I think they are outmoded, folk notions.What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? — Jack Cummins
Committed to an embodied philosophy, my speculative bias is decidedly anti-supernatural / anti-idealist; therefore, I find both "soul" and "spirit" unhelpful.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?
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
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:Out of interest, what do you make of Hegel?
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.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
This may be true but more along the idea of the permeating lifeforce imminent in all living beings. — Jack Cummins
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.