[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 33 KB, 400x400, 75B0A70F-DAE9-4C9C-B11F-8A4EDAF4701F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11335738 No.11335738 [Reply] [Original]

Is there such a thing as a Soul?

>> No.11335755

>>11335738
im curious what should i read
>inb4 the Bible already did

>> No.11335757

There are things that transcend normal human perception which go unnamed due to our inability to understand or define them, so to argue the legitimacy of these phenomena is futile

>> No.11335826

No, it's a really old holdover to describe what animates a body. Its use is metaphorical, and its metaphysical use is groundless mythopoeism.

>> No.11335849

>>11335738
Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self?
The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in
the relation which accounts for it that the relation relates itself to its
own self; the self is not the relation but consists in the fact that the
relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite
and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and
necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between
two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.
In the relation between two, the relation is the third term as a negative
unity, and the two relate themselves to the relation, and in the relation
to the relation; such a relation is that between soul and body, when
man is regarded as soul. If on the contrary the relation relates itself to
its own self, the relation is then the positive third term, and this is the
self.

>> No.11335861

>>11335849
Fuck off kiki

>> No.11335947

>>11335738
Yeah, it's a hormone that's secreted by the pituitary gland. It all dies once the body dies though.

>> No.11335961

>>11335757
How do you know this, though?

>> No.11335967

>>11335738
there isnt

>> No.11335974

Define soul

>> No.11335982
File: 128 KB, 888x888, Kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11335982

>>11335961
SHIT THE FUCK UP JACOBI REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.11336038

>>11335738

"There's no such thing as a soul" - Zero, Drakengard 3

>> No.11336134

>>11335826
Aristotle had a concept of the soul as animating principle 2,500 years ago. Its metaphysical use is certainly not groundless, since it refers to the centrality of my experience, which is presupposed by any and all attempts to reduce it.

>> No.11336146

>>11336134
But that only proves the subject, not a soul.

>> No.11336155

>>11336146
The soul as animating principle is proven directly by the fact that my felt continuity of self persists through the progressive replacement of my atoms over time. This principle in others, its ideality, is the soul (the "Chris-ness" of my friend Chris, for example).

There is a what-ness of things I must attribute to their properties as a whole

>> No.11337146

>>11335738
there is such a thing as an assoul. they're all over the place.

>> No.11337152
File: 48 KB, 200x200, wat_gabe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11337152

>>11335757
>There are things that transcend normal human perception which go unnamed due to our inability to understand or define them, so to argue the legitimacy of these phenomena is futile


name three of them.

> i can't, they're ineffable, invisible and indescribable!

you can go now.

>> No.11337189

>>11337152
you’re putting too much faith in language

>> No.11337194
File: 12 KB, 274x273, 1420659754854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11337194

>>11336155

>setting yourself up for the pantheism merry-go-round

>> No.11337235

>>11337152
they're probably "nameable" but with bad vocabulary
we can describe what we can't integrate into our (insufficient) empirical models only from the cynosures of that insufficient model, so it sounds like circular aping ("ineffable, invisible!") until someone gives it useful meaning (like, uh, newton & gravity or something)
it's why rimbaud said poets gotta transcend the senses to find new meanings

>> No.11337241

>>11335738
It’s a genre of music, quite popular in ye olden days. >>/mu/
As a metaphysical idea >>/his/ or possibly >>/sci/

>> No.11337246

>>11337194
>Aquinas was a pantheist

Stop.

>> No.11337252

>>11337235
>so it sounds like circular aping ("ineffable, invisible!") until someone gives it useful meaning (like, uh, newton & gravity or something)

The fact that are long, mathetical models of gravity sort of hints at our ability to understand and define them though doesn't it?

>> No.11337258

>>11337152
ethics, love, and beauty

>> No.11337267

>>11337252
yeah
maybe that's a bad example, but i meant prior to the existence of those models
not much of a physics historian but i don't think bruno had mathematical models of gravity in his hermetic charts
until someone like newton births new models we're burdened with an insufficient vocabulary to define certain 'invisible' phenomena
didn't Bedau say that's something like the magic of emergence?

>> No.11337298

>>11337267
I imagine there was plenty of people who used ideas of abstract concepts to prove points - which are then later shown to be physical phenomena (or based on) that exist. Kant's babbling about time is a perfect example.

It's also a fair leap of faith to extend that to other things that haven't been shown to exist. Though I agree it's poiuntless to argue about their legitimacy.

>> No.11337323

>>11337252
As someone that actually studies physics and is big into gravity and relativity, the funny part is that there still is no single consistent definition of it. There are many mathematical descriptions, and several models that it can be used under, but each is situationally dependent and none work for all possible cases.

>> No.11337357

>>11335755
try reading it again without your fedora on

>> No.11337388

>>11337357
What were your insights from the bible anon?