[ 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: 19 KB, 480x271, kylie-jenner-makeup-1517919239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14758464 No.14758464 [Reply] [Original]

What are some clear arguments for the existence of the soul? I don't want to read anything prior to the 20th century or something difficult like Hegel.

>> No.14758478

>argument
do not be a rationalist, do not trust them. Empiricism is goat

>> No.14758535

>>14758478
This. Read about NDE’s, OBE’s, and reincarnation. There is a ton of experiential data proving the existence of the soul. Arguments prove nothing.

>> No.14758659

>>14758535
>There is a ton of experiential data proving the existence of the soul.
Example?

>> No.14758702
File: 36 KB, 710x375, varg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14758702

kys and find out
reincarnation

>> No.14758715
File: 513 KB, 720x960, 1581636677117.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14758715

>>14758464
Imagine your wife or beloved child dies. Do you think if technology allows to revive them from the dead, same genes and all, an exact clone, that they would be the exact same person? The answer is no.

>> No.14758725

>>14758659
out of body experiences, near death experiences, and reincarnation...like i said in my post

>> No.14758822

>>14758715
Why wouldn't they be? And what is the soul in this case?

>> No.14758829

>>14758822
>And what is the soul in this case?
it's you. you are not your body. you inhabit your body.

>> No.14759040

>>14758464

>want to learn about a difficult concept
>don't want to be challenged

break free from your bugman spirit

>> No.14759070
File: 121 KB, 710x711, 1559160482504.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14759070

Did you really think posting a picture of Kyle Jenner would get people's attention here?

>> No.14759219

>>14758829
Where does it come from? Where is it while I'm alive? Where does it go when I die?

>> No.14759389

>>14759219
those are questions i don't think we have reliable answers to yet. concepts of space and time become murky once the soul "separates" from the body. just the word "separate" is problematic because it has spacial connotations.

>> No.14760229

>>14759040
idiot

>> No.14760279

>>14759219
>Where does it come from?
from nowhere. it necessarily has been for all eternity.
>Where is it while I'm alive?
everywhere
>Where does it go when I die?
nowhere.

may wanna ask yourself if there are many souls or if there is only one soul.

>> No.14760284
File: 137 KB, 1024x758, Figure-3-1024x758.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14760284

>> No.14760310

>>14758464
There's always a palpable though indiscernible extra something behind everything that's either written or spoken that no language broaches *but* is able to judge. That extra something is the demesne of soul.
One either believes in it or doesn't; it isn't *of itself* a moot subject except (of course) in vain.

>> No.14760348

>>14758725
>out of body experiences, near death experiences
Shit controlled by the brain.
>and reincarnation
Zero proof.

>>14758715
Why wouldn't they be? Aside from the "oh shit, I've been revived" shock.

>>14760279
Well, one soul for everything sounds still somewhat plausible, or at least hard to logically disprove if we put it on a not yet discovered field.

But the whole soul for humans thing sounds so silly. Is it stored in my balls? Does it spawn at the conception? Comes with advanced brain development, if so, what part of it, and would cutting that part remove the soul?

>>14760284
What sort of buzzword galore is this?

>> No.14760379

Grow up. There is no soul. You're not some twelve-dimensional, infinite, timeless being just because you saw it in a dream or a NDE or a DMT trip.

>> No.14760396

LRH is 20th century and very easy to understand, I'd suggest you explore Scientology.

>> No.14760738
File: 318 KB, 640x461, lit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14760738

>>14758464
I will lay out the argument without memes as best to convince the scientismists.

By analogy with mathematics and model theory, first note that one can construct models of outward experience that depend on the existence of the soul (e.g. dualism) and models that reject its existence (e.g. emergentism). In such a situation we say, mathematically, that the truth of a statement "the soul exists" is independent of the axioms of usual outward experience. Turning then to inward experience, we recall that, following Kant, for the understanding everything that is has a cause. Thus, as concerns inward experience, experience itself has a cause, and the cause of inward experience we may profitably term "the soul." From here we may go on to prove the immortality of the soul, &c.

It is much better to arrive at the soul via religious or mystical means, but this rational argument is better than nothing.

>> No.14760767

>>14760348
What is it beyond your language that demands proof, anon? And what is it that 'this entity' hopes to gain should it receive a 'knowledge' it simultaneously is unwilling to possess? Finally, how is evidence even possible for what is in fact your own (perverse) 'belief' in a nonexisting thing? To answer the last question: it's not. Upshot: youre arguing in vain.

>> No.14760805

>>14760738

What is this nonsense? There are no "axioms of outward experience." If so, what are they?

> experience itself has a cause, and the cause of inward experience we may profitably term "the soul.

Or it may be profitably termed - the brain, the nervous system, the human sensory organs. You know, biology - that thing that isn't mystic jibberish.

>> No.14760834

>>14760805
>What is this nonsense? There are no "axioms of outward experience." If so, what are they?
You'll note that this is all by analogy with mathematics, not mathematics itself. By these axioms are simply meant our usual observations of external reality.
>Or it may be profitably termed - the brain, the nervous system, the human sensory organs. You know, biology - that thing that isn't mystic jibberish.
But we've already demonstrated the soul's independence of such external facts.

>> No.14761615

>>14758715
Well, technically you aren't the 'exact same person' from moment to moment either.

You would know that she's a copy, but from her perspective she would be the real deal (and she would be, effectively speaking). Are the copy and original really the same person? Technically no, they don't occupy the same position/state in spacetime, they have their own subjective perspectives etc.... Pragmatically though, a perfect clone (including memories) would not be 'deficient' in any way with respect to the original.

It's an interesting thing to think about, but nowhere is the existence of a 'soul' implied or indicated.

>> No.14761672

>>14760767
That's not how it works. The burden is not upon him to prove a negative, it's on you to prove your positive claim of an existing 'soul'. There is plenty of evidence which backs up the notion that everything ascribed to the 'soul' are products of the brain, while there are only dubious anecdotes supporting your position. So, the argument isn't in vain... It establishes the extremely low probability of you being correct.

Perhaps you should heed your own argument here. If the empirical argument for a 'soul' is so poor that you must resort to faith, then there is little point in philosophically debating it.

>> No.14761731

>>14760834
But you have no way of knowing whether your 'usual observations of external reality' are valid and therefore whether or not the soul is 'independent of any model.'

Therefore, the possibility still remains that any model positing the existence of the soul is simply false.

> But we've already demonstrated the soul's independence of such external facts.

You have done nothing of the sort. You believe it to be true dogmatically.

>> No.14761744

>>14758464

The fact that we understand mathematics.

>> No.14761747

>>14761744
??

>> No.14761778

>>14761747

Mathematical objects don't exist physically, no one ever saw a right triangle, a line etc. Such things bears no meaning in the real world.It isn't either a pure construction of the mind, because the same set of axioms yield the same consequences. Those are objective truths, mathematical theorem are not invented but discovered.

And yet we perceive intuitively these things and moreover they're extremely powerful at describing the universe. Without maths empiricism wouldn't go further as "fire burns" and "water wet". Those facts indicate that there is something in the mind that cannot be reduced to pure physical processes.

>> No.14761806

>>14760348
>>14760379
I didn't realize /lit/ was full of bugmen redditors without soul.

>> No.14761811

>>14761672
>. If the empirical argument for a 'soul' is so poor that you must resort to faith, then there is little point in philosophically debating it.
Not necessarily.

>> No.14761829

>>14761806
>Believes in the soul without any evidence whatsoever because he was told it exists.

Who's the bugman here, Sally?

>> No.14761830

>>14761778
This is more so empirical than a rational explanation for God.

>> No.14761839

>>14761829
You.

>> No.14762612

>>14761672
That's actually my point, as I wasn't specifically debating it, nor did I initiate the 'debate' as it stands, OP did- and it's his 'debate' itself I question.
At the root of his proffered debate is necessarily a belief on his part of nothing; and nothing cannot be 'proved'. He would sidestep the fact however that some belief or other of his own was necessary even *to begin* the debate- as if he were 'immune' and his potential interlocutors were somehow 'infected'. My only point was to show that that's necessarily a false proposition, which it is: he does in fact begin with a belief (or an axiom): he has to, there is no choice. There's no burden on me or anyone else however if what he wants is proof that what he *feels* is a vacuity 'exists' because he has already *decided* that it doesn't.
Even if 'the soul' does exist, it cannot be proved. Like God (or whether or not one has a 'good' woman) it's entirely subject to belief, as are its opposites: no soul, no God, bad woman.
Traditionally the soul's at the root of moral thinking and therefore the basis of free will which both the common and the civil law presuppose fwiw. And I mean 'moral' in its broadest sense to cover all aspects of human behavior.

>> No.14762679

>>14761672
It's really quite simple: what OP wants disproved is his own axiom. That can't be done. The debate itself is vacuous.

>> No.14762689

>>14762612
You cant prove you have a good woman?

>> No.14762835

>>14762689
Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man, or woman?
No, but one can believe it. And that's good enough. What it amounts to is having faith in her. Would you suspend having faith in her (as unnecessary) if it could be proven in some scientific forum that yes, in fact, she is a good woman? No. Hopefully the silliness of this argument is becoming apparent.

>> No.14762987

>>14758715
That isn't just false - it is a perfect demonstration of something that looks like logic but in reality isn't logic at all. It is that quintessential ability of man, to say what he already believes as if it was a conclusion formed of some rational thought, that keep humanity at the sluggish pace in which it is evolving.
I am not mocking you, nor do I hate you. You are me, we are both equally disabled. What a sorrow it is to see it with such clarity.