Pedagogical Materials & Philosophical Resources on the Soul: https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/store/philosop-her?search=soul

Rebecca, love it but I'm not sure what use exactly it is to me,

I would link the concept of the soul to the recounted experiences of people who experienced NDEs. The accounts that are recorded from ancient to contemporary sources and across cultures, western, eastern and all others, have remarkable similarities. It is possible to find differences, but the commonalities, in the opinion of most, if not all, researchers outweigh them. Thus, these experiences, which remain, despite the claims of skeptics, inexplicable, seem the best source, a well-known and documented source as opposed to speculation regarding equalizing social status. And given the connection between NDEs and reincarnation, often overlooked, there is no necessary "overcrowding" in the afterlife. Rather individual souls return to the physical as often as they feel necessary in order to learn lessons available only in the physical.

The brain is not the container for the soul? You are not a body with a soul, you ARE a soul with a body. The point is to live and love, I think higher states of being are constantly misunderstood and misrepresented in religion and academia because it's not something that can be quantified or measured, it just is and isn't simultaneously. Lived experience is the true quantifier of the soul.

William, although there is credence here, simple narrative would be enough or should be if there were any in the ancient world. In Sumerian religion even the gods died, were capable of being killed by other 'supernatural' creatures. As powerful as the Greek gods were they were vulnerable. The ever-living god of the Jews arrived late.

I do not deny your claims, but Socrates defined the soul in several works of Plato, clearly intending it to be restricted, and, surely, his invention. By his time, Eyptians had had the soul for millennium and made it into a middle class but not peasant trait. In the ancient world you needed to be powerful in this world to live forever in the next, but still the living forever was dependent on being both a member of the aristocracy and elevation to god status.

Apostle Paul has a discourse of justifying the soul in the book of Romans in the New Testament. Justification in faith is via beleiving instead of good works. And justification is grace rahter than material rewards.

Paul,

Thanks but I cannot see how that proves the soul just a reason why it should be. Be and act nice and get a soul?

Although the contributions here are great, they simply re-establish the old views without dealing with the contradictions I pose.

What does it mean for consciousness to have a soul, if the possibility of being virtuous or corrupt to some degree does not exist? If the impossibility of its transfinite being entails it is contingent, being conscious is not a process but just an object. Object ontology, contradicts any reason for its intelligibility.

Paul, your logical consequence revolves around changing the nature of the soul, surely? Why should the soul necessarily be virtuous for unless, certainly the Greeks allowed ethics as part of the soul within its intellectual compass, and can I have an elaboration of this movement, of consciousness as a part of soul, and from consciousness to being an object.

Whichever way you look at it although consciousness can and must (I assume) be part of a soul the Greeks did not create an either or situation. I can see nevertheless the soul as part of a greater conscious but it is or was at the same time entire.

These are intellectual constructs on what is perhaps merely inbibing ethics or consciousness within a purposeful abstract, thereby arguing on constructs that do not have to exist.

I think that a large part of the problem inherent in this discussion is the question of, just what is a "soul". Depending on how one defines it, some answers make more or less sense. Can "soul" be differentiated from "consciousness" for example. Are "souls" restricted to just humans or do other entities have them also? Is a "soul" even definable in existent human speech or is it something beyond our existing language.

From a philosophical perspective, “justifying the soul” often involves exploring its nature, existence, and potential immortality. Plato, for instance, argued that the soul is immaterial, simple, and imperishable, presenting it as the essence of life itself. His reasoning included the soul’s connection to eternal forms and its pre-existence before embodiment, suggesting its survival beyond death. However, critics like Cebes questioned these claims, proposing that even something seemingly enduring could eventually perish.

From a psychological viewpoint, the soul can be interpreted metaphorically as the self or consciousness. Modern psychology often focuses on materialist explanations of identity, linking mental processes to brain activity. Yet, the concept of the soul persists symbolically in discussions about personal meaning, morality, and existential purpose

Well if Socrates invented the soul he could and did determine what it consisted of. Yes, Aristotle followed up in determining its nature but we are left with a proposition normally employed to indicate forces greater and more consistent than actuality. Having a soul means the retention of identity after death but there is no reason why we should, beyond the confusion of us losing our identity forever. The soul preserves our identity resolving problems with individual experience and authenticity.

