Philadelphia, PA
Dear MacGregor,
It is important to recall that the English word "soul" exists in a long tradition of translation. The ancient Greeks distinguished between things which moved, depending on some outer force which moved them, say rocks, or flowing water, and others which were self-moving. The principle of motion and change in what is moved by itself (or by desire, telos) was the "soul." In consequence, if you look at the text of Aristotle's book on psychology, it is sometimes titled "On the Soul" and sometimes the "De Anima," (compare, e.g., the English "animal" and "animate"). Our word "psychology" derives from the Greek word psyche =the soul.)
Aristotle and the following tradition (which included St. Thomas, and his Christian-Aristotelian synthesis in some degree), distinguished three levels or kinds of soul. First the soul of nutrition and growth, shared by all living things; second, the soul of locomotion, shared by all animals, and third, the highest form, the soul of intelligence, nous, in Greek. This word is customarily translated into English as "mind."
In consequence, we might want to consider the origin of mind here; and obviously human beings are born with certain capabilities for development. But proper development depends upon a social and familial setting. In this sense, the soul is a developmental product. It depends on a certain sort of cultivation: including moral education.
Others, of course simply reject the concept of soul, in a modernist and purely scientific spirit. But if we are interested in the principle within which enables our moral choices, then we do well to consult the history of the concept. It is the cultivated person who becomes capable of moral choice and moral responsibility--not the original, biologically given capability for development of mind and thought. From this perspective, or any approximating to it, moral education and the cultivation of the virtues becomes central.
H.G.Callaway
A very complex question .. if we believed in God, in theory he created it.
Regards!
Philadelphia, PA
Dear MacGregor,
It is important to recall that the English word "soul" exists in a long tradition of translation. The ancient Greeks distinguished between things which moved, depending on some outer force which moved them, say rocks, or flowing water, and others which were self-moving. The principle of motion and change in what is moved by itself (or by desire, telos) was the "soul." In consequence, if you look at the text of Aristotle's book on psychology, it is sometimes titled "On the Soul" and sometimes the "De Anima," (compare, e.g., the English "animal" and "animate"). Our word "psychology" derives from the Greek word psyche =the soul.)
Aristotle and the following tradition (which included St. Thomas, and his Christian-Aristotelian synthesis in some degree), distinguished three levels or kinds of soul. First the soul of nutrition and growth, shared by all living things; second, the soul of locomotion, shared by all animals, and third, the highest form, the soul of intelligence, nous, in Greek. This word is customarily translated into English as "mind."
In consequence, we might want to consider the origin of mind here; and obviously human beings are born with certain capabilities for development. But proper development depends upon a social and familial setting. In this sense, the soul is a developmental product. It depends on a certain sort of cultivation: including moral education.
Others, of course simply reject the concept of soul, in a modernist and purely scientific spirit. But if we are interested in the principle within which enables our moral choices, then we do well to consult the history of the concept. It is the cultivated person who becomes capable of moral choice and moral responsibility--not the original, biologically given capability for development of mind and thought. From this perspective, or any approximating to it, moral education and the cultivation of the virtues becomes central.
H.G.Callaway
I tend to use the analogy of alzeimer patients here, at the very end of the disease, their brains little more than ping-pong balls all cognition, most of their memories, gone. Sluiced away. Nothing it seems remains of their Selves, the people they once were eradicated. Where is the soul?
Not all cultures accepted the idea of the soul, not in the transcendent fashion common today. The ancient Egyptians gave such an attractive if unlikely adornment at first only to their kings, connecting afterlife with the cosmos-although their belief that kings became gods, at one with natural phenomena such as stars, moon, sun, makes their concept different from the sunny ideal of present.
Does a serial killer have a soul, something they did not have alive?
I'm sure it wasn't until two thousand years ago that the soul became an accepted attachment of human beings. Perhaps imbibed from the far East where alternative existences were freely imagined in contrast to the Judaic resistence and Mesopotamian shadows in the Neverworld. Most ancient cultures connected after-life to memory, and once the memory of the dead person died his 'soul' did too. A reasonable idea, it seems to me.
Souls surely emerged with the imaginative realisation of other worlds, fictional in composition and technigue. Heavens, hells, elysiums created, peopled and full of at least flora. Then people kept on imagining, creating substance out of their thoughts, and people-ordinary people-acquired transcendental meaning. Our bodies became gloriously insubstantial after death instead of the awful reality!
Souls in effect. Just another dream, I'm afraid.
In my religious subject of the unseen, it is the knowledge of God
Regards
The attached research article proposes a scientific method ! Even then, we will not know more. As always, I can see that Prof. Callaway is indeed a wise man. Consequently, your question burns down to our free religious decision to believe in the created existence of our soul, independently of our body, before and after physical death, i.e. we are here to improve our souls by ethical action. Mystical literature speaks about our soul, being a spark of the divine soul; the divine spark enters the body at birth and leaves it at death; the supreme scientist knows the exact spiritual formula.
Hello,
The soul, the immaterial part of all living things, including both humans and animals, is regarded as immortal. In the Islamic tradition, after God created man from the clay kneaded and processed into the desired shape , He blew into it part of His spirit. Consequently, every human being is majestic and divine and worthy of respect and fair treatment because he carries a token of the holy spirit.
Best regards,
R. Biria
The Islamic answer to this question is based on the Holy Quran verses interpretation and the prophets talks. Most scholars consider that soul is given 120-130 days after the beginning of the pregnancy. Next is one of the verses relative to this issue.
The soul is an extension of God in man. The is body starts developing around the soul which God puts in a woman after sexual intercourse.
Many christians beleived of their Soul as their eternal ''self'', the part that will survive death. Scientifically, this can't make any sense. But if you deeply love other, your parents and children, a good long time friend, don't you feel that your soul and theirs are not totally separate, that you kind share your life with them, and so participate in each other life. Is'nt it a bit what any human communication is, a kind of sharing of life. With this lesss individual notion of life, my life is not only what is within the boundary of my skin. My life is a lot outside of my skin, it is about what my life is about, other lifes. So as our parents gave us biological life and engage their life with ours, to contribute to our life and our life to contribute to other lifes, then my life is also the life of all the lives that contribute to it and mine is also the life of all the lives I do contribute and so this is not ending with my biological passing as the life of our ancestors are still alive in us. Biological life is transient but life in the above sense endure.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Wilkin & readers,
I understand that the ordinary ancient Roman peoples had a concept of a renewed life, after death in "Elysian fields" a land of agricultural plenty, where they would be reunited with loved ones. As you mention, the ancient Egyptians also had a conception of soul, which could go on, though it was a matter of precise preparations and ceremony --mummification, etc.
What is in question, in any case, would seem to be something internal and cultivated (in, and out of, human relations) which is the locus for thought, moral deliberation and moral responsibility--in terms of common sense psychology. Obviously, you don't much care for the word. But can we not make sense of the ordinary religious discourse in some degree? It seems to have much to do with our conceptions of human agency and responsibility.
I recall that as a child, I thought of the soul as somewhere in the middle of the body and as something that recorded deeds. If you were good it was all white, but if not, it had black marks on it. A child's conception, of course, but the concept of moral responsibility was clearly there.
H.G. Callaway
Dear All,
From a religious, philosophical and psychological point of view, the term soul has many meanings. In the present time, the soul-being denotes the totality of feelings and mental processes.
In many cultures, the soul is the essence of life, the Me or the Self.
Souls have certain soul characteristics:
sensitive, vulnerable
not physical, immortal
individually shaped
of a higher nature
M.L.
The soul, intelligence, creativity and awareness with self-reference was created together with life
The "soul" is a religious term, vague as many such tend to be, and will be interpreted differently by different people. Trying to answer the question from a non-religious perspective, it may be thought of as the frontal lobe algorithms hosted in the brain of a person. These algorithms define what kind of a person one is.
So, the soul is "created" when the brain begins to develop, and more specifically, the frontal lobe of the brain. The brain begins to develop 3 weeks after fertilization, and the hemispheres begin to differentiate after 5 weeks or so, so my answer would be that any concept of "soul" won't really exist, before then.
But I'm sure many will disagree, on religious and emotional grounds.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Manfredi & readers,
It seems to me that in common with the orthodox, your answer ignores the historical and common-sense connotations of the term. I think we have to ask what is ordinarily meant by use of the word, to sensibly answer the question; and surely no one, or very few, would say that what is meant by the soul is a development of the frontal lobe of the brain. You propose, it seems a quasi-scientific theory in opposition to the common usage. While I have nothing against scientific proposals in principle, I doubt that this is what is wanted here.
I'd suggest starting with something like a dictionary definition--if only to see what actual usage of the word suggests. How is the word actually used in contemporary English?
Webster's says:
Definition of soul
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.
2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe.
b: capitalized, Christian Science : god 1b
3: a person's total self
4a : an active or essential part
b : a moving spirit : leader
5a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings
b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment.
c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
6: person: not a soul in sight
7: personification: she is the soul of integrity
8a : a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers
b : negritude
c : soul music
d : soul food
e : soul brother
---End quotation
Notice that in the first definition, the defining terms form a disjunction: "immaterial essence" (orthodox answer) or "animating principle" (very close to Aristotle) or actual cause ---of an individual life. What you provide is a suggestion about what the "actual cause" of an individual's life may be. But this does not belong to the ordinary or religious meaning of the term.
You might say, of course, that the ordinary usage is simply a confusion or ancient error. But, in that case, I fail to see why you would want to offer any account here. Wouldn't it be better to leave this question aside and pursue a topic or question in neurology, say?
H.G. Callaway
Analogy to science is found in Quantum Mechanics. When we die our wave forms are diminished but never disappear. This is because according to Feynman sum over paths the probability waves go everywhere forward and backward in time. Spirit is also like this. Spirit develops increasing and decreasing, starting small and growing with experience, cut down but reviving. It isn't a single creation, but many creations.
In the name of of Allah the Merciful And they ask you about the Spirit, Say, The Spirit is from the command of my Lord, and what ye have learned from science, but little
Great and complex question
But I think is by the knowledge of God.
Regards
Only human are having the soul?
The animals, birds, reptiles, insects etc. are not having any soul?
How those are created (if having)?
H. G.
Here is not perhaps the place to discuss such a considerable question but yes I baulk at the insistence on pre-or post-thinking narratives of religion, at least the kind reproduced as words from ancient, often poorly written books endowed with meaning beyond their actual text, although rightly religion requires recognition. I am not against debated and reasoned religion and religious responses just this relationship to reiterated words and unlikely propositions.
The Egyptian concept was interesting as after-life required a perfect body as well as self-proclaimed good behaviour in life-this was based on the magic of words within a ritual process (still evident in Islam), if you wrote something such as 'I did not kill', that took on a truthful dimension even if you did. In that I am certainly interested in the Islamic relationship with text, that written words become true/that is assume reality. An imperfect form/body could not have an afterlife. You could not go into the afterlife minus a leg (although I'm sure some tried. This surely is alligned to Christian concepts of resurrection?
The Roman afterlife was selective. Not everyone went, and there was a direct connection between public service and fame and the afterlife. This was a common Mesopotamian idea, that clearly entered Europe.
But, H. G, the fact that a belief has longevity doesn't make it true. And the transcendental soul visited here is relatively new anyway. Much newer than people imagine. Elysiums are safely connected to literary imaginations (pastorals transplanted into another dimension)-but surely arn't heaven, hell, and all these intrinsically theatrical narratives literary constructs too?
The Romans did not envisage transcendental alteration of body and mind, nor really the Greeks (except for heroes), the Christians came to it slowly, over time, within the same loyalty-reward-spectrum of later Judaism and Islam. All accepted the concept of bodily and spiritual corruption, based really on anxiety over the body and deep-seated fear of sexual anarchy.
Believe in me, YHWH, the Lord, Allah declares I will treat you to goodies later. No actual, genuine morality is much involved or expected of the lucky ones (this can be seen throughout their histories and is evident here) beyond community codes visible in many urbanised societies (and religions) in the Middle East and North Africa, and personal religious continuity and adhesion to a number of largely inconsequential ideas that when analysed crumble away like old cakes in an unused bakery.
H. G I didn't read your piece properly and thoroughly but nevertheless my piece stands. I am actually not committed against spirituality nor religion but find many religious responses on such low intellectuals levels (simply reitirated slogans from their chosen (or chosen for them) religions, without defining the material they choose-see above several renditions). The art of thinking is perhaps being lost in this sea of conformity.
Mind blowing answers. I'm loving this experience
Thank you RG and all respected Scientist here
Peter, should we start with the belief that such a thing is actually true, and why should we accept it for discussion's sake? In an un-biased universe of energy and force, why should one tiny species be exceptionally endowed to participate in infinity when even sun's, of their nature, do not? Alteration is certainly the process, but ours is through regeneration of other processes not through a place within an infinite non-productive process.
A species strangely contingent -see alzeimer above-which can lose their intrinsic qualities in a moment? The soul has a History-shouldn't that tell us something?
(Loved how you begin 'put religion aside' and end it with 'How do science and religion see this?' RG does that to people. I speak from experience.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Wilkin & readers,
Your prior notes in reply seem all very interesting and reasonable from a purely scientific standpoint; and perhaps that is what you aim to establish as a framework?
But I am extremely doubtful that a purely scientific standpoint will be very fruitful. My argument has been that the historic discourse of the soul (which has both more religious and more secular forms), is about human practices: moral development, moral education, and moral responsibility--and their locus within individual human beings. You may prefer other terms for that topic as well; but we are not going to reconstruct it as physics, chemistry or neurology. There is a central and compelling normative element here.
The problem with falling into a purely skeptical and natural-science perspective is that the moral questions and the related moral psychology usually just drop out. In the case of the present thread, that would be pretty clearly contrary to the intention of the question.
Try looking at the question from a more sociological or anthropological perspective. Is this entire, millennium-long human discourse and theme, in all its variations, simply an ancient error? What have all these people been doing all these centuries? What social and personal functions are served by talk of the soul? Why do people insist on teaching it to their children? It strikes me we are in danger of loss of the very soul --the human interest and emotional force-- of the present question.
H.G. Callaway
According to me, human language is too imperfect to describe the soul. Human knowledge is too small to know how the soul creates. We can imagine certain things, but we are limited by knowledge, senses and consciousness.
I'll make another attempt.
If physics was involved in the creation of souls why keep it to one, fairly insignificant species, and not involve all. Here we are of course personifying physics in order to make a point on the pointless nature of doing so.
Physics, as a group, tends to not, I think, worry about the connection between degeneration and time, but nevertheless declares that large cosmic objects such as the sun alter over time into other forms of energy, and that is one argument involving human beings. Our energies are indestructable therefore we must survive in another form. Do we? Why should our dubious collection of habits, affectation and achievements survive except in the memory of others?
But degeneration surely meets certain conditions of transformation with reference to mass: our mass, even collected mass, is pitiably small, inconsequential in fact, so cannot produce transformative release. We degenerate into other nutrient forms of energy connected to our undistinquished presence within the cosmos as a whole. Mass+time+D=therefore comparative not complementary survivals of energy. Our small mass produces tiny amounts of energy, which accumulatively feeds into the origins of other similar inconsequential creatures. The quantum idea perhaps doesn't add up.
Our vaunted brains! Ah! That red herring! As Selfs, not necessarily the same as souls, cannot it seems outlast our lifetimes why should its attributes assume another kind of energy-soul, ghost or whatever. Our minds die before we do. The idea that personality exists independently of brain and environment seems unlikely.
Evidence has recently arrived that Neanderthals were responsible for some cave art-an idea being considered for decades. Other evidence has concluded that as a specie we have been around for 500,000 years, so little different if at all from Neanderthals. I'm afraid, as conviction in the soul is based on our special nature, of course our relationship with god that won't wash either. We arn't it seems special as a species after all!
Now religion: The Moslem idea that the soul is implanted by Allah after 130 days is interesting, making Allah as busy as Santa Claus at Christmas, but makes the soul into an incubus that is separate from the body it inhabits, and therefore is not, upon the death of its host, the body transformed. It can be seen as a bit of Allah that returns to Allah, ripe perhaps for resuse, but is not traditional concepts of the soul as individually branded.
Reza singles out the 'Moslem Tradition' of god breathing into clay, but that story comes from Mesopotamian civilisations, predating Islam by 3000 years. The story reflects a time and place when clay was the prime material for bricks, mugs, jugs, etc. It reflected creativity, as does the story of the soul.
Of course we have as per usual the pleas of 'knowledge of god', god knows, so lets not waste our time thinking! We have also 'implanted with the seed' as if the soul were another appendage. Perhaps it is!
Very healthy discussion
A complex question covering religious, philosophical and psychological domains
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Wilkin & readers,
Again, all very interesting. But you seem to evade the question of the role of the concept of soul in human practices connected with character, moral education and moral responsibility. Perhaps you think this is all ancient error, too?
Apparently you prefer to concentrate on the theme of the immortality of the soul and the relationship of soul to deity or deities. You ignore my suggestion to look at the concept from a sociological or anthropological perspective in order to ask about the functions of the concept of the soul in human practices.
Your approach looks a lot like simple religion bashing! Polemical attacks on perceived weak points while ignoring anything of positive value.
Take a look again, at the question posed:
If humans have souls, when and how is the soul created?
I'm interested in a variety of religious perspectives.
---End quotation
H.G.Callaway
You wrote:
...
But degeneration surely meets certain conditions of transformation with reference to mass: our mass, even collected mass, is pitiably small, inconsequential in fact, so cannot produce transformative release. We degenerate into other nutrient forms of energy connected to our undistinquished presence within the cosmos as a whole. Mass+time+D=therefore comparative not complementary survivals of energy. Our small mass produces tiny amounts of energy, which accumulatively feeds into the origins of other similar inconsequential creatures. The quantum idea perhaps doesn't add up.
Our vaunted brains! Ah! That red herring! As Selfs, not necessarily the same as souls, cannot it seems outlast our lifetimes why should its attributes assume another kind of energy-soul, ghost or whatever. Our minds die before we do. The idea that personality exists independently of brain and environment seems unlikely.
...
While baby in the womb, the soul put in after 12 weeks. The electronic power of soul give momentum to the structural development of the baby and to be considered a new phase of life inside the womb.
The explanation of the creation of soul shows that science has it own limitations and that not all things can be explained with scientific laws. Some things are bound to be out of human understanding.
A soul is created when a spirit and flesh comes together. Therefore when a flesh is not occupied by a spirit it is inadequate to call such a soul. In Genesis chapter God only ascribe the term "soul" to the man He created in His image not to animals. For this reason a man cease to be a living soul immediately he dies because the spirit goes back to the Creator from where it originated.
Sorry H. G. but I didn't intend to ignore your approach. I'm surprised you think that. Surely my position is that it isn't and I have produced reasons, historical and otherwise, why it isn't.
Surely also I am taking the stick to science as well as religion? Maybe the soul and its attendent concerns are Vanity, vanity, all is vanity? It might be worth your while looking at my statements again, as my position is different to yours but still answers the question.
The soul is an historical construct perculiar to certain religions and functions to produce ideas of human special nature, longevity and continuance. That special nature is strongly expressed by the Abrahamic religions true but is contradicted by every piece of evidence available to us. If we can obtain a realistic understanding of our natures we can forget about curious manifestations such as the soul, whatever their roots.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Wilkin & readers,
My complaint, of course, is that you are substantially ignoring the question which is under discussion on this thread.
You seem to treat the concept of "soul" as simply a stray and stale idea, which might better be replaced by science. But again, while I have nothing against such scientific theorizations, I don't think that this is the question here. Let me again emphasize the question: It says, "If humans have souls, when and how is the soul created?" Notice that this is a conditional question. We are asked to suppose (for the sake of the discussion) that humans have souls. This is somewhat different from asserting that they have souls. In consequence, arguments (such as yours) which deny the assertion don't really answer the question. In order to answer the question, though, I suppose we have to first say what is meant by the term soul. I have sketched various more or less common-sense (not scientific) answers. You continually ignore the normative content of the concept. But no purely scientific psychology will replace this.
You say, "The soul is an historical construct peculiar to certain religions and functions to produce ideas of human special nature, longevity and continuance." In a sense this is trivial, all accounts of anything, human or non-human may be regarded as "historical constructs," of some culture. That it may be regarded as a "construct" tells us little or nothing about the value of the construct.
My central point is that the value of the concept consists in the way in which it contributes to related practices of moral education, character building and moral responsibility. This is far from saying that evil people have no soul; they are still capable of acting and reacting in human society, still capable of thought and of good and evil. The point is that without the practice of moral education and character building, such people are less capable of acting for the good. We want people to stand up for what they see as better and more worthy. Moral education and related practices facilitate this. The soul or traditionally "the care (or cultivation) of the soul" is a traditional way of addressing related concerns.
The concept of the soul does not merely sit there as an abstract matter of religious or common-sense psychological theory. It enters into practices by means of which people are made to be better people. It is the moral practices which give the concept such life as it has. It is not an abstract theory that would need to be replaced without the concept. It is a set of human practices implicated in the formation and reformation of persons as they enter into particular societies and conceptions of moral action. If you ignore the moral and normative implications, then you have missed the question.
If humans have a soul, then the closest I think they could get to rebellion against it would be to take no moral stand and simply "go with the flow," wherever it may lead--submit continually to social pressures and rewards. A society dominated by that attitude, I believe would be less desirable, even less human.
H.G. Callaway
You wrote:
The soul is an historical construct peculiar to certain religions and functions to produce ideas of human special nature, longevity and continuance. That special nature is strongly expressed by the Abrahamic religions true but is contradicted by every piece of evidence available to us. If we can obtain a realistic understanding of our natures we can forget about curious manifestations such as the soul, whatever their roots.
