Question 1: If there is such a thing as a "soul," where did it come from? Did God or any other diety create it?

Question 2: If there is a "soul" inside your body, is it seperate from you or is it the same as you? In other words, who is in control of the body? Is it like a "Player vs. Vessel" situation as we see in the games created by Toby Fox (Undertale and Deltarune)? "Are you truly in control of yourself?" is the question I am trying to ask, I suppose. And let's say hypothetically, that Christianity is true, would that mean that You would go to Heaven, or "you," the soul? Since those are two separate things.

Question 3: If the soul is seperate from the body, why even bother to be a good person? You wouldn't even go to Heaven, your SOUL would. Would you even bother to be a good person?

Question 4: If the soul and the body are one and the same, how would that even work? Is it something akin to "you are the soul piloting a human body" type situation, like some spiritual people say? — Null Noir

Q1. No. There is doubt there is a self.
Q2. There isn't but I assume if a soul exists it would be separate.
Q3. I assume your soul is "you" so you may as well be a good boy (or girl)
Q4. It wouldn't.

This is the vow of a Compassionist:
1. I help all, harm none.
2. I see everyone - even the harmful, the indifferent, and the selfish - as shaped by forces beyond their control.
3. I replace blame and credit with understanding.
4. I replace judgment with care.
5. I love, not because the world is loving, but because love for all is the inevitable solution to the problems we face. — Truth Seeker

That sounds like an awful existence.

I could not be arsed with and I am dismissive of selfish people. My one existence is not being encumbered by people who are harmful or selfish. Indifferent is my status for all the people who are on the edges of my social circle.

1. Why the need to help all? Some people need a kick up the arse.
2. I get how environment etc moulds a person but once you become an adult you have agency to change
3 I respect everyone until they lose respect
4 That is for very close family only. Everyone else will be cared for and judged on their merits.
5 I love the people who I have chosen to have in my life. The rest are in zone of indifference. I like being indifferent to people who bring nothing into my life. I'm indifferent to people who try and bring harm. I won't waste emotional energy on people who mean nothing to me.

I'm definitely not a follower of compassionism.

My man, I say it to piss you off, cause you're one of those types that's easily turned into a puppet. Cause I got 0 empathy for the bullshit of lastmen. But I will suffer a fool, for my own good health. — DifferentiatingEgg

What a bizarre post. You carryon.

Well, in the realm of philosophy it is called philosophical pessimism. My hunch is that philosophical pessimism is more attune with how emotive it is with the aspect of depression professes itself. Might sound like a word-salad but I think there's truth to philosophical pessimism. — Shawn

I get that and it is a sound enough (if miserable) concept but I would baulk at describing depression as healthy. I suppose it depends on the term depression as well.

I think depression is a healthy attitude as long as it remains an attitude — Shawn

In what context would depression be healthy?

What constitutes depression in this circumstance?

My seek is more focused on human behaviour and personal circumstances which lead us to an incomprehensible suffering. — javi2541997

I come from the opposite end of the spectrum and I believe that it is childhood and what happens in childhood that moulds the adult. Not that these things are set in stone.

I was brought up on a council estate in Northern England and everything was ordered. My family was two parents. One worked, the other looked after the home and us lot.

Crucially for me, my parents did not put any expectations upon us and we got three meals a day (simple meals but filling)

My world view was one of fun and order and I have taken that throughout my life. I have live an ordinary life but have repeated the pattern. My only child was brought up similarly (with more emphasis on education) but she has repeated the pattern. My wife and child work in Mental health jobs and see the damage done by childhood. It isn't just horrendous stories but just parents being not very good.

Patterns of thought are repeated through life and while I have read plenty of Dostoyevsky etc it all seems over the top and childish. I understand people live in terrible circumstances but the perspectives on life of many of my fellow humans seems bizarre to m but I have a fascination with neuro science (on a very basic level) and I understand my experience is my own and in different circumstance I would have been a different personality. I'm also a fan of the Stoics but cherry pick the bits that are relevant to me.

What is it about yourself you feel bad about? Don't answer if you don't want to.

