What is our soul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(16-03-2016 04:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, that's the way any given assertion must be supported.

"I could support my beliefs but I won't because there's nothing in it for me" is an absolutely pathetic excuse for an argument.

I'm beginning to see why you have such a reputation around here.
I wasn't making an argument. Arguments come in form of syllogisms. When I want to make an argument, I make a syllogism. You won't get your belief-bashing fix from me, I'm just a hobbyist.

I don't have any beliefs. I have a hobby, experiences, sensations, observations - these are bare facts, without interpretation. Then I keep track on how do other people describe or explain these subjective observations - both today and historically. Some common patterns stick out and I can point at them, for whoever's interested. If anyone is, I can share some tips or best practices on how to reproduce some sensations.
None of that is an argument or preaching. I could say "I have a headache" or "I have itchy nose" and "here's a book on headaches and itchy noses". But there's nothing to prove or disprove about it. It's a hobby, not a world saving program. I have world saving programs, but this isn't one of them. Hint: no syllogisms.

If that provokes you, you just might be a Rational Justice Warrior. Social justice warriors are addicted to the endorphin rush of feeling self-righteous when pushing forward political agenda that used to be controversial 50 years before they were born. I don't know what RJWs are actually doing in real life, but they seem to me pretty addicted to self-righteousness too. So much that they react to things that aren't even arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: What is our soul?
(16-03-2016 05:07 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I wasn't making an argument. Arguments come in form of syllogisms.

This is the most pathetic pedantry I have ever seen. I could go on at length about how you are falsely equivocating between the colloquial and technical (arguably archaic) definition of "argument" in order to dodge a point, but I honestly don't care enough. It's obvious that you never actually intended to have any sort of discussion here. You simply turned up to post nonsense from poor sources and expected people to take it at face value.

To recap: Alice Bailey does not offer a "technical definition" of the soul at any point, despite your direct statement to the contrary, and the very concept remains incoherent and poorly defined. Ditto "spirit", "karma", "monad", and all the rest. Your claims of meditation on the nature of the soul are irrelevant even if they are true, as they have apparently not given you one iota of ability to assess the topic critically, and your condescending attitude towards those who question your statements on the subject only serves to make you look like an arrogant asshat as well as a fool.

You don't understand what science is, you don't understand what evidence is, and you don't understand how either applies to the concept of the soul. And, as you are apparently not interested in even attempting to learn about any of the above, there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
16-03-2016, 09:43 PM
RE: What is our soul?
Oh, hey! Lumi is back! And he's still an credulous dipshit!

Will wonders never cease?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2016, 02:15 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(09-03-2016 08:00 AM)doggers Wrote:  Really interested in some discussion about your thoughts on the soul. How do you define it? Where does it go when we die?
A soul is a conceptual image of an individual's personality.

A mature, calm and considered child may be classified as having an old soul.

A gentle, and loving person might be classified as having a warm soul.

It has many parts to it, your nature (kind and caring vs rough and ready), your emotional control (even tempered vs hot headed), your selfishness vs compassion, your being shy and quiet vs gregarious and loud, your easy going nature vs stoic insistence in adherence to your norms and morals.

Where does your personality go when you die? Well, your brain ceases to function. No thoughts, no choices, no personality, just a motionless rotting brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2016, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2016 07:05 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is our soul?
(16-03-2016 05:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is the most pathetic pedantry I have ever seen. I could go on at length about how you are falsely equivocating between the colloquial and technical (arguably archaic) definition of "argument" in order to dodge a point, but I honestly don't care enough. It's obvious that you never actually intended to have any sort of discussion here. You simply turned up to post nonsense from poor sources and expected people to take it at face value.

It is a mark of intelligence to be able to consider ideas without having to accept them at face value. Was I too generous?
I use syllogisms in moral philosophy, which has to exclude possibilities - the principle of identity and non-contradiction, you know. But when I collect ideas on the "soul", I collect data. There's a long way from data to arguments. The inductive method starts with data and looks for patterns. But patterns have to be named and this is where opaque jargon comes in, and that's when people get impatient and start feeling cheated. They thought they can get a cheap piece of news and get smart fast, but then the learning curve goes up and they choose to say that the grapes are probably sour.
Sometimes I think that people without spare mental capacity believe, that if they work to decipher an idea, they must automatically believe it, because they have nowhere else to put it.

