What we mean when we talk about God

[Tommycat]

Well, the problem seems to be that there are no traits assigned to a soul. What is a trait that does not have anything to do with reality? Perhaps you can tell me, since you appear to have knowledge on the subject.

No, it only seems as if the traits are not assigned because the traits are not tangible.

 

I am simply pointing out what we can't mean when we say soul - what we usually mean - and I'm glad you agree.

But your defining of such is from unqualified sources. It would be like asking the general public to define DNA, but not asking a geneticist. The general public doesn't have enough knowledge on the subject to make the determination.

 

I'm not sure you understand. I'm not saying that the objective isn't real; when people say dolphin they mean "the sort of mammal that lives in the ocean and looks like THIS." They of course don't need to use that specific word; other languages have different words for dolphin, or I could have a nickname for dolphins, etc. The point is that there exists a standard on which to judge whether something is a dolphin or not - reality. There is no such standard for soul, hence the problem.

In relation to the definition of an etherial object(be it a soul, ghosts, 4th dimentional aliens) you need to consult the sources, and if the source is not readily available to you, the experts in that field. In the case of a soul, you need to speak with a religious expert.

 

But this is an instance of the very issue. They're saying something but we can't make sense of it! What makes people unique beyond what they do, what they are, how they live, their appearance, their kindness, their love? I don't know, you don't know, no one knows, but these people keep saying there is such a standard. All I am asking is this: If we can't use the normal meaning of soul, some of which I enumerated in my last post...then what exactly do we mean? Can we differentiate that meaning from anything else? If not, then I suggest the word, used in that way, is without literal sense (it may have another meaning, like "This is how I live", but not this one).

No, YOU can't make sense of it because you choose not to believe in the etherial. Yes, it is the person without the squishy crunchy body. And believe it or not they have referred to people without the body as people. I think a good example is "The 6th Sense" when he says, "I see dead people" that is at least one example. Many people believe that they can talk to the dead(Still not sure how I feel about that subject) meaning the dead person who is not attached to the body. What makes us who we are outside of our physical appearance is our soul.

 

What would differentiate a creature born without a soul from one born with one?

One would be a plant, the other has a unique personality.

Also, since when has anyone ever lived without their body? Explain exactly what it means to live without a body... and define your terms.

Posession: when a soul of another inhabits the body of another. There have been cases of this, however I'm still not sure whether those cases are confirmed as more than mental illness. Still as we are not defining it as something that has to be proven(as it deals with the etherial, it can never be proven/disproven). Then there are the large number of "hauntings" which have people's living spirit not ready to accept that they were supposed to be dead.

 

But that type of judging is quite irrelevant to the person. There is no possibility of punishment or reward; the most we can say about that is that judgment is for the living, not the dead. That type of judging is not the same as the type we're interested in - like that of a judge presiding over the fate of this specific person. That is the way in which God is supposed to judge us, isn't it?

Not necessarily. Because in order to use the judging you use, you have to use the narrowly defined living soul as referred to by religious scholars. That being the person without the squishy crunchy bits.

 

Indeed, you can use judging to mean this type of action. However, I think you can see the differences between this type of judging and the type we say that God will do. We're not presiding over the fate of someone, we're expressing outrage of someone's actions - something different, although certainly related (A judge could express his outrage in his sentence).

Meh, You're using generalities about souls, so why can't we use generalities about judging?

[Samuel Dravis]

No, it only seems as if the traits are not assigned because the traits are not tangible.

Give me an example of an intangible trait that souls have, then, that doesn't fall under the problems given in the original post. No, it can't be an analogy. No, it can't be a word stripped of meaning. Yes, I already know that "he's a good soul" means he does good things, but remember that those are similes and consequently don't say anything metaphysical.

 

But your defining of such is from unqualified sources. It would be like asking the general public to define DNA, but not asking a geneticist. The general public doesn't have enough knowledge on the subject to make the determination.

Unqualified sources? Don't YOU know what you use soul to mean when you say it? If you didn't that'd be like you suddenly deciding to mumble gibberish in the middle of a sentence! There need be no asking an "expert" what WE mean when we say soul.

