I don't agree that 'we can't explain it' is the best argument for a soul. It's not an argument for anything, rather, it's an evasion.
The best argument is the identity argument. We can imagine a world where our mind exists without our body, it seems logically possible for our 'soul' (if you like) to be seperate from our body. Therefore, the two can't be identical. I'd elaborate, but... remaining character count: 83... Hopefully you get it.
'That we can imagine it' is not the argument. It's called 'The Necessity of Identity'. If one is to say two things are the same (IE The mind JUST IS the body) then they must be the same across all possible worlds. At least when it comes to rigid designators.
I'm unconvinced by the arguments for both materialism and all forms of dualism . The point is that 'we can't explain consciousness' is not an argument, at all.
I always wondered how we're supposed to "have" a soul, as if we own this "thing". Isn't "soul" supposed to be a word for "what we are"? If it's a word for what we are, then we don't have souls, we are souls. It doesn't matter if it's made of flesh or magic pixy dust, it exists, by definition. This changes the argument from if a soul exists, to what it is. (flesh or magic) Since there's overwhelming evidence that it's flesh, and zero that it's magic, this simplifies the argument.
I don't agree that 'we can't explain it' is the best argument for a soul. It's not an argument for anything, rather, it's an evasion.
The best argument is the identity argument. We can imagine a world where our mind exists without our body, it seems logically possible for our 'soul' (if you like) to be seperate from our body. Therefore, the two can't be identical. I'd elaborate, but... remaining character count: 83... Hopefully you get it.
PunnyLolBuffalo 2 years ago
"it seems logically possible for our 'soul' (if you like) to be [separate] from our body"
SisyphusRedeemed addressed this issue in a recent video shown here:
watch?v=luRqU7e_gEw
I'm not terribly convinced by any argument that begins with "We can imagine..." We can imagine many things that are untrue or impossible.
As Flyborg points out, we can also talk about the soul being different and separate from "us" whatever we are, as in "We *have* a soul"
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
'That we can imagine it' is not the argument. It's called 'The Necessity of Identity'. If one is to say two things are the same (IE The mind JUST IS the body) then they must be the same across all possible worlds. At least when it comes to rigid designators.
I'm unconvinced by the arguments for both materialism and all forms of dualism . The point is that 'we can't explain consciousness' is not an argument, at all.
Fatimus 2 years ago
I always wondered how we're supposed to "have" a soul, as if we own this "thing". Isn't "soul" supposed to be a word for "what we are"? If it's a word for what we are, then we don't have souls, we are souls. It doesn't matter if it's made of flesh or magic pixy dust, it exists, by definition. This changes the argument from if a soul exists, to what it is. (flesh or magic) Since there's overwhelming evidence that it's flesh, and zero that it's magic, this simplifies the argument.
Flyborg 2 years ago
Thanks manic, some very interesting cases and a great addition linked up to my video. many thanks :)
noelplum99 2 years ago
Thanks. I hope I was able to add some original material.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago