What Of Your Soul?

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Kathrina » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:02 pm

I mean the metaphysical type.
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:26 pm

Kathrina wrote:I mean the metaphysical type.


Okay. So define that in your own words - not google's. lol

What is the metaphysical soul to YOU.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Kathrina » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:13 pm

I would say that the soul is an unconscious drive. It's immanent and transcendent.
User avatar
Kathrina
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:50 am

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arminius » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:18 pm

Arminius wrote:
Kathrina wrote:
Kathrina wrote:The soul isn't physical; the soul is metaphysical. Exclusively.

The soul is similar to Kant’s „Ding an sich“ ("thing at itself" / "thing as such"), Schopenhauer’s „Wille“ ("will") ....
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:31 pm

Arminius,

The soul is similar to Kant’s „Ding an sich“ ("thing at itself" / "thing as such"), Schopenhauer’s „Wille“ ("will") ....


I may be wrong here but couldn't you explain most things away with that terminology - *a thing in itself*, *thing as such*, like a tree, rainbow, animal, human, ad continuum? What story do those things tell, aside from that?
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:47 pm

Kathrina wrote:I would say that the soul is an unconscious drive. It's immanent and transcendent.



Imagining the Soul

"Now, against the backdrop of Christou and Jung, let us look at what James Hillman, the founder of the archetypal school, has to say about soul.

. . .[W]e are not dealing with something that can be defined; and therefore soul is really not a concept, but a symbol. Symbols, as we know, are not completely under our control, so that we are not able to use the word in an unambiguous way, even though we take it to refer to that unknown human factor which makes meaning possible, which turns events into experiences, and which is communicated in love. The soul is a deliberately ambiguous concept resisting all definition in the same manner as do all ultimate symbols which provide the root metaphors for the systems of human thought. “Matter” and “nature” and “energy” have ultimately the same ambiguity; so too have “life,” “health”, “justice” and “God,” which provide the symbolic sources for the points of view we have already seen. (Hillman, Suicide and the Soul, 46-47.)

Clearly, there is no contradiction with Christou in this passage. Soul again is not an ontological entity, but a symbol for the place from which meaning grows. The soul is a “root metaphor” here in Hillman’s humanities-influenced language and a “first principle” in Christou’s more philosophical style.

....

The last point made about soul, that it refers to the imaginative possibility in our nature, is a Pandora’s box. The obvious question that comes to mind, “What are imagination, fantasy, and image?” It is this aspect of Jung’s work that the archetypal school has amplified so vigorously. It seems safe to say that all of Jung’s ideas on fantasy and imagination apply here as well. Hillman says that he follows Jung quite closely with respect to fantasy. As for the relationship between soul and imagination, Edward Casey, in his book, Imagining: A Phenomenological Study, says “imagining is the moving agent of soul, its main motor and primary possibilizer.”
....
http://www.cgjungpage.org/learn/article ... es-it-mean
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Alf » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:21 pm

Scientist can't explain our world, the philosophers and theologians can't explain it either.

So, all we can do is to describe it and to do it in the most possible way of correctness and conclusiveness, stringency, thus by using logic in connection with our experiences.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:10 pm

Alf wrote:Scientist can't explain our world, the philosophers and theologians can't explain it either.

So, all we can do is to describe it and to do it in the most possible way of correctness and conclusiveness, stringency, thus by using logic in connection with our experiences.


Wouldn't you say that at least the scientists, if not totally, at least in some part, have had great success in explaining the world/the Universe?
They may not be able to explain its Very Origin but still...

How does one go about using logic when it comes to terms like *soul*?
I also think of the soul as a symbol just as the psyche is. They are akin to each other to some degree.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Alf » Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:16 pm

The success of the scientists is pretty great. But nonetheless, we have to admit that this success refers mainly to a short time of history and to certain times in history more than to others. And by the way: I was not talking about the success of the scientists. I was talking about the scientists' incapability of explainig our world.

Alf wrote:Scientist can't explain our world, the philosophers and theologians can't explain it either.

The current scientific knowledge contradicts the older one, although (or because?) the older one was probably more successful than the current one, at least in a relative way,.

Philosophers and theologians have already been unsuccessful for a long time; and according to many people (regardless of the facts about them), philosophers and theologians are just redundant.

What remains?

An example: We want to know whether or not a soul exists. I can guarantee you that science is the wrong address when it comes to this question. On the other hand, theology and philosophy have currently a more bad than a good reputation in general, at least in the West.

Therefore I said:

Alf wrote:So, all we can do is to describe it and to do it in the most possible way of correctness and conclusiveness, stringency, thus by using logic in connection with our experiences.

And there is hope, as almost always.
User avatar
Alf
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:07 am

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arminius » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:18 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:Arminius,

The soul is similar to Kant’s „Ding an sich“ ("thing at itself" / "thing as such"), Schopenhauer’s „Wille“ ("will") ....


I may be wrong here but couldn't you explain most things away with that terminology - *a thing in itself*, *thing as such*, like a tree, rainbow, animal, human, ad continuum? What story do those things tell, aside from that?

Those terms do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.

Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.

These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: "As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables". And they are not only epistemologically important.

The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains "most things away"? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:07 pm

Arminius

I may be wrong here but couldn't you explain most things away with that terminology - *a thing in itself*, *thing as such*, like a tree, rainbow, animal, human, ad continuum? What story do those things tell, aside from that?


With those terms do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true.



I think that you misunderstood me here and for good reason.
What I meant was that anything could be spoken of in that terminology but *a thing in itself* doesn't really point to anything ~~ says nothing about that *thing*.
That is also why I asked: "What story do those things tell, aside from that?
They tell Nothing.

So I totally agree with your quote above. .


With those terms


I may not be getting you here. By *those* terms in this instant, are you speaking of the ones which I mentioned above; namely, trees, rainbow, animals, etc."

we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.


Before I convolute things further, again, the other things refer to the trees, etc.

Or are you referring to a *thing in itself* - are you saying that that is a workable expression to gain knowledge and understanding about things?


Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.


So perhaps you do mean *a thing in itself*? Perhaps the *in itself* paves the way to search out the truth of things?
As you know, philosophically speaking, insofar as terminology goes, I am not that sound.


These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: "As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables". And they are not only epistemologically important.


I get it. Kind of like having money in the bank in a way for a rainy day. Something of value to fall back on.


The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains "most things away"? - .


Yes, unchangeable. Like gravity, yes?

In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly
[/quote]

That is an interesting statement. But natural constants would appear to be pre-determined and not so random, though I may be wrong, hmmm, but social and spiritual ones?
What do they have in common for YOU? I may not even be asking the *right* question here to get at a proper answer.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: What Of Your Soul?

Postby Arminius » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:32 pm

Spiritual constants, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like "pi" or "root two". They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word "spiritual" may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5703
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users