There are things you just know, even without any logical explanation. Intuition is all about it. As for me, if I know what I'm talking about, "all I know is that I know nothing", and that is thanks to Socrates who put it in words. — ahmad bilal

What I take issue with is less that there are things that you can know without knowing how you know them - or without being able to adequately explain how you know them - and more with the assumption that you know what you think you do, in this instance, because there is what I would describe as what seems to be only an outward appearance of meaning.

If this outward appearance of meaning falls apart upon examination and no real meaning is found or can be produced, then I don't think that you can know it at all, let alone that you actually do know it. I think that you'd just be deluding yourself. This does indeed relate somewhat to the Socratic method and that famous quote attributed to Socrates.

There are experiences that are probably only expressible in what you call "metaphors and poetic language." You don't explain them, you tell a story about them. I don't call what Ahmad is talking about "soul" but I think he and I share a common experience.

It's not really an idea, it's an experience. At least it was an experience before it was an idea. That's how it is for me. — T Clark

I think that it's a problem if you can't produce a means of distinguishing between nonsense and conveying some sort of deep insight which allegedly can only be expressed in metaphors and poetic language. I think that it's a problem if the word "soul" is like the nonsense word "shleaf".

Wittgenstein is relevant here, I think. "What can be said at all can be said clearly", "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

If the intention here is not to be philosophically exacting, but rather to be poetically allegorical, then it may be best to avoid the tendency to over analyze, as it becomes like dissecting an intricate and lovely insect to discover what makes it so, and in the process destroying it. — snowleopard

In my experience, the feeling, intuition comes first. Then we can be "philosophically exacting." So they're not mutually exclusive. I'd even say they are inseparable. Seems like your and Sapientia's experiences are different.

That's what I don't like about mysticism. It feels like an easy way out. It might even be a kind of defence mechanism. — Sapientia

I don't think it is correct to call this "mysticism." It's just the way the mind works, at least for some of us. Intuition is what bubbles up from inside us. It is as much a part of us as consciousness or rational thought.

What if it's just bogus? What if it's just a kind of redundant umbrella term for other things? Are you talking about consciousness? Being alive? What is it? Do you even know? And if you don't know what you're talking about, then how is one to make any sense of it? — Sapientia

How do you know if anything you experience, believe, or know is bogus? We talk about perception, consciousness, and other mental experiences/phenomena here all the time. Why is this any different? Do you really experience your internal life as conscious and rational? Do you feel as if your body and feelings are separate from your intellect? I certainly don't.

If this outward appearance of meaning falls apart upon examination and no real meaning is found or can be produced, then I don't think that you can know it at all, let alone that you actually do know it. I think that you'd just be deluding yourself. — Sapientia

Isn't this just as true for rational thought as it is for intuition?

I think that it's a problem if you can't produce a means of distinguishing between nonsense and conveying some sort of deep insight which allegedly can only be expressed in metaphors and poetic language. I think that it's a problem if the word "soul" is like the nonsense word "shleaf". — Sapientia

Except the soul is a mental experience. By "mental" I include emotions and intuitions. I have experienced it, although I generally call it something else. Do you deny your own mental experience?

As a member of the National Council of English Majors, I'll first critique your writing, because NCEM's enjoy torturing people that way.

Hi, im new here and i have a thing for thinking. I write sometimes but i am unable to discuss maturity and ability to convey my thoughts on paper with anyone. Here is something i wrote: — ahmad bilal

Many native speakers have started off their threads with writing about the same as yours. It's OK. A grammar point: " maturity" and "ability" are nouns here intended to describe the infinitive. verb "to discuss". They should be adverbs, words that modify verbs. So, "I am unable to discuss maturely and ably".

"Imagine that earth is our body and moon is our soul. Both are among each other at all times but we cannot see the moon in day light and it lights our way at night and guides our oceans. — ahmad

Calling the earth our body and the moon our soul is a metaphor, a very common device in poetry and prose both. The earth is a concrete thing, solid, the soul isn't a solid thing. You make them both solid, earth and moon. You could also say the earth is our body, the wind is our soul -- the wind being lighter and different than the earth.

