Do humans have a soul?

[philosophic nature]

Dear members,

sometimes humans talk about, that they would have NO soul.
Thats not understandable for me, because i think everybody must have a soul!
So i cant explain, why we should have no souls.

Soul is the aura, thé comprehensive part of our body.
The body of us is underlined with body, mind and soul.
To integrate those three parts is very interesting for me in my life.
So my aim is, to focus to bring those three parts in one way together to be lucky.

So the mind is not the soul, and the sojul is not the mind. The mind is under our soul.

What do you think bout those thinkings?

Best greetings
Dominik

[AlexW]

Hi Dominik,

It depends on how we define soul.

The dictionary offers:
1. the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

If this is correct and souls do not perish (like humans seem to do) then we should maybe reverse the question...
Do souls have human beings?

To me "soul" is another term for "consciousness" - this would raise the question if human beings have consciousness or if consciousness/soul is something that "has" humans...

So the mind is not the soul, and the sojul is not the mind. The mind is under our soul.

I agree that mind is not the soul (consciousness) - mind/thought rather appears in it.

[henry quirk]

I take this as: does the individual have a spirit?

I think so. I think, wedged deep into the meat of a person, is a soul, an immaterial, irreducible, 'something'.

My evidence for this flimsy and wholly idiosyncratic and of little interest to anyone.

[Dubious]

It doesn't exist unless you can describe its function and then prove the function exists. Without that you have only a self-created myth, a presupposition.

[henry quirk]

10,000 years ago, when electricity was unknown, was lightning a fiction?

No one could describe lightning's 'function' or that such a function existed.

Same with the sun, the moon, or any other -- at the time -- ineffable 'thing'.

[Immanuel Can]

Dear members,

sometimes humans talk about, that they would have NO soul

Yeah?

Who's saying it?

[Justintruth]

Since human experiencing is temporal and since the temporal, contingent fact of what was is eternal, then humans have an eternal soul. That soul is created up until death when it becomes the eternal identity of that person forever.

There are some theories in which the soul is reborn and there is Nietszche's eternal recurrence both of which are difficult to establish. The possible circularity of time is a problem. How would one distinguish it from a helix? And if it were circular exactly what is their then to say it did not occur only once? Identinty and distinction fast become an issue.

But for the simple question as to whether human's have a soul the question is easy and it is yes. But I am using my understanding of the meaning of the term when I ask it and many others will not use the same.

Some use the notion of a disembodied consciousness, for example. My greatest fear would be that my consciousness would survive death forever and be devoid of all sensation. Talk about boredom! Anyway, I don't think it occurs as my brain was altered slightly by anesthesiologists a couple of times and I experienced no memory of the time when I was under anesthesia. If such a small change causes that, I think the total disintegration of my brain into its atoms will be sufficient to stop my awareness. Thankfully!

Souls can be good and souls can be evil depending on what they did and were aware of during their lives.

Have fun.

[Justintruth]

I take this as: does the individual have a spirit?

I think so. I think, wedged deep into the meat of a person, is a soul, an immaterial, irreducible, 'something'.

My evidence for this flimsy and wholly idiosyncratic and of little interest to anyone.

"No zombies, no ghosts." It's a good working hypothesis at least for now.

[Immanuel Can]

"No zombies, no ghosts." It's a good working hypothesis at least for now.

Well, either you've got bodies with no souls (zombies), or souls with no bodies (extreme Idealism, ghosts), or you've got Dualism, meaning both exist together somehow.

[Dubious]

10,000 years ago, when electricity was unknown, was lightning a fiction?

No one could describe lightning's 'function' or that such a function existed.

Same with the sun, the moon, or any other -- at the time -- ineffable 'thing'.

If you don't glow in the dark - unless you work for a nuclear power station - I can't see or imagine where your soul may be. On the other hand, I can see lightning, the sun and moon and whatever else whether or not I understand their why's and wherefore's. But where is the function in "soul". How does it manifest itself. Where's the necessity for it?

There is none. Nature doesn't work on any "soul" premise which is purely our invention. Only for god-believers does the soul idea remain indispensable.

BTW, I realize it's incredibly complicated and requires an IQ of at least 160 but there is such a thing as a Quote Button. All you have to do is move the arrow to that location and click.

[Harbal]

What reason is there to think that there is such a thing as "the soul"? Other than just wanting to think it, of course.

[henry quirk]

Dubiuos,

Dom asked a question: I answered it. Not feelin' any compulsion to go toe to toe over it.

As for my quoting method: I prefer it, will keep doing it, and whoever doesn't care for it can ignore my posts (and, mebbe, pound sand).

#

Harbal,

As I say: I have my flimsy, idiosyncratic reasons & evidences.

[Harbal]

As I say: I have my flimsy, idiosyncratic reasons & evidences.

If evidence for the existence of the soul had been found, henry, I'm sure they would have mentioned it on the news.

[henry quirk]

As I say: I have my flimsy, idiosyncratic reasons & evidences.

Not carin' too much what other folks think about it.

[Harbal]

Not carin' too much what other folks think about it.

So why do you bother to post your thoughts, henry, if you don't care what others think of them?