology' and respect for the 'sacred' aspects of 'nature' and what Fritjof Capra describes as 'the web of life'.

My own understanding of the soul, especially in its use amongst transpersonal writers, such as Thomas Moore, is that it gives value to the importance of the cultivation of the inner world, in his books, 'The Care of the Soul', and, 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. He is not necessarily speaking about the disembodied idea of the soul but about the value of inner aspects of questing. Within many philosophy discussions there often seems to be a tendency to try to pin down the nature of reality to appearances.

In understanding the experiential aspects of consciousness and the appreciation of the value of life, I see the idea of 'soul' as being a term which still has relevance. Of course, it is ambiguous, but so are the terms body, mind, self and consciousness. What do you think about the idea of soul as a concept and in relation to terms such as mind and self? Of course, some of it comes down to definitions but such words are important as tools for philosophical constructs. What are your thoughts? Also, if you are opposed to the notion of the soul, why?

[Sushan]

The concept of the 'soul' has indeed been a subject of much debate and contemplation throughout the history of philosophy. While ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle had varying ideas about the soul, modern philosophy has largely shifted its focus towards understanding the 'self' and consciousness.

Plato posited that the soul was an immortal and immaterial entity, capable of existing independently of the body. Aristotle, on the other hand, saw the soul as the form or organizing principle of the body, thus tying it more closely to the material realm. In both cases, the soul is considered a vital aspect of life and consciousness.

As you've mentioned, many modern philosophers and psychologists have moved away from the idea of an immaterial soul and focus on the 'self' as the center of consciousness and subjective experience. This shift can be seen as a move towards a more secular and scientific understanding of the human experience.

However, the concept of the soul remains valuable in many philosophical discussions, particularly when it comes to understanding the deep connections between living beings and the world around us. As you've pointed out, the idea of a soul may be applicable to all living forms and even to larger systems like the ecosystem. In this context, the soul could be considered a unifying principle that connects us to the natural world and underscores our inherent interdependence.

Furthermore, the soul can also serve as a powerful metaphor for the cultivation of our inner lives, as seen in the works of Thomas Moore and other transpersonal writers. By placing emphasis on the soul, we acknowledge the importance of nurturing our inner selves and recognizing the value of subjective experience.

While the concept of the soul may be ambiguous and open to interpretation, it remains a valuable tool for philosophical inquiry. It serves as a reminder that our understanding of the nature of reality is not limited to material appearances but also encompasses the deep, interconnected web of life that binds us all together. Ultimately, the soul invites us to reflect on the profound mysteries of existence, consciousness, and the human experience, providing a rich foundation for philosophical exploration.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think 'soul' is one of those many words whose meaning we all know, but only in the most general terms. A precise definition might be difficult to agree, though. Soul is a term and a concept I find useful in 'spiritual' thinking. Others may not find it so.

[psycho]

It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology. This may be partly a reflection of the transition from religious thinking to secular humanism. However, as well as having a bearing on aspects of the philosophy of religion it is also an issue relating to the the way in which 'mind' is understood.

I was reading R Swinburne's entry in the 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy', which includes the following,
'The human soul is that which gives life to the human being. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of the body, i.e. the way the body behaved, and thus not capable of existing separate from it; plants and animals also had souls of their kinds.'
He also says,
'Most modern philosophers deny the existence of an immaterial soul.'

I find these considerations extremely difficult for thinking about the nature of life, consciousness and life and death. There may have been problems arising from seeing souls as immaterial as opposed to imminent or as a separate entity, and it may have led to the classic mind-body problem, as the concepts of soul and mind include a fuzzy overlap.

The idea is the self may be seen as being about subjectivity and the seat of consciousness. However, in a way it may be dismissive of the reality and importance of conscious experience, and the 'spark of consciousness'.

It also is important to consider that the idea of a soul may be applicable to animals and all living forms. This may also be applicable to issues of systems, including the ecosystem, with some nodding towards the concept of panpsychism in its soft form. It may be useful for thinking of the planet and the 'world soul', and James Lovelock's concept of Gaia may capture this. The idea of the soul may be important in issue of 'deep ecology' and respect for the 'sacred' aspects of 'nature' and what Fritjof Capra describes as 'the web of life'.

My own understanding of the soul, especially in its use amongst transpersonal writers, such as Thomas Moore, is that it gives value to the importance of the cultivation of the inner world, in his books, 'The Care of the Soul', and, 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. He is not necessarily speaking about the disembodied idea of the soul but about the value of inner aspects of questing. Within many philosophy discussions there often seems to be a tendency to try to pin down the nature of reality to appearances.