Just like we are unaware of our soul when we are occupied by worldy matters but as soon as we are in darkness and despair it guides us through it. It draws its light from the devine as the moon draws its light from the sun. — ahmad

One hopes the soul can do that -- maybe the soul has it's own dark nights of despair, then where does guidance come from?

Our soul has << a >> significant role in each moment of our life but we are unaware of its presence because it is present in the void and it is communicating with << the >> body through the void. As << the >> void itself has presence and it encapsulates all that exists. — ahmad

It's my life, singular, or our lives, plural. Native speakers have problems with this too. I don't know what you mean in this paragraph -- a soul in the void communicates with the body through the void, and then the void itself is present... Just don't get that part. The meaning is obscure.

If we want to know how seperated our soul is from our body.. We should see how separated << the >>moon is from >> the >> earth, compared to the size of this whole universe. They look like they are one, yet << are >> separated.". — ahmad

Please identify weak points and please guide how i can i think to think better?[/quote]

So, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a soul, and I am pretty sure nobody knows what it is, exactly, whether they believe in it or not. It's the "spirit" or "essence" of someone or something. We can refer to the soul, spirit, and essence and get away with vague meanings because there is a general agreement that "soul" has a private meaning for individuals. We all don't have to agree about what the soul is. It is "something that people think is an important part of themselves" even if it is invisible in both substance and action.

Some police won't wave "soul" through the intersection; they'll stop and question it. "Just what do you mean be "soul" they'll ask. They'll protest "There is no such thing as the soul". They will demand you justify the use of the word "soul". Most people will, however, wave your soul on, and won't demand explanations.

Be aware that "soul" and "spirit" have a lot of religious connotations. The "soul" is loaded with issues in other words. Soul is by no means the only word that causes unexpected reactions. For instance, the word "race" has been known to give certain moderators of the site seizures and severe rashes. They twitch, foam at the mouth, proclaim various nonsensical ideas, and break out in painful blisters, something like severe herpes infections. So be careful about using the word "race".

I don't think it is correct to call this "mysticism." It's just the way the mind works, at least for some of us. Intuition is what bubbles up from inside us. It is as much a part of us as consciousness or rational thought. — T Clark

And I don't think it's correct to try to pass this off as "intuition" or "just the way the mind works". It comes close to the definition of mysticism as "vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief", and other definitions specifically include mention of intuition.

How do you know if anything you experience, believe, or know is bogus? We talk about perception, consciousness, and other mental experiences/phenomena here all the time. Why is this any different? Do you really experience your internal life as conscious and rational? Do you feel as if your body and feelings are separate from your intellect? I certainly don't. — T Clark

Why would I think that perception or consciousness is bogus?! How could I be reading your reply without either of those? Soul, on the other hand, is ill-defined and seemingly mythical and/or redundant.

And I don't think it's correct to try to pass this off as "intuition" or "just the way the mind works". It comes close to the definition of mysticism as "vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief" — Sapientia

That's not the way I experience it.

Soul, on the other hand, is ill-defined and seemingly mythical. — Sapientia

For you, but not for all of us.

Isn't this just as true for rational thought as it is for intuition? — T Clark

Are you suggesting that what I said would equally apply to the term "rational thought" as it would with "soul"? :brow:

I'm not sure I follow.

Except the soul is a mental experience. — T Clark

Yeah, so is the shleaf, as it happens. Like the word "soul", people use it as a placeholder.

By "mental" I include emotions and intuitions. I have experienced it, although I generally call it something else. Do you deny your own mental experience? — T Clark

No, of course I don't deny my own mental experience. Why would you ask me such a question? Why don't you make this easier and call it by this other term you use if that will shed more light on it. I already said something along the lines that there's nothing I acknowledge the existence of which I would think it necessary or proper to call "soul".

