Do you believe we all have souls? (exodus, Buddhism, eternal) - Page 13

Master Vigil · #**121** 05-13-2004, 07:40 PM

"I define soul as "life which animates an organism"

Why not just call it that? The theistic definition of a soul does not follow your definition."

Why, when we can just say "soul." It's so much easier. Taoists would go even further and discuss how the soul is made of chi. But then it's extrememly hard to explain chi using english words or american ideas. It's something that must be experienced. The best words for it are, breath, life, power, spirit, energy, essence, etc... But not one of those words describe it efficiently.

Mr Spinkles · #**122** 05-13-2004, 09:32 PM

I think the problem is may people have an emotional attachment/affinity for the word "soul" which conjures up feelings of meaning and inspiration, as opposed to regular (scientific) terms which don't carry emotional baggage along with the definition.

By adapting this definition of "soul" Runt (and many others) have found a solution--the definition is now such a broad generalization ("an essence") that it's virtually impossible to have a debate on its existence or lack thereof, and it's a word (soul) that inspires pleasant feelings on the definition which translate into psychological benefits. This is unlike scientific words which are supposed to be emotionally neutral and bland--the intent of these words is to describe phenomena without a connotation of good or bad--the phenomena are what they are, that's it.

It's the definition of a soul we all want to get at--not the word itself.

Let's end the soul debate--let's talk about the existence of Spinkility, which I define as a certain anger in some things. So for example, we can observe Spinkility in raging fires, tornadoes, or angry people. They are all connected in that they all desire to change in rapid motion. Who dares to challenge my belief in Spinkility? :mrgreen:

Mr Spinkles · #**123** 05-13-2004, 09:32 PM

I think the problem is may people have an emotional attachment/affinity for the word "soul" which conjures up feelings of meaning and inspiration, as opposed to regular (scientific) terms which don't carry emotional baggage along with the definition.

By adapting this definition of "soul" Runt (and many others) have found a solution--the definition is now such a broad generalization ("an essence") that it's virtually impossible to have a debate on its existence or lack thereof, and it's a word (soul) that inspires pleasant feelings on the definition which translate into psychological benefits. This is unlike scientific words which are supposed to be emotionally neutral and bland--the intent of these words is to describe phenomena without a connotation of good or bad--the phenomena are what they are, that's it.

It's the definition of a soul we all want to get at--not the word itself.

Let's end the soul debate--let's talk about the existence of Spinkility, which I define as a certain anger in some things. So for example, we can observe Spinkility in raging fires, tornadoes, or angry people. They are all connected in that they all desire to change in rapid motion. Who dares to challenge my belief in Spinkility? :mrgreen:

Master Vigil · #**124** 05-13-2004, 09:48 PM

HAHAHA!!! You do humor me Mr. Spinkles (I guess we all know where your name came from now.) Hmmm... Its an interesting thought, but I'm confused as to what the rapid motion has to do with the anger. Please elaborate on that.

Master Vigil · #**125** 05-13-2004, 09:48 PM

HAHAHA!!! You do humor me Mr. Spinkles (I guess we all know where your name came from now.) Hmmm... Its an interesting thought, but I'm confused as to what the rapid motion has to do with the anger. Please elaborate on that.

Mr Spinkles · #**126** 05-13-2004, 10:06 PM

(I'm making this all up) There is Spinkility in all rapid motion because rapid motion has a certain anger-ness to it, which causes things to no longer be calm. Spinkility is the angerness that connects all angry things. It's hard to describe really, with all these confusing words and such.

Haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. On a sidenote, I came up with the name back in 7th grade when I noticed that all online multiplayer gamers used names like "SiLenT_DeAtH" or "ELITEsniper" etc. I wanted to be original.

Mr Spinkles · #**127** 05-13-2004, 10:06 PM

(I'm making this all up) There is Spinkility in all rapid motion because rapid motion has a certain anger-ness to it, which causes things to no longer be calm. Spinkility is the angerness that connects all angry things. It's hard to describe really, with all these confusing words and such.

Haha. I'm glad you enjoyed the humor. On a sidenote, I came up with the name back in 7th grade when I noticed that all online multiplayer gamers used names like "SiLenT_DeAtH" or "ELITEsniper" etc. I wanted to be original.

Alaric · #**128** 05-14-2004, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runt

If we didn't have multiple meanings for terms, our language would be WAAAY broader than it is now. However, perhaps it would make you happier if Taoists referred to the soul as an "essence", since their definition of the word is not exactly the same as that of a Christian?

As long as we all know what you're talking about, that is the important thing. It doesn't help the discussion on the existence of unicorns if you say 'I believe in unicorns, but I think of them more like elephants with two trunks'. Blank stares all round!

Like I've said, if there are multiple interpretations, then there is some kind of common feature that they all share. I would say that the soul at the very least has to be personal, whether or not memories are attached to it.

Alaric · #**129** 05-14-2004, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runt

If we didn't have multiple meanings for terms, our language would be WAAAY broader than it is now. However, perhaps it would make you happier if Taoists referred to the soul as an "essence", since their definition of the word is not exactly the same as that of a Christian?

As long as we all know what you're talking about, that is the important thing. It doesn't help the discussion on the existence of unicorns if you say 'I believe in unicorns, but I think of them more like elephants with two trunks'. Blank stares all round!

Like I've said, if there are multiple interpretations, then there is some kind of common feature that they all share. I would say that the soul at the very least has to be personal, whether or not memories are attached to it.