In understanding the experiential aspects of consciousness and the appreciation of the value of life, I see the idea of 'soul' as being a term which still has relevance. Of course, it is ambiguous, but so are the terms body, mind, self and consciousness. What do you think about the idea of soul as a concept and in relation to terms such as mind and self? Of course, some of it comes down to definitions but such words are important as tools for philosophical constructs. What are your thoughts? Also, if you are opposed to the notion of the soul, why?

For me, assuming the existence of the soul as a spiritual entity, independent of the physical world, that is not affected by time or space, that arises from a supernatural creation and is of a different substance from the rest of reality, is an idea Very harmful.

The idealistic interpretation of reality and the assumption that there are ideal beings is a heavy baggage that disorients and delays a clear view of reality.

The soul is not replaced by the self or consciousness. Those are different types of entities. Self and consciousness are processes in a physical entity. They are a part of an individual biological being.

In the case of the soul, it is neither affected by the circumstances of the world nor does it depend on the physical in any way, including its body.

In the case of the self or consciousness, the dependence on the world and the body is paramount.

Thinking that we are spirits results in a negative interpretation of our relationship with reality. It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

My opinion is that the drive to understand the world is best oriented when one does not believe that one is a spirit soul.
All the learning, growing, cultural and social development, the gratification of being alive and experiencing this enormous puzzle, is not distracted by fanciful interpretations.

[JackDaydream]

The concept of the 'soul' has indeed been a subject of much debate and contemplation throughout the history of philosophy. While ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle had varying ideas about the soul, modern philosophy has largely shifted its focus towards understanding the 'self' and consciousness.

Plato posited that the soul was an immortal and immaterial entity, capable of existing independently of the body. Aristotle, on the other hand, saw the soul as the form or organizing principle of the body, thus tying it more closely to the material realm. In both cases, the soul is considered a vital aspect of life and consciousness.

As you've mentioned, many modern philosophers and psychologists have moved away from the idea of an immaterial soul and focus on the 'self' as the center of consciousness and subjective experience. This shift can be seen as a move towards a more secular and scientific understanding of the human experience.

However, the concept of the soul remains valuable in many philosophical discussions, particularly when it comes to understanding the deep connections between living beings and the world around us. As you've pointed out, the idea of a soul may be applicable to all living forms and even to larger systems like the ecosystem. In this context, the soul could be considered a unifying principle that connects us to the natural world and underscores our inherent interdependence.

Furthermore, the soul can also serve as a powerful metaphor for the cultivation of our inner lives, as seen in the works of Thomas Moore and other transpersonal writers. By placing emphasis on the soul, we acknowledge the importance of nurturing our inner selves and recognizing the value of subjective experience.

While the concept of the soul may be ambiguous and open to interpretation, it remains a valuable tool for philosophical inquiry. It serves as a reminder that our understanding of the nature of reality is not limited to material appearances but also encompasses the deep, interconnected web of life that binds us all together. Ultimately, the soul invites us to reflect on the profound mysteries of existence, consciousness, and the human experience, providing a rich foundation for philosophical exploration.

The difference in the understanding of the soul of Plato and Aristotle is interesting because Plato's is more remote and detached one whereas Aristotle's is more about the nature of the life force itself. Plotinus's idea of the one is also important because it is about connections and the idea of a source within. This may be followed through in Jung's perspective on inner reality and especially in the title of his book, 'Modern Man in Search for a Soul'.

Part of the loss of soul in philosophy may come down to the Cartesian model, even though it may be more as a result of the development of the perspective of the Newtonian- Cartesian worldview rather than Descartes' personal belief. Fritjof Capra, in, 'The Turning Point' looked at the way in which the mind-body split was influential in the development of reductionism as opposed to holism. It is also linked to scientific materialism which may have resulted in the death of the idea of the soul.

The transpersonal tradition is not given much prominence in philosophy, including the ideas of Thomas Moore and Ken Wilber. They definitely see the importance of the metaphorical and symbolic. Often, the exploration of the nature of reality is extremely concrete and fails to take on board the way in which even though searching for clarity of understanding of how everything works is essential, the theories and models are representations, often with a metaphorical basis. Your emphasis on the idea of 'tools' in philosophy is important because there is a danger that the words, concepts and theories are approached in such a way that they are seen literally. So many people have criticised religious beliefs as being taken literally but don't see that while theories are important they are models in human understanding and useful mainly as maps. It is human thought which works with the tools.

So, in regard to the soul it does seem that it is often disgarded into the philosophy rubbish bin as rather antiquated. The result may be that there is a failure to see the interconnectedness of all living forms.
.

[JackDaydream]

I think 'soul' is one of those many words whose meaning we all know, but only in the most general terms. A precise definition might be difficult to agree, though. Soul is a term and a concept I find useful in 'spiritual' thinking. Others may not find it so.

The terms soul, spirit, mind and even body are often used in different ways in different pictures and models of reality. That makes it hard to define them clearly because they are seen differently by various thinkers. It may be why the term consciousness is used mainly in philosophy. However, that is used in varying ways, ranging from the medical definition to ones about awareness and spiritual ones. So, this is involves the disputes about mind, soul and spirit. The actual distinction between soul and spirit is complex and some spiritual writers have thought of these as tiers and dimensions.

It definitely seems that soul is considered as being more central within spiritual perspectives. Some pictures of life after death have incorporated the idea of the soul entering the realms of heaven or hell after death. This usage may have been a negative one in many ways because it has led to the fear of hell for eternity, as developed by some fundamentalist religious thinkers. Of course, the idea of heaven and hell can be considered as experiential realities in this life. In that conception, the soul can be seen as the depths of one's being. It may give a deeper understanding of the qualitative nature of experience rather than mental states being seen from the standpoint of physicalist models.

However, the distinction between soul and spirit is often unclear. The belief in disembodied consciousness probably more about spirits. In spiritual and religious worldviews it has led to a lot of ambiguities, theological debates and different perspectives in Eastern metaphysics. It is partly due to the epistemological limitations of knowing what lies behind the experience of mental states. Such states are the basis from which everything is perceived which may result in the difficulty of knowing whether the physical or mental is primary, with most spiritual perspectives emphasising the importance of inner reality.

[chewybrian]

I think the idea of a soul is damaging to philosophy when it attaches to religion. In the ideas that God is alleged to have created the soul and seeks to reward or punish it, we are drifting away from real knowledge and only loosely seeking wisdom, perhaps.

The idea of a soul is useful in understanding that there is a real thing (your understanding and intentions) that can not be put in the boxes we use to describe, categorize and understand all other things. I still believe in dualism (to the degree that this seems a near certainty in my mind), though I reserve very little room for the possibility of God. If you are a serious materialist, then my idea of the soul is probably just as troublesome to you as the religious soul is to me. In that case, I imagine you would prefer to discard it. Yet, there is a dramatic and important difference between the two concepts of 'soul'.

In the case of believing in God, no proof can be offered. We are asked to believe because it 'feels right' or because we can not prove God does not exist, or because there must have been a first cause, so it must have been God. In the case of the soul without religion, we are all experiencing consciousness and we all make choices with intent. It is reasonable to say that the source of these experiences and feelings lies outside the material world unless or until we can find, measure and classify it as we can with any other thing, like light beams or marbles or sound waves or bicycles.

[Sy Borg]

I see the soul as a collection of particular attributes. The kind of being you are. I don't think these traits persist after death but similar collections of traits will be found in others, but obviously not exactly the same. Those differences hardly seems an issue since there are many adults alive who have more in common with me today that I have in common with my child self. Even those who claim reincarnation don't posit that the reincarnation will be exactly the same.

Moral of the story is to not get too attached to what you are, because that configuration will surely die, either in your lifetime or at its conclusion.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

It is easy to be indifferent to the mental, and the spiritual too. This is not useful to humanity.

[JackDaydream]

It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology. This may be partly a reflection of the transition from religious thinking to secular humanism. However, as well as having a bearing on aspects of the philosophy of religion it is also an issue relating to the the way in which 'mind' is understood.

I was reading R Swinburne's entry in the 'Oxford Companion to Philosophy', which includes the following,
'The human soul is that which gives life to the human being. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the form of the body, i.e. the way the body behaved, and thus not capable of existing separate from it; plants and animals also had souls of their kinds.'
He also says,
'Most modern philosophers deny the existence of an immaterial soul.'

I find these considerations extremely difficult for thinking about the nature of life, consciousness and life and death. There may have been problems arising from seeing souls as immaterial as opposed to imminent or as a separate entity, and it may have led to the classic mind-body problem, as the concepts of soul and mind include a fuzzy overlap.

The idea is the self may be seen as being about subjectivity and the seat of consciousness. However, in a way it may be dismissive of the reality and importance of conscious experience, and the 'spark of consciousness'.

It also is important to consider that the idea of a soul may be applicable to animals and all living forms. This may also be applicable to issues of systems, including the ecosystem, with some nodding towards the concept of panpsychism in its soft form. It may be useful for thinking of the planet and the 'world soul', and James Lovelock's concept of Gaia may capture this. The idea of the soul may be important in issue of 'deep ecology' and respect for the 'sacred' aspects of 'nature' and what Fritjof Capra describes as 'the web of life'.

My own understanding of the soul, especially in its use amongst transpersonal writers, such as Thomas Moore, is that it gives value to the importance of the cultivation of the inner world, in his books, 'The Care of the Soul', and, 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. He is not necessarily speaking about the disembodied idea of the soul but about the value of inner aspects of questing. Within many philosophy discussions there often seems to be a tendency to try to pin down the nature of reality to appearances.

In understanding the experiential aspects of consciousness and the appreciation of the value of life, I see the idea of 'soul' as being a term which still has relevance. Of course, it is ambiguous, but so are the terms body, mind, self and consciousness. What do you think about the idea of soul as a concept and in relation to terms such as mind and self? Of course, some of it comes down to definitions but such words are important as tools for philosophical constructs. What are your thoughts? Also, if you are opposed to the notion of the soul, why?

For me, assuming the existence of the soul as a spiritual entity, independent of the physical world, that is not affected by time or space, that arises from a supernatural creation and is of a different substance from the rest of reality, is an idea Very harmful.

The idealistic interpretation of reality and the assumption that there are ideal beings is a heavy baggage that disorients and delays a clear view of reality.

The soul is not replaced by the self or consciousness. Those are different types of entities. Self and consciousness are processes in a physical entity. They are a part of an individual biological being.

In the case of the soul, it is neither affected by the circumstances of the world nor does it depend on the physical in any way, including its body.

In the case of the self or consciousness, the dependence on the world and the body is paramount.

Thinking that we are spirits results in a negative interpretation of our relationship with reality. It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

My opinion is that the drive to understand the world is best oriented when one does not believe that one is a spirit soul.
All the learning, growing, cultural and social development, the gratification of being alive and experiencing this enormous puzzle, is not distracted by fanciful interpretations.

It does seem that people got carried away with belief in the soul and spirits in the past or possibly extremely confused. This was in certain ideas about the afterlife. In Christianity, there is a mixture of belief in an immortal soul derived from Plato and this was sometimes juxtaposed by the idea of a resurrection of the body at the end of the world. There was some uncertainty about whether the resurrection body is a physical or spiritual one. Some religions speak of the idea of the reincarnation of the soul, with periods in between in bardo, as dimensions of heavens and hells, such as in.'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

The belief in the concept of the soul was a way of thinking about such possibilities. While I keep a fairly open mind about the posibilitities of some form of existence beyond this life, to some extent, the various forms of such lives and the eternal soul may be symbolic of the continuity of life in the grand picture.

It does seem that the dogmatic teaching of the soul was used and abused to the point where this life was not seen as important. It was possible or permissible to see the physical body and the natural world as less important than the physical. It may have contributed to the current ecological crisis and have been used to justify inequalities on the basis that it would all be rectified in a future afterlife. Of course, belief that there is no soul or spirit can be abused too with people and living beings being seen as equal to objects rather than being seen as having any 'sacred' value. It is not as if materialism will translate into a basis for ethics automatically. In this sense, it may not be belief in or lack of belief in the concept of a soul may be applied to a picture of how one should live in various, arbitrary ways in religious and secular philosophies.

[Pattern-chaser]

In the case of believing in God, no proof can be offered. We are asked to believe because it 'feels right' or because we can not prove God does not exist, or because there must have been a first cause, so it must have been God.

That's a little unfair, I think? It's true enough that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but that in itself, to me, is quite insufficient to justify belief or disbelief (atheism). Belief tends to emerge from faith, or feel, I think? Not from proofs or disproofs (of which there are none, as we've already observed).

[JackDaydream]

I think the idea of a soul is damaging to philosophy when it attaches to religion. In the ideas that God is alleged to have created the soul and seeks to reward or punish it, we are drifting away from real knowledge and only loosely seeking wisdom, perhaps.

The idea of a soul is useful in understanding that there is a real thing (your understanding and intentions) that can not be put in the boxes we use to describe, categorize and understand all other things. I still believe in dualism (to the degree that this seems a near certainty in my mind), though I reserve very little room for the possibility of God. If you are a serious materialist, then my idea of the soul is probably just as troublesome to you as the religious soul is to me. In that case, I imagine you would prefer to discard it. Yet, there is a dramatic and important difference between the two concepts of 'soul'.

In the case of believing in God, no proof can be offered. We are asked to believe because it 'feels right' or because we can not prove God does not exist, or because there must have been a first cause, so it must have been God. In the case of the soul without religion, we are all experiencing consciousness and we all make choices with intent. It is reasonable to say that the source of these experiences and feelings lies outside the material world unless or until we can find, measure and classify it as we can with any other thing, like light beams or marbles or sound waves or bicycles.

I can remember when I used to truly believe that God would punish or reward in a future life after death when I was going to Catholic and other churches. My parents and most of my friends hold onto such beliefs presently. I used to agonise over the fear of going to hell and I think that many do. It was one of the main reasons why I felt the need to question my religious upbringing.

As for the concept of the soul in philosophy it does seem to involve the question of dualism. Descartes saw the point of connection between soul and body as being the pineal gland, which interestingly is important as the third eye in the Eastern picture of the chakras. I actually find that the Eastern metaphysics seems to overcome the strict division between the material and the various forms of spiritual dimensions in the idea of the subtle body. However, most spiritual and esoteric systems have a form of soft dualism, or idealism, in the sense that the material body is not seen as the primary form of reality.

Often, in the philosophy of the twentieth first century, systems which believe in the soul and spirit are criticised as 'woo woo'. This is probably partly due to some problematic religious beliefs and the romanticism of the 'new age' thinking. It is also such a speculative area, with ideas of out of body experiences and near death experiences being seen at face value evidence of a dualistic split or as gobbblegook at the other extreme. There is the territory of the inbetween states which may be the wildness lands of philosophy. This may embrace the philosophy of religion entirely, including the question of God. Even though there is so much debate over the existence of God as a key philosophy question is not possible to verify the existence of God or lack of existence of God according to logic or empirical evidence in any definitive way. That may be why it is such a tricky question and can be answered in so many different ways, showing how philosophy is constructed in ideas in human thinking.

[Pattern-chaser]

I can remember when I used to truly believe that God would punish or reward in a future life after death when I was going to Catholic and other churches. My parents and most of my friends hold onto such beliefs presently. I used to agonise over the fear of going to hell and I think that many do. It was one of the main reasons why I felt the need to question my religious upbringing.

Me too. But when I had questioned and rejected Roman Catholic cultism, my parents, who still held those views, as you say, refused to allow me to leave the church, and prevented it for as long as they could. In fairness to them, they thought they were protecting me from damning my soul to Hell Fire for all eternity.

But to me, they were damning me to the continuing emotional hurt, embarrassment, and humiliation of being forced to recite prayers and supplications that I could not accept or believe in any more. [I only believed them when I was younger because I was younger, and unable (yet) to think for myself.]

For a young autist — although I didn't know it at the time — it was especially difficult to be so dishonest as to proclaim out loud things that I considered either wrong or nonsense. [We are, as a group, strongly averse to dishonesty in any form; Greta is more forthright, and simply states "I cannot lie".]

It still rankles, even today, that the Catholics consider me a "lapsed Catholic" and not a "non-Catholic". How dare they?!

[psycho]

It is easy to be indifferent to the physical. This is not useful to humanity.

It is easy to be indifferent to the mental, and the spiritual too. This is not useful to humanity.

What would it be like to be indifferent to the mental?

[JackDaydream]

I can remember when I used to truly believe that God would punish or reward in a future life after death when I was going to Catholic and other churches. My parents and most of my friends hold onto such beliefs presently. I used to agonise over the fear of going to hell and I think that many do. It was one of the main reasons why I felt the need to question my religious upbringing.

Me too. But when I had questioned and rejected Roman Catholic cultism, my parents, who still held those views, as you say, refused to allow me to leave the church, and prevented it for as long as they could. In fairness to them, they thought they were protecting me from damning my soul to Hell Fire for all eternity.

But to me, they were damning me to the continuing emotional hurt, embarrassment, and humiliation of being forced to recite prayers and supplications that I could not accept or believe in any more. [I only believed them when I was younger because I was younger, and unable (yet) to think for myself.]

For a young autist — although I didn't know it at the time — it was especially difficult to be so dishonest as to proclaim out loud things that I considered either wrong or nonsense. [We are, as a group, strongly averse to dishonesty in any form; Greta is more forthright, and simply states "I cannot lie".]

It still rankles, even today, that the Catholics consider me a "lapsed Catholic" and not a "non-Catholic". How dare they?!

It is so difficult to have radical open dialogue in families with strong Catholic beliefs. As a teenager I used to have a lot of discussion with them about issues to do with the immortality of the soul etc and it may have been those which were the starting point for my long term interest in philosophy. However, when I really began querying ideas like life after death I kept it private. This was initially to protect myself from their intrusive influence and, later, because I knew that it would upset them so much.