Can anybody prove the existence of the soul and whether it is inmortal ot not?
I have read plato'd phaedo, but his arguments don't convince me.
Can anybody prove the existence of the soul and whether it is inmortal ot not?
Can anybody prove the existence of the soul and whether it is inmortal ot not?
I have read plato'd phaedo, but his arguments don't convince me.
Plato's
>Can anybody prove the existence of the soul
Metaphysics is not science, it can't "prove" shit.
wrong
Lying is a sin, human filth
Science can't prove shit, it's not mathematics.
>inmortal
Immortal*
OP (me) is mentally challenged
Accidental genius, if you ask me.
Other way around is more likely.
Well, it's a good pun, "my in mortal soul"
And in-material
what is a soul? like a permanent unchanging self? thats not real thats dumbbbbb
>thing is immortal/eternal
>ergo it has to be unchanging
is such a moronic idea
I feel like plato is very overrated. Putting aside the republic I feel like didn't write anything great
Post physique.
19yo btw
What species?
If thats a mirror then where is the camera?
Trips, dub, and a killer physique? Keep mogging lit anon. Nietzsche also thought Plato was lame.
Thanks anon
So much the worse for Nietzsche ("Niete" as I like to call him).
“All of Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato.”
Eternity is in direct contrast to temporality. This is built on Plato's distinction between Being and Becoming. It's entirely consistent
It isn't consistent. We have no idea if eternity exists or if there is anything at all that remains unchanged or anything outside of physical reality, we just have speculation.
My homie this has been the discourse on universals and particulars for millenia
People assumed the sun rotates the earth before for millennia. Why are we assuming everything stays the same / there are universal constants? Why would gravity act the same in a trillion years? What if the laws of physics atrophy and age just like everything else? What if there is nothing universal, only things that appear not to change because our lives are short?
>We have no idea if eternity exists
well it not existing would be a paradox
How? Why can't the universe have paradoxes? How do we know it's a perfect construction / an act of reason?
The law of non contradiction is a fundamental axiom of reason. There is no such thing as knowledge without it
Why is it a law? How do we know it is true? How could we know if the universe doesn't contradict itself if we haven't explored it all / don't understand many every day physical phenomenon beyond naming them?
We know it's a law because it's axiomatic. Knowledge is attained by possessing distinct ideas which requires truth and falsity. If something can be simultaneously true and false at the same time then that premise is incoherent. It cannot be cognized. Talking to someone who dismisses the law of non contradiction is a waste of time because that conversation cannot result in any clarity or distinction.
Law of Non Contradiction should be questioned. It's not a certainty, and if it cannot be cognized then we couldn't even catch paradoxes, though there's no reason to believe someone's mind might be able to witness paradox. Saying someone cannot witness paradox isn't confirmable.
Because logic, a paradox simply can't happen, it's at best something we can't see the full picture yet and at worst will never be able to fully know due to limitations on our biology and/or technology.
Why can't it happen? How would we even know? It just doesn't seem like we could know if things are paradoxical since we have no other universe to compare our own to.
Logic is the relationship between ideas. For example, all squares have four sides. If a shape has more than four sides, it cannot be a square. There is no alternative. This is called analytic knowledge and it's said that these are necessary truths.
Something contemporary philosophers like to talk about is the hypothetical of possible universes. In ALL possible universes, necessary truths remain. This leads to the distinction of contingent truths. It's true that my car is silver. Because this is a contingent truth, it is possible that it might have been a different color. However, in no possible universe is it ever possible that a square has three sides.
Theres some terms you should googl:
>Necessary truth
>contingent truth
>axiom
>problem of universals
>being and becoming
>Justified true belief
Yes, but just because a square has 4 sides doesn't mean there is a soul that makes motion possible. Plato is just trying to solve the Achilles parable and it's not solved it's just conjecture.
If anything, other universes don't exist as we know it, but if they did there's no reason to believe they'd have squares or that squares couldn't behave differently.
These are just words anon. These are concepts that are not reality, they're used to build large ideas that exist outside of the physical world, like a Harry Potter novel.
>Necessary truth
>contingent truth
>axiom
>problem of universals
>being and becoming
>Justified true belief
>Yes, but just because a square has 4 sides doesn't mean there is a soul that makes motion possible. Plato is just trying to solve the Achilles parable and it's not solved it's just conjecture.
This demonstrates your unfamiliarity with Plato. Plato begins with universal truths in geometry specifically to conceieve his theory of forms. It's from here he builds his theory of being and becoming. Universals, like geometric truths, exist in Being, and are unchanging and eternal. From he says that our perceptions all filter through the Ideas, meaning our cognitive function is more related to forms than it is the changing things of the realm of Becoming.
>there's no reason to believe they'd have squares or that squares couldn't behave differently.
We have very good reason to believe that squares are universals, given that the geometry of a square is a necessary truth. This relates to essences and their real existence.
>These are just words anon
No they're not. They're symbolic representations of ideas. That words relate to coherent concepts is the foundation of literally all communication.
Why do we have any concrete reasons to believe squares are exist in a hypothetical universe? Why are we assuming geometry behaves the same beyond our physical reality?
If a thing is eternal, then there must necessarily be something unchanging about it in order for it to remain the same thing.
The soul is because it must be; it’s the difference between being alive and dead. In a way, it’s immortal, because it isn’t destructible.
Hey must the soul be? What difference would it make if it was or wasn't?
No soul, no motion. No motion, no life.
Why?
The soul is a subset of motion.
>disembodied representation
Is it?
How is the soul a subset of motion? Isn't a more ethereal idea?
I do think the soul implies disembodied - because the definition is more akin to it is something outside of your body in which your consciousness resides.
The soul is a subset of motion because the soul is moved; a soul but no body is motionless. Consciousness belongs to a different genus.
I think that's redefining the soul and also doesn't account for the soul not existing. Motion exists with or without a soul.
>I think that's redefining the soul
It existed before the Cartesian definition.
>doesn't account for the soul not existing
No scientific knowledge if the soul’s motionless. Simple as that.
>Motion exists with or without a soul.
What kinds of motion?
If the soul is motionless it doesn't change anything because it's just a concept. Everything continues to move without it.
Concepts change. Not all things move.
Nothing abstract about it. Literally indestructible.
For nature, yes.
It's only indestructible because they t doesn't exist. Originally the soul was s disembodied continuation of the individual. Saying the soul is the axis of all movement is just changing what the soul is named. You could call the axis of all movement floopy but it wouldn't change that things just move and we have no idea how motion works beyond the physicallly observable universe.
Indestructible because the soul stays the same in motion. Existents destroy nonexistent things qua potency. The soul is always being embodied or being-at-work; “things just work” is your maxim to prove.
How can you claim the soul is indestructible if it cannot be proven to exist? How is it known that a soul is needed for motion? Just because things work doesn't mean you have to make up a soul to explain it. It's like explaining Zeus' thunderbolts as weapons made by Cyclopes instead of a discharge of ions. You're attributing words and values to the unknown, it might as well be called something mythological.
What anon is talking about is called the anima, from which we derive our terms animate and inanimate objects. This terms seeks to define and explain why some entities are capable of self motion while others are inert. It is not mytholgoical to note that I move myself while a rock does not.
This is an introduction to the term in a philosophy dictionary
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anima-philosophy
This is an introduction to the term as it's used by Aristotle, which the philosophy anon is citing
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/
You move yourself because of your nervous system and muscles. A rock doesn't have those but either of you could or couldn't have souls. If anything, how are you even sure you're the body you're in? If you're a soul why aren't you just a blind witness experiencing every thought and feeling in your body?
I really reccomend you take a philosophy 101 course.
I did, doesn't mean I have to accept the ideas. You have to entertain the philosophers thinking but there's still no concrete reason to think you or a rock have a soul based on motion.
Time to take philosophy 102
Why? So you can frick your brain enough to think you have a soul because a rock can't move? Humes and Schopenhauer are fun to read but outside of that any Hegelian / overly wordy philosophy is just unnecessary to read.
>You move yourself because of your nervous system and muscles.
What do they move?
>A rock doesn't have those but either of you could or couldn't have souls.
