I wouldn’t worry. In 50 years today’s left wing will be the moderate center. — Joshs

I wasn't worrying. Just stating a fact.

What evidence do you have for this? — Tom Storm

Evidence for what?

but how is Apollodorus the same as Napoleon? — Banno

He isn't. Unless we also assume that Banno is the same as 180 Proof. But you're denying that.

What is the soul? — Banno

The soul is a form of intelligent energy. An immaterial substance that has the power of knowledge and action, of being aware of itself and of other things and of acting upon or interacting with itself and other things.

The physical body (soma) contains the metaphysical soul (psyche) which contains the spirit (pneuma or nous).

The spirit has two two aspects, (1) one that always contemplates the Universal Intelligence and does not descend into the physical world, and (2) one that is connected to the soul and incarnates in a body in the physical world.

The lower part of the soul is the part that retains memories and other impressions of past lives in latent form. When the soul is reincarnated, memories etc. remain dormant with the exception of basic instincts and it acquires a new identity during the course of the current embodied existence.

it's all just partly true. But not all true. — ssu

Indeed. And I suppose it would also depend on how big the true part is. But we shouldn't speculate on that because who knows what conclusions it might lead to.

I appreciate this sketch. I must have come across this back in the day and then forgot only for me to recall it here via my "rebirth-waking up again" metaphor. — 180 Proof

Absolutely. As Plato and others said, learning is really a process of remembrance. Memory brings to mind things both unknown and forgotten. Maybe there is some good in this forum, after all ...

There may be hard wired inclinations for sure- but the eating me part is my interpretation of 'good', the lion is just being a lion. — Proximate1

If an agent's actions affect somebody else, then the person or creature at the receiving end is entitled to make a moral judgement in regard to those actions. If a lion decided to eat me, I wouldn't be inclined to see that as "good". I don't care if it's in the lion's nature to eat people. That's why some animals are generally regarded as pests i.e. "bad" for you.

There are studies that show that human children start making what we would call "moral" distinctions at a very early age - two or three months. — T Clark

Correct. And this would suggest that moral inclinations are present at birth in some latent form. Thanks for the link.

Sure, there are some who would call themselves Marxists, but they aren't the majority. — ssu

I'm sure there are some who are Marxists even if they don't call themselves that. But it's good to know that they aren't the majority. I was beginning to wonder ... : )

But, of course, that's just my opinion, based on my lack of experience with spirits, or knowledge of arcane "secrets". — Gnomon

Personally, I'm convinced that there is such a thing as "paranormal experience" in which the human mind or consciousness displays the ability to "see" or "foresee" things or events which ability seems to operate independently of the nervous system or physical organs of perception. For example, there are some reliable accounts of telepathy, clairvoyant dreams, etc. that a strictly materialist view of the mind is unable to explain. This doesn't prove reincarnation but it suggests that our mind or consciousness is not necessarily limited to the physical body.

What matters is what Reason says. — Bartricks

I don't remember what the means/proofs of knowledge are called in Platonism but if I'm not mistaken they are (1) sense-perception, (2) reason, and (3) consensus or expert opinion. Any of these on its own could be wrong. Hence reason would need to be harmonized with at least one of the others.

But this isn't very important to me or to the topic so it can be left for later consideration. I think we agree on all the essential elements and I'm sure we can also sort out terminology like "mind".

Really, I see my question as going back to the whole tradition of Greek mystery schools. — Jack Cummins

I would recommend "The Golden Chain" by A. Uzdavinys if you haven't read it already. It traces Greek philosophy to its earliest beginnings.

Isn't the concept of 'good' a judgement inherent to the observer? — Proximate1

That may be so. However, it doesn't mean that "at birth there are no moral inclinations". A new-born lion cub may look cute and cuddly and inclined to do only good, but deep inside it may already dream of the day it is big and strong enough to have you for breakfast. The inclinations may be already present at birth in latent form.

The true purpose of philosophy is to maintain nature's course---to make sure humans don't depart too much from it. That's it. It doesn't teach anything. — Daniel Banyai

Doesn't that amount to a teaching though? And how can you prove that this is the "true purpose" of philosophy? How do we know that there is no higher reality than nature that is trying to teach us about itself by means of philosophy?

I don't recal ever hearing in Theravada Buddhist doctrine about the spontaneous recollection of past lives. — baker

"There are six kinds of people who recollect these past lives. They are: other sectarians, ordinary disciples ..." - Visuddhimagga XIII 15

Recollection of past lives may not be "spontaneous" in the strict sense of the word, it can be the result of spiritual practice performed in a past life or due to some other reason or cause, e.g. magic, certain drugs, etc. I wouldn't accord the term "spontaneous" too much importance.

At some point one has to choose between following Reason, and following tradition. — Bartricks

I agree. But there is no harm trying to harmonize reason and tradition as far as logically possible, along the lines of a Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Another possibility would be to see reincarnation as an esoteric or higher teaching.

Stevenson's cases make very interesting reading and raise many theoretical possibilities.

For example, some children are said to intellectually and emotionally identify with the opposite sex even though biologically they are different.

This may be explicable as being due to upbringing if a child was brought up with others of the opposite sex, but where this is not the case, the phenomenon may be explicable by means of the reincarnation theory - unless science has a more plausible idea.

But Apollodorus is not the power to will, knowledge, action - we each have those; Apollodorus is the content that you say changes. So it's not Apollodorus who is reincarnated.

On that argument, since you and I both have the power to will, knowledge, action, we are the same person. — Banno

Not at all. We all have arms, legs, heads, etc. without this making us the same person.

We all have the power of will, knowledge and action, but those powers differ from one individual to another.

The soul (psyche) has a higher aspect that remains in contact with the Universal Intelligence (Nous) at all times and a lower aspect that reincarnates, assuming a subtle body (ochema) and a physical body.

At the higher level all souls are essentially identical to one another and to the Universal Intelligence from which they emanate, like drops of water from the same ocean or rays of light from the same sun.

Water drops and sun rays are essentially identical to one another but not in the sense that they are one single drop or one single ray. Additionally, each drop or ray may be different from others in that they may contain, for example, bits of algae or particles of dust or other materials.

Likewise, even though souls are essentially identical, their psychic content such as latent memories, instincts, inclinations and other psychological features differ from soul to soul in the same way they differ in terms of physical bodies.

So, my theory is that Plato's principle of Reincarnation was an attempt to justify the goodness and justice of the gods, despite all the evidence against it in the real world — Gnomon

Interesting as far as theories go. However, I've got my own.

Pythagoras or some other Greek philosopher went to Egypt in search of higher knowledge. The Egyptians believed that the Sun god was reborn every day anew. The human soul was similar to the Sun god. In popular belief it was reborn into the afterlife after death. But esoteric tradition held that it was reborn many times unless it was initiated into higher mysteries. Pythagoras or other Greeks took this secret knowledge to Greece and the Greek colonies on the Italic Peninsula.

This possibly also ties in with @180 Proof's metaphor.

Well, on the other thread I was accused of being a "Nazi", so you'll have to be careful what you say. But I agree that we could all do with more love and less war. Enough political sloganeering, activism and rallies. Just relax with a pint of cool Prussian beer, although Bavarian wouldn’t be bad either.

As to the church, I don’t really attend except for necessities like weddings and funerals.

What can we do to get us back on track with democracy? Good question. My answer would be with a parable from the Bible (Matthew 13:25-40) about the enemy who sowed tares or weeds among the wheat while the farmer slept. Ignorance is a form of sleep that prevents us from identifying the enemy, seeing through his plans and taking steps to stop him. People need to wake up and stay wide awake, aware and alert at all times and encourage others to do the same.

The first thing to wake up to, from a Christian point of view, is the fact that the Church has been hijacked and taken over by political and financial groups who are using it as an instrument of subversion. We need to build a new Church, a Church of the people, a Church of true believers.

But I feel @Jack Cummins is getting a bit impatient with us and would (rightly) like to reclaim his thread, so maybe we can discuss this elsewhere.

I see what you mean. We can get back to that once we've sorted out one or two other points.

The mind is the object that is conscious. That is, it 'has' consciousness as one of its properties. But it is not itself consciousness - that's a category error of the sort Banno and others who don't know their stuff are wont to make. — Bartricks

That's why I said from the start that we need to define things like "mind". The way I see it consciousness is the entity or principle that reincarnates. In its pure state it it is just intelligence and self-awareness and it has powers like will, knowledge and action in latent form.

When consciousness descends into the material world by assuming a physical body, then its self-awareness focuses more and more on its new existence and on the objects of the world, and its other powers of will, knowledge and action assume the form of the "mind", i.e. intellect, emotions and sensory faculties or what Platonists may refer to (with some modifications) as λογιστικόν logistikon or intellectual aspect θυμός thymos or emotional aspect and έπιθυμητικόν epithymetikon or sensual aspect. Consciousness in itself is the nous.

I suppose it's just a matter of terminology but other than that there seems to be general agreement between what you and I are saying. Or so I think.

It's a bit like an actor on stage. The costume changes, the character changes, the stage etc. may change even during the same performance and the audience changes too. Yet the actor himself or herself remains the same.

The powers of will, knowledge, action, etc, remain the same. What changes is their content, object and ways in which they operate in accordance with the new circumstances.

But the arguments - two of them anyway - establish that our minds exist with aseity. That is, they exist without having been caused to exist. That entails that God did not create us. There's no problem with that - it's not inconsistent with the three essential divine attributes. But it does conflict, it would seem, with something the bible says. However, the statement it conflicts with is an incoherent one. And anyway, the bottom line is 'so much the worse for scripture'. At some point one has to choose between following Reason, and following tradition. — Bartricks

I was just about to say the same. I think we can agree on that.

That aspect of consciousness that is pure intelligence and is aware of itself as consciousness is always the same. What changes is that memories of a particular existence are withdrawn back into consciousness at death and new ones are created in a new incarnation.

as I understand it, the bible says both that God created everything, and also that God created all things that have been created. The latter is consistent with God not having created us. — Bartricks

Perhaps one way of looking at it is that God created our bodies after which he infused us with his breath or spirit which would suggest that the spirit part of us is divine and therefore immortal and not strictly speaking "created".

I'm not saying it isn't problematic but I don't think these are problems that can't be resolved.

Essentially, the soul that reincarnates consists of consciousness which is intelligence, awareness and has powers such as will, knowledge and action.

If you have the memory (real, not imagined) of Napoleon, then you're Napoleon reincarnated as this present person. Otherwise you aren't.

Memories remain embedded in consciousness in latent form. Aspects of memory may become active in the form of basic instincts, etc. but the rest remain dormant until such time as there is cause for them to be (re-)activated.

Actually you do; frozen water will always consist in a discrete chunk. For that matter even bodies of water, parts of which might freeze are generally discrete.And water vapour may form separate clouds. — Janus

Ice, water and steam/vapour are often used to illustrate how consciousness can assume various forms. However, it needs to be borne in mind that, unlike water, etc., consciousness does not break into discrete parts. It remains a unity.

What is it that is reincarnated? — Banno

Both sensations and memory are functions of consciousness. It is consciousness that reincarnates.

Of course, there are some problems, hence the original question. But that's not a reason to give up before even trying.

All this to say, the road is not as clear as has been presumed. — Banno

Well, I did say we need to look into how we define "mind". But my feeling is that we're on the right track.

If you view consciousness as a form of energy then it can be explained empirically. — Pantagruel

Any chance of expanding on that a bit?

Hmm déjà vu – guess I'm the skunk at the woo party again. — 180 Proof

The original question said "supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility"

Those are states of mind or processes involving minds. Obviously. You do not divide water by freezing it, even though that changes its state. Likewise you do not divide a mind by changing its state from thought to desire or whatever. — Bartricks

I tend to agree with that. They are not "parts" stricto sensu, they're functions of the same one thing.

But how can we formulate the mind argument to render it more acceptable to official Christianity?

I believe all of these arguments are sound, though only one needs to be. — Bartricks

They definitely seem worthwhile looking into. Obviously, we'll need to see how we define things like "mind" etc. But I must say your arguments come very close to what I meant by "philosophical justification". So, maybe we are getting somewhere.

Should someone be permitted to move into my house and sleep in my bed? As one of God's children of equal worth, why should my bed be reserved for me and they be required to sleep somewhere less comfortable? — Hanover

Questions like that arise from a wrong understanding of Christian teachings. The Bible says:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8).

A government's first duty is to look after its own population. Charity and hospitality are OK but not when they are applied to the detriment of the giver or host, otherwise we're rewarding good with evil.

Immigration is also a matter of justice. How is it just for one population to be replaced and its territory to be taken over by another?

We do not identify as a species, and so cannot be governed as a species. — counterpunch

That's a good point. I think if we look at China's treatment of Tibetans, Uighurs and other ethnic groups, some humans regard others as a different species to be either dominated or wiped out. A world government controlled by China would definitely be against the interests of other nations and, probably, even against the interests of Chinese people.

You may take this as a personal attack but it is not. — Fooloso4

How very gracious. However, you have been on this forum for much longer than myself, have you not? And since presumably you're older, more knowledgeable, more experienced, wiser and know this forum and its members much better than I do, you really should help me steer the discussion in a direction that is satisfactory to all or most of us instead of trying to sow distrust and division and drive the thread into the gutter and then blame it on me.

I just watched an awesome program about what can happen when we speak to our hearts and listen to our hearts. When we live in our heads, what we think reality is can be pretty dark. More animal desire and fear than the love and freedom we can experience when connecting with our hearts. We might think of the heart consciousness as a spiritual force and see in many spiritual traditions, including Christianity, the rituals people practice to connect with this force. A few days ago I watched a program about Evangelical Christians and they were obviously connected with the spiritual force and there is no way we are going to convince the people who experience this that there is not a God and a reality that is different from the reality we create in our heads, of desires and fears. — Athena

Yes, desires and fears are fundamental to human psychology. They can take hold of our mind and obscure our heart. Both love (or infatuation) and hatred can make us blind. Even worse when they are used by others to manipulate, control and enslave us. This is why various traditions from Greek philosophy to Christianity have recommended methods of controlling desires and fears by developing virtues (ἀρετή, arete) such as temperance and courage. Once desires and fears have been brought under control, the eye of the heart opens and sees the higher realities and beauties of spirit. To use Plato's parable, once well-trained, the horses of the soul's chariot pull us upward and we ascend to the higher realms instead of constantly being pulled down to earth.

Communism has been a major advocate of world government and we've seen where that ended.

Besides, we can see how even a national government can be corrupt and evil. Imagine the havoc and destruction that an evil world government might inflict on humanity!

Personally, I would start with a national government run by well-trained and well-behaved philosophers, give it 50-100 years and if that worked out then I might just consider it. And, ideally, it should be a Christian one. I don't think I'd fancy the idea of a worldwide Islamic State to be honest.

By us I assume you include yourself. Start with that. What makes you so defensive? — Fooloso4

You sound pretty defensive yourself, that's why you joined the discussion isn't it? And since you've been on here for years it's only proper for you to explain your defensiveness first. Plus, you sound much older than me. So, after you.