JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 4th, 2023, 10:37 amIt is my impression that idealism does not exist without the idea of the soul.psycho wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2023, 10:46 pmIt 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in.'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.JackDaydream wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2023, 12:25 pm It seems that the idea of the 'soul' has been replaced by that of the 'self' in philosophy and psychology.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.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.
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?
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.
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.
In my opinion, since the mind is a functioning human brain, for the brain to disintegrate means that the mind disintegrates together.
The common idea of the "soul" is that of a spiritual being that lacks all the characteristics of physical things.
By definition, the soul is an untenable concept that only derives from the subjective interpretation of consciousness.