No, it's rational thinking. According to your faulty logic, science is positivism; it's not.
Also, you need to read Comte, you don't know what positivism is. — Thanatos Sand
Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul. — Thanatos Sand
It is highly unlikely that a concept of "soul" which we have inherited from the infancy of human thinking, is a valuable concept nor is it likely to be true. Such an idea comes from a time when the whole world was thought of as being inhabited by spirits, malicious, benign, and beneficial. — charleton
If there is a concept such as "soul", which has persisted since the infancy of human thinking, why would you think that it is highly unlikely that it is a valuable concept? If a concept comes and goes in a very short period of time, like a flash in the pan, it is obviously not a valuable concept. But if a concept is held by human beings for thousands of years, then quite clearly it is a valuable concept. — Metaphysician Undercover
Today people with little thought can communicate with far more efficiency using the Internet, and there is a dissipation of that knowledge, and not all in a good way. — charleton
For the same reason that other idiotic ideas such as astrology, fairies and angels are still firmly believed in. — charleton
The idea of gremlins, fairies and angels are also useful concepts ... — charleton
ts a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
I know Comte and what you're arguing is pure positivism. And scientism.
Aristotle never found the soul in nature. You're just being ridiculous now, comparing finding plants and animals to theorizing a soul.
— Thanatos Sand
Your missing the point Thanatos. What differentiates theorizing something, from something being found in nature? Suppose you find something in nature, you think it's a rock. Well isn't it a theory which says that it's a "rock"? The point is, that things are named, and there is theory as to how to apply the names to declare that the thing found is best called by that name. So you don't really find a thing with the name "rock" on it, and say "hey look I found a rock", you actually must refer to a theory to back up your claim that the thing you found is a rock. You don't find names in nature, you find nameless things, and use theory to put names to those things.
Consider living things now. Do you agree that there is something called "life"? But have you ever found life? We find all sorts of different living plants, and animals, but we do not find life. It is only theory which tells us that there is something which is called "life", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead. It is the same with "soul", just a different word for the same thing. In theory there is something which is called "the soul", and this theory allows us to distinguish between being alive and being dead.
↪Thanatos Sand
ts a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
We can pretty much tell animate from inanimate, but we don't know how matter became and continues to become animate, we can't even mimic it (Craig Venter has tried and tried). I lean towards a form of Panpsychism, since as far as I am concerned there is no way mind could have formed except from matter, and I think all matter in the right configuration has the potential for ensoulment.
Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection. — Thanatos Sand
Yes, it's me, Thanatos Sand, I lost my password. — John Harris
Its a nice idea Cav, but if the soul is natural, it would have been detected by now. There's just no chemical entity/human part that could escape sciences exhaustive means of detection.
— Thanatos Sand
We know that a certain part of the brain is responsible for language, but we're not capable of finding exactly where the word 'dog' is stored. Does this mean words are not natural?
Yes, it's me, Thanatos Sand, I lost my password.
— John Harris
Well at least we got rid of one idiot!
Imaging a supernatural essence like the soul or a natural soul impossibly avoiding all detection is just fantasizing as one fantasizes Angels or Demons. Using your faulty logic, they could be there too. — John Harris
Imaging a supernatural essence like the soul or a natural soul impossibly avoiding all detection is just fantasizing as one fantasizes Angels or Demons. Using your faulty logic, they could be there too.
— John Harris
Notice that I put 'soul' in quotation marks. When I say 'soul', I am referring to the sense of being more than just an animal, due to our higher level of intelligence. I don't think there is any force separate from our biological structures, but I can see how the sense of a soul could be an amalgamation of inputs from various parts of the brain, making it seem very real.
I don't believe in souls, but someone could argue that they are undetectable, just like the word 'dog' is undetectable in the brain.
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.