I’m definitely not your man. You stick to your own shit.

Perhaps you should say my book, since you are the author :wink: — Heracloitus

That is class. I wonder if he has worked why we no longer queue in UK as much as we used to.

My answer is simple: the world is as it is because that is how the world and we humans evolved. — Pieter R van Wyk

How is that different to my example? What do you propose to order society better?

Yes, we seem to be struggling with the same moral dilemmas we've been struggling with for 1000s of years. Religion and politics stem from ethics and ethics are subjective, which is why my default attitude is "live and let live". — Harry Hindu

It is fascinating how the Greeks infiltrate everything we do and value and how things changed when scientists worked stuff out and knowledge accumulated.
I’m happy to live the life I have and enjoy it as it is. I’m not looking for why and superior reason for existence.
I don’t think it exists and everyone trying to force some higher power or reason is just guessing. Which is fine as a pastime but not for me.
I’m grateful for the great thinkers in the past who have allowed a framework for my life to be built. However, the permissive aspect of modern world, combined with ultra safety consciousness , has made it less free in my opinion.
The modern world needs a very strict framework of what is acceptable and freedom within that framework for self expression. The Japanese were very good at building such a framework but I doubt the world could ever be ordered like that until there was some extreme disaster and there was a survival issue for mankind.

I’ve read the Greeks and I’m fascinated how we got where we are today. How we think and what knowledge we have amassed, especially in science. It is mind blowing. But I don’t see any significant contribution to how we live and order society from modern philosophy. It may be my ignorance but I’m aware of quantum mechanics and relativity.

've learned a lot just by participating (often badly) in discussions. I find I'm most interested in views different from my own. If you resist or mistrust something, chances are you need to understand it better. Philosophy is very difficult and its complexity is spread across centuries, it's an impossible subject to fully master, but one from which we can all snatch an occasional insight. I understand very little myself and don't have the time understand it much better. — Tom Storm

That is why I joined but I find most of the exchanges esoteric and stilted. Snatching insights is all I want from the subject. I have my own world view more or less sorted but the odd bit of the stoics or Nietzsche etc give me further insight. Most of the esoteric stuff is (for me) pointless or I have absorbed it as part of being born in second half of 20th Century in Europe (UK)

But the modern world is a product of philosophy: secularism, naturalism, scientism, and neoliberalism all of these have built the fabric of our culture and how we see reality. And yet it all remains in flux. The world today is very different from how it was when I was a teenager, and it's changing as we speak. Don't expect it to look like this in 50 years. — Tom Storm

I agree 100%. The changes are brought about by changes in science and innovation. There are seismic shifts in social settings too. I don't see much of current philosophy being relevant to what is happening.
It is fascinating though.

moved from the boring to the derivative? — Tom Storm

Are you implying mid 70s prog is boring?:gasp:

Do you mean by this that philosophy has moved from the boring to the derivative? — Tom Storm

I just don't see it has very much to do with the modern world. All the major shifts in thought have been assimilated and now the proponents are irrelevant to modern way of life. The capitalists and mammon have won. The modern world and capitalism etc have brought untold riches to billions of people but the cost is massive and I don't see any major thinkers having any influence on the way the world is ordered.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy in my small niche of untold wealth and can order my life to bring me joy and happiness and I like to read philosophy as it can change how I think but I don't see any influence on the modern world from philosophy today. That may be ignorance but if I don't see it, I doubt the vast majority of punters will either.
This place may have jaundiced me because most of the discussions are over my head and I'm not stupid.

My analogy for philosophy now is that it seems to be the equivalent of prog rock fans discussing an obscure album from 1973 in minute detail when the world is listening to Taylor Swift, Chappell Roan.and other popular artists.

Sympathy means you can detect the problem, because you understand what's going on... doesn't mean you give a damn about helping. — DifferentiatingEgg

That isn't true at all. People can have sympathy for someone's situation and help. Empathy is having an understanding and sharing feelings. How can a man who hasn't had a child have empathy with a mother who has lost her child? They can have massive sympathy and help the women as much as they are able but I cannot see how someone could claim empathy.

1. What, exactly, do you mean by 'system'? — Pieter R van Wyk

The system was that people stood in line and waited their turn.

You mention unwritten rules that were followed and then not followed - is that not the basis of any political change and if so, we humans has been doing that for as long as philosophy has been studied, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

I was pointing out why this is. From your opening post. If everyone doesn't buy in, then we get a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipedream!"

Your contribution is appreciated and thank you for the plain english but I do not find myself closer to an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk

The answer is some people will always be selfish c**ts if they think they can get away with it and there aren't sufficient rules and discipline to stop them. It isn't rocket science.

Why do you think the world is as it is?

In England we have always had a system of queuing. It was an agreed set of unwritten rules and no one transgressed. The system worked was egalitarian and was literally "first come first served"

This has degenerated in the last few decades and people try and game the system. Once there is a small breakdown in the system, it rapidly becomes every man (or woman) for themselves.

We can have wonderful ideas about no strife, everyone being fed etc etc but as soon as a couple of people jump the queue the result is chaos and the breakdown of balance in society.

Also, when there is inequality then there is resentment and people wishing to get more than they have when they see others with more.

I also think we like a struggle and a bit of a scrap.

Not one ism was quoted there.

Overwhelmingly, the world appears to do much as advertised. — Banno

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck. I'm going with duck.

I too wonder what life could have been had i not made this terrible choice. — hypericin

It seems I may have been wrong about the choice!
I have come through life almost scar free and I have lead an ordinary life but an enjoyable one.
I am fairly passive on most decisions as I see them as almost irrelevant but I think I was just very lucky. Which sometimes is important (even though I'm not superstitious in any way.

I was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder on the 5th of March 1998. My parents told me to ignore the psychiatrist and not take the prescribed medications. I didn't listen to my parents. I trusted my psychiatrist and took the prescribed medications. 27 years and 3 months later, I am still struggling with depression and all the side-effects of the prescribed medications. I have gone from 65 kg to 98 kg as my medication causes weight gain. My mental illness has ruined my physical health, education, career and relationships. I often wonder how my life would be if I had listened to my parents instead of my psychiatrist. — Truth Seeker

I think any choices you would have made in the past will have been overwhelmed by your condition.

I think you made the correct decision in trusting the psychiatrist even if the outcome was much worse than keeping off meds. (not that you will ever know)
It was an informed decision and the advice was made by professionals that see patients constantly and even give the best care available at the time.

Going forward, I think simple decision making on a micro level would be of benefit.
You say that your physical health, education, career and relationships have been ruined but you are where you are and decisions going forward are the only ones that matter.

You can start on your fitness from today. I'm in my 60s and whilst being relatively fit I wanted to improve. One goal was pressups. My first attempt was 5 and I collapsed. Every day I shower and the water takes a few minutes to warm up. Every day I now do pressups before the shower. I have improved but the lesson I learned was that I need to do it everyday and it is a little win.
I would see your career and education now would be to learn about nutrition and fitness and work at it slowly and incrementally and don't sweat any

You obviously love your parents and you can repay them by being a slightly better person than you were. That is mainly for you though.

Relationships is a hard one, especially the older you get but the relationship most important now is with yourself.

Sympathy is more like social radar, empathy is sharing in the pain of those who show up on that radar. — DifferentiatingEgg

what does that mean?

Also, the issue of empathy has become an important area in psychiatry, in relation to autism — Jack Cummins

How can someone with autism feel an emotion that they have no concept of and cannot read the situation anyway?

Sociopaths have no concept of empathy (I assume) Narcissists too?

I am uncertain about where I stand on the issue of empathy/sympathy being about semantics. — Jack Cummins

A mother who has lost a child can empathise with another mother who has lost a child. I could only sympathise as I would not be arrogant enough to think I could imagine the process and pain. Maybe, that is my lack of imagination but the mother would have my utmost sympathy.

I would have sympathy for a homeless crack addict but doubt I could empathise.