Soul, on the other hand, is ill-defined and seemingly mythical. — Sapientia

Soul is going to stay ill-defined because it is a vague mythical concept. As I said to Ahmed above,

We can refer to the soul, spirit, and essence and get away with vague meanings because there is a general agreement that "soul" has a private meaning for individuals. We all don't have to agree about what the soul is. It is "something that people think is an important part of themselves" even if it is invisible in both substance and action. — Bitter Crank

"Spirit" is another one of those vague words people get away with using; it has so many meanings. The "spirit" of the law, a horse with "spirit", "spirit" duplicator (used in schools for duplicating souls), wine, beer, and "spirits", "she's very spiritual", wtftm, and so on.

That's not the way I experience it.

For you, but not for all of us. — T Clark

Then explain it clearly. Or else remain silent. I do not believe in mystical experiences of the ineffable.

Unlike the reaction of moderators here when they encounter the word "race" (grand mal seizures and severe blistering--like shingles) I experience only slight itching when I see the word "soul". Clearly Sap gets fairly itchy around such words.

Are you suggesting that what I said would equally apply to the term "rational thought" as it would with "soul"? — Sapientia

Yes.

Yeah, so is the shleaf, as it happens. Like the word "soul" people use it as a placeholder. — Sapientia

And so is rational thought.

I already said something along the lines that there's nothing I acknowledge the existence of which I would think it necessary or proper to call "soul". — Sapientia

I gave examples of other terms - self, identity, spirit, consciousness, me, myself, I. I would probably use the word "self," most often, but might use the others also.

Unlike the reaction of moderators here when they encounter the word "race" (grand mal seizures and severe blistering--like shingles) I experience only slight itching when I see the word "soul". Clearly Sap gets fairly itchy around such words. — Bitter Crank

Sapientia get's fairly itchy around "the" and "and."

Or else remain silent. — Sapientia

If I say "remain silent" to you, will you do it? It's almost worth it to trade silences. Not quite. I like the sound of my own voice too much.

Unlike the reaction of moderators here when they encounter the word "race" (grand mal seizures and severe blistering--like shingles) I experience only slight itching when I see the word "soul". Clearly Sap gets fairly itchy around such words. — Bitter Crank

Sometimes I get so itchy that it feels as though my soul's about to shoot right out of my mouth and float off up into the sky!

Yes. — T Clark

Go on, then.

The word "rational" is an adjective which means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic" and the word "thought" means "an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind" or "the action or process of thinking".

What's the problem?

And so is rational thought. — T Clark

No, I don't think they're comparable.

I gave examples of other terms - self, identity, spirit, consciousness, me, myself, I. I would probably use the word "self," most often, but might use the others also. — T Clark

So, which is it? Those words are not all equivalent in meaning. And one of them, "spirit", is just as bad as, "soul", both of which are quite like, "shleaf". Pick whichever word the meaning of which defines soul. Are you going with "self"?

This is what i got from dictionary: "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part. "

It exists in your reality if you believe in it.
Happiness, love and all other feelings comes from inside. We can never identify a feeling we have not felt before. Even if it is there, we wont be able to identify it. Only through rigorous encounters with these emotions aid us to understand them.
Such is the case with soul, only those moments that stir your soul and you feel fluctuations inside(personal experience) help to identify your soul. Same principle applies, after enough encounters with soul, only then can one pin point it.
If you believe that soul exists, only then you have a chance to find it.

"self" can be a good word in this context as "That calm observer behind the thoughts"

No, I don't think they're comparable. — Sapientia

You're wrong. Blind.

On "soul":

I sort of take inspiration here from Aristotle, but my best understanding of the term is the wholeness of a person -- so that includes my mental life, my emotional life, my physical life, my social life. And as much as I am philosophically inclined to avoid the word in the everyday use of the word I have encountered expressions that couldn't be expressed better without the use of "soul" -- "You and I have seen eachother's souls" is such a sentence that could not be translated into another sentence. It was the perfect expression.

It goes against my intuitions, but there does seem to be something to the word in the everyday sense that gives me pause.

