Post by Silverrida on Apr 21, 2010 14:20:15 GMT -5
I had this conversation a while back and it was very unorganized. Then school was all like "Write an argumentative essay", and I had the basis for my idea of the soul. I was able to organize it better, and it is as follows.
One of the greatest concerns of human beings since civilized life and spoken word is the unknown object that continues on after our “bodies” die and what characteristic makes every individual unique. Early on, in the pre-Socratic era, mankind labeled this eternal, defining feature as the soul, and have since vehemently argued its existence. I have found that there is ample evidence to have a lack of faith in this object in which we so tentatively believe.
Philosophers from Plato to Epicurus have come to their own unique conclusions about the soul. Cumulatively over time, they have all decided on which characteristics the soul must have to be considered to have any unique significance in everyday life. The soul is ubiquitously thought of as “the distinguishing mark of living things” (Socrates), as well as that which is “responsible for mental or psychological functions like thought, perception and desire, and is the bearer of moral qualities” (Plato). The soul is also thought to be “present in every living thing” (Plato) and to denote the thing “as that which endures in the underworld after a person's death”, as stated by Pythagoras. If we accept that the soul is the defining feature of every living thing and is eternal, as others have before us, then it is adequate information to disprove the soul, or, at the very least, prove the absurdity of believing in such a thing.
When attempting to construct a list of all the explicitly unique things that every separate creature on this planet exhibits that stay eternal throughout known life, only one thing comes to mind. That thing is simply the way in which every animal thinks. Although we may see diseases eat away at the minds of many humans and animals alike, their way of interpreting the information and stimuli around them does not appear to change. The person or animal will at least try comprehending various excitants the same way they always had, although they may not be able to retain such information or even successfully interpret it. This continues to fit the motif of the soul, as the way you think affects the way you react and approach many things, thus being the cause of thought itself and of many moral qualities based on how you interpret something as being good or bad. Because this is the only thing which animals exhibit that fits the agreed upon definition of the soul that comes to mind, we will examine it further to see if it is the soul that actually constitutes your way of thinking, or if it can be attributed to something else.
We are aware that the brain is what gives every living animal the power to think, but is each brain responsible in determining how the animal thinks? The brain has been determined to be the organ behind the control of our mind. The mind is not, as some believe, to be a separate part from ourselves but rather an essential component of every animal. The brain is what is responsible for this mind and is, as a direct result, what is responsible for each person’s “behavior and consciousness” (National Institutes of Health) which we determined earlier to be controlled by the perceived soul, or how the animal thinks. Attributing this uniqueness to the brain, as we must based on our understanding of the brain; we then lose the eternal aspect of the soul, as the brain is known to decay after death just as every other body part. As a result, there is nothing in every human that is discernibly unique, and eternal that dictates your actions. Because no such thing can be observed, it is completely illogical to believe anything remotely resembling the definition of the soul exists in any human being. The only determining cause behind such a belief is the emotional want to continue existing after death.
Through this reasoning we come to a conclusion: It is illogical and therefore irresponsible to blindly believe that the soul exists. As a result we must disregard the idea of the soul, both philosophically and scientifically.
Thoughts?
One of the greatest concerns of human beings since civilized life and spoken word is the unknown object that continues on after our “bodies” die and what characteristic makes every individual unique. Early on, in the pre-Socratic era, mankind labeled this eternal, defining feature as the soul, and have since vehemently argued its existence. I have found that there is ample evidence to have a lack of faith in this object in which we so tentatively believe.
Philosophers from Plato to Epicurus have come to their own unique conclusions about the soul. Cumulatively over time, they have all decided on which characteristics the soul must have to be considered to have any unique significance in everyday life. The soul is ubiquitously thought of as “the distinguishing mark of living things” (Socrates), as well as that which is “responsible for mental or psychological functions like thought, perception and desire, and is the bearer of moral qualities” (Plato). The soul is also thought to be “present in every living thing” (Plato) and to denote the thing “as that which endures in the underworld after a person's death”, as stated by Pythagoras. If we accept that the soul is the defining feature of every living thing and is eternal, as others have before us, then it is adequate information to disprove the soul, or, at the very least, prove the absurdity of believing in such a thing.
When attempting to construct a list of all the explicitly unique things that every separate creature on this planet exhibits that stay eternal throughout known life, only one thing comes to mind. That thing is simply the way in which every animal thinks. Although we may see diseases eat away at the minds of many humans and animals alike, their way of interpreting the information and stimuli around them does not appear to change. The person or animal will at least try comprehending various excitants the same way they always had, although they may not be able to retain such information or even successfully interpret it. This continues to fit the motif of the soul, as the way you think affects the way you react and approach many things, thus being the cause of thought itself and of many moral qualities based on how you interpret something as being good or bad. Because this is the only thing which animals exhibit that fits the agreed upon definition of the soul that comes to mind, we will examine it further to see if it is the soul that actually constitutes your way of thinking, or if it can be attributed to something else.
We are aware that the brain is what gives every living animal the power to think, but is each brain responsible in determining how the animal thinks? The brain has been determined to be the organ behind the control of our mind. The mind is not, as some believe, to be a separate part from ourselves but rather an essential component of every animal. The brain is what is responsible for this mind and is, as a direct result, what is responsible for each person’s “behavior and consciousness” (National Institutes of Health) which we determined earlier to be controlled by the perceived soul, or how the animal thinks. Attributing this uniqueness to the brain, as we must based on our understanding of the brain; we then lose the eternal aspect of the soul, as the brain is known to decay after death just as every other body part. As a result, there is nothing in every human that is discernibly unique, and eternal that dictates your actions. Because no such thing can be observed, it is completely illogical to believe anything remotely resembling the definition of the soul exists in any human being. The only determining cause behind such a belief is the emotional want to continue existing after death.
Through this reasoning we come to a conclusion: It is illogical and therefore irresponsible to blindly believe that the soul exists. As a result we must disregard the idea of the soul, both philosophically and scientifically.
Thoughts?
