Descartes does not say anything about it. Those two would be fundamental, but both res cogitans and res extensa for him ultimately come from God, causally speaking.Can substance be further broken down into their constructive elements?
For example, bread is made of flour. Water is made of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen molecules.
What is res extensa made of? What is res cogitans made of? — Corvus
But you're using the word 'thing' and 'existence' very imprecisely here. — Wayfarer
Surely I can reflect on myself, I can engage in reflection and analysis, but that is always something done by a subject, and the subject itself is never truly an object, as such, except for in the metaphorical sense of 'the object of enquiry'. We relate to the natural world and to others as objects of perception (although understanding of course that others are also subjects), but the 'I' who thus relates is not an object, but that to which or whom objects appear. — Wayfarer
I found the reference I was thinking of regarding Husserl's critique of Descartes' tendency to 'objectify' the mind, in the Routledge Introduction to Phenomenology, edited by Dermot Moran. — Wayfarer
Treating consciousness as part of the world, reifying consciousness, is precisely to ignore consciousness’s foundational, disclosive role.
But if it is the case, there is nothing to be evaluated besides physical objects, and so our view has to default to physicalism, and the self can then never be investigated. — Lionino
There can only be a serious argument for the permanence of the soul, if the soul is thought to be energy itself. — boagie
This would be a consequence of the material world and neurology, in which the brain conditions the mental state to have this memory, because the brains corresponding to the previous mental state and the current mental state have spatio-temporal continuity. — Lionino
but there seem traits which seem impossible to account for by those means — Wayfarer
Furthermore, much of what shapes and influences us is not directly available to conscious awareness or introspection — Wayfarer
issue with the question of agency and moral responsibility — Wayfarer
You keep trying to push Indian religions because you personally subscribe to it/them, not because they are pertinent. — Lionino
the west is catholic — Lionino
That's a bit of an over-generalisation, I feel — Wayfarer
I mean, after all, the subject of the OP is 'reasons for believing in the permanence of the soul'. Who in secular culture even believes there is a soul? I know from long experience on this forum that the idea of the soul is not well-received here. — Wayfarer
Could it be that the 'self' does exist but in a dynamic state, always changing but, for the most part, recognisable over time if you analyse in small enough increments of time — Daniel Duffy
But that adds a very big problem to it: where does it start and where does it end? If the distinguishing criteria of something is undergoing incremental changes, we can't say where it begins and where it ends, as nothing in this world is created or destroyed, only changed — Lionino
Our minds cannot process those changes to that degree, so we have a generalised idea of what a hammer is, how it looks to our eyes through the reflection of light, and we assign 'hammer' to it. But there can be no 'hammer' outside of this perception and....oh dear, now my brain is wondering whether our perception of the hammer actually does make the hammer exist.
Is this what Buddhism is talking about - that nothing exists and there is only emptiness, and realisation of emptiness brings enlightenment? — Daniel Duffy
Someone on a spiritual path might say this means the soul always lives on. Someone of a more scientific ilk might suggest that consciousness arises as a result of electrical activity in the brain, and since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, some form of soul always exists, but at what point do we stop considering it a soul and just a collection of energy? — Daniel Duffy
Welcome to the Forum. — Wayfarer
energy is not intentional, whereas one would think that intentionality is at the very seat of the soul (or mind or consciousness). — Wayfarer
Latin is definitely not the source of any of the daily English lexicon except for the few words I mentioned, French is the source of almost everything productive in English today. English did not exist at the time of Ancient Latin. — Lionino
An example is 'alienate' coined in the 16th century. — BC
I don't have a problem saying that Latin came into English through French — BC
You shouldn't, because French is English's mama. — Lionino
Finally! You just admitted French is Latin. :smile: — javi2541997
Otherwise, I will remain in doubt, and in absence of any evidence of permanence, I will default to the position that it does not stay at all, and that we are constantly as always dying, as the comic posted in the first page depicts. — Lionino
I’d cite the abundance of veridical near death experiences as evidence of the soul and an afterlife. — Captain Homicide
Thus, in process philosophy, the soul (or mind or whatever you wanna call it) would be not the substances that stay through time but as an integrating process. — Lionino
It seems like you are asking about perdurance, not permanence. — Leontiskos
it strikes me as a subset of the induction problem — Leontiskos
And why is it born with this memory? This would be a consequence of the material world and neurology, in which the brain conditions the mental state to have this memory, because the brains corresponding to the previous mental state and the current mental state have spatio-temporal continuity. — Lionino
If one takes Aristotelian premises then familiarity with the nature of the soul can allow one to understand that it has the property of perduring — Leontiskos
It seems that we would simply move to asking whether the process perdures over time. — Leontiskos
the soul is the interconnectedness of those experiences, that gives rise to a sense of self which is the subject. — Lionino
In the sense that "From that I am the same person I was before, I can't infer that I will be afterwards."? — Lionino
My question is a bit more extreme, it denies the first premise. Though the focus is indeed on the future, as the past is past, the question also applies to the future: ¿how do I know I am the same person I was minutes ago, but not another person with the same memories due to us sharing the same bodily brain? — Lionino
How so? — Lionino
The alternative is that it is constantly being annihilated and created through time; though it is not an appealing alternative, he does not address or refute that possibility. — Lionino
The process is the perdurance through time, so, if there is such a thing as some experience in time, and each point in time there is this same element, the soul is the interconnectedness of those experiences, that gives rise to a sense of self which is the subject. — Lionino
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.