(16-03-2016 05:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  To recap: Alice Bailey does not offer a "technical definition" of the soul at any point, despite your direct statement to the contrary, and the very concept remains incoherent and poorly defined. Ditto "spirit", "karma", "monad", and all the rest. Your claims of meditation on the nature of the soul are irrelevant even if they are true, as they have apparently not given you one iota of ability to assess the topic critically, and your condescending attitude towards those who question your statements on the subject only serves to make you look like an arrogant asshat as well as a fool.
What is there to question? You might as well question fantasy literature. I have no idea what to believe in, I use Bailey's writings mostly as means to fall into meditative trance, in the way that some people use law books to fall asleep.

There's way too much data on the souls, I'm afraid. It's impossible to say anything certain unless we can formulate proper questions - very specific nitpicky questions. General questions get us general answers. And to be able to make specific questions, we have to know a lot about the topic. The question on how could a soul interact with the body, takes us into the topic of "etheric body", which is a huge topic in itself. But it's better known and it's much closer to physics as we know it. An actual physicist to talk to would help me at this phase. This would seem like digression, but in truth, talking about the soul is skipping the necessary step, etheric body is a simpler topic than the soul. Mystics of history were talking about the soul directly, but they were cheaters, they didn't care to study it, only to experience it. Can't do anything with data like that, only compare it across cultures and religions, or with one's own experiences.

(16-03-2016 05:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You don't understand what science is, you don't understand what evidence is, and you don't understand how either applies to the concept of the soul. And, as you are apparently not interested in even attempting to learn about any of the above, there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing this conversation.
That's just assertions, no content. I've talked at length about the nature of facts, theories, paradigms, scientific communities, evidence and anomaly. I have an actual content. I've read Thomas Kuhn and I use his ideas all the time, or explain them to others.

Normally I'm not trying to persuade people, I need to educate them first, bring them up to the speed in the topic, enough to know what to be persuaded about. First you need make up your mind, then you can change it. That's the Dunning-Kruger effect, people don't know what they don't know, and demanding evidence is a convenient way to get smart fast without showing any weakness. To your great credit, you try to get smart fast, while some others have just snarkuments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2016, 07:17 PM
RE: What is our soul?
Gibberish and word salad snipped. I have to say, it's honestly impressive how completely incoherent you've managed to be thus far.

(17-03-2016 07:01 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There's way too much data on the souls, I'm afraid.

There is no data on souls. There is, however, plenty of data on what people have claimed about souls.

The two are not equivalent.

(17-03-2016 07:01 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The question on how could a soul interact with the body, takes us into the topic of "etheric body"

It really doesn't.

(17-03-2016 07:01 PM)Luminon Wrote:  That's just assertions, no content.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
17-03-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: What is our soul?
No soul. Early man couldn't except the fact that they are not special snowflakes and greater that ordinary animals so they invented gods and something special that other animals did not possess... a soul. It was the claim to special favor of their gods, nothing more.

No gods, no soul.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
18-03-2016, 03:20 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2016 05:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is our soul?
Among the things that people historically call the "soul", there is such a thing as "dark night of the soul", as a part of the general mystical "path of soul towards God". Sorry for the off topic, this is psychology, not philosophy.

I found this article interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul
At first sight, it looks like a prolonged depression, caused by unreasonable divine perfectionism of Christianity. But it is interesting that it does end. The Christian sufferer from depression seems to observe some divine ideal that makes his imperfections all the more palpable.

I'm not sure what happens then, maybe he gradually gives fewer and fewer fucks about his imperfections and starts focusing on the God feeling, until God is the only thing he really gives shit about - but then at the same time he sees God everywhere, in everything, because to get out of depression he had to erase all differences in his mind and leave only god. I'd agree that 90 % of everything in the culture is shit, so maybe giving less shit is a good thing.

Not my style, but I'd consider many of these people my colleagues and fellow hobbyists. If Christianity was a sports discipline, these people would be the Olympics athletes. Catholics were hugely into this weird stuff, with all these monasteries everywhere. Protestants not so much. Organized religion isn't good for this hobby.

Here's something more. I wonder how many of you atheists knew that your former religion is more than hell and pews, it's a full-blown Scientology ascension program, or it used to be, historically, as an undercurrent that is all but gone now. What do you think, it is a good or bad thing? I can't decide myself, I think this is one of the upsides of Christianity or any religion, but at least it made room for the more modern, intellectual approach to the same subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_...m#Practice
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 05:28 AM
RE: What is our soul?
(09-03-2016 08:00 AM)doggers Wrote:  Really interested in some discussion about your thoughts on the soul. How do you define it? Where does it go when we die?

I don't believe in the soul. I believe it is just a pseudonym of the mind.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kyx's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: