In the Merriam-Webster English dictionary it states that a soul is the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body after death. However, it also states that it is the spiritual part of a human being OR an animal, which is regarded as immortal. These conflicting definitions are what I plan to be discussing in this essay. However, I will not be discussing the validity of these statements because I don’t think they are incorrect, I think that they are incomplete. I believe that all living things on earth have souls. By this I don’t mean that all these living things have the same degree of souls. I believe that our souls are rational, spiritual, and infinitely more complex than others along with being immortal, but I do believe that others still exist. This being said I would like to focus mainly on my opinion of souls and animals, and how I believe a soul is more than just an afterlife. I believe that our soul makes up our advanced mind we as living things possess, including our intelligence, will and emotion. All of which I will be discussing in the following paragraphs. It was said in the article Natural Selection and the Problem of Evil by Paul Draper, that simplicity is significant when arguing the likelihood of a hypothesis (Draper 200). Taking this into account, one could assume that the simpler hypothesis would be that only humans have souls. After all, we are the most complex beings on earth. However, by saying not all living things have
In my opinion the soul does exist and it is the major decisive factor when it comes to choosing between moral goodness and evil. Also, the soul is governed more by faith and freewill than by reason.
In the Myth of the Soul, Darrow argues against different conceptions of immortality. One of the arguments that he presents to us is that we have a soul that can survive our death. Darrow argues that there is no evidence for the existence of the soul and questions where the soul stays within our body and when it enters our body. His arguments are to be further evaluated for its strengths and weaknesses as he tries to counter a belief with a long history particularly, in religion.
The Soul view focuses around the soul being separate from the body. The soul, being separate from the body, when a person dies can move on from one body to another. It doesn’t only consider death as a distinction between soul and body, the persistence comes into question as well. “If a person x exists at one time and something y exists at another time, under what circumstances is it the case that x is y?”. When the soul view is put into question for this the answer is that x and y are the same person. Although their body may have changed over time they are still the same person. This can be applied to sleeping, death, and other extreme circumstances. For instance, when you sleep you begin to lose consciousness but then wake up as the same person and can identify yourself, therefore you are the same person, no matter the body. The same can be tied to death, if body was not in question when you “wake up” you persist with the same soul and memories. Therefore, the soul View holds.
In Chapter two of Moral, Believing Animals Christian Smith argues that human beings are moral animals because they are strong self-evaluators who inhabit morally based orders. In the next chapter, smith adds that humans are moral animals because they also believe. This ability to believe and act morally allows humans to stray away from our instinctive minds. In other words, it is apart of what makes us human. Smith finds that this way of viewing humans provides a better account of human religiousness. Religion is the manifestation of our capacity to be self-conscious. Smith uses Narrative morality writing to help explain his views on religion and human beings, which allow us to recognize our true moral capacity.
The soul is a non-material substance that somehow has a connection with one’s living body (Weisberg, January 2016). When the body dies, the connection between mind and physical being is broken (Weisberg, January 2016). After death, the body will rot away and parish. However, one’s soul, being a non-material substance, can not be destroyed, and with that, it is possible for a person, rather, a person’s soul and who they are, to live on after death (Weisberg, January
One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.
As I have a religious background, I believe everyone has a soul, and so do I. My soul is like a lake because the lake will not be static, completely calm and stable. It will always have constant waves and change its status. Nevertheless, because it is a lake, its volatility will not be intense enough to become a massive storm surges, or to have sufficient internal resources to go beyond the shore. Therefore, I cannot go to seek for a different environment, a different way of existence. On the other hand, I am obligated to provide my resources to the trees and the creatures that need me. They are my family member, my friends, and my social relationships. I am not afraid of untethering my soul, but my love stops me. However, I believe one day, my lake will creep to the river and then the sea. From the sea, I will be able to provide the rain for all species. In other words, I can spread my love and my peace by becoming helpful to society, I just need time to do that.
The idea of the soul varies widely in religious tradition. While these variations exist, its basic definition is unvarying. The soul can be described as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The soul is seen as the core principle of life or as the essence of a being 1. Views on the permanence of the soul vary throughout religious tradition as well. While some view it as a mortal entity in flux others believe the soul is an immortal and permanent unit. These interpretations vary from time period to time period and between religions. These characteristics of the soul are interpreted differently through an Eastern or
Does the soul exist? If so, what is the soul? Moreover, what is its function in daily life? For millennia, schools of philosophy have investigated these questions and attempted to answer them by devising complex philosophies, which were in some cases completely alien to our modern ideas. In this essay, I will discuss the Egyptian, Taoist, and Aristotelian views on the soul’s function and composition during life. Then, I will compare these philosophies and discuss which aspects of each philosophy I find the most plausible from a realist’s point of view. Concerning the composition and function of the soul, I argue that the Aristotelian and Taoist philosophies are equally plausible, but that the Egyptian philosophy also had plausible aspects. Ultimately, however, it is difficult to determine which theory the most plausible (from a realist’s perspective) without tackling the bigger question “does the soul exist?”
I grew up with a Catholic family and went to church every Sunday and I was taught everyone had a soul and it was the basis for every human being. The soul is what makes someone a person and it’s what separates us from non-living beings. As I grew up, I started to be less religious and started believing in science and factual based knowledge yet I still always believed in the soul. When you grow up your whole life being told a certain thing it’s hard to shake the idea of it not being true. It wasn’t until we started to talk about the different views of the self that I started to think maybe the soul isn’t what makes a person a person. It can’t be seen, it can’t be touched and we can’t tell if anyone even has a soul. There is no evidence
For Swinburne, the soul is essentially what our mind is. It is the part of us that analyzes information, thinks on it, and
I believe there are both an immaterial part to you and a physical part. The physical part of you cannot survive without the immaterial. The immaterial part of a person is the soul, which I also believe, is the mind. However, your soul can live on without the physical sense of you. I believe that the physical part of you, your body, is acting like a cage to your soul. The body is kind of like a suit that your soul wears while it is on Earth. There is only one part of you that controls your actions and thoughts, which is your mind. Also, I believe that your body without a soul is just dead. If your soul and body are no longer at one then I believe you soul moves on to another world where your body is just dead. Once the soul and body are no longer connected the body has no purpose and has no actions. Since without the soul the body is nothing but matter then the soul is that part that is making all decisions, which is why I believe it is also the mind. It is the part of a person that make up a personality or gives a person reason. I believe the mind is the only part of a person that makes decisions and puts your physical body in action. With believing that the soul is in a body but the soul does not need the body, I
What is a soul? The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal regarded as immortal. Many Philosophers studied the soul in several ways in order to get the point of what is the soul. Although sometimes it is confusing to understand what is meant because it is explained in other ways and used in examples. The Philosopher Aristotle came to the conclusion that the soul is the first grade of actuality of a natural organized body. He uses it in the axe and eye as examples but yes it might be confusing but at the end it will make sense in what he means.
Plato has roused many readers with the work of a great philosopher by the name of Socrates. Through Plato, Socrates lived on generations after his time. A topic of Socrates that many will continue to discuss is the idea of “an immortal soul”. Although there are various works and dialogues about this topic it is found to be best explained in The Phaedo. It is fair to say that the mind may wonder when one dies what exactly happens to the beloved soul, the giver of life often thought of as the very essence of life does it live on beyond the body, or does it die with it? Does the soul have knowledge of the past if it really does live on?
Since philosophers don’t fear death and believe that the soul is the most important, Plato says that the soul is immortal and has has existed before our birth. “For if the soul existed before birth, and in coming life and being born can be born only from death and dying, must she not after death exist, since she has to be born again? Surely the proof which you desire has been already furnished” (Plato 55). This quote explains how our soul has lived for many years and what happens to our soul from the result of our death. Plato says that our soul could have lived inside other bodies during its many lives, such as animals or other people. If your soul has lived a previous life before being inside your body like Plato explains, it makes you wonder what other lives our soul has gone through before our own. This is pretty interesting to think that once you die, your soul will live on, your body is just another life or stop, for your soul to gain even more experiences and wisdom. Plato explains that the soul is the most important, and that the body is just another obstacle for your soul to go through.