A rock can’t be ensouled; no nutrition.
>If anything, how are you even sure you're the body you're in?
My parts, my body.
>If you're a soul why aren't you just a blind witness experiencing every thought and feeling in your body?
The soul’s faculties form ideas out of experience.
A rock can have a soul. There's no reason it couldn't, if it is a disembodied spirit why not? Why wouldn't it have a soul?
Rocks don’t rejuvenate themselves. They don’t think, either. Shocker.
Some things move because they are ensouled and some don’t. What’s so confusing if a thing has its own source of motion in it?
Rocks do rejuvenate themselves in the molten core of the earth, not that rejuvenating implies there us a soul.
Moving doesn't imply a soul. Some thing move. Some don't. Doesn't mean either does or doesn't have a soul.
>Rocks do rejuvenate themselves in the molten core of the earth
With what foodstuff?
>not that rejuvenating implies there us a soul
What else is there? Fancy a stone?
>Moving doesn't imply a soul. Some thing move. Some don't. Doesn't mean either does or doesn't have a soul.
Something stays the same if moved, else it’s motionless. Organic parts aren’t always in motion, hence the necessity of the soul.
I don't see why a stone wouldn't have a soul if there is a soul. Also, nothing stays the same, you just don't love long enough to see it change.
Anon, the Earth is moving very fast, so is everything on it so everything has a soul.
How can you claim “things just work”? How is it known that motion is needed in the first place? You’re presupposing change.
How can you just make up reasons things work? Things are moving because they have a soul in them? The soul is completely made up.
This homie didnt start with the Greeks
Plato is post Greek lit / decline lit. It's needlessly logo centric and uses something based entirely outside of physical reality as the basis of their metaphysics so It is fake and gay. Thales, Anaximander, Parmenides, and Heraclitus are better to get acquainted with their thinking.
Nietzsche ruined a generation of young men
At least he didn't try to frick them.
Thats because he was an incel
>Ionian slaves provide a more accurate reflection of trve greek thought than free greek citizens
No
I don't understand why in this sense, to me soul = disembodied representation of a person not a prerequisite of motion. What is you definition of soul?
>Plato's theory of soul, which was inspired by the teachings of Socrates, considered the psyche (Ancient Greek: ψῡχή, romanized: psūkhḗ, lit.'breath') to be the essence of a person, being that which decides how people behave. Plato considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of a person's being. Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think. He believed that as bodies die, the soul is continually reborn (metempsychosis) in subsequent bodies. Plato divided the soul into three parts: the logistikon (reason), the thymoeides (spirit, which houses anger, as well as other emotions), and the epithymetikon (appetite or desire, which houses the desire for physical pleasures).[2][3]
lmao greekoids actually believe this? Injuns solved this shit (lol) centuries before them
>Injuns solved this shit (lol) centuries before them
Then they should have written it down.
Hai, kasko arimashta, googuru "Aggregation in Buddhism" tbh~
Those aren't Injuns, those are pajeets.
>Can anybody prove the existence of the soul and whether it is inmortal ot not?
>I have read plato'd phaedo, but his arguments don't convince me.
Read the Bhagavad Gita.
> Arjuna, bro, you’re not ACTUALLY killing them.
Even if there was a soul, why is it important? That's the most confusing thing to me, since my direct perception shows me we are our body. If there is a soul it's secondary and part of the next life.
Because in this case your body would no longer be the real you and focusing on it would be like focusing on your video game character rather than yourself.
>my direct perception
It sucks. Your faith in it is misplaced.
Why does it suck?
Why would my soul be anything like my body? It's confusing enough to me when people say there are gendered souls. Even in pre Socratic Greek literature the soul is treated secondary to the body.
Dunno I don't even think there is a soul, I'm just saying that IF it exist it drastically change our priorities.
I don't know if my priorities would change if there's a soul. What would it change about day to day lif?
See
>Why does it suck?
Your senses can't perceive anything subtle yet, not without practice. Making them into the sole fount of human knowledge is a self-defeating premise that only logically leads to some sort of braindead solipsism.
Why? Shouldn't it logically lead to the opposite of solipsism? Why wouldn't the whole universe be me in that case? Not in a kingly way, but just in a leaf on a tree kind of way.
>my direct perception shows me we are our body
My direct perception shows me the exact opposite senpai
If you were simply body, i.e., "you" = your eyes, your ears, your growling stomach, your aching joints, etc., then you would still experience, somehow, after natural death, since the organs and parts remain present. Soul is an account of something else that we recognize would have to be necessary to make the body have its senses and relate them intelligibly to things outside the body. It's partly an account of mind, of living growth, of self-propelled movement, and of death without being reducible to any one of those.
Without oxygen your brain doesn't process that information. As far as a "you" or "me" I don't know if me and you are separate aside from not being the same body. It's likely we're exactly the same thing and so is everyone else.
>it’s likely that [schizo garbage with 0 evidence]
Go take an introductory chemistry, biology, and physics class if you want to know how you function
You're made out of the same stuff as everything else, why are you different at all?
But by this logic we should keep experiencing after death as the soul isn't body. If the mind was just caused by the brain then in fact the brain ceasing to function would cause the mind to cease.
That's fricking nonsense, did australopithecus had souls? Does chimpanzees have souls? Does cats have souls? plants have souls? Does unicellular organisms have souls? If they do have souls why can't we have trillions of souls due to being several cells? What about viruses?
This would be nonsense only if we assumed strictly something like the Christian soul while disregarding what Plato and Aristotle actually say, and they affirm that living beings are ensouled beings. See De Anima and Aristotle's biological treatises.
There are countless rational arguments, but none of them are going to convince you because you're prejudiced against the conclusion. People are very attached to the profane view of the world and unwilling to admit to a more subtle aspect of it because it's "weird" and "low-status." But keep searching for wisdom, and this puerile prejudice will disappear in time.
>there are countless rational arguments
provide one
I don't care about status and see the world as very irrational and beautiful/a work of pure art over reason but I don't have any assumptions about reality so I don't assume there is or isn't a soul or that there is or isn't a me.
It just is.
Its something that should be self, obvious yet everyone keeps asking some kind of moronic evidence for it.
The soul was self evident to plato and other thinkers, so i always felt that such a topic, should just be taken for what it is,and not in a material sense, of "oh if you can't prove it it doesn't actually exist".
If thats was the case, then from were exactly did the idea come from?
Because i think having the idea, in this case, is already evidence for the soul, regardless of actual material evidence.
So i think there is a soul, and that idea is already proff of it.
>The soul was self evident to plato and other thinkers
Socrates seems to imply the possibility of nothingness as just as likely, he basically made a Pascal's Wager.
There are technically possibly several different "afterlifes"
>Eternal return
>theory of forms
>Multiverse
>time by an outside perspective
>something something dude brains are like coomputars so brain internet lmao
etc
I hope it's like Minecraft, where I get to play God to an infinite number of universes. Anything less and I'll be disappointed.
For me, it's eternal return.
>“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
The whole time is a flat circle thing is fascinating but I don't know if that falls under the definition of a soul or how people typically perceive a soul.
soul is just consciousness or subconscious without a body, people at the time were unable to tell the difference between sleep and non-existence nor they were fully aware if it was from the brain itself
No body?
that is simply the effect of (your) knowledge of things you normally don't think about much peering through your individuality, a soul by definition is not needed. Don't mean me a materialist, but a soul has specific connotations (it's an aggregate)
> soul by definition is not needed
For an inorganic body. The soul is indeed an aggregate, but an aggregate of something (else).
Anything that claims the "immaterial crux of a living being" as essence is in reality just "materialism but different and sometimes skirting some material rules"
It does not need to be a Soul at all, ergo the sentiment.
It would be right to say "the crux can make the functionality of a soul but it can also unmake it"
Must be a soul because a living being has organic parts, even if the soul itself is not in these parts.
The organic parts have not been shown to be dependent on abstract concepts like a soul.
No you can't, all arguments regarding omnipotence and conscious lead to paradox, that is why it is a matter of faith and weighing possibilities.
>All arguments regarding omnipotence and conscious lead to paradox
And yours?
>the brain exists
>ergo materialist positivism
I still don't get how the cattle believe this
I'm a platonist, but the reality of immaterial being doesn't necessitate an immortal human soul.
> the reality of immaterial being doesn't necessitate an immortal human soul
No Platonist actually believes this.
I believe in the immortality of the soul, but it's just that, a belief. There's no way to definitively deduce it like you can for immaterial being in general. It's why Plato's arguments for the soul are some of his weakest in the dialogues.
See
because, considered so, it’s prior to immaterial being.
>considered so, it’s prior to immaterial being.
homie
I remember 2 theories that I think are plausible but I can't remember the names
>your unique consciouness, you know what makes you YOU rather than someone else, is an unique combination of numbers among an infinite number of possibilities that can be rebuild after death somehow but not duplicated
>your individuality is just a tiny part of something greater, like a tiny star in a dark sky, this individuality only exist because the entire sky is not clear and when you die the star will disappear
Both scenarios imply a possible afterlife or ressurrection through science but finding "you" would be nearly impossible, you would be lost through infinity so you will remain "deactivated" forever.
>>your unique consciouness, you know what makes you YOU rather than someone else, is an unique combination of numbers among an infinite number of possibilities that can be rebuild after death somehow but not duplicated
>>your individuality is just a tiny part of something greater, like a tiny star in a dark sky, this individuality only exist because the entire sky is not clear and when you die the star will disappear
both are moronic and essentially spiritually dystopian
here's what's actually true
>you're a homie who can do anything but is unskilled so you make up scifi/religious theories instead of meditating/yoga/practice, then you wonder why you're on Earth and not in the GIGA CHAD ENLIGHTENED SPIRIT REALM BETWEEN WORLDS
>yoga
LMAO
>yes I know math. No, I've never completed an equation in my life and thus don't know how they relate to mathematics but trust me I'm an expert.
Yoga as a whole is bullshit, using the term to describe stretching is wrong. Just say stretching.
>stretching
And breath control, ethics, posture, observance, meditation or transcendence but you wouldn't know because your only knowledge of Yoga is Yoga pants
those are a combination of other factors that have more efficient and modern methods than the "classic" ones from yoga that is btw far more than just your list and is far closer to acupuncture and other pseudoscience pushed a few decades ago to take billions from people
???
So you don't even know what yoga means, go it, google it you lazy ass.
I think he further addresses the soul in Meno, Symposium, and Phaedrus. Although I was just learning in a class that the Phaedo is still relevant to the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
The argunent i like the most is Plantingas Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. It's developed from an argument CS Lewis made in Mere Christianity.
Heard an interesting argument that said since time is real, meaning past and future events actually exist, then the moments I was alive are eternal and therefore I am immortal
The idea of an afterlife where you will have the same memories, the same consciouness, the same views etc Is just straight up wrong
Literally everything about your personality, emotions, opinions, memories and choices can be explained through your body. Everything, thinking otherwise is thinking that ghosts would need to breath even without lungs, so even if there is a "soul" you will still be the same dead fricker who no longer exist for all intents and purposes
Everything can be said to have a nondual permanent and impermanent nature, everything sticks with you while also being something you can build upon while having no "existential" shackle, only the ones you unskillfully place upon them.
None of that imply a conscious personal soul. A bunch of mad scientists in theory change every tiny detail of your being, they could irreversibly change your personality and memories to the point you would be unable to ever be you again, nothing about you is set in stone, you are constantly changing because you are biologically always changing ever since you were able so there is no ideal you nor an outside entity who shaped you as you are.
Plato is a hack. Aristotle is legit though.
Nothing can be proven; all "knowledge" is faith. I believe in an immortal soul, just one, which is the universe itself — it has no creator or destroyer, nothing outside of itself, and nothing within it besides illusions.
I believe in this, but more so the soul is a creator / actor pretending to be all of the things in the universe.
So basically you think that you are a crazy frick alone for all etenity on your own imagination where you imagine yourself as a trillion living beings having rough births dying in gruesome ways daily till the end of time?
Yes, out of boredom. Eventually we'll get bored of that and think of a new game.