 

In relation to the definition of an ethereal object(be it a soul, ghosts, 4th dimensional aliens) you need to consult the sources, and if the source is not readily available to you, the experts in that field. In the case of a soul, you need to speak with a religious expert.

I am simply asking the people who say this type of thing ("God loves me") to explain what they mean by that. You say you know what a soul is since you have chosen to assert that a soul does exist other than the normal uses of the word. The ONLY QUESTION you have to answer is: what do YOU mean by it. And for that you require no expert. You don't need someone to tell you what you believe.

 

But even if we were to ask what a soul was of a religious scholar, it would get us no further. An example from the Catholic Encyclopedia here makes it clear that it is defined no better than as what people do:

"The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated."

 

You notice that all of those terms are easily explainable in context of their use, and absolutely none of them means anything without an actual person involved. Of course, if you think the Catholics are questionable in their theological definitions you're welcome to find another source; however, don't be surprised when you discover that none of them mean anything beyond what they are normally used to mean.

 

No, YOU can't make sense of it because you choose not to believe in the ethereal. Yes, it is the person without the squishy crunchy body. And believe it or not they have referred to people without the body as people. I think a good example is "The 6th Sense" when he says, "I see dead people" that is at least one example. Many people believe that they can talk to the dead(Still not sure how I feel about that subject) meaning the dead person who is not attached to the body. What makes us who we are outside of our physical appearance is our soul.

Many people say many things. Some people say that there's an ether in which the universe floats. What are we to make of this ether? It has no attributes, so what could they possibly mean by "float" or "in"? I haven't a clue, and I doubt you do either. I choose to not talk about the ether for the same reason I choose not to talk about your "ethereal." - there is quite literally nothing meaningful to say.

 

I do know what ethereal means, however. It's used to describe when something is wispy, transient, fragile, delicate, etc. None of those fit with what you're trying to say, so its meaning is somewhat up in the air when it's used in this way... it's sort of like saying that the color blue smells offensive. Uh, ok? How would people respond to that? By pointing out that colors don't smell. In this case I'm just trying to point out that existence isn't used as a property of "something" undifferentiated from nothing. "People" don't exist if "they" are undifferentiated from nothing. Judgment does not take place over "something" undifferentiated from nothing. Etc., etc.

 

One would be a plant, the other has a unique personality.

So we talk about a plant as if is a creature? I have never heard someone do that and I would never do that. A plant creature? Perhaps a reference to that horrible 80's movie in which a plant starts eating people. I suppose a plant could be someone's "baby" - but that just means that they care for it especially well and take an interest in its development.

 

No, what I asked was: "What would differentiate a creature born without a soul from one born with one?" Indeed, what is the criteria for distinguishing this? The same as how we distinguish between a plant and a human? If that's true then soul simply means, "human." But that's not what is meant, is it? And if it's not the difference between things that defines a soul, then what meaning does it have?

 

Possession: when a soul of another inhabits the body of another. There have been cases of this, however I'm still not sure whether those cases are confirmed as more than mental illness. Still as we are not defining it as something that has to be proven(as it deals with the ethereal, it can never be proven/disproven). Then there are the large number of "hauntings" which have people's living spirit not ready to accept that they were supposed to be dead.

All I see in those is 1) people acting totally crazy, at which point we call them possessed (especially if they start trying to talk about God(?) or eating souls(?) and whatnot); and 2) Happenings that are simply unexplained. Neither require anything beyond what is happening at face value, and what's more, we don't talk about possession outside of these specific, objective circumstances. Curious, isn't it? What reason have we to separate the actions from the word? I submit that there is absolutely no reason to do so.

 

Not necessarily. Because in order to use the judging you use, you have to use the narrowly defined living soul as referred to by religious scholars. That being the person without the squishy crunchy bits.

They haven't defined anything if we can't understand what they mean, and I hope I've made it clear in this thread that they most definitely haven't defined their terms.

 

Meh, You're using generalities about souls, so why can't we use generalities about judging?

In this case, judging is used as if were relating to a specific context of being judged in a court. If you disagree with this assessment, feel free to correct me.

 

Also, if you have an alternative coherent and specific definition of soul, then I will certainly be glad to talk about that if you prefer. I certainly don't want to be using a strawman.

[El Sitherino]

Why? Because of some inherent quality within us that gives us the right to do what we want? I don't think we deserve anything. If you took a piece of playdoh and molded it into a figure of a man, would you expect that object to have some kind of "right"?

Uh, you seem to have missed the point.

 

I'm not sure how that would apply. What, are you just worshiping him by accident? (I'm pretty sure that's something that, at least for Christians, we are supposed to do....)

I'm sorry you're not sure.

 

But isn't that putting yourself on the level of God? I myself would consider God someone to be followed simply because he is God - heck, if He really is God, where do you think you get the idea of "loyalty" from in the first place? In that case, it wouldn't be something that man thought up.

No, it's not putting myself on the level of God. That's good for you, I'm not, hell I'm not even convinced there is a God. And no, loyalty is a human concept. Faith is the matter of God. It's not about loyalty for him, it's about belief in him. You don't owe him some blood-debt, he just hopes you worship him because he likes it.

[Tommycat]

First off I have already given you my definition of a soul. It is a person without the squishy crunchy bits(aka body). NOW whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. You are asking what I mean by a soul, and I have defined it. From my perspective there is more to a person than the physical appearance. Take every thing that is a person aside from the physical body, and that is the soul. The mind, the memories, the personality, the life force, the morals, emotional traits, and basically everything that makes YOU different from ME on the forums.

 

Again, as far as posession or hauntings are concerned, you cannot rule out fully that those are not souls living beyond the physical body. So they do represent the possibility of a soul living on. YOU just choose not to believe it as such. You even admit to the unexplained. Could it be possible that the haunting is a soul?

 

As for your question about the plant/creature comment, it was somewhat tongue in cheek. It's like saying what do you call a person born without a body. Since I believe they are both required for a person to be born, asking what it is without it is meaningless. Perhaps we could say it is the stillborn child.

[El Sitherino]

It's also very probable, and usually, it's someone with schizophrenia or some sort of multiple personality disorder.

[Tommycat]

Yeah as far as posessions are concerned I concede(I think I was even kinda leaning that way in my post bringing it up) that it is very possible that it is mental illness. However hauntings tend to carry more weight as more people have those types of experiences. And some are still unexplained.

[Samuel Dravis]

First off I have already given you my definition of a soul. It is a person without the squishy crunchy bits(aka body). NOW whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. You are asking what I mean by a soul, and I have defined it.

You've used words in a way that doesn't mean anything. I suggest you go back to post #4 and either refute or agree with the argument there about the nature of the word "soul." If you deny it, I do expect you to provide a definition for what a soul is, and by that I mean you have to meaningfully show that having a soul is different than not having one.

 

If you disagree with the method of analysis I used, it would be helpful to me if you said what exactly the problem with it is.

 

From my perspective there is more to a person than the physical appearance. Take every thing that is a person aside from the physical body, and that is the soul. The mind, the memories, the personality, the life force, the morals, emotional traits, and basically everything that makes YOU different from ME on the forums.

I'm sorry but you've just done exactly what I've spent the entire thread showing you that you can't do!

 

How do we know about a person's memory? Because they act like they remember! How do we know what a person's personality is like? Because they act that way! What is a person's emotions? It's how they act! How do we know what it is for someone to live? Because we see them live! When do we say someone is a moral person? When they act morally! What is the mind? There is no object called a mind! The word is used as an expression - I've got something on my mind, He's lost his mind, my mind is made up, etc. Literal interpretation of an expression is sure to fail, as it is doing so famously in this very instance.

 

Our language is bound up intimately with what we are because it is an expression of our humanity. There can be no abstraction of human concepts; no pasting them onto entities they don't fit. What we mean by love is human love; emotions, human emotions; living, human life...

 

"If a lion could talk, we would not understand him." - Wittgenstein

 

Soul is a word we use in relation to certain circumstances in our lives. You're using it outside of the normal circumstances and so it doesn't make sense. Either show it has meaning in this context or stop misusing a perfectly good word.

 

Again, as far as possession or hauntings are concerned, you cannot rule out fully that those are not souls living beyond the physical body. So they do represent the possibility of a soul living on. YOU just choose not to believe it as such. You even admit to the unexplained. Could it be possible that the haunting is a soul?