If individuality is an exaggerated phenomenon then our losing our identity is overthought out and like Socrates invention concerns his fear of the eradication of the self and the necessary rationalising of its continuance. This concerns experience and our understanding of phenomena.

You suggest that the idea of an immortal soul was borrowed from Ancient Egypt, where only the elite were initially granted eternal life among the gods. This notion resonates with my own thoughts on the nature of the soul.

Your critique of the concept of an eternal soul as potentially limiting our understanding of human nature and our purposes is well-taken. In my own work, I do argue that the soul is not a separate entity from the body but rather an integral part of it. I believe that the soul is the form of the body, and its purpose is to actualize the body's potential.

You also point out the potential drawbacks of an overcrowded firmament, where the idea of an eternal soul may lead to a lack of accountability in this life, as individuals may rely on a promised afterlife rather than taking responsibility for their actions in the present. This concern is in line with my own emphasis on the importance of living a virtuous life.

Your suggestion that the concept of an eternal soul may limit our investigation into diseases such as brain disorders and our understanding of human nature is a valid one. As a scientist, I do recognize importance of empirical observation and the study of natural phenomena in understanding the human condition.

While I do not entirely reject the idea of an immortal soul, I do agree Stanley Wilkin that it must be considered in the context of our understanding of human nature and our purposes in this life.

Ref/

Aphorisms By Hippocrates Written 400 B.C.E

The existence of the soul is a mystery Zoncita D. Norman that seems to transcend the limitations of human understanding. I have distinguished between two types of knowledge: the knowledge of the world of sense experience, which can be grasped through reason and observation, and the knowledge of the world of spiritual realities, which can only be intuited through faith and contemplation. The soul, in this understanding, is a reality that goes well beyond the full reach of our rational faculties, and can only be known through the Higher Intellect, which is the faculty of prophetic intuition; it is a mystery that can only be approached through the faculty of intuition, which allows us to glimpse the sublime and the infinite. May we continue to ponder this great mystery, and may our contemplation of it lead us to a deeper appreciation of the divine wisdom that underlies all of existence.

Paul Kuei-chi Tseng

What the long ago apostle said was flim-flam, a means of bringing order to an idea rather than reason. If I called this typical Christian transactionalism. do you think that is justified?

Stephen, I am not against mystery but too much of it dulls my brain. I certainly believe that, contrary to many's belief we remain without genuine knowledge about ourselves and the soul is a kind of white rabbit for us to chase after convinced that in many ways an insignificant creature (better when we function as groups) has a place alongside the gods. Everyone read the Gilgamesh Epic written 4000 years ago that concerns a destructive king convinced he too belongs with the gods, but in the end accepts he will die , thereby he can never be a god. There was and remains separation. We may never walk amongst the stars, as it were, but we do ok......

Stephen,

The Egyptian rulers were assumed to be gods, although it was probably only to enable their rule and later they were, or seem to have been coupled with Ra. The Ra business I find very philosophical and although it presented its ideas concretely, and curiously symbolically, an object referenced symbolically, it seems the height of ancient Egyptian culture. Sporadically, kings were gods. But after the period of Middle Eastern rule mainly in the estuary a middle class rose and they claimed ever lasting life through the process of mumification.

Probably, but not proven, the Greeks absorbed and changed Egyptian ideas.

I tend to point out that much in Egypt before its decline spread ideas throughout the region.

I left out one important factor, relevant now in this discussion on the soul and everlasting life.

For ancient people, not just the Egyptians but specifically them here. The Middle class built tombs, houses for the dead, and inside the portals were biographies of the dead person. Reading this extended their life in death as it evoked memories of the dead. This was the afterlife, memories of them in others. Socrates' conceit extended memory forever, and in the written word.

Exercise: when you were younger you knew celebrities of the time. For years you recalled them vividly. Actors, politicians, etc. But the younger generation would probably have no recognition of people who were celebrated then, indeed very famous. Repetition gives famous people, in the media at least, a prolonged life.

Have written a lot about the connection between the soul and the body. I have described how the soul's faculties, such as the rational faculty, the imaginative faculty, and the appetitive faculty, are all closely tied to the body's physical functions, such as digestion, respiration, and circulation.

I draw an analogy between the soul and the eye. Just as the eye is the organ that perceives light and color, the soul is the entity that perceives and understands the world around us. It is the seat of our intellect, our will, and our emotions, and it is what enables us to strive for perfection and to achieve our full potential ! According to my understanding, the soul is not a physical entity in the classical sense, but rather a spiritual substance that animates the body. It is the form that gives life and movement to the material body, much like the way a musician brings a musical instrument to life with their skillful playing. In my view, the soul is composed of two parts: the rational soul, which is the seat of intellect and wisdom, and the animal soul, which is responsible for the basic functions of life. The rational soul is eternal and imperishable, and it is this part of the soul that allows us to achieve spiritual perfection and oneness. The soul is the essence of a human being, imo: the nature of the soul and its relationship to creation is a profound mystery, and one that requires careful consideration and contemplation: The truth is not a thing that can be grasped by the hand, but it is a thing that can be grasped by the mind. In this sense, all human souls are eternal, but not in the sense that they have existed from eternity past. Instead, they are eternal in the sense that they will exist for eternity future, and will ultimately be united with the eternal upper force in a state of perfect knowledge and understanding.

Stephen,

You have elaborated on the ideal form, taking from Socrates.

Yes. Stanley Wilkin I have endeavored to reconcile the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, including Socrates, with the historically dominant teachings of the Hebrew tradition.

As you know, Socrates posited that the true and eternal reality lies not in the physical world, but in the realm of abstract Forms or Ideas. He argued that the sensory world is mere appearance, whereas the world of Forms is the true reality. I, in turn, have built upon this foundation, incorporating it into my own philosophical framework.

In my view, the ideal form represents the ultimate reality, the unchanging and eternal essence that underlies the fleeting, imperfect world we experience through our senses. This concept is particularly relevant to my understanding of God, whom I conceive as the ultimate, unchanging, and perfect Form, the source of all being and wisdom.

By embracing the idea of the ideal form, I aim to provide a deeper understanding of the nature of reality, the human condition, and our relationship with the divine. Through this lens, I seek to illuminate the path to wisdom, guiding those who are perplexed by the complexities of existence towards a more profound comprehension of the world and our place within it.

PS (!)

The Sadducees, for example, refused to go beyond the written Torah and thus, unlike the Pharisees, denied the immortality of the soul and bodily resurrection after death. According to Josephus, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal, and the souls of good people would be resurrected or reincarnated and "pass into other bodies," while "the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment." Paul the Apostle declared himself to be a Pharisee, even after his belief in Jesus. The Sadducees were mostly destroyed during the Jewish Revolt. Modern-day Judaism has, therefore, much more in common with the Pharisees.

Rene Descartes has a lot to answer for.

Stephen,

I will not push back against your ideas, as actually I do not know...but...

For me, Socrates taught the ideal form to keep in with his aristocratic friends. By throwing everything into the abstract he thereby failed and avoided dealing with the here and now, such as slavery and the internal problems of Athens. Politics perhaps disguised as philosophy. There were other thinkers who dealt directly with divisions in Athenian society, but academics prefer Socrates. Anyway, didn't Socrates devise his theory of an afterlife while contemplating his own death! Anyway again, he took the theory from other cultures, such as Egypt.

Yes the Pharisees survived as a powerful middleclass group within Jewish society, but Judaism was itself a continuation of Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian cultures as Islam was, in its present form, an offshoot of Persian culture.

Is the ideal form a way of avoiding reality or an extension of knowledge? OK, not that simple as the ideal form can drive and create reality, even as a social tool.

As I ponder your Stanley Wilkin thoughts, I am reminded of the complexities and nuances that underlie the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Indeed, Socrates' method of abstract thinking, which you astutely observe may have been a means of avoiding the mundane concerns of his time, is a hallmark of his philosophical approach. His focus on the ideal form, as you so aptly put it, can be seen as a way of transcending the particularities of the physical world and tapping into the eternal and the universal. And yet, as you also note, this approach can be seen as a way of sidestepping the pressing issues of his day, such as slavery and social inequality.

As a scientist and philosopher, I am drawn to the parallels you draw between the evolution of Judaism and other ancient cultures, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, and Babylonian. The idea that Judaism, like Islam, is part of a broader cultural continuum, with roots and influences that stretch back to ancient civilizations, is a notion that resonates deeply with my own understanding of the development of human knowledge and wisdom.

Now, regarding the ideal form, I must say that I agree with you that it is not a simple matter of either avoiding reality or extending knowledge. The ideal form, as conceived by Socrates and other philosophers, can indeed serve as a powerful tool for shaping reality and driving human understanding forward. I often grappled with the relationship between the abstract and the concrete, the universal and the particular, and the ways in which human knowledge and understanding can be advanced through the pursuit of the ideal form:

the ideal form can be seen as a means of capturing the essence of reality, of distilling the underlying principles and patterns that govern the world, and of using this understanding to create new possibilities and new realities. As you so eloquently put it, the ideal form can "drive and create reality, even as a social tool." It is the beauty and the power of human thought, which can shape and reshape the world, even as it seeks to understand it.

The historical attribution of the soul concept to Socrates, while significant for Western philosophy, represents only a fragment of a much broader cultural tapestry. While the discussion draws an interesting parallel with Ancient Egyptian beliefs, I find this comparison somewhat reductionist. The evolution of soul concepts across civilizations demonstrates far more complexity, with various cultures developing sophisticated understandings of consciousness, immortality, and human essence that often transcended simple social hierarchies.

The observation about social stratification in relation to soul beliefs raises compelling points about power structures and religious institutions. However, I believe it's crucial to recognize how these concepts evolved over time. The democratization of salvation and spiritual equality in later religious movements significantly transformed these earlier hierarchical models, though admittedly often maintaining other forms of social control.

Modern neuroscience indeed presents significant challenges to traditional concepts of the soul, particularly through our growing understanding of consciousness, personality, and cognitive decline. The reality of neurodegenerative diseases starkly illustrates the intimate connection between brain function and what we consider personal identity.

Yet, I believe this scientific understanding doesn't necessarily negate all spiritual or philosophical interpretations of human consciousness and experience.

The argument that soul beliefs inherently limit scientific investigation or ethical behavior appears oversimplified. Throughout history, many scientists have maintained religious or spiritual beliefs while advancing scientific knowledge. The relationship between belief systems and scientific progress is far more complex than simple opposition. Similarly, the suggestion that removing soul beliefs would automatically lead to better ethical behavior or scientific advancement overlooks the multifaceted nature of human motivation and moral reasoning.

I propose that a more nuanced approach is necessary. We can acknowledge human limitations and pursue scientific understanding while respecting the diverse ways people find meaning in existence. The challenge lies not in dismissing soul concepts entirely but in understanding how different belief systems can coexist with scientific inquiry and ethical behavior. The pursuit of knowledge and moral action need not depend on either accepting or rejecting traditional soul concepts.

While the discussion raises valid concerns about how soul concepts might be misused or limit human understanding, I believe the relationship between spiritual beliefs, scientific progress, and ethical behavior deserves more careful consideration. The path forward likely lies in finding ways to maintain rigorous scientific inquiry and promote ethical behavior while acknowledging the complex ways humans construct meaning and understanding in their lives.

Romy,

While, its good to have this in one statement, I think that everything you've said can be found in one comment by someone or another. Acknowledging that is always useful, although you seem not to have noticed.

For what it's worth, I believe that Ancient Athenian claims to originality should be taken lightly as they simply, like their contemporaries,the Jewish writers, borrowed extensively, often without knowing. As you know I'm sure, the fruits of the Axial Age..... My nuanced view coming up soon!

Stephen

The view that all reality or a part is in the mind, while a natural response to the actual phenomenon or phenomena, can be denied by seeing the mind as responding and that the Plato (naunced-many, Romy) and Socratic understandings see the image of a horse and believe it is a real horse. That the imagined is substantial. Nevertheless, I too see the process as complicated and tangled.

Like you, I have been working on this issue for years and play with it in many of my essays. How homo sapiens constructed large cities as well as large deities, and the information on this can be found in the early Sumerian narratives (I'll naunce that later, Romy. All in good time.) And indeed in even earlier cultures that did not acquire the 'civilised' notation but created symbolic structures. That these issues and ideas are not subjects of the human mind but consequences of its operations and, indeed, parts of general cultural developments.

That there are ongoing feedback issues needs to be accepted!!!

Stanley, I suspect that what Plato and Socrates, among others, meant when they referenced that which is not physical to be more real than the physical is the same observation that has been made by numerous people living today. That when they have the experience of an NDE it not only reinforces the concept of some aspect of an individual that exists independently from the physical but also that this non-physical reality seems to be far more real than the physical realm does. And since NDE's seem to be consistent across both time and culture, to argue that this perception is wrong rapidly becomes the contention that needs to be supported as opposed to the NDE'ers claims.

William,

I'm genuinely and generally opposed (but not rejecting) to such explanations as they provide only apparent evidence for a phenomenon, especially for those we perceive as outside ourselves but somehow also connected. If our brains or minds formulate it seems unlikely to be by themselves and our long and fascinating history of gods remains interesting. My view here is that the early gods were a theatre offering a reflective mirror to early peoples with narratives often written by scribes. In this way, they were capable of development, but nevertheless I insist on the loop back between observer and objects to create the very creative phenomenon that has served us well.

I do not know-this is only a theory, but I'm still unconvinced by the mind activity, respectful of nothing other than the mind, postulated here. There is a religious concept behind this thinking.

Stephan,

Nickolas Rose (Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, a)expresses many of my views regarding psychology and I suspect psychiatry, but here I am only concerned with his position regarding the matters discussed here.

He holds that personhood, while part of long discussion, reflects on experience but is not experience and therefore experience is constructed in view of human words, etc, with reference to human personhood. Its objectification through the Self. So the soul is merely an expression.

Although I lost the book I was using online, the one above is adequate.

The nature of knowledge is here paramount, in that the object is not real or absolute but a result of personhood and its object reflecting on experience.

Stanley Wilkin

I appreciate your observation, but I must respectfully challenge your perspective. While consolidating ideas into one statement can be valuable, simply pointing out that these thoughts exist elsewhere doesn't diminish their significance or the importance of bringing them together coherently.

The real value lies in how we synthesize and contextualize these ideas.

Regarding your point about Ancient Athenians, I find your assessment somewhat oversimplified. While it's true that they, like other civilizations, borrowed concepts and ideas, characterizing this as "borrowing extensively" without acknowledgment misses several crucial points.

First, cultural exchange and adaptation were fundamental aspects of ancient civilizations, not signs of lack of originality. Second, the Athenians often transformed and developed borrowed concepts into entirely new philosophical and political frameworks.

The comparison with Jewish writers is particularly interesting, but I think it requires more nuance. Both cultures were actually engaged in complex processes of cultural synthesis, innovation, and preservation. During the Axial Age, this wasn't simple borrowing--it was a sophisticated process of cultural evolution and intellectual development.

I look forward to hearing your nuanced view, but I believe we should be cautious about dismissing ancient contributions simply because they built upon existing ideas.

After all, isn't that how human knowledge and civilization have always progressed?

Romy,

I made no assessment of Athenian philosophers, merely acknowledged one part of their production, and my knowledge of the Axial Age is far superior to your limp, rhetorical observations. You merely take positions in order to impress others, but you say nothing. You are merely attempting to convince that you have knowledge that seems altogether lacking. Now, you could engage in proper communication instead of actually telling others how good you are in comparison, making credible deductions rather than just statements a pregraduate is aware of but tinged with the same undergraduate's sense of superiority.