---End quotation
Life of a human being is confined within a century. On earth the soul goes together with a human life. After that it returns to God for its embodiment with Him. In other words, the soul was given to humans by the creator and returns to Him for its further perpetual processing.
If humans have souls, when and how is the soul created?
Any human being is made up of 3 parts i.e. body, soul & spirit ( 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 4:12). Body refers to our 5 senses i.e. sight, hearing, smell, taste & touch. Spirit refers to our inner capability to have faith in God, worshiping Him, praying to Him, devotion / quiet time etc. Think soul is in between the body & spirit that enable us to apply our cognition, memory, conscience, affection / emotion etc.
Based on above human's attributes - we have soul, soul was visible when were born as infant e.g. crying, happy etc. From religion angle perspective, I believe soul is given to us when God created us into this world.
Hi Kirk,
"I'm interested in a variety of religious perspectives. "
I think in this book " Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend, and Law" by James G. Frazer https://www.amazon.com/Folklore-Old-Testament-Comparative-Religion/dp/0517672510 the author found that the soul is described in various legends and myths, in several cultures over the continents, to be related to something blown through the mouth or nose. But, check it.
Velina
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Nitsas & readers,
You only neglect that the mind or rational soul, in Aristotle, nous, is the distinctively human aspect of the soul, psyche. It is capable of thought, training and development so as to better regulate the soul of motion--common to all animals.
The Aristotelian rational soul, nous, most resembles later, especially (to my knowledge) Christian conceptions of the soul. I submit, however, that the Aristotelian rational soul is not quite "out of this world." It does have its effects on behavior.
H.G.Callaway
I not entirely comfortable with the use of the word "religious", please allow me to interpret it as "belief system".
I agree with Callaway with respect to the "soul"'s function in moral decision making. It is not that the "soul" animates us so much that it animates us in a particular direction when making moral choices. Whether the moral education is derived from a normative system or through life experience (never on its own, I suspect), we have the capacity to choose our own direction.
In answer to the original question, I do not believe that there is a particular moment when the "soul" is breathed into us, or plucked from a well, or whatever. It is with us from childhood, commencing from that first memory, and continues to develop throughout life. What separates us (and neanderthals too in all probability) from the animals is the ability to make moral/social choices (with the aid of language), to deal with abstract concepts such as "good" and "evil".
As far as the "clockwork" is concerned, there is a neuroscience basis for decision-making, but as Callaway points out this is not germane to the discussion. We are all born with it, but only start using it later.
As an aside, Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein at about the time that Percy Bysshe Shelley translated Plato's symposium. One can only speculate that discussions surrounding the disembodied soul led her to write a story of the creation of a body (animated) without a soul. But by the end of the book the creature has acquired language and is making moral decisions (on my view more appropriate than those of the Doctor!). It was a given - he had the clockwork!
Hi. I follow the conversation here with curiosity. As a non-specialist in the domain, the first question which arose in my mind was related to the moral choices that many participants relate to the soul, seen as a concept which can serve to enforce the moral responsibility of the individual. (If I understand correctly.) So the question in my mind was: does someone know societies, now or in the past, in which there is not some kind of socially driven education in "correct" moral choices. As I said - I am not a specialist. However, I do not think there exist or have existed cultures in which there was not a "sense" of morality, it does not matter do we agree with its norms or not and how precisely is it educated and inspired to each individual, with or without soul. The next question which arose in my mind was related to the biological basis of this behavior of the human social existence. I found after a small search paths leading me to the conclusion that the evolution shaped human genotype in a way to make the individual sensitive, or "moral", to the survival and the well-being of the others in the society (from where all dilemmas of the type "who to rescue" known in psychology). One paper leading to this conclusion of mine is here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35610677/OJPP_2014111416203700.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1519496736&Signature=siPM6Z2kcHeitfdlANW7e5yLrqg%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDo_We_Have_an_Inborn_Moral_Sense.pdf So, I'll be very glad if this conversation can lead to some bio-cognitive explanation of the concept of soul (maybe self, maybe - not).
Velina
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Nitsas, Route and readers,
One must agree, of course that the Aristotelian rational soul is not identical with the later Christian or common-sense concepts. My point was that it is the aspect of Aristotelian psychology which most resembles later religious ideas. The Christian or religious emphasis on the immortality of the soul stands in some tension with the more naturalistic side of Aristotle--the soul, we are to understand as the "form" (eidos) of the body. (Aristotle, of course took over the concept of form from Plato and gives it his own twist.) Nonetheless, there is a good deal of historical discussion of Aristotelian theology (consider only St. Thomas), and including your remark, Nitsas:
Aristotle stated that the soul (ψυχή in Greek) is the intermediate between the body and the God. It is born with the body and dies with it. Only the mind, according to Aristotle, is out of this world.
--End quotation
Would you care to clarify?
How can the rational soul (nous) both influence our behavior and possibly exist without the body? That is an opening to the mind-body problem. (How could the soul be both "immaterial" and influence the body?) But lucky for us, that is not our question here. We do want to know what the soul is or is supposed to be, but, given some reasonable account (and there is bound to be some vagueness and some variations), the question is that of "when and how the soul is created."
In reply to Route, specifically, I recall that as a child it was more or less a matter of common-sense, where I grew up, that a child reached a particular age, about 6 years, at which point a child was said to "know the difference between good an evil" and could make moral choices. This was the point at which the child could be held responsible --within the limits of the child's understanding, of course. The idea suggests a conception of a developmental process of the soul.
H.G.Callaway
The soul of Aristotle end with the body but not the soul of Plato. The soul of Plato can re-incarnate and so is similar and central to the souls in Vedic traditions. Agains, lets not look at this from a scientific viewpoint but from the moral consequences of such souls not disapearing with the dissolution of the body. It tend to promote ourself in continuation with our ancestors since had previous lifes with them and it tend to act for the future generations since we will part of them also and so tend to make act for the benefits of other way beyond the limits of our biological life. Once of the unique aspect of a human life is that we live an animal life in the here and now and that we also live into stories about this world we live in and this allow us to space and time travel in these stories. So we are the first and only animal that knows that her biological body will die. I do remember when in my bed I myself made this realization that the world exist before I was borned and that it will exist after I die. This is a shoking realization because life can't accept that, it has to overcome death in the sense of providing a meaning to one own life going beyond the here and now and our own death and the many version of the eternal soul allow very successfully to provide this essential perspective for looking a meaning for our life beyond the animalistic here and now. And into making the stories about the eternal life of the gods, that human life became in a little way the life of the gods, not lifes about basic instincts of the here and now, and it is the example of the lifes of the gods that humans learned to live such lives in a human ways. And later , humans became inspired by heroic human lifes such as Ulysse, life even closer to their lifes but live heoically without fears to die for their communities that will remember them.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Brassard & readers,
I did a little looking around on Aristotle and the soul, and you may find the following passage and link of interest:
A key question for the ancient Greeks (as it still is for many people today) is whether the soul can exist independently of the body. (Anyone who believes in personal immortality is committed to the independent existence of the soul.) Plato (as we know from the Phaedo) certainly thought that the soul could exist separately. Here is what Aristotle has to say on this topic:
. . . the soul neither exists without a body nor is a body of some sort. For it is not a body, but it belongs to a body, and for this reason is present in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a sort (414a20ff).
So on Aristotle’s account, although the soul is not a material object, it is not separable from the body. (When it comes to the intellect, however, Aristotle waffles. See DA III.4)
---end quotation
See:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
This "waffle" of Aristotle's has reverberate down the ages. I take it that the reference to "the intellect" is to the Aristotelian rational soul or nous. It might take a long discussion of Aristotelian texts to settle the matter of the interpretation of Aristotle; but I have thought it perhaps sufficient for present purposes to leave the question open.
Lucky for us, our question is not the immortality of the soul, though this may enter into a discussion of what the soul is or is supposed to be.
H.G. Callaway
You wrote:
The soul of Aristotle ends with the body but not the soul of Plato.
The Soul is the living super organism in human. when the body is destroyed, the soul remains, but invisible.
Dear Callaway,
In a previous post here, I gave a narrative of souls as made of other souls and as being embodied but continuing as part of other souls in other bodies. In this narrative, we have a notion of a soul that endure but is always embodied but that continue to do so in other bodies after the initial body die. In this narrative there is never an disembodied soul so no committemdng to the independent existence of the soul. In this narrative , Aristotle's soul(is nous's part) is very much part of our soul, the proof being us here debating his ideas about soul. His life (nous level) being part of our life.
Regards,
- Louis
Philosophy tries to answer what science cannot or doesn't want to answer.
Conscious thought and the concept of self were brought into Physics 40 years ago in TGD theory by a university professor Matti Pitkänen who promptly lost his job. He lived in obscurity but survived long enough to gain a measure of acceptance from a younger generation. Now it seems that the engineering community needs part of TGD for other reasons, design of next generation machines and vehicles for deep space explorations at high speed. It makes the uneasy feeling that a system of thought is being endorsed because a part of it is needed and is not available elsewhere in research.
Physics community has at least 10 dimensions , possibly 11, 12, or 26 dimensions containing something, without out saying what the extra ones contain. There is room for new ideas but resistance to everything that can possibly be resisted. The reason is that researchers don't want to lose jobs and live in obscurity. So it is not a free exchange of ideas until they retire.
To speak of soul we should say what it is before trying to say if it exists or how it is created.
"If humans have souls,", which I believe we do referring to my previous comment about quantum mechanical wave forms, the soul is the lasting part of a life that continues to exist after the body dies and decomposes, fades in memories and is forgotten by the living community. The diminished wave form has this property and is accepted in the larger research community.
While accepting existence of soul, the origin of it should be postulated.
"When and how is the soul created?" Reaching again for the quantum mechanics that declares boldly and with wide support that the wave form is immortal, a system of physical laws builds up the wave form of each person gradually by interactions, entanglements, decoherence, and testing of all aspects in measurements, in observations, and in mixing of information streams. This is the firm scientific foundation on which the philosophical discussion can develop. The soul in this representation definitely does exist and has a mechanism for creation within the larger scientific community that still has jobs.
Does the soul have personality and conscious thought? That was not the question, but seems to be the issue that comments are struggling with. Personality and conscious thought go into creation of the wave form and cannot be separated from it. Whether or not these continue to develop after death of the body is not firmly established in science. The Jewish and Christian traditions, possibly also the Moslem tradition suggest that conscious thought and awareness continue after death of the body but personality development does not. The immortal self is confined to the character it developed during life of the body. Free will impacts the philosophy of soul and character development.
Are we destined to an end or do we choose our destinies? This was also not the question, but one that impacts all of the answers. About 10 years ago Ulla Mattfolk and I wrote a proof of free will. A physical argument was presented based on quantum mechanics of energy states and the amount of information storage that would be required to answer all of the questions about our destinies. Our conclusion was that the storage capacity is finite in a volume, but the number of possible questions is not.
Limited capacity for information storage together with Heisenberg Uncertainty and decoherence of entangled wave states makes a compelling argument in favor of free will, not complete free will, but a type of asymptotic freedom within limits. This approach suggests that some small measure of free will continues in the wave form after death, although the major western religious traditions do not support this.
[ one paragraph deleted ] I liked it too well.
What I got from H.G. Callaway was a reminder that we should define the terms we are using before trying to argue about them and draw conclusions.
The soul as I defined it does exist, develops over time impacted sometimes by free will, is immortal, and contains features of our personalities and character. All of this is supported by physical science and a large community of researchers. The discussion is not complete because the science is not complete on topics of ethics, self, and consciousness, although I personally prefer the ethical system of Albert Schweitzer which goes a long way toward completing the topic.
This is how I view the soul, similar to how I believe Pythagoras or whomever represented Pythagoras was (at this point even sure he was a real individual).
Go to Google translate. Type soul in English aND translate it into Greek.
You will get 4 symbols. Now, look to see how each of those symbols has been disseminated to represent many different things especially or specifically in various domains of science.
Then, look at any potential pictoral meaning the symbols could have.
You get Psi...which I view as something (Or an I) defined by and defining it's context.
Upsilon, which I view as two things which are actually the same becoming one and vice versa...a sort of merging or separation of something that really is one thing.
Chi, which I view as the crossing or point at which things intersect.
And Eto (I think... forgot the name...., but its the funky n thing).....used very commonly to express efficiency or a relationship between two numbers or things...notice how it never takes on an absolute form.
But don't believe me, look up the symbols one by one :)
An I (I as a symbol means iota anyway) defined by and defining it's context which really are the same thing separated or joined at the point they intersect as a relationship?
Thats my interpretation. I like it. Thoughts?
HG, you say:
You might say, of course, that the ordinary usage is simply a confusion or ancient error. But, in that case, I fail to see why you would want to offer any account here. Wouldn't it be better to leave this question aside and pursue a topic or question in neurology, say?
Precisely! The ancient connotations are vague (as I already suggested), disorganized, inconsistent, emotionally charged, and generally lack any credibility. But what they do seem to have in common is the idea that the "soul" is not a material thing. It has to do with who a person is.
So, to answer your question directly, without indulging in the sort of vague verbosity that is so frequently used to describe this "soul," and is quite frankly unhelpful, one can certainly try to cut through the level of complete confusion?
Look back at Kirk's question. The "soul" is the non-material aspect of what we are. How is that non-material aspect of what we are "created"? With development of the brain's frontal lobe, at least as the host for this "soul."
Aristotle might not have had access to computers, but today we do have. It should make us that much more capable of grasping the difference between a physical object and the software-defined algorithms hosted by that object. Provides a useful opportunity to dispense with vague, not terribly helpful notions.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Manfredi & readers,
There is a significant tradition of interpreting Aristotle's psychology and his concept of the soul or psyche, as a kind of functionalism. (See, for instance John Hermann Randall's book on Aristotle-- still widely available.
https://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-John-Herman-Randall/dp/0231023596/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519589947&sr=1-19
This approach may suggest that the soul is "immaterial" and differs from any physical organ, in somewhat the way that installed software and its operations differ from the machine on which it is installed. This is the so-called computer model of the mind. This model has been widely pursued over recent decades. Somewhat similar ideas may be suggested by the nature of DNA and the decoding of DNA, which certainly suggests a role of encoded information and information processing in all living organisms.
You are perfectly right, of course, that the concept of the soul is vague and not unambiguous. We have seen various religious or convictual versions contending with each other; and obviously the various contributors attach great emotional significance to their ideas. Still, some small progress may have been made with the notion that the soul cannot exist apart from a body. Several people seem to go directly from that seemingly Aristotelian idea to beliefs about the transmigration of souls (to use the traditional nomenclature for such views). But how, we might well ask, if souls cannot exist apart from bodies, how could they manage to get from one body to another?
In any case, I see some need to insist again, on the normative content and character of concepts like "soul" and also "mind."
You wrote:
Look back at Kirk's question. The "soul" is the non-material aspect of what we are. How is that non-material aspect of what we are "created"? With development of the brain's frontal lobe, at least as the host for this "soul."
--End quotation
But few here seem to suppose that the soul can get along totally without a body. At least during life, it has to have some control over the body. If not how could it possibly contribute to "who you are"? You seem to merely suggest a bodily location specifically related to the development of the soul (or mind). But who really doubts that there is some close association between personal development and the development of the brain?
What you leave out, however, is the normative functions of the concepts. There are, after all, malformations and mis-developments of the brain --and of persons as moral agents. Human practices connected with the "care of the soul" address related problems--within limits of course; and as I say, I think that the related practices of moral education, moral discipline, and moral responsibility constitute the genuine life of the concept of soul. That is part of the reason that the concept is so emotionally charged. Without addressing this theme, I don't think your answer is adequate. You simply want to leave out the very reason that people care about the concept of the soul.
H.G.Callaway
You wrote:
Aristotle might not have had access to computers, but today we do have. It should make us that much more capable of grasping the difference between a physical object and the software-defined algorithms hosted by that object. Provides a useful opportunity to dispense with vague, not terribly helpful notions.
HG, let me begin with a parenthetical statement. I didn't want to leave the impression that the computer is the only model that we can use, to understand what the "soul" might be. Even before the era of microprocessors, logic was implemented in devices, with timers, motors, cams, and relays. These components gave such devices their unique personalities. Something as mundane as refrigerators and dishwashers have their own personalities, which are defined by the way the engineer implemented the logic, and the personalities differ among brands. (Now this is commonly done with embedded microprocessors.) So however this autonomy is designed, it's not a physical thing. Everyone gets this.
You wrote about "care of the soul," and mentioned, in essence moral training. How is that not implementing the logic, as in that home appliance you are designing, to function well, as opposed to being defective? Do the dishes dry without leaving spots? Does the refrigerator de-ice adequately, without wasting energy, without causing great temperature fluctuations?
In home appliances, we are accustomed to think in terms of someone else designing the logic, and "training" the appliance to behave properly. In human beings, that too is the case (your mention of moral training), but not exclusively the case. Much as we are experimenting with AI, part of the algorithm involves self-training. Free will, if you like.
One last point, the "soul" can survive without the body, according to most mainstream religions? It's called life after death. Think of it like backing up your software algorithms to "the cloud," as people like to say these days. I won't belabor the fact that religions can describe the process in any number of ways, without encumbrances of any kind. That is their nature.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Manfredi & readers,
I suspect that your engineering conception of normative regulation may leave many on this thread rather cold. But let us wait and see. Care of the soul is rather unlike the engineering of home appliances, I would think. I notice that you have not positively excluded the topic of the normative character and elements of the concept of the soul. Good for you. It was just that you had not heretofore mentioned them and they seem to be central.
You are correct, of course concerning orthodox, religious conception of the soul and the immortality of the soul, as already remarked. I think that no one has denied this. My focus has been, though, on the contributions above which tend to the less orthodox--by traditional western lights. Lucky for us, the immortality of the soul is not our chief question here.
So, then, what is the soul or what is it supposed to be? Apparently a moral regulator of behavior? How do thought, moral discourse and cultivation of character fit into this?
H.G. Callaway
Very intriguing question, I appreciated the answer of Dr Callaway. He said, “The principle of motion and change in what is moved by itself (or by desire, telos) was the "soul."
We agree or not with the Greek conception of soul and motion, I think is clear that we cannot provide a concrete answer on what is soul using our 4D perception.
I would like to remind that Δαίδαλος Daidalos a great craftsman and artist was the father of Icarus and the creator of the Labyrinth on Crete. As mentioned by Homer, Daedalus was the creator of a wide dancing-ground for Ariadne, the chorus (choros). Make a long story short; Daedalus fabricated also wings for himself and his young son Icarus; to reach freedom. According to mythology, “Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly too high, because the heat of the sun would melt the wax, nor too low, because the sea foam would soak the feathers. The blazing sun softened the wax that held the feathers together and they came off. Icarus quickly fell in the sea and drowned. Daidalus cried, bitterly lamenting his own arts, and called the land near the place where Icarus fell into the sea Icaria in memory of his child. Some time later, the goddess Athena visited Daedalus and gave him wings, telling him to fly like a god.”
Ikaria (Icaria) is always present in Greece at the North Aegean region. Daidalus reached the eternity due to Athena flying as a god. Their memories, their presence their creations are still alive. Their “soul” circulates in the Aegean Sea from North to South through generations to generations; always alive, passing through the labyrinth where time and space are meaningless and the choros to reach eternity.
In Hinduism , two school of thoughts:
Adwaita: soul (Atma) and Paramatma (God) are parts of each other
Dwaita: Atma combines with Paramatma when it leaves the body subject to salvation (Moksha)
Both do believe it enters at certain trimester of the gestation period ...
Human body is a vehicle of refining the soul by doing being praying god , being good etc etc working towards Moksha and not getting caught in the cycle of birth -death !!!
I know only so much !! There is a journey of soul in the literature , some get it read when some one in the family dies !
Daedalus warned Icarus not to fly too high.
•In general, fathers try to warn or lead their suns not to fly high. That is, they want their younger generation to overcome themselves properly and healthy. But it is often difficult and sometimes in fail.
•The greatest happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved – loved for ourselves, or rather, loved in spite of ourselves. victor hugo , French poet and novelist and dramatist
•If young one failed to convict that he is loved by his father, he could not succeed to growth healthy to despair for both.
Indeed, we hope happiness of our next generation from our Soul.
From the stand point of Qigong and Schema Therapy
Soul itself must be a kind of vibration with fine mass.
Love itself is a resonance between man and woman, son and father, daughter and mother. And resonance is a phenomenon in the presence of vibration.
Also I want praise H.G. Callaway's answer.
I believe that the soul of a human is something very personal and that the soul is immortal. Soul and psyche are two different categories, are not identical.
When the body dies, the soul escapes from the body. What could be discussed as here is the psyche of man.
By psyche we mean the place of human feeling and thinking. It is the sum of all mental qualities and personality traits of a person.
M.L.
Psyche dies with body, as it is an outcome of all mental thoughts and stimulation. Of course, its impact could affect and live for more time depending on the quantum of impact. As far as the soul is concerned, it gets transformed from one body to other.
According to the answer of the spirits coded at Kardec Spirits' Book (https://www.amazon.com.br/Spirits-Book-Allan-Kardec/dp/1612038980), God creates a soul simple and ignorant. Life is the God's instrument to make it develop and purify.
Of course, because it is impossible to a soul make the entire progress only in a single life, we have multiple lives. Thus, we were not created with our body, and certainly we will not die with it.
Brian Weiss Past-Life Regression Sessions were just one of many evidence that this is true. We have for example the Ian Stevenson 20 Cases of Reincarnation. Other evidence is the communication with the dead, so familiar and so old that Moses already forbid it to his people.
Hi, Virgil. I am glad to read your message.
Indeed, there are many who do not believe in soul.
But are there people who deny the concept of the field? And if Soul itself is just the field?
Field is ‘simple and ignorant’. But I suspect myself what is the relation between God and Soul.
Sincerely yours,
Kazuo
Dear Carlos and readers;
As you say, Soul is what is inside you and you strongly feel and believe.
＜Smaller one is inside larger one. If soul is just field, ‘you’ are in the field.
＞you strongly feel and believe
The soul resides in your body including the psyche
Sometimes soul and psyche are compared, but soul is supossed to be of superior category than the body and psyche.
It is identified as different from the spirit wich is said to be the "force" of life.
Soul and spirit are not exactly the electromagnetic energy that is supossed to be freeded when the body dies and propagates with the thermodynamic laws.
According to general ideas, psychology is described as follows:
"Psychology is an empirical science. It describes and explains human experience and behavior, its development in the course of life and all relevant internal and external causes or conditions."
The soul is something very personal and the immortal, the psyche not.
We do not know if soul is connected with psyche. A
nyway, we can not fathom it scientifically, otherwise we would already have knowledge, at least in part.
M.L.
Answer not dealing with Original question of when soul was created. Lots talk about psyche and if soul and psyche are same.
I tend to see my ''soul'' as ''my life'' and tend to see my life as originating in my mother's life and father's life , their life being part and originating of my nation's life and my nation's life being part and originating from other more ancient western nations if we we continue then it orinated from the first human life and tribe and it continue as far back as one may see into the past and there in that direction do I see the origin of my life.
Along the same idea, I tend to see the origin of absolutly every aspects of my personal experience and consciousness into its beginning. For example, the most basic of visual experience is simply the experience of light, that had to begin sometime ago on earth when a certain bacteria with some protein, one closely related to the photo sensitive receptor on my retina, actually start to have experience related to the presence of absence of some electromagnetic radiation.
The soul is the spiritual part of life. According to the Bible, nothing can destroy the soul and even when the mortal body gives way, the soul does not die. it is an intangible part of the body. It controls the mind. The soul is God,s creation. Human body and life is dynamic, but the soul does not change.
But when is it created? At birth or at conception? I believe it is created at conception, if it exists.
Dear Callaway and readers;
Following the Socrates method;
> The principle of motion and change in what is moved by itself (or by desire, telos) was the "soul." things which moved, depending on some outer force which moved them, say rocks, or flowing water, and others which were self-moving.
< ancient Greeks distinguished
>things which moved, depending on some outer force from
what is moved by itself (or by desire, telos).
Heck, I don't even know how clocks are made, or cream cheese.
The ancient Jewish mystics posited that while we cannot fathom the ineffable mystery of Soul, we may understand the mystery of the dee'yoke'na, or Spirit Body, the ineffable mystery which enables Soul -- which is all spirit -- to blend within Body -- which is all physical. It goes something like this: When two people engage in sexual intercourse, but do so not only with lust but also with love and longing to bond and become as one, their bonding energy and loving intent translates into -- creates -- a dee'yoke'na, an entity capable of bonding Spirit with Matter since it is born out of both, Spirit (intent), and Matter (desire). A soul waiting in the wings, so to speak, for its turn to come into this world, is then assigned such a dee'yoke'na, which then enables it to become incorporated within a fetus waiting to be ensouled. Thus, a couple making passionate and intentional love in Australia might create by the quality of their lovemaking a dee'yoke'na which may then be assigned to usher in a soul into the fetal body waiting to be born in Nova Scotia. So do not take lightly what you sometimes hear people say to one another, such as: "I know you from somewhere," or "You're like a daughter to me," for it may be actually so.
Soul in the Quran has different terms in Arabic:
1. Rouh: it means in English gentle wind
2. Nafs: it means breath
3. Nismah: it means light breeze
and when people asked Prophet Mohammad what is Rouh (soul), he answered I do not know, and only God knows what it is, and humans are given only little knowledge.
Also Quran says that after the completion of human body inside woman, the soul is inserted in the body and the child starts to move, and this is in the fifth month of pregnancy. Also Rouh (soul) in the Quran is a part of God's Rouh (Soul).
Wow, Ahmed. So similar to the Hebrew tradition:
Neshamah = Breath
Ru'ach = Spirit
Nefesh = Embodiment
yes Gershon, Arabic and Hebrew are of the same origin (Semitic languages.
Dear All
We are having a discussion about the "physics of reality" at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_Fields_or_Voltages_be_used_in_the_current_formulations_of_Quantum_Theory?view=5a9d90b6eeae39d57d7e155a
"So the photon is like an atom within which there are 'wave-particles' at the level of the sub-particle. Notice the photon is neutral in charge so there may be two equally charged 'wave-particles' in the photon's structure. But if there are two such wave-particles, then we have described a fractal structure: just like the atom, so too perhaps the photon, so too perhaps the 'wave-particles' making up the photon. Similar in part like Planck's discovery of discrete frequencies, but inside a fractal structure, one that may keep on going ad infinitum."
My idea is that the photon is part of the fractal of creation including life.
I see the photon as an 'infinite fractal' in which our dreams our thoughts, our souls play a role.
When Jesus died on the Cross He gave up the Spirit; it was His last conscious act before death. After this He was dead on the Cross. He gave up His Spirit. We could interpret this as perhaps some very tiny part of His Being, His Soul.
Yes, the people have the soul due to the explanations and reasons presented by the philosophers as follows:
1-The existence of the soul
All Muslim philosophers concerned themselves with the subject of the soul. The most detailed and most important works on this subject are those of al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd. Muslim philosophers recognized that the first issue, that confronts the human mind with regard to the soul is its existence. That is why, at the very beginning of his inquiry about the soul inal-Shifa’(Healing), Ibn Sina asserts that we infer the existence of the soul from the fact that we observe bodies that perform certain acts with some degree of will. These acts are exemplified in taking nourishment, growing, reproducing, moving and perceiving. Since these acts do not belong to the nature of bodies, for this nature is devoid of will, they must belong to a principle they have other than bodies. This principle is what is called ‘soul’.
This argument is intended to prove the existence of the animal soul, which includes the plant soul. The soul is the source of acts performed by the will, not inasmuch as it is ‘a substance’ (an independent entity), but inasmuch as it is ‘the principle of such acts’. The rational soul, on the other hand, need not look outside itself to infer its existence. It is aware of its existence with immediacy, that is, without any instruments. Ibn Sina’s example of the suspended man is intended to prove that the rational soul is aware of itself apart from any body. His argument boils down to the view that, even if the adult rational soul is not aware of anything material, not even its body, it remains aware of its own existence.
2-The nature of the soul While Islam made it incumbent on Muslim philosophers to occupy themselves extensively with the study of the soul and to make certain statements that in some cases appear consistent with Islamic beliefs, Greek philosophy had the upper hand in forming the real convictions of Muslim philosophers with regard to the nature of the soul. Unless otherwise specified, reference to :he soul here is limited to the terrestrial soul to the exclusion of the celestial one, since Muslim philosophers concerned themselves primarily with the former. It must be pointed out at the outset that ‘soul’.(nafs)was used in more than one sense in Islamic philosophy; the term was used to refer to the plant or vegetative part of a living being, the animal or sensitive part, the rational part and finally the totality of all three parts. The first two are the non-rational soul and the totality is the human soul. To add to the confusion, ‘human soul’ is used only in the sense of this fourth type of soul. The plant, animal and; rational souls are also called powers or parts of the; soul. Only from the context can one understand, whether a Muslim philosopher was using ‘soul’ in the broad sense to mean the human soul (the totality of the parts of the soul), or in the narrow sense to mean a specific part of the human soul.
