That is the 'ship of Theseus' problem. — Wayfarer

It's not. Changing one physical part with another has nothing to do with the nebulous notion of a soul.

C'mon. It's been pretty simple for thousands of years.
— frank

...simple... — Banno

@Banno

How dare you bring facts into a discussion of the soul!

↪Banno

Well, for the average person it was simple. — frank

Perhaps for the average person who did not know what questions to ask and simply believed whatever it was they were told to believe.

Does Christianity provide a coherent account of the soul or simply claim it? Which version of Christianity are you talking about? The one that claim bodily resurrection of just the soul or Paul's spiritual body, sōma pneumatikos?

People have understood it for thousands of years. I guess you're cut off from the vast majority of people in your own culture and broader language group. — frank

See my earlier comments about Plato's Phaedo. While ostensibly he is laying out an argument to support an immortal soul, he is at the same time showing that there is no coherent concept of an immortal soul.

Added: I also cited two seminal sources from my own culture: Aristotle and the Hebrew Bible. Neither posits an immortal soul that exists apart from a particular body.

So what? That isn't a crime. — Apollodorus

You seem to have lost track of the argument. It is not a crime, but it is also not what Jesus said or what he meant. All that stuff came later.

But concepts like "Son of God" and "Divine King" were quite common, they weren't the exclusive property of the Jews as you're claiming. — Apollodorus

I said nothing of the sort! My contention is that if you wish to understand the meaning of what Jesus said then you need to look at the historical context in which he said those words and the historical context in which the Gospels were written. You disregard both and claim it means what it came to mean for some Christians. And with regard to that you ignore the historical development in which Christian doctrine became official. Again, I gave you all the information you need to do the research on these issues.

You are correct. They are not the exclusive property of the Jews, and they are not the exclusive property of Christians. Jesus was a Jew addressing his disciples who were Jews. He was not a Christian teaching after the Council of Nicea when certain document became official according to some self appointed authorities.

Plus, it isn't about history, it's about religion and faith. — Apollodorus

Christianity is a doctrinaire religion. Its history is an essential part of the development of its doctrines. You are of course free to remain ignorant of such things, but when you make claims such as:

This means that "loving God" and "loving your neighbor" does not mean what is commonly understood by the term "love". — Apollodorus

And:

But the point I was making was that there are two important distinctions to be drawn, (1) between what is commonly understood by “love” and (2) between “love of God” and “love of our neighbor”. — Apollodorus

That is a definitive statement about what love your neighbor means. I pointed out that this has no textual support according to the passages where it occurs. What you said is not the same as saying that this is what it means to you according to your Christian beliefs.

What you're implying is that Christians aren't allowed to have their own religion and should be punished for borrowing from the Jews. — Apollodorus

I said nothing of the sort. I am talking about what Jesus said in its historical context. You are free to ignore it. No one is going to punish you.

Christians also borrowed quite a bit from the Greeks, Romans and others. — Apollodorus

Right, and that is why taking Jesus' words and attempting to alter them according to later developments is to distort what he said. Again, you are free to do so, but you are wrong to say that what Jesus said means what you take it to mean according to a religion that developed after his death.

Should they be punished for that as well? Would you like to start burning Christian bibles and churches??? — Apollodorus

Such ridiculous accusations do not help your argument or whatever credibility you might still have on this forum.

Of course not. The new Jimi would probably be drawn to guitar music or something like that. — frank

Being the master musician and innovator he was is essential to the identity of Jimi Hendrix. Someone with a different identity would not be him.

What I'm really looking for from Fooloso4 is his or her basis for ruling out reincarnation. — frank

I have not ruled it out, I just have not ruled it in. I find no compelling argument to do so and cannot make sense of what a disembodied soul even is.

I don't think a person who believes in reincarnation would say that you retain specific bodily movements from one life to the next. — frank

In that case, contrary to what you said, they do not retain the experiences and skills that involve bodily movement. The reincarnated Jimi Hendrix would not be born with his ability to play guitar and would not have "ever been experienced".

I think they would say that just as you are the same person you were seven years ago (the rate of cellular regeneration), you are the same person in the next life — frank

There is a fundamental difference. Cellular regeneration does not transfer from one body to the next. That would certainly make giving birth difficult.

You're only imagining that. You need to familiarize yourself with Christianity before you make unexamined assumptions like that. In Christianity Jesus is the Son of God. — Apollodorus

I am well aquanted with Christianity. What you are ignoring is its history and factions. I have given you all the information you need to do the research, but you choose to close your eyes and ignore the evidence.

Yes, mainstream Christianity today holds to the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God. It was not always that way in Christianity. It has gone through several transformations. To look at the beliefs held today and insist that they are what Jesus meant by "love thy neighbor" is anachronistic.

Plus, the Jews could have taken those concepts from others. — Apollodorus

Perhaps they did. What difference does that make to how Jesus and his followers understood what it means to love your neighbor? Or what the terms Messiah and son of God meant to them?

People use words, beliefs and concepts that already exist. Why would they start inventing something new? — Apollodorus

And yet that is exactly what they did. They took Jewish concepts and over time the meaning was altered.

Was that your main argument though? Muscle memory? — frank

Main argument?

You asked:

I'm asking how you know these things, once generated, disappear with your body? — frank

Manual skills are bodily skills. They involve touch and specific bodily movements. How are they maintained if you no longer have a body?

Well, if you really imagine that I didn't know you might come up with that, you are quite wrong. — Apollodorus

I don't have to imagine it. You accused me of making it up:

And, of course, the verses from the Hebrew Bible you're referring to, just don't exist. That's why you can't quote them. — Apollodorus

First you claim I made it up, and when I cite them you claim you knew all along.

To begin with, it is generally acknowledged that the OT texts are corrupted so, they aren’t a hundred percent reliable. — Apollodorus

There is always the problem of transcription error but every instance of the term cannot be a transcription error. What evidence do you have of substantial corruption between the time Paul uses the term, the NT authors use the term, and now? More specifically what evidence do you have that the uses of the term are corruptions and when the corrupted terms were introduced?

However, what is actually meant here is not that they were begotten in the sense of brought into being but in the sense of appointed, i.e. invested with the rank of King: they were each appointed King of Israel. — Apollodorus

The belief in a Messiah originates in Judaism There is no evidence that Paul used 'Messiah' and 'son of God' in any other sense then how they were used in Judaism. He claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, the anointed (in Greek Chrio, Khristós, Christ)King of Israel. It was not Jesus' birth but his death that was the focus of Paul's message.

We are told very clearly that he was brought into the world by the Holy Spirit, i.e. by God’s own Spiritual Power: — Apollodorus

Mark, the oldest of the Gospels, tells no such story, nor does John, and more importantly, Jesus himself does not either.

So these are two totally different stories. David and Solomon were appointed by God, Jesus was created — Apollodorus

There is another story. The story told by John. You quote it but fail to see how it differs from the other stories.

The stories are different. The point is that they take the Jewish teachings of Jesus and Paul and make them into something else.

As for Jesus teaching the “Jewish law” it is obvious that this couldn’t have been the case. How can the Son of God or Prophet or even “Jewish rabbi” (as you choose to call him) teach the Jewish law to the Jews if the Jews ignored him? — Apollodorus

The Gospels tell the story of twelve Jews who did not ignore him. Again, read what Paul said about the Law and Gentiles, and what he said about the split between him and Jesus' disciples over the matter of the Law.

As I said earlier:

It is typical Christian chauvinism to take the teachings of a Jewish rabbi and make them into something they are not. But that is, after all, what the term Christian is all about. — Fooloso4

They took the Jewish terms 'Messiah' and 'son of God' and made them into something else. Something that was foreign to Jesus and Paul. To point to how the terms are used differently only supports what I have said.

I'm asking how you know these things, once generated, disappear with your body? — frank

In the case of muscle memory I don't see how it can be carried into another life if the muscles are not part of that life. Besides, I might be reincarnated as a slug.

I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body
— Fooloso4

How do you know that? — frank

I would have no manual skills without a body. Those skill involve muscle memory. Fear has a bodily component, flooding the body with adrenaline, fight or flight. Some of my relationships are to varying degrees physical. I would not have my biological children. Failure of children to thrive often has something to do with the lack of physical contact.

It's you. Your experiences, your skills, your fears, your disappointments, your failures, your relationships, etc. — frank

I make no distinction between me and my body. I would have none of the things you mention if I was a disembodied entity somehow tethered to a body.

It is anyone's guess what will happen to Trump but the direction the Republican Party is going in is clear. They believe they have a winning formula, suppress votes and suppress any criticism or denial of Trump's lies.

The problem is using a term that has various meanings does not tell us what it is that endures beyond life. Neither Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach does. Calling it "soul" means no more than calling it "something". "Something" is not an account of that something.

What all definitions have in common is that it's an animating force (anima). — frank

Right, but the idea of a soul that reanimates a body which is not the same body but is still somehow "you" is not the same as Aristotle's psyche or the Hebrew ruach, breathe of God.

Sorry, but the misunderstanding is entirely yours. You're wrong again as on all your other points. — Apollodorus

Is this what counts as an argument for you? There is an extensive literature on this, much of it written by Christian scholars.

There are online versions of the Bible that allow you to search. Do a search in the Old Testament for the terms 'son of God' and 'sons of God'. Read the article "Son of God (Christianity)" on Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God_(Christianity)#:~:text=In%20Christianity%2C%20the%20title%20Son,be%20found%20in%20the%20Bible.

You obviously don't understand the Bible and you can find no evidence to support your unfounded and erroneous claims. — Apollodorus

The New Testament is not monolithic. There are claims made by John that are not found anywhere else. Johannine Christianity is distinct from the synoptic gospels and writings of Paul. The Wiki article provides plenty of evidence.

And no, Jesus was not teaching the "Jewish Law", he was teaching the LAW OF GOD. — Apollodorus

These are not two separate things. It is the Law given by God to the Jews. Paul makes a distinction between the written Law and the law as it can be found in the heart of the Gentiles. Paul is quite explicit on this.

That was the whole point of his mission on earth, to reestablish the Law of God which the Jews or at least some of them had departed from ... — Apollodorus

This is all from within the Jewish tradition of interpretation and application of the Law.

And, of course, the verses from the Hebrew Bible you're referring to, just don't exist. That's why you can't quote them. — Apollodorus

The Wiki article linked above gives an extensive list.

Sounds horrible. During surgery they give the patient paralytics. There are cases where the paralytics works but the patient is still aware and can feel the pain of the scalpel and has no way of signalling that they are awake.

They call it the soul. Why is that answer insufficient? — frank

The term has a long history and has meant different things. To say that the soul is something other than the body does not tell us what it is, it just gives it a name.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that he was God's only son. This was a belief that developed later.
— Fooloso4

Really? How late is this then? — Apollodorus

In the Patristic Era.

They called him "Rabbi" AND "Son of God". — Apollodorus

Yes. But you accused me of making up the claim that he was a Jewish rabbi. You are avoiding the issue of what the term 'son of God' meant during the age in which Jesus lived, how it was used in the Hebrew Bible and by Paul and John, and how it was later used in the Creed.

The Koran calls him a Prophet. — Apollodorus

This is much closer to what the term 'son of God' meant at the time of Jesus.

I'm sure even you can see that "Son of God" and "Prophet" is not the same as "rabbi" in the ordinary sense. — Apollodorus

Of course they are not the same! This is just a smoke-screen to obscure the fact that you initially denied that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher of the Law.

Here is the problem: I read the Gospels in their historical context. You read them based on later developments. Now I have given you enough information for you to do some research on your own in order to see the difference if you care to.

so the corroborated testimonial evidence while my heart is stopped and I'm no longer breathing — Sam26

While your heart stops and you are no longer breathing you are still alive. Clinical death is the irreversible loss of brain function. What the mind sees when blood is restricted to the brain is not evidence of out of body experience. One of the drugs given with anesthesia makes you forget what you may be aware of during surgery. There may be, to varying degrees, depending on the individual, some awareness of the surgical procedure. This is well documented in the medical literature and is the reason drugs are administered to make you forget.

This just doesn't follow, i.e., because I can't explain how it is that people are able to have an OBE — Sam26

This is not what I am asking. What is being asked by me and @Banno as well is what it is that is separate from the body and functions and endures without it. Giving it a name, soul or consciousness, does not say what it is that perceives and feels but is not a function or process of the body.

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. — Sam26

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something that is not fully understood. To conclude that these people have left their bodies is not being open minded, it is to insist on a desired outcome.

... not because he was a professional rabbi. — Apollodorus

"Professional" rabbi was at that time a meaningless term. I said he was a rabbi, a teacher of the Law, and you accused me of making it up. I provide textual examples and instead of simply admitting you were wrong, try to argue something else.

Christianity believes in Jesus as the Son of God. — Apollodorus

This is based on a misunderstanding of the term 'son of God' or 'sons of God'. No, I am not making it up. It is used several times in the Hebrew Bible. This time you can look it up yourself. It did not mean what it came to mean for most Christians.

There was a dispute in the early Church as to what 'son of God' meant. Arius rejected what came to be known as Homoousian Christology. Despite having the stronger hermeneutical argument, his side lost at the First Council of Nicaea, and he was labelled a heretic. Look it up.

Therefore the idea that he was "a Jewish rabbi" is unsupported by the sources. — Apollodorus

The fact that Christians believe he was the Son of God does not mean he was not a teacher of the Law. John 1:49 affirms that he was a rabbi. The fact that it also calls him the son of God does not mean John denied he was a rabbi.

As for "Jewish" ... — Apollodorus

Jesus taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law. His disciples followed the Law. Paul preached to the gentiles that they did not have to adhere to the written Law to be saved. Look it up.

... the authentic teachings of the Christian Faith. — Apollodorus

You really do not know your Christian history. You may take the Creed to be the authentic teaching but it was one of many in the early Jesus movement. Nowhere does Jesus teach that he was God's only son. This was a belief that developed later.

Where are the sources that say "Jewish rabbi"??? You're making it up as usual, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Mark 9:5

Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here.

John 1:38

Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?”

They said, “Rabbi” (which means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?”

Where does it say he was a "Jewish rabbi"??? First time I hear of that. — Apollodorus

You need to increase your circle if acquaintances, or better yet, do some research.

Rabbi means teacher or leader. Do you believe that Jesus was a Jew? Do you believe he taught adherence to the Law? Put it together and you'll get your answer.

You're making that up, aren't you? — Apollodorus

Once again, a direct quote:

This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing,

You say what is not an essential aspect of Christian love. The last thing that is not essential is material well-being. Your words not mine.

not exclusive. — Apollodorus

When you say "not X" you exclude X.

What my whole statement means ... — Apollodorus

As Alice was told in Wonderland: Say what you mean or mean what you say.

Well, Christianity is a different religion, isn't it? — Apollodorus

Yes, but these are supposed to be the words of Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian. His disciples certainly would not have understood it that way. This was a major reason why Paul and his followers split off from the disciples. Paul tells us all about it. Or at least his side of the story.

(Jews and Muslims are also welcome to offer their own views if they have any.) — Apollodorus

How about the way one particular Jew might have understood his own words and how he wanted them to be understood? One thing is certain: he died before the advent of Paul's Christianity.

It isn't my fault that you don't like Christians. — Apollodorus

No, it is your fault that you make false assumptions.

And what "Jewish rabbi" are you talking about anyway? — Apollodorus

Are you not familiar with Jesus of Nazareth? Or as you might call him, following Paul, Jesus Christ.

However, well-being includes spiritual well-being and that is achieved by following the teachings of the Gospels. — Apollodorus

This is not what you said in your earlier post:

This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing, but primarily concern for his or her spiritual salvation. — Apollodorus

Your claim was that material well-being is not an essential aspect, You excluded material well-being, but the passages I quote show that it cannot be excluded.

I am not claiming that proclaiming the good news is not part of Christianity. I am, however, claiming that the passages cited are about material well-being. They say nothing about proselytizing.

The passages do not say anything about the teachings of the Gospels either. The teaching is summed up in the passages cited as well as others that contain the same message: 1) Love God 2) Love your neighbor. It is typical Christian chauvinism to take the teachings of a Jewish rabbi and make them into something they are not. But that is, after all, what the term Christian is all about.

But who is the Christian's neighbor? — baker

The story of the good Samaritan provides an answer, but it is evident that it is not one that most Christians live by.

So, your conclusion is that because it's an embodied person who does the reporting, it follows that disembodied existence is not true or couldn't happen? — Sam26

The point is that the report of an embodied person does not stand as evidence of a disembodied person.

how could an embodied person report on something I believe is not possible. — Sam26

What is it that you do not think is possible?

Just because someone can't answer all the questions of how it's possible, — Sam26

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body.

Instead of "all the questions" just one crucial one: if you eliminate the body how does whatever is left perceive the world?

Yes, it's me that gets hungry and feels pain, etc, and it would be me as a disembodied being who would feel some of the same things. — Sam26

And yet when you are hungry it is the food you ingest, the food you take into your body, that satisfies your hunger. If you hit your hand with a hammer is it merely coincidence that your hand is damaged while you hurt?

Hess associates Christian love with “sharing knowledge of God with the whole world”. This suggests that an essential aspect of Christian love is not as some might assume having an attitude of affection, etc. toward our neighbor or even concern for his material wellbeing, but primarily concern for his or her spiritual salvation. — Apollodorus

This is how Hess understands it, but it is not the gospels say. Given Jesus' emphasis on the Law we should see what is said there:

Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against any of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)

In Mark there is a distinction made between love of God and love of your neighbor. Two separate commandments:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' (12:30

The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (12:31)

In Matthew:

If you want to enter life, keep the commandments. Which ones?" he inquired. Jesus replied, "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'19:17 - 19)

Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment.And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (22:37-39)

Again two commandments one greater than the other.

In Luke we find the first commandment to love the Lord your God, followed by the tale of the good Samaritan.

He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. (10:34)

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."(10:36-37)

In Romans:

The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet," and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (13:9)

Luke and Romans clearly show that love of your neighbor means concern for your neighbors well being. Nothing is said about spreading the "good news".

an OBE — Sam26

It is always an embodied person who has an alleged out of body experience. It is always an embodied person who related their experience.

The only way it wouldn't make conceptual sense is if it's not logically possible to be disembodied. — Sam26

What does it mean to be disembodied? Who or what is it that is without a body? "You"? Is it not you who gets hungry? You who feels pain? You who feels loves and desires? What would such things be for a disembodied you? Is it not you but a body that somehow happens to be yours that experiences these things?

So the language has a word with no meaning and no application. — god must be atheist

That is not the case. The word means different things to different people.

quote="god must be atheist;531529"]Maybe the word has a meaning, or a conceptual meaning, but no application.[/quote]

Some people call someone who knows some fact or how to do something or made a choice that turned out well or is shrewd is wise. Some apply the term to those who give what they consider good council. At least one says that it is accumulated insights.

... you categorically deny that anyone possesses this quality. — god must be atheist

What I have in mind is knowledge of the whole. But it may be unwise for me to think this.[

quote="god must be atheist;531529"]You don't know what wise is. So you may be wise,[/quote]

But if I was wise I would think I would know both what wisdom is and that I was wise.

ergo, you can't know whether you are in possession of wisdom, or else if you are wise, or not. — god must be atheist

Doesn't my confusion suggest that I am not wise?

Saying you don't know what "wise" is, but you'd know if/when you were wise, is not logical. Inasmuch as it could be true, or not be true, but is not necessarily true. — god must be atheist

Yes, I assume that if I was wise I would know I was wise since I think it would include self-knowledge. But what do I know?

since you deny any knowledge by anyone to know what being wise is, you can or anyone else could, be wise, and nobody would recognize he or she is, because there is no knowledge what it is, therefore there is no way of recognizing it when encountering it as someone's quality in real life. — god must be atheist

I agree. It some ways it is like Dostoevsky's The Idiot.

but i don't think you think that. — god must be atheist

Don't think what? I am interpreting a story. I don't think that any of this actually happened. I don't think the storytellers did either.

you are not counter-arguing — god must be atheist

I honestly do not know what you mean. A counter-argument to what?

If you have issues with my responses to you or lack of responses feel free to send me a message.

Thank you for being lectured by you in a paraphrased form by telling me what I had just expressed. — god must be atheist

I am puzzled by the fact that you think that what I said was a paraphrase of what you said.

But once in a while it would be nice to hear from you, "Yes, you're right." — god must be atheist

But I do not know that you are right. I gave you three reasons why I think you might be wrong. That what they did was not called sin because the authors of the story did not regard it as such.

Because the word sin appeared in the story of Cain and Abel, one -- at least I think so -- can't deny that the concepts had been already in place before such moment as the concept was named a unique name. — god must be atheist

It is the storyteller who uses the concept and name. My point is that Adam and Eve did not have that concept of sin, they were innocents without knowledge of good and bad. For may be for this reason the storyteller did not use it to name their act.

I appreciate that the Hebrew word for sin was not used, maybe, but the concept was coined right there and then. Is that true, or not true? — god must be atheist

Three points. The fact that the term was not used may not be insignificant. Second, if they did not know good and bad then in their innocence they did not sin. They would have no concept of sin. Third, it was only through their seduction, their disobedience, their desire for wisdom (3:6), the blessing of procreation (to know), and so on, it seems to me it differs from the path Cain chose.

All of this is meant to be suggestive. I do not insist that it is correct.

The first occurrence of the term usually translated as 'sin' - Hebrew: חָטָא) is at Genesis 4:6-7

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

There is no mention here of original sin, or inherited sin, or being born in sin, or being powerless against sin.

Not doing what is right is not called sin, sin appears to follow from not doing right. In this context I think this means something like heading in the wrong direction, taking a dangerous path. The ways of man is a central concern of the Hebrew Bible. The path we take is our own choice.

Immediately after this warning Cain kills his brother Abel. Cain is angry because God looked favorably on Abel's offering but not on his own. His anger toward his brother is the first step in the wrong direction and leads to murder.

Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you. — bert1

I suspect that is where he is from.

"You" as the general "you"? — god must be atheist

You as in those with a passionate desire for wisdom who know that they are not wise.

I think wisdom is a set of accumulated insights ... — god must be atheist

If I was wise I would know what it is, but I ain't. This in not modesty. I don't think anyone else is wise either.

So what I didn't make clear is that this is all me. — frank

That had crossed my mind, but with your mention of Plato, Meno, Phaedo, and anamnesis I took it that you were discussing the dialogue.

So from my point of view, you're continually trying to teach me my own argument and nitpicking at the edges. — frank

That was not my intention. My remarks were all made with regard to the attempt to understand Plato's Meno. Perhaps in my eagerness to discuss Plato I missed what you were doing. My apologies.

You had asserted that the infinite backward chain makes knowledge impossible.

Now you're just noting that Plato says the soul does learn. — frank

From my previous posts:

This would mean an eternal regress to past lives, there could be no life that was not a recollection from a previous life, so no life in which knowledge of the Forms first gained. — Fooloso4

The problem is that if we start with the premise that knowledge is recollection then there would never be a time when knowledge was learned. But it cannot be recollected if it had not at some time first been learned. — Fooloso4

My gripe was that you're tossing "impossible" around a little too freely. — frank

I think it follows from the argument. Knowledge is recollection of what was learned in a previous life, but if it was learned then it could not have been in that case that knowledge was recollected. This a starting point. Recollection then is not an infinite backward chain. At some point each of us had to first learn if there is from that time forward recollection of what was learned.

Anamnesis is not part of the myth of reincarnation passed down by priests. — frank

Anamnesis (recollection) refers to what was learned in a previous life and can now be recollected. Without reincarnation there can be no anamnesis.

It's Plato's solution to a problem: that teaching is frequently a matter of bringing a person's awareness to what they already know. — frank

There is a difference between already know and known via an infinite regress.