Debate is not about drawing attention to yourself. It's about having something to say and paying proper attention to what others say! I hate my time being wasted by flagrant egotism because the ability that accompanies it is merely wafer-thin. Think of Trump rather than Obama. I'm the greatest expressed through baby talk!

Romy,

One last. You provide no evidence for anything you write while largely distorting what others write. Who on earth do you think you are?

Learn about the necessities and means of debating and offer evidence!

It occurred to me, that is I remembered, a concern I think of Aristotle's about sudden death.

One moment there is life, then wham its all gone. Where did it go? Where has it gone? Nothing surely simply stops existing (or does it?) Does reflection and awareness simply vanish forever?

The solution was the soul, which allows human identity to continue against all the evidence.

Suppose the soul entails how woke or dope the transfinite identity of conscious is. The possibility of its recursion entails it either ascends to a higher form of being, or by corruption dissipates into oblivion. A kind of Nietzschean decent of recursion into nothingness. Prove it otherwise ?

Paul, thanks, the point of Aristotle, if I remember it correctly, was one of energy. Something that people consider now.

But it's the case that we have created symbolic information on death rather than consider, say, dissipation and decay. My recent work looks at the possible mistaken belief in individuality, thereby proposing another solution. If belief in individuality fades, then so should belief in the soul.

Stanley, you find the solution to the question of reflection and awareness vanishing to be the soul, "against all the evidence". Might I inquire as to what "evidence" you possess to argue against the continuity of refection and awareness? Numerous NDE accounts include veridical information that cannot be explained. The information was simply not available to the experiencer at the time they claim to have obtained it, sometimes occurring at a distance of well over a hundred miles and not available to anyone at the physical location of the reporter, in at least one case, attempts had been made to pass along the information, but all attempts had been directed at the wrong location and thus never delivered. How then was the experiencer able to be the first to deliver the information, only to be corrected at first before those correcting learned that the information was in fact accurate. The experiencer was in a coma, woke up and delivered accurate, but unbelieved information of an event that occurred some 200 miles away while they were in a coma, and those who "corrected" the experiencer learned the information was accurate a couple hours later.

A non-physical aspect of life/personhood explains many things far better than does a purely materialistic worldview. If that non-physical aspect gets called a "soul", that is just the term being used, much like calling the means by which many people travel across the ground at a high rate of speed for many miles an automobile or car.

William, where did I say that? I made no such comment, but I did refer to a reflexive loop.

Stanley, in your first post of today you said, "The solution was the soul, which allows human identity to continue against all the evidence."

Now I might have misinterpreted your point, that is always possible, but it was your words.

William, sorry i didnt read the whole comment, but nevertheless, the stance you reference is not mine.

Stanley, I don’t doubt the veracity of your conditional: ‘if belief in individuality fades, so should belief in the soul.’ but if belief is just an image of being, why should it transcend the concept of it? Being or even the priors that are posteriori to it doesn’t constitute the foundaof the categories manifold.

You have me thinking here William Mayor about Shapeshifters through the ages - ancient civilizations to the present day. Practices and beliefs that have stood the test of time and argue against the gross material plain of Enlightenment thought.

Paul,

The fact is belief in the soul is, within the breadth of civilisation, recent. And it came at a specific point in civilised development. While I am aware of early burial practices that indicate the soul in other times, that probably is not the case. Honouring a dead leader is or was simply that and we still do it in other ways. Preserving memory and protecting that preservation under mounds is little different to creating statures or Arc de Triumph.

The understanding up until well Socrates if you wish is the one I have given. Mentioning of a person, such as autobiographies written on tombs, provided sustenance to the wraith. But this is not a soul. Enkidu in Gilgamesh fades away as was thought all souls did. There was not eternal life.

Justifying the soul is primarily a philosophical and metaphysical project: arguments appeal to first-person subjectivity (phenomenology), moral agency (responsibility and personhood), religious traditions (immortality and divine grounding), or dualist/neuroscientific debates about consciousness; none yields a universally accepted proof, so “justification” usually rests on which explanatory virtues (moral significance, explanatory depth, experiential immediacy) you prioritize.