Thank god we know so little about these topics. Allah Rahim, God is most merciful, eh Jack?

Do you not stop and wonder about these topics or concepts? Perhaps, I give my own 'soul' torture in doing so, but such ideas are a subtext underlying the whole debate about physicalism. In the sentence I have just written I am using the term 'soul' in a fairly loose, metaphorical way. However, at one point I used to believe in a literal 'soul' in the dualistic way of Descartes, especially in his distinct use of the concept 'I'.

Nowadays, having read in the direction of psychology and philosophers, especially Daniel Dennett, I can see that the ideas of soul and mind are open to question. However, as I am not convinced by physicalism because it is so reductive, even though empirical methods may be important it may give limited analysis. I know that you have considered the physicalist perspective seriously, but I would still question what it really amounts to other than linking the brain and consciousness. Therefore, my own query is whether the actual terms, especially 'mind' and 'soul' are worthy of consideration, as a basis for deeper philosophical analysis.

I am a bit surprised that your response suggests that we may be better off knowing little about such topics, and I am wondering why?

Indeed, I do wonder, but that wonder doesn't translate into knowledge, mon ami. We can only explore the possibility space, offering only our personal take on the matter. 'Tis best not to overthink, but of course, that's only my opinion. Ask yerself "what did I discover today?"

On the subject of what did I learn today, I spent a lot of time reading, including some philosophy essays, and, sometimes reading philosophy leads to philosophical knots. I was reading about the mind and body problem, including discussion of idealism. Sometimes, it seems that philosophy becomes too abstract and theoretical. I am extremely introspective and most definitely overthink.

It is a fine line between philosophy and overthinking, especially as so much of the issues explored on forum discussion, involve thinking about the concepts used in everyday language and I guess that my area of interest has always been the 'mind' and associated concepts and aspects of life. I am not sure what I have learned of significance today experientially or in terms of analytical thinking but there are a few hours left so there is a time for some learning experience yet. I don't know about your day and what you have learned about yourself, or beyond. Wonder is indeed limited but without it there may be no basis for speculation, in looking within or outside oneself.

What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

I think they are outmoded, folk notions.

Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem?

Committed to an embodied philosophy, my speculative bias is decidedly anti-supernatural / anti-idealist; therefore, I find both "soul" and "spirit" unhelpful.

"Mind" is (mostly) a property we ascribe to a (recognizable) phenomenally self-modeling, metacognitive body.

"Self" conceived as self-continuity (embodied) is more helpful than self-identity (disembodied).

And, as far as I'm concerned, "the mind-body problem" is dissolved by Spinozist property dualism contra Cartesian substance dualism.

I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

They're deep and difficult topics. To discuss them requires awareness of the cultural and historical context within which they evolved and how they were used in that context, in other words, a hermeneutic approach. A major part of that involves understanding modern thought since the European Enlightenment. One difficulty is, most people are involved in that without reflective awareness of it. They defend positions that they don't understand themselves.

Comparative religion is a particularly useful discipline in this context as it is very much concerned with understanding what is now called the 'history of ideas' - an interdisciplinary subject in the humanities which can be located between philosophy and history, not only about reality as viewed through the perspective of concepts and theories, but also viewed from the perspective of mythology, religion and traditional culture. Joseph Campbell's books on comparative mythology are a well-known example. There's an enormous amount of material that could be included under that heading, but looking at it in terms of the origin and historical development of major cultural forms provides a useful analytic framework.

I'd conclude by mentioning hermenuetics again - one of its aims and methods is re-interpreting mythological or historical ideas in the context of modern culture. Mankind has outgrown its childhood myths but many of the underlying themes re-surface in different forms in our day (as can be seen time and again in the flood of special-effects blockbusters appearing in cinemas all over the world.) Again that is where careful interpretation is required.

So to invoke such broad terms as mind, body, spirit, soul, needs awareness of the context from which they've been derived and also the way that they're being used. Not an easy thing to do, but possible, and worthwhile.

Yes, I think that both of us have got to this point before as your link shows and I am still in the position of having not read Spinoza, in order to get a full picture of property dualism, although I am aware that some have seen his writings as advocating pantheism. I am aware that you are not a materialist but, on the other hand, reject the idea of the supernatural. I am probably juggling this area, especially with my reading of Jung and the transpersonal.

Out of interest, what do you make of Hegel? I read his account of history and spirit and his particular phenomenology of mind about a year ago. It seems that he is a bit rejected in philosophy.

Yes, putting these ideas together into one thread may not work, as they are such complex areas, involving so many different writers, with a need to understand the cultural contexts. I am extremely interested in the field of comparative religion and have found the ideas of Huston Smith useful. I am probably in the position of having read such a diverse selection of writers and trying to put it all together, with some important omissions, such as Spinoza.

I started this thread because in real life I don't really have anyone to discuss philosophy ideas with. I continue with my reading life and do use this forum to try to ground myself in the rational aspects of philosophy. You are most definitely correct to say that understanding of the contexts of the usage of them is important and that is why trying to define the ideas may be too simplistic. If anything, some may dismiss certain terms without entering into the philosophical imagination of the worldviews from which they emerged. If anything, I like to think and read broadly, so I have a big task whereas those who go for one specific perspective may have a narrower focus.

One of the ideas I've picked up on this forum is Wittgenstein's 'meaning is use' - that you see what a word really means in the way it is used, not it's supposed dictionary definition.

As for focussing, I'm very much like you, I tend to think about big ideas and topics while often falling short in detailed knowledge of specifics. Careful scholars are generally much more circumspect and will focus on an area of speciality. It's practically unavoidable nowadays, with such vast amounts of information at your fingertips. Nevertheless, I try and maintain an approach which is thematic and synoptic. It suits this kind of subject particularly well.

Regarding Spinoza, check out this title. Oh, and another current author in the area of comparative religion and philosophical spirituality that you ought to know if you don't already is Mark Vernon.

Well, though I'm something of a Spinozist, I don't recommend Spinoza (who is actually an acosmist, not pantheist) for 'philosophy of mind' or contemporary neuroscience. This link to a recent post has a list of contemporary thinkers from whom I've learned much about 'mind':
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/755060

Out of interest, what do you make of Hegel?

Unfortunately, along with Kant, Hegel is the most influential (detrimental) modern philosopher for midwifing "p0m0" and "communism", respectively (as well as for also totally eclipsing Spinoza until about fifty years ago). For me, Hegel in two words: totalitarian teleology. :mask:

I definitely see the point of Wittgenstein's idea of the 'use' of meanings, which was why I didn't attempt to define the various words. It would have probably been pointless if in response to the thread people had tried to do so. I guess I was thinking of the complexity of the terms because I see them used in some overlapping and various ways. In particular, I am definitely questioning of the materialist approach of writers such as Dennett but have found reading on the Zen concept of 'no mind' to be interesting. I guess that the Zen approach seems deeper.

You are probably wise to be thematic in your reading and I have a bit of a chaotic mix and match approach which may end up being like putting a jigsaw puzzle together with the wrong pieces at times. Thanks for the recommendations and I will look up Mark Vernon because I haven't come across him. I started with Ninian Smart on comparative religion.

Okay, I will look at the link. I did start Spinoza w couple of times and didn't get very far. I also did come across Hegel in relation to communism, and the political aspects of writers cannot be ignored. I went through a Kant phase a long time ago...

When you ask if they are useful, that asks me to ask toward what purpose.

Is it to approach what is in front of you? Is it to build a sufficient map of what surrounds you without reference to you? Are you trying to get some things behind you? If the latter, are they chasing you or can you just leave town?

I don't know much but I am betting all these useful items cannot be found in a single place.

Yes, it is interesting to what purpose are such terms used. I started very much in the direction of the idea of the soul, in a religious background of Catholicism and a clear belief in spirits. I am not sure that the terms, especially soul are not useful in some ways but I probably think of them differently from initially. The idea of disembodied souls, or souls raises problems. So, it is all about the specific implications of the use of the terms.

One reference to the idea of the soul which I always liked was in the Spandau Ballet song, 'Gold', which had the line, 'Always believe in your soul, it's indestructible'. This way be true but more along the idea of the permeating lifeforce imminent in all living beings. In some ways it could signify immortality but whether that is a literal form of afterlife but as an underlying continuity of lifeforms.

I wonder about all these different terms in the history of thinking in philosophy. They are used to describe the nature of consciousness at different points in the history of philosophy and thinking about the nature of 'mind'. — Jack Cummins

The terms you listed are names for concepts that are not physical objects. So, they are essential to meta-physical Philosophy and Religion. But physical Science can do its job without reference to such non-things. Except that Quantum Science discovered gaps in classical physics that left some sub-atomic phenomena un-explained. So, persistent quantum scientists were forced to turn to Eastern philosophies for terminology that included the consciousness of the observer in observations of the foundations of physical reality.

This may be true but more along the idea of the permeating lifeforce imminent in all living beings. — Jack Cummins

In that register, the utility you asked for is immediately before you, the wonder of living amongst other living beings. It is like the breath of life spoken of in Genesis. The clot of shaped soil becomes alive.

The recognition that this has a different role than thinking of immortality is a good enough reason to question whether combining them preserves the original thought.

I am definitely into combining and blending different ideas rather than simply differentiating and this is where it gets interesting. That is because sometimes ideas from different perspectives become dichotomized rather than seeing parallels. In that respect, a perennial philosophy, such as that of Aldous Huxley is able to see recurrent themes and traditions rather than seeing various viewpoints as clashing voices in the metaphorical Tower of Babel.