Inasmuch as it has a certain relation to a body, the soul is a form for that body, that is, the perfection of that body. It is a form because a natural body is composed of matter and form, which in the case of animals are body and soul. Since it has been shown that the soul is the source of will and therefore is not matter, it remains a form. Perfection is of two types, primary and secondary. A primary perfection is what makes a thing actually a species, as shape does for the sword, or a genus as sensation and-movement do for animals. A secondary perfection is an act necessitated by the nature of the species or genus, such as cutting for the sword and touching for animal. The soul is a primary perfection of a natural body capable of performing the secondary perfections necessitated by this primary perfection. Together with its body, the soul constitutes a material substance. This substance can be the subject of plant, animal or human life.
The soul is a perfection inasmuch as it makes a natural body into a plant, an animal or a rational being. However, to define the soul as a perfection does not give us a clue as to what the soul is in itself, but only inasmuch as it has a relation to the body. The body is, therefore, an essential element in the definition of the soul. Without relating to a body, the thing we call ‘soul’ is not a soul and does not require the body as an essential part of its definition. Note, however, that in spite of this assertion, perhaps for the lack of any better term, Muslim philosophers use ‘soul’ also to refer to the rational soul after it separates from the body and reaches a complete state of purity from matter.
In its first or lowest stages of relating to the body, the soul is the plant soul, which is a primary perfection for an organic natural body inasmuch as this body can take nourishment, grow and reproduce. The plant soul is the power human beings and other animals share with plants. If the body with a soul is an animal, the soul develops into the animal soul, which is a primary perfection for an organic natural body inasmuch as this body has sensation and movement through will. While this soul includes the plant soul, it has also a sensitive power and a locomotive one. The sensitive power has both external and internal senses. The external senses are, in priority of existence, touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight. The first three are said to be necessary for survival and the last two for well being. InTalkhis kitab an-nafs(Middle Commentary on Aristotle’sOn the Soul),IBN RUSHD (3) asserts that the five external senses may be in potentiality, as in infancy and sleep, or in actuality, as in daily seeing or hearing. He also argues that there cannot be any external sense other than these five because there would be no function for it, since there is no external sensation other than the objects of the five senses mentioned above. Most Muslim philosophers mention three types of internal senses: common sense, imagination and memory. IBN SINA (3) enumerates five internal senses: common sense, representational power, imagination, estimative power and memory. On the whole, the philosophers agree on the function of the common sense, imagination and memory; the function that Ibn Sina limits to the representational and estimative powers, other Muslim philosophers allocate to the imagination.
The common sense is an internal power in which all the objects of the external senses are collected. Contrary to the external senses, which can grasp only one type of sensation, as sight grasps light and hearing grasps sound, the common sense can grasp all external sensations, such as that honey is of such and such a colour, texture and smell. The representational power preserves the sensations of the common sense even after sensible things disappear. The imagination selects at will to combine some of the objects of the representational power with each other and to separate the rest. It makes its judgment about external things, but in the absence of these things. That is why it functions best when the external senses, which represent external things, are not at work, as in sleep. Ibn Rushd points out that animals such as worms and flies that do not act except in the presence of sensible things are devoid of imagination. The imagination is called such inasmuch as it is an animal instrument; it is called cognitive inasmuch as it is a rational instrument. The estimative power grasps non-sensible notions of sensible things, such as the sheep’s notion that the wolf is to be avoided. This notion is about a sensible thing but is not grasped through the external senses, as is the colour or shape of a wolf. Memory preserves the notions of the estimative power. The imagination acts on the objects of memory in the same way it acts on those of the representational powers. Like the objects of the external senses, those of the internal senses are particular and material. The difference is that they can be experienced in the absence of external things and are to some degree abstracted from matter.
The locomotive power branches into that which causes movement and that which actually moves. The former, the desiderative power, subdivides into the appetitive and the irascible. The appetitive causes movement toward what is imagined to be necessary or beneficial in the pursuit of pleasure. The irascible causes avoidance of what is imagined to be harmful or an impediment in the pursuit of dominance. The power that actually moves uses the nerves to relax the muscles at the demands of the appetitive power or tighten them at the demands of the irascible one.
3- The rational soul
The rational soul, which is defined as a primary perfection for an organic natural body inasmuch as this body can act by rational choice and grasp the universals, is divided into the practical and the theoretical intellects. The practical intellect seeks knowledge in order to act in accordance with the good in its individual body, its family and its state. It must, therefore, know the principles for properly managing the body, the family and the state, that is, ethics, home management and politics. The practical intellect is the rational soul turning its face downward. The function of the theoretical intellect is to know just for the sake of having the universals (the realities or natures of things). Some of these natures, such as God and the intellect, cannot attach to movement; knowledge of them is metaphysics. Other natures, such as unity, can attach to movement but do not; knowledge of them is mathematics. Still other natures, such as humanity and squareness, can attach to movement either in reality and thought, such as humanity, or in reality but not in thought, such as squareness. Knowledge of these is physics.
The theoretical intellect is the rational soul with its face upward. The practical intellect looks up to the theoretical one and moves its body accordingly. In this, the practical intellect is similar to :the celestial soul that looks up to the intellect of its sphere and moves its sphere accordingly. Thus, like .the celestial soul, the practical intellect is the link between intellect as such and matter.
On the whole, Muslim philosophers followed al-Kindi’s division of the theoretical intellect into the material intellect(al-‘aql al-hayulant),the habitual intellect(al-‘agl bil-malaka),the actual intellect(al-‘aql bi’!-fi’band the acquired intellect’ (al-‘aql al-mustafad). The material intellect is a blank slate with the potentiality for grasping the intelligible forms or universals. Ibn Sina points out that it is referred to as material, not because it is actually material but because it resembles matter in accepting the form. The habitual intellect grasps the universals, as one acquires the skill to write; in other words, this intellect has the ability to use the universals but does not always do so. The actual intellect grasps the universals in actuality and is always ready to use them. While Muslim philosophers differed slightly with regard to their accounts of the acquired intellect, their general view is that it is the highest human state, the point of contact with the divine, the agent intellect (the intelligence of the moon, the lowest celestial intellect), which makes it possible for the theoretical intellect to acquire the universals in the purest form (see EPISTEMOLOGY IN ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY 4).
Source:
http://islamportal.net/article/s...
Beemnut Kassahun
U gave excellent explanation of how Muslim philosophers study the soul, but U did not answer the question of how the soul is created.
the person who believes on almighty and his holy book will get the answer very easily
I agree with all who commented that the soul starts developing at conception by a woman.
"You can close your eyes if you do not want to see something, but you can not close your heart if you do not want to feel something."
Johnny Depp
I can put a humble request. Kindly go through the book named "Bhogobodgita" which is a part of Epic Mahabharata.
If we do not want a religious explanation, I shall tell that soul is our good thinking, morality, Humanity and Virtue.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology