ChatterBank10 mins ago
Are We More Than Just Ourselves ?
54 Answers
I was asked that question . What they were getting at was the deep emotional feelings we experience , which we can not measure with our senses or properly describe but know they exist outside our physical selves .e.g Awe, fear, pleasure, when looking, feeling, hearing something almost supernatural . e.g Music, poetry, art , scenic views , flowers , anything that stirs our imagination .....................
The arguement was that if we accept that we are more than ourselves , call it the soul if you like , then why not also accept that there could be an afterlife and by extension a god.
My quick answer was these 'soul like ' experiences die when we die.
What do you think ?
The arguement was that if we accept that we are more than ourselves , call it the soul if you like , then why not also accept that there could be an afterlife and by extension a god.
My quick answer was these 'soul like ' experiences die when we die.
What do you think ?
Answers
I think it makes a great deal of sense, actually: -- we don't know what the soul is; -- or what it looks like; -- or have any idea how we could even describe it. A blind person in the same way (at least, one born blind) cannot understand colour, let alone the colour of something that has none. We are as blind about the nature of the soul as he would be about that of the...
22:56 Sun 06th Oct 2013
I think it makes a great deal of sense, actually:
-- we don't know what the soul is;
-- or what it looks like;
-- or have any idea how we could even describe it.
A blind person in the same way (at least, one born blind) cannot understand colour, let alone the colour of something that has none. We are as blind about the nature of the soul as he would be about that of the wind. Which in turn means that discussions about it are interesting but essentially meaningless.
It's weird having one-sided conversations. Or monologues, I suppose.
-- we don't know what the soul is;
-- or what it looks like;
-- or have any idea how we could even describe it.
A blind person in the same way (at least, one born blind) cannot understand colour, let alone the colour of something that has none. We are as blind about the nature of the soul as he would be about that of the wind. Which in turn means that discussions about it are interesting but essentially meaningless.
It's weird having one-sided conversations. Or monologues, I suppose.
According to Plato, we are definitely more than just ourselves.
He had this idea, didn't he, that what we see around us is not the complete reality. He thought that the real world might be hidden, and he was obsessed with trying to see past the veil.
Plato said that the things we see around us, like trees and seagulls (okay, he might not have specifically mentioned seagulls), are just reflections, or shadows, of what is real. He said that they were just particular examples of the things that were truly real. So something that we can see is just an example of a perfect "Form".
Actually, Plato thought that the Forms were more real than the things we can see. Especially after a few cups of wine.
But Plato thought that is was not just objects that had a Form. There was also a Form for the way the things are, like being big, or small. Or music. Or poetry. You see where I'm going here?
And Plato thought that Forms could never change. If a Form was perfect, and it changed, then it was not perfect any more.
Anyway, back to the original post ...
The relevant thing was, or is ... where are these Forms? Obviously they do not exist in our own world. Plato said that they only exist on a sort of higher plane. He said that this higher plane was perfect, and would last for ever. Plato said that we all have an immortal soul, and that our souls once existed in the plane where the forms are. This means that, if we try hard enough, we can start to remember what the Forms were like. Plato thought that Philosophy was us trying to find a way to bring back the memory of the Forms.
I'm getting there, yes?
Plato would have it that, if we experience an awareness of something outside our physical souls, then we are regaining an awareness of the Forms of, for example, pleasure, music, poetry, art.
Phew.
Anyway, Aristotle disagreed, didn't he? Aristotle thought that universality existed within each being and object, and not by way of a separate Form.
So, although he was a student of Plato, and his works featured Plato, just as Plato was a student of Socrates and his works featured Socrates ... Aristotle ultimately concluded that Plato had been talking botox. Although, obviously, Aristotle didn't express it in quite those terms.
And, if I remember correctly, Aristotle also failed to mention seagulls anywhere in his major works. I feel, personally, that seagulls have badly overlooked by many of the great thinkers.
He had this idea, didn't he, that what we see around us is not the complete reality. He thought that the real world might be hidden, and he was obsessed with trying to see past the veil.
Plato said that the things we see around us, like trees and seagulls (okay, he might not have specifically mentioned seagulls), are just reflections, or shadows, of what is real. He said that they were just particular examples of the things that were truly real. So something that we can see is just an example of a perfect "Form".
Actually, Plato thought that the Forms were more real than the things we can see. Especially after a few cups of wine.
But Plato thought that is was not just objects that had a Form. There was also a Form for the way the things are, like being big, or small. Or music. Or poetry. You see where I'm going here?
And Plato thought that Forms could never change. If a Form was perfect, and it changed, then it was not perfect any more.
Anyway, back to the original post ...
The relevant thing was, or is ... where are these Forms? Obviously they do not exist in our own world. Plato said that they only exist on a sort of higher plane. He said that this higher plane was perfect, and would last for ever. Plato said that we all have an immortal soul, and that our souls once existed in the plane where the forms are. This means that, if we try hard enough, we can start to remember what the Forms were like. Plato thought that Philosophy was us trying to find a way to bring back the memory of the Forms.
I'm getting there, yes?
Plato would have it that, if we experience an awareness of something outside our physical souls, then we are regaining an awareness of the Forms of, for example, pleasure, music, poetry, art.
Phew.
Anyway, Aristotle disagreed, didn't he? Aristotle thought that universality existed within each being and object, and not by way of a separate Form.
So, although he was a student of Plato, and his works featured Plato, just as Plato was a student of Socrates and his works featured Socrates ... Aristotle ultimately concluded that Plato had been talking botox. Although, obviously, Aristotle didn't express it in quite those terms.
And, if I remember correctly, Aristotle also failed to mention seagulls anywhere in his major works. I feel, personally, that seagulls have badly overlooked by many of the great thinkers.
Some interesting posts . What I find puzzling is , you believers in an imaginary god build entire religions around him to give him some substance but are unable to even start giving substance to the soul, despite the fact you believe there are billions of them , so there is no shortage of study material.
Call it a soul ? If one is to believe in a soul then that would be our true "essence" and not something more than ourselves at all.
Our we more than ourselves ? The question seems a contradiction in that by definition we are ourselves and nothing more since "ourselves" encompasses everything we are. However we are more than our conscious self, the bit that thinks it is in charge, but may not be after all.
Errr.... by assuming the existence of a soul then doesn't that imply the assumption of an existence apart from this body we have ? Implying an afterlife and maybe a before life too ? As for a God, no there is no obligatory connection between a soul and a God, but one can speculate on that also should one wish.
Our we more than ourselves ? The question seems a contradiction in that by definition we are ourselves and nothing more since "ourselves" encompasses everything we are. However we are more than our conscious self, the bit that thinks it is in charge, but may not be after all.
Errr.... by assuming the existence of a soul then doesn't that imply the assumption of an existence apart from this body we have ? Implying an afterlife and maybe a before life too ? As for a God, no there is no obligatory connection between a soul and a God, but one can speculate on that also should one wish.