You are right to say that the concepts which I am talking about are non-physical which makes them fall more into the category of the philosophy of religion. It is quite something that after a tendency towards materialism in science that the quantum physicists' conception of reality has gone back to find what was missing in the Newtonian-Cartesian world view which had been the basis for the development of physicalist models.

I am a grumpy old man who takes another approach. If everything can easily be compared to anything else, then it is too general to require anything from me. In the image of the Tower of Babel, it includes too much to learn much there.

Each term represents the misapprehension of human biology, though I think Self is more applicable. Their referent is perpetually absent or hidden from any observer, so we literally and figuratively can’t quite put our finger on it. I would include in this “consciousness”. Why we posit these phantoms I am not certain, but we can be certain that we posit them in certain objects, and these objects are infinitely greater in size, complexity, originality, and value than any of these phantoms.

Good to know that you're keeping yourself busy ... doing the right things. In the dark, mon ami, your imagination goes berserk.

*agent smith pulls hard upon his Gitane before flicking the butt into the inky blackness of the Siene. *

Siene — Paine

:love:

I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

I would add identity, ego, psyche, and perhaps heart to your list.

For me, these words are synonyms, although many would disagree. Some of that disagreement comes from the fact that, as you noted, each word arose in a different context from people with a different understanding of human nature. I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that all of these phenomena are illusions which humans create so we can talk about ourselves in an objective way. As I say, I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not how I think in my daily life.

As with all synonyms, the words have different connotations and can be used in different situations. I have a very strong sense of self and "self" is the word that feels most personal to me. It's the word for how it feels here inside. "Soul" and "heart" are words I use when I'm talking about the human capacity for empathy, sincerity, and positive human values. "Mind" I tend to use when I'm talking about human intellect. ""Identity, "psyche," and "ego" I use when talking about myself and others in a more objective way. I see them as psychological terms. Of course, my usage is not always the way others use the words and even I don't follow the usages I describe always.

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. — George Orwell, 1984

Meaning is use. These words are meaningless. Therefore you must not use them.

It is likely to be far to compare almost ANYTHING, but it is likely that in order to become a clear, independent thinker it is worth working out a framework of how various ideas overlap at all or work together or against one another. Otherwise, there is a danger of getting locked or trapped in the language of one set system of ideas. Of course, it is hard to do form a synthetic understanding and it is going to be limited because it is not possible to be aware of all the different ideas. It would require one to become a living encyclopedia, and the closest one gets to this is the computer knowledge of Wikipedia.

Self has definitely taken over from soul and I can see why. Although I do appreciate the Zen Buddhist view which sees self as not being an entity in its own right, which was the criticism of mind and soul previously. And, yes, some have queried consciousness, such as Daniel Dennett's idea of 'consciousness is an illusion'. It does come down to the experiential beyond tangible physical reality' being hard to pin down exactly. However, even the clear distinction between 'mind' or 'consciousness' is hard to separate because they are interconnected, like two sides of a coin. Reflection itself may be the biggest evidence of consciousness or even 'mind' with 'self' possibly representing the interface between mind and body, especially in relation to emotions.

I do agree with ego, psyche and heart being possible terms which could have been added to the list. The term ego is fairly ambiguous because it has different connotations in Freud's theory to the use in Eastern thinking. Psyche was used by Jung and in archetypal psychology. Heart is an interesting one because what it signifies is that consciousness is not located in the head alone as the exclusive source. It is most clearly recognized in the Eastern model of the chakra system.

To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. I do like the term 'soul' to some extent although it may give rise to certain religious or spiritual connotations. The particular use of the term which I find helpful is in transpersonal philosophy and psychology, such as in the writing of Thomas More in, 'Care of the Soul' and 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. They are probably used in a spiritual as opposed to strictly religious sense. Mind you, in some ways the idea of soul could also be linked to the association of the genre of soul music, which I believe was based on it reaching the depths of emotional experiences.

Identity does seem to capture the whole spectrum of this as the autobiographical process of 'self'. Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context.

I see the utility of a "framework of how various ideas overlap at all or work together or against one another." That has the danger of encapsulating concepts into a currency common enough to mix and match to create a map. Summaries tend to look for a mark or definition that allows us to assign an idea a place to adjacent places. Devotion to a particular source inhibits comparison to other sources in order to learn what it can provide. To the degree that one can completely explain something, it has been cancelled as something to wonder about.

To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and I do think that these will differ from person to person. I'm sure the ways I use these words as described in my previous post won't always match how others feel.

Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context. — Jack Cummins

I'm an American with the usual load of self-regard, but I think my understanding of my own experience, my self, provides a pretty stable platform from which to look out over reality without being rigid. If that makes any sense.