I think we are on the same page.
I am far more robust regarding society. I think a lot of modern attitudes and beliefs are utter nonsense. The fragility of people’s psyche and mental health I find baffling. Maybe philosophy needs to step up a bit in the modern world and give a bit of guidance.
Luckily, I live in a fairly sane part of the world and can ignore most of the craziness. The craziness I do find amusing.

Nobody has to do anything — Michael

Exactly. The world has come on really well, in certain aspects, over the last couple of centuries.

Socialization. That's the process. This isn't really arguable, unless you hold (against basically every single take that makes sens) that gender is tied to sex, rather than associated with it. — AmadeusD

My previous posts you have engaged with have said as such. I was asking specifically in 2025 what gender stereotype do people have to conform with?

It is, quite simply, bullshit, that the world does not create expectations and standards for gendered behaviour. These are unavoidable in early life. — AmadeusD

I have no issue with this. I have so in my previous posts which (I assume) read since you responded.

If you want to just say that "foisted" is too harsh of a word, that's fine — AmadeusD

If you had started with that then maybe some decent exchange may have taken place.

In reality, many people don't have that (I did not) and suffer the pressure of conform to social norms around gender. — AmadeusD

There are many pressures in life and you may live in a conservative part of the world but what social norms are you pressured into? How is this any different to anyone else?

But it clearly, without sense of doubt, is. — AmadeusD

No one has to conform to any gender stereotype.
How is gender foisted on someone?
Explain the process.

That's great. You made an inaccurate statement, that statement basically being: "social expectation is not required (forced upon [anyone])". — Outlander

The statement was gender is not foisted upon anyone.

What is expected of a woman in 2025 in Western liberal democracies? What gender specific thought or action is "foisted" upon them?

Scientific facts and reference along with common sense — Outlander

Another LOL

So it's not a logical point that has any relevance in this or any discussion. — Outlander

What isn't a logical point? That girls and boys are treated differently as they develop? Is that not logical?

No, those that don't, fade away in place of those that do — Outlander

Differences between the genders will fade away? They will definitely change but they won't fade away because there are some problematic biological issues that mean there are differences that will won't fade away. Why is it problematic if some females prefer certain stuff more than males and vice versa?

Naturally. "Societal" differences just reminds me of fluid dynamics applied to psychology ie. "water chooses the path of least resistance" or in more lax terms "what the majority of people happen to think." — Outlander

Are you denying such differences exist? What world do you live in?

Sure, often based on what's best for a given society in a given time and at a given place. — Outlander

I have I said otherwise? What is more, no one is forced to adhere to the differences. (Well, not where I live.)

What has been my point since the beginning, logic and refinement of views and opinions for the betterment of society — Outlander

What have I said is not based on the way the world is?

What do you object to, if more women prefer a bottomless brunch and more men prefer the footy? It's not as if they are exclusive for either gender.

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so. — Outlander

The only response to that is LOL.

Not all descriptions are valid or above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species. — Outlander

So what? Do descriptions have to be above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species?

There are aggregated societal differences between the sexes. Gender describes those differences. What is your point?

If Gender is actually something foisted upon you, but it is a collective bargain, so to speak, you would need to opt ouit of the social contract to deny it. That's somewhat fair imo. — AmadeusD

I don't see gender as something foisted on you. It's just a description of cultural and social differences between the sexes.

Those differences are changing constantly BUT the sex of a person is a huge factor in the their development.

People can be whoever they wish to be and do not have to play the role that used to be ascribed to the genders. However, there is no doubt in my mind a woman and a man have different experiences growing up and biology plays a factor in physical development and to a smaller extent with hormonally BUT the way the world reacts to either sex is a huge factor on the development of all adults.

People can do whatever they want but cannot alter how they developed as a child and adult.

So, I don't see changing a gender as possible since it's just a description of aggregated and changing social norms. IMHO.

This is where we disagree. I think a person is viewed from very a very early age because of their sex. Even in the most liberal and equitable places girls and boys are treated differently. They are given every opportunity to be whoever they want to be and to do what they want but the world treats them differently and this becomes part of the adult. They are a man or a woman because of how the world has interacted with them and how they see them. They may be a very "feminine" man but they are still a man. I don't think a man calling himself as a women, is of any use to anyone.

Surely the heavy handed way that the raids are being performed is meat and drink to Trump's supporters.

I have no issue with a Sovereign State removing illegal aliens. If I went from UK to USA on a tourist visa and tried to overstay and work for a living I would expect to be booted out fairly quickly.

I have to say, I can't quite understand what you're actually trying to say.
The concept of gender refers to behaviour and presentation. These are, obviously not 'sexed'. They vary with sex, in most cases. So to me, there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want. It has to be related to actual gender presentational norms, though (but note: norms. These are not benchmarks, or objectively assessable criteria which leads to...)

The problem, as I see it, is that no one else has to give two squirts of piss about your identity, if it isn't somehow legally understood tout court (i.e sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation etc..) and gender should not be, in any way, a legal concept. It is utterly absurd that there are laws that describe gender as a factor in anything. its so ambiguous as to be essentially unenforceable, other than to assent to screeching children complaining that the world doesn't conform to their wishes.

There's nothing wrong with lamenting the world and your place in it - thinking anyone else needs to do anything about it is a mistake, and in the West, we have (although this seems to have curtailed recently) moved towards policies which enforce some kind of collective assent to people's identities. Ridiculous, and clearly (i.e in action, right now, all around us) a totally failed project. — AmadeusD

I agree with you in everything other than

"there's no issue with people claiming whatever gender ID they want whenever they want, along any lines they want"

I think there is an issue. It undermines what it is to be a woman and men cos-playing as women is lamentable.

I have no issue with genuine sufferers of gender dysphoria (which is a tiny percentage of the trans cohort)

As for the girls/young women who are disfigured by the medical professional instead of being given psychiatric help. The less said the better.

It seems to me the term gender has been hijacked. It's a perfect reasonable concept to describe societal differences between the sexes. These have changed dramatically over time and are not exclusive to either sex but describe the social differences that are more typically (but not exclusively) relating to one sex or another.
There would be no issue of people commandeering the other gender if there was not significant differences between the two sexes in an few significant areas.
I have no idea why people struggle with the issue other than self importance or delusion..

The transgender issue IS a rabbit hole, so to even participate is to jump down a rabbit hole and argue with esoteric posters.

Philosophy often involves exploring rabbit holes. — Harry Hindu

I don’t think it is. It’s an extremely simple issue.

Rabbit holes are sometimes fun but very rarely about the subject being discussed.

Could the same sentence(s) be said accurately if the words "woman" and "women" were replaced with "man" and "men", respectively? Why or why not? — Outlander

Absolutely but there is a power imbalance between the sexes. Physical and social and economic. It has improved dramatically in the last 60 years.
Things may change and women may be happy to share changing facilities in the future but until then female spaces need to be female only.

What would it be like in a world where men never existed and only women did? — Outlander

Then there would be no need for women’s exclusive places.

I get your point. It may be shallow in the sense that what it means to be a conscious human being is just so deep and rich a topic of discussion that it transcends our biological differences entirely and makes said differences seem ridiculous to talk about in comparison — Outlander

That isn’t my point. My point there is a biological difference and that affects the way your family, peers, neighbours etc etc react to you. A man does not get the same upbringing as a woman. Combined with child rearing and power imbalance, women and men are different and no man can jump the divide and become a woman. Imho.

Genitalia (presumably the underlying biological reality and innate chemical differences that produce the difference types) and menstruation is gender? Menstruation is a social construct? Really? Like women can just will the cycle a way? And conversely I can menstruate if I just really set my mind to it? I think that claim of yours needs a slight looking at and a fair amount of tinkering before it's "street legal", per se. While we're on the shtick of chastising arguments. — Outlander

Like I said, utterly shallow.

I'm pretty sure I defined a woman as an adult human female somewhere in this thread — Harry Hindu

I think we are probably on the same page. You’ve just gone down rabbit holes of madness arguing minutiae with some of the more esoteric posters.
Adult human female is a definition I’ll agree with.