Moderator: Aldus Marius
personally, I think that every man and woman has a soul. Where that soul is located is of no importance because I think that the soul is inside of your whole body.
This soul is what makes us different from other people because we all look alike, inside and outside (more or less).
Tiberius Dionysius Draco wrote:f you have no soul, then what is responsible for your character.
Tiberius Dionysius Draco wrote:So this would also mean that animals have got souls, and why not? It's not because they can't think about it that they don't have one.
If you have no soul, then what is responsible for your character.
I think that your soul is responsible for all this. So this would also mean that animals have got souls, and why not? It's not because they can't think about it that they don't have one.
And Lupe, what you said about nobody ever finding your soul. Do you mean by this that this proves we don't have a soul?
Then explain me why they have never found any memories inside the human body. Because this would mean that according to you, we don't have any memories. We just think we have.
Anyway, it's an interesting question. I also see that no one responded to my last response on the True Self debate. It seems I am too powerful of a rhetor, wa ha ha.
If *you* are *you* (the physical you only), and your hand is severed, are *you* still *you"? After all, you lost a part of yourself. If you still think you are the same person (in terms of personality)...
Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:scripsistiAnyway, it's an interesting question. I also see that no one responded to my last response on the True Self debate. It seems I am too powerful of a rhetor, wa ha ha.
Oooh, what vile techniques to inspire discussion !
Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:But anyway, here goes,
quoque scripsistiIf *you* are *you* (the physical you only), and your hand is severed, are *you* still *you"? After all, you lost a part of yourself. If you still think you are the same person (in terms of personality)...
By this, you simply present us with the same problem as with the body/soul dichotomy, only now you make a difference between body and personality. Will I have changed when I lose my hand ? Yes, my body will have another form and I will weigh slightly less.
But will I have changed in terms of personality ? You'll have to explain me first what you think "personality" is and how one develops his or her personality, because we may have different opinions (and in answering this, you'll probably have the answer to "will it change my personality ?" as well )
Actually, no. I contend that what we perceive as our personality is a construct of our ego but has no real, independent existence, because everything is interdependent (there can't be big without small, no cold without warm, no bank without money, etc etc) and is thus in a continuosly fluctuating continuum (despite the fuzziness this is really what I mean, nothing more, nothing less).
Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:That's all very nice (and has a *lot* in common with the ideas of de Saussure about language)
Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:... but you still haven't answered the question you asked us about the hand.
Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:My idea of a personality is the sum of DNA, background, religion, education, experiences,....ever changing and never within our grasp.
Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:But the hand question was related to Locatus' position that self/personality = physical existence. So if I were to lose my hand, according to his logic, there would be *two* me's! And if he doesn't think that, appearently the self is not the body.
Just think about it, there has never been found a "soul" inside a person's body
My idea of a personality is the sum of DNA, background, religion, education, experiences...
Such a statement only proves the hopelessly shallow, fundamentally flawed, and laughably inadequate nature of what often passes for 'human rationalism' and, by extension, 'human intelligence' as well.
I'd be curious to know how you would attempt to justify or otherwise account for your "something from nothing" philosophy
If nothing else, the atheistic/nihilistic viewpoint only serves to represent 'human reasoning' at its absolute worst.
Lupus wrote:("knowledge" in the Middle Ages included "knowing" that the Earth was the center of the universe for example).
Lupus wrote:It's not the atheist (who believes there is no God) who should prove that he doesn't exist, it's the Christian who should prove that he does exist.
Caius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Indeed, the burden of proof lies on you, because the evidence to support the contrary is overwhelming and already perfectly abundant to those who are clearly able to see the human condition - striving solely for temporal things that don't even matter - as the ultimate exercise in futility and sheer audacity that it is. If nothing else, the atheistic/nihilistic viewpoint only serves to represent 'human reasoning' at its absolute worst.
Caius Iulius Octavianus wrote:The very fact that the vast majority are not able to see the greater picture, nor comprehend the existence of things beyond their pathetically weak, limited, and narrow scope of reality, is proof in and of itself that, in the final analysis, we still have light-years to go in terms of spiritual evolution before we can ever hope to achieve true enlightenment and progress while in a human capacity on this infinitesimally small particle of dust we call Earth or, more than likely, as a higher form of life in a better part of the vast expanse of space.
Romulus Aurelius Orcus wrote:Our soul is everywhere in our body but at the same time nowhere. It can't be seen nor touched.
Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests