No, all those "oh mys" and gaslighting show you care more about cheap pretension than making arguments. Considering the quality of your arguments, I'm not surprised. So, you probably should be moving on. — John Harris

Don't you dare make assumptions about what I care about. you couldn't possibly know that. I joined this forum for a reason and it was not to deal with arrogant people like you who are so stifling that anything other than ridiculous arguments ensue because you don't know how to have a civilized discussion. you are the one that defaults to attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, you are the one who jumps to conclusions and likes to upset people not out of an avidness to learn about philosophy, just out of a need to prop yourself up on personal attacks. If you really cared about the quality of discussion here, you would leave your arrogant, nasty remarks out of it.

This is a philosophy forum, Locks, not the "try hard to show you know philosophy by resorting to cheap on-line tacts" forum. Maybe you could start one...:) — John Harris

I'm here to learn about philosophy, not to try hard to show I know it. The only one getting in the way of that, is you.

No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point. — John Harris

and I'm sorry my 'oh, my' made you feel defensive. next time I will remember that shock and surprise doesn't bode well with you.

i realize you'd like to believe you always point out really good and meaningful things but we're squabbling over what you think is hollow and pretentious right now. and again, all you pointed out is that we have differing opinions, just in a really acerbic manner.

so, if you could move on, please do. otherwise i've nothing more to say to you.

Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point. — John Harris

Right.. people have opinions about different things. It doesn't require consent. All you pointed out was that we differ on the opinion which was already a given. So these seem like pointless words... Lots of points.

Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found. — John Harris

you've made your last argument many times, Harris. One no one has combatted.

It's how I Interpreted what he was saying-- and why I replied good point.

Actually, it's not a good point since my assertion was founded on the notion one couldn't assert something existed until it was found, not that everything that is natural is capable of being found.
And secondly, his statement itself is erroneous since, as you noted, even if I had made that assumption, it would have been a significantly valid one even if not absolutely proven. And finally, if people could assert something existed without it being found, one could assert God, the Easter bunny, angels, or even the soul could exist. That's why something being actually found is vital. — John Harris

Oh my. Relax John Harris. It could be a good point to me for many reasons, even if simply to think about it and debunk it. You've still made your point.

Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really.

I don't think giving grades are immoral but I think limiting knowledge to certain categories is a gross misuse of the education system which probably only exists to produce nice little workers for corporations.

I like the idea of the soul as an animating force, that which makes something come alive. Loosely, a work of art can have soul, a good meal with friends, music, my dog Sidney, a culture all can have soul as an animating force. — Cavacava

I like it too.

This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found". — Janus

Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.

Does it matter to you if this soul, you ask about, dies?

If no, then it exists.
If yes, then I don't know. — TheMadFool

Hmm.. why would it exist if I think it doesn't matter? If it dies it existed in the first place, right? But yes, it matters to me.

You should read some Plato. There is very much information there concerning the nature of the soul, and why it is necessary to assume that we have a soul. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks for the suggestion. I am enjoying your contribution to the discussion. Undercover as what?

Everything in your experience is consistent with what an animal would be expected to experience. — Michael Ossipoff

I am having a hard time understanding how our experience of consciousness as an animal removes the possibility of a soul or how 'if then' factors interracting with each other disqualify the possibility. You have given me a lot to digest though and perhaps I need to read more in depth into these terms you've provided me with or if you'd like to expand on them, go for it.

If we were born to experience the same world without a soul like influence yet individualized, then how did humanity become individuals to begin with? how did culture and artificiality arise... I'm sure you've addressed this somewhere in there but it is hard for me to connect the dots considering I don't have the same knowledge you do.

That's a great last name, by the way.

4) Memory persists in the fabric of the universe. Evidence of this would be inherited traits, instincts, innate skills, and unexplainable skills (child prodigies, idiot savants, etc.).

It is this persistence if memory that we might call a soul. — Rich

Cool idea, very intriguing.

One question I would have is about your use of 'personality', a something which to me has the same sort of existence as 'soul': I hear others speak of it, it seems to make sense to say it sometimes, but I wouldn't like to say it 'exists'. Where does someone's 'personality' reside? — mcdoodle

I lumped personality with soul because I wanted to see if people thought the soul (if believing it exists) was our driving force behind our actions and our disposition and then somehow culture and environment influenced and changed it over time. It isn't an idea I'm attached at the hip to but something I've pondered.

So just remember that, whatever comes next. — Wayfarer

Sounds ominous. I'll keep it in mind.

Define soul. — Thorongil

That light glowing thing that makes us tick.. oh, I don't know. Perhaps an entity or matter separate from body but obviously in control of it, something that gives us life.

That said,life is still wondrous and should be celebrated. Maybe even all the more so! — Brian

A refreshing attitude and half the time I am on your side of the argument.

What has ruled out the existence of souls? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Good question.
And fair point.


On a sidenote: Does anyone know if there are ways to delete messages from discussions?

Terrorism is a term created during our era of globalism to define those rebelling or violently opposing the legitimacy of a nation state (from what I gather). Terrorists represent a group, not a state and therefore are deemed illegitimate-- terroristic in nature by a state. I believe labelling the rebellious group as "terrorists" is as much of a tact as terrorism is one, because it invalidates the terrorist's goal, voice, and actions rendering them powerless in our adhered to global political system.

I think labelling these groups is the reason why the definition is so elusive and hard to pin down as those who are considered terrorists not only have global goals but national ones that pertain to complex religious wars, and internal hate and violence, however it blankets the situation not allowing critical thinking to deal with this kind of adversity properly.

It depends on your definition of globalism. I personally do not believe the initiative behind globalism has much to do with peaceful coexistence between countries, cultures, religions and even ideas, yet the advancement of western philosophy and sometimes even coercion into complying with it.

If we are talking about global peaceful coexistence, then that is an ideal I would love to embrace but one that should be viewed with fresh eyes and a new philosophy that leaves western politics out of it. However, I do not have much hope for that idea considering the state of the world today is dominated by, as stated above, "global capitalism".