FA+
Shop
SOULS, Not a Journal, Just me babbling. :3
16 years ago
General
This was going to be turned into a proper journal but instead, I decided to post what I have here. I don't feel like taking the time to babble about this. If it gets a good response (that is, lots of comments. Agreeing with me or not doesn't decide if it gets a good response.) I'll remake it into a more proper journal. :p
I'd rather just move onto something else.
"I Love you with ALL my heart and Soul!"
This used to mean a lot to me back when I was religious. I always knew that this was a very stupid thing to say, but what it meant to me was special.
Today, I can no longer look at this phrase the same way. Here's the facts.
Soul: 4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
Heart: 4. the center of emotion, esp. as contrasted to the head as the center of the intellect.
The fact is, this phrase makes sense. So, if the phrase is accurate, why is it I cannot look at it as an emotional thing?
Drum Roll...
Religion.
When I was in catholic school, we were talking about souls and I asked a question. "What is a soul?" to which the teacher said, "The Soul is what makes you, you." o_o Really, that's what she said to me. So the soul is what makes you, you. Even as a child, I thought that it was the brain that made you, you. In the end, your actions demonstrate you as you, but in a much more technical sense it's your thoughts, beliefs, memory: Your brain, that makes you, you.
Of course, it didn't end there. Eternal Paradise (in otherwords, existing forever worshipping God in Heaven)... Your SOUL or, your existence outside of your body.... Your 'Eternal Soul' I should say, since that's how they always phrased it to me. Of course, whenever challenged, the best they could do is bring up the whole, It's what makes you, you belief.
*sighs* I'm babbling. Let me cut to the point. For this journal, I will define Soul: 2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come
I do not believe in Souls. It's silly. Why can I say this with such conviction? Where is the evidence to suggest we have one in the first place?
Why is it that I blame religion? Because religion has hijacked the word. Soul means what it means to people because of religion. It's the same as how they have hijacked marriage, amongst other words.
Because people cannot seperate the difference between Soul and Soul, or Heart and Heart, these words are subject to interpretation too much.
I'd rather just move onto something else.
"I Love you with ALL my heart and Soul!"
This used to mean a lot to me back when I was religious. I always knew that this was a very stupid thing to say, but what it meant to me was special.
Today, I can no longer look at this phrase the same way. Here's the facts.
Soul: 4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
Heart: 4. the center of emotion, esp. as contrasted to the head as the center of the intellect.
The fact is, this phrase makes sense. So, if the phrase is accurate, why is it I cannot look at it as an emotional thing?
Drum Roll...
Religion.
When I was in catholic school, we were talking about souls and I asked a question. "What is a soul?" to which the teacher said, "The Soul is what makes you, you." o_o Really, that's what she said to me. So the soul is what makes you, you. Even as a child, I thought that it was the brain that made you, you. In the end, your actions demonstrate you as you, but in a much more technical sense it's your thoughts, beliefs, memory: Your brain, that makes you, you.
Of course, it didn't end there. Eternal Paradise (in otherwords, existing forever worshipping God in Heaven)... Your SOUL or, your existence outside of your body.... Your 'Eternal Soul' I should say, since that's how they always phrased it to me. Of course, whenever challenged, the best they could do is bring up the whole, It's what makes you, you belief.
*sighs* I'm babbling. Let me cut to the point. For this journal, I will define Soul: 2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come
I do not believe in Souls. It's silly. Why can I say this with such conviction? Where is the evidence to suggest we have one in the first place?
Why is it that I blame religion? Because religion has hijacked the word. Soul means what it means to people because of religion. It's the same as how they have hijacked marriage, amongst other words.
Because people cannot seperate the difference between Soul and Soul, or Heart and Heart, these words are subject to interpretation too much.
Seriously you dont have to tie everything up to religion, you can have beliefs and hopes and not be tied down any single religious group.
Also it would completely justify the bigotry of racial sterotyping, and I am not inclided to give KKK members and inch of reason.
It was started at a time this was needed because at the time, black equality was thought of as superiority. This is still present as you can easily see by the foolish imbeciles that want money for slavery that they didn't do. XD
However, the group today is just a bad thing, and I wish they'd just dissapear. They do a lto fo bad for white people. >.>
A former friend of mine at Youtube made an excellent point with this comment:
"How ignorant are you guys you sit around talking about pathetic rascist shit that doesnt mean a thing . White people like you are always complaining about people calling you all rascist and this is how you act you make you race look bad , go to school and then get a job you poor white trash who probably doesnt have a house to live in .All the blacks my neighborhood have a job and education while you lazy white trash wont do nothing for yourselves and complain that everybody else is taking your jobs and country".
My response:
"Amen. I'm tired of those skinhead hypocrites who whine about blacks being racist to them......when the irony is that they're being bigots themselves and they WHINE about '"reverse racism." And skinheads" say that Black "play the race card?" Pure hypocrisy."
Point taken, Crystal?
And as for reperations, I'm inclined to agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that Jews, American Indians, and other "oppresed" groups were given reperations with no questions asked yet when blacks demand for one, it seems to be a problem for the populace, which reeks as a form of double standard in that situation. Also the same can be said for "Gay rights" as well.Some people even question if it's even count as a legit Civil Rights issue and say that "Gay rights" is nothing more then a ploy to make Gay equality superior to Straight equality.What would you say to that?
Cause if all there is a chemical response to internal and external impulses, then the logical thing would be to control the production of detrimental chemical substances so that everyone could be confined to the rule of majority in a society.
I dont really care about the extremist views of Theists and Atheists, they both seem to be so enthralled in a battle to prove each other wrong to give their own existance meaninful that it sounds ridiculous in the long run.
And let me expand on the logic behind regulating chemical imbalances, because to an extent its what is being done lately.
also to comments of Fuck you for lumping people in a group, isn't that what you are basically doing with Theists?
Do you honestly believe that everyone that does believe in the Magic man in the sky is a closed minded religious zealot?
Actually if you want to be technical, 100% of it is genetics. :p Now, the genetics are effected by (brain dead) uhh, I'll say atmosphere though that's not the word I want. My brain just died. -_-
AHem. Where you are brought up and so on, effects what you can learn but the maximum you are capable of learning, the rate, the way things click are genetic. Take Einstien for example, his brain was atypical in that it was too wide. :p But yes, Dawkins was asked, "Are we programmed to evolve to become, collectively more intelligent?" Response, "I fear not because in order for that to happen, it would be necissary that the most intelligent amongst us are the ones that have the most children."
But we evolve in, as Dawkins says again, "Cultural Evolution" and so, I understand your point. ^_^ I mean, if I had grown up with my Mother and not my Father, I wouldn't be interested in science and math, at all.... and she'd still think the 'galaxy' is what we call the Solar System.
before the days of Visual Operating systems, word processors were bitch to use.
"Soul", "mind", "consiousness", "spirit" whatever the hell else words and concepts people have used throughout the ages to try to define that one (apparently) intangible thing.
The "who" of a person (the above "thing") vs the "what" of a person, (the sack of meat that alone, might not nececarrily mean self-awareness. The fact that there are those unfortunate to be, essentialy, sacks of still-warm meat, gives some credit to that.)
I think it may be something like a computer's program;
It can be anywhere on the disk space, which might even be damaged, and while the hardware does set limits on what it is capable of, the program itself is the defining thing, but does need a phsycial medium of existance; it needs to phsycially exist as magnetic spots on the metal as 0's and 1's.
To the exended metaphor; I think someone could be copied or downloaded, maybe even edited, if the proper format was used. Guraranteed it'd be one hell of a complex format.
But that's just conjecture at best, to be honest.
(Trying to) stick to facts; I think the "Who" part of someone isn't nececcarily tied to just the fact that the brain is wired; people's brain can receive significant damage, even have parts removed; they migth suffer physcial ailments, loss of fucntion, but aside from the emotional trauma resulting from the event of, say, brain cancer, or a headshot, personality is not affected...
Hm, no, still conjecture.
"What is being defined" is probably the first question that needs to pinned down.
Ok, actually, you said already.
OK;
"What is the objective nature of that which we are attempting to define?"
Hell we can be even sure that the input our organs receive are viewed in the same way by everyone, what you see a blue, could be green for me, but we have no way of trading eyes to make sure.
What am I, and Who am I are very difficult questions, I believe we wont be seeing the anwser to either in our entire lifetime, and if we ever do, we might not like it.
Personality 'is' effected if the correct part of the brain is tampered with. Sorry to say this so bluntly but to 'think' otherwise, despite the numerous cases of this, is very silly Xuncu. o_O
WHy in quotation marks?
QUotation marks; like the people who use those words to describe it really know what they're talking about either. ^_~
Now, think about that. If their souls floated up towards the heavens, then the souls would be buoyant and actually cause the body to weight less, not more, while they were still alive. Instead of going up to heaven, that means that, once released, the soul will fall down towards the centre of the earth, pulled by gravity, where it will oscillate for eternity.
I don't know about you, but I reckon I'd get bored of eternal oscillation after the first few hours, let alone, say, eternity.
and the eternity after that, and the eternity after that. I should consult some biologists and see what they have to say regarding this hypothesis. :3 see if it's even true that the body weighs less when we die.
Most would say it's bunk, I'd bet. The snopes link I gave has discussion of the veracity of the experiment. It don't look real good.