Seems like your and Sapientia's experiences are different. — T Clark

That would seem to be the case ... so be it. I don't see it as any less valid than my experience, but just accept that it too plays its integral role.

It exists in your reality if you believe in it. — ahmad bilal

Yes. And so does god, the devil, hell, heaven, angels, and all other heavenly unworldly or otherworldly things.

On the other hand, the physical world exists whether you believe in it or not

The soul, then, belongs to that part of the world where believing is seeing, rather than seeing is believing.

Yes. And so does god, the devil, hell, heaven, angels, and all other heavenly unworldly or otherworldly things.

On the other hand, the physical world exists whether you believe in it or not

The soul, then, belongs to that part of the world where believing is seeing, rather than seeing is believing. — Bitter Crank

That's not the way I experience it. Internal is as real as external. Also - everything external is also internal. We only know the world through our internal perceptions, thoughts, ideas, emotions, feelings, intuitions, etc., etc.

Internal is as real as external. — T Clark

Not differentiating the reality of the physical world (which is external, perceived by the senses) with the reality inside our heads (which include imagination, wishes, delusion, emotions, ideas, etc.) can get us into trouble pretty quickly.

We have to test reality carefully sometimes to make sure our perceptions are not wrong. The strong wish coupled with a delusion and backed up by emotions isn't as easily testable as whether or not the water is really deep, or only looks deep... whether ice is really thin or is very thick... because the rational machinery is involved in the delusion itself. That's why we can go off half cocked about something, and stay that way for a long time.

Granted, sane intelligent people do manage to self-monitor the traffic between their ears and identify screwy thinking reasonably often. But we same people can also miss the boat on self-monitoring fairly often.

By the way,

The soul, then, belongs to that part of the world where believing is seeing, rather than seeing is believing. — Bitter Crank

the "believing is seeing" principle isn't limited to other-worldly things. When my partner drove downtown he could never find a parking place on the street. I kept telling him (and pointing at them) there were parking places -- it's Sunday night at 9:00 for christ's sake -- the only people down here are guys at the gay bars, and they aren't taking up all the parking places. "If you don't believe there are any parking places, you won't see them."

I would have used Billy Holiday's version of Body and Soul, but David Sederis ruined Billy Holiday with his Oscar Meyer wiener song, and Away in a Manger sung in his Billy Holiday voice.

Just like we are unaware of our soul when we are occupied by worldy matters but as soon as we are in darkness and despair it guides us through it. — ahmad bilal

This reminds me of the poem Invictus, here which I have turned to in some dark moments. :up:

i see your perspective when you say:

the physical world exists whether you believe in it or not

but this is just another perspective based on scientific knowledge humans have acquired till date.
Branch of quantum physics is contributing to reveal truth more than ever, all matter which we can comprehend in our reality is 99.9% empty space because atom is 99.9% space. if we dig deeper we can find "Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter."

It’s quite the conundrum, isn’t it? Our experience tells us that our reality is made up of physical material things, and that our world is an independently existing objective one. Again, what quantum mechanics reveals is that there is no true “physicality” in the universe, that atoms are made of focused vorticies of energy-miniature tornadoes that are constantly popping into and out of existence. The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts, suggested by Newtonian physics, and instead comes from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves stems from the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg, among others

- Lipton, H Bruce. The Biology of Belief. United States: Hay House INC. 2008
Doesn't quantum physics go by "believing is seeing"(no one has ever took a picture of quarks or photons)? because we don't believe that we are an illusion rather then something physical.

If you believe you can do something only then you can see yourself doing it. This is what I'm saying, if you believe soul exists, only then it is possible than you can be sure about whether or not it exists. So, "Believing is seeing" can generate interesting results even it is possible to discover some truth only by believing and looking for it.
So, a day might come when folk would be thinking that "believe it or not physical world do not exist", we must think that what if all knowledge we have till date collapses? Where do we stand then?, only to speed up the process.

"Self" can be a good word in this context as "That calm observer behind the thoughts". — ahmad bilal

Why calm?