I invite you to examine my arguments and tell me where I have ever tried to say that there can exist no thing called a soul. Rather, I have - quite simply and reasonably - inquired as to what people mean when they say it. So far it seems like they don't mean what we usually mean when we say soul. The same goes for God; when God is talked about as if he was Zeus, we don't mean he actually is Zeus. Ok - but what is God then? What is the soul? You can see the problem, I'm sure. It's not that a meaning cannot be given to God or the soul, it's that no one wants accept a meaningful definition of those terms.

 

As for your question about the plant/creature comment, it was somewhat tongue in cheek. It's like saying what do you call a person born without a body. Since I believe they are both required for a person to exist, asking what it is without it is meaningless. Perhaps we could say it is the stillborn child.

Alright, I will accept that. A stillborn baby does not have a soul; it doesn't have a soul in the same way that dead people do not have souls. That makes perfect sense if soul is meant as an expression of the things people do. "His soul has departed his body" indeed. A dead person's body was once animated; it is no longer. His "life force" is gone. I do understand these ways of using the word...and then there is your use of it, which I do not understand.

[Tommycat]

That's the problem we use soul and heart for things they do not mean. We use sayings like he has no soul and he has no heart interchangably. Neither means that person is literally without that item, nor does the saying mean that that is the definition of that item. Does the saying mean that a heart should be only referred to as empathy?

 

The soul is made up of many things combined. Life force being one. And no, actions do not define the person. The thoughts define the person. Actions define the person to others. Are you saying that a person who is paralized cannot feel emotion? They cannot remember? They cannot have a personality? So is it ok to slap around someone who is paralyzed or in a coma? Again there is more to the person than the physical.

[Samuel Dravis]

That's the problem we use soul and heart for things they do not mean. We use sayings like he has no soul and he has no heart interchangably. Neither means that person is literally without that item, nor does the saying mean that that is the definition of that item. Does the saying mean that a heart should be only referred to as empathy?

Should? It means what we use it to mean. There is no "should." The correct usage of word merely means that people react in a certain way to it. "He has no heart" expresses what we mean perfectly in the correct context. Indeed, you could consider it to be one word, the word that we say when a man isn't displaying empathy: Hehasnoheart (someone learning English might hear someone say that and interpret it as one word).

 

The soul is made up of many things combined. Life force being one. And no, actions do not define the person. The thoughts define the person.

Thought without action is meaningless. "I always loved you in my mind!" But that's not love. "I was a good person in my mind!" But that's not being a good person. "I wanted the best for you!" But suppose the person saying that had methodically destroyed your life?

 

"I thought about the ramifications of buying a car" means, "I am able to discuss certain things about buying a car easily now." If you asked this person about it, they would have the information present and ready to talk about. Someone who hadn't thought about it would not be able to discuss the question easily. "Thought" is something we say in these contexts to show our ability to do something.

 

No, (metaphysical)thoughts do not define a person, actions do... and actions include the words they use.

 

Saying "I thought about it" is an action that points to other objective facts.

 

Actions define the person to others. Are you saying that a person who is paralyzed cannot feel emotion? They cannot remember? They cannot have a personality? So is it ok to slap around someone who is paralyzed or in a coma? Again there is more to the person than the physical.

There are many people whose brains do not function like ours. They do not seem to react to pain like we do; they don't take their hand off of a hot stove until they see their hand actually burning. Do they feel pain or not? No, I suggest they don't feel pain.

 

There is a man who doesn't remember anything past three minutes. Why? Because when three minutes is over, he goes over to you and asks your name. Again. Just like he did three minutes before. Would you ever say of someone that they can't remember past three minutes when they act exactly as if they do remember? Of course not. The acting is the remembering; the two can't be taken apart and made into some sort of mind/body duality.

 

To be honest, I don't know if a person who is completely paralyzed can feel emotion. It's not our emotion, anyway. They certainly don't, or can't, express it. What sense does it make to say that they hate someone when they just keep on staring ahead doing absolutely nothing? In what way are they said to love?

 

A totally paralyzed person would have no personality, just as we talk about some people having less personality than others. The measuring stick? How they act. "He has a great personality!" (He's fun to be with) As you're older than me (I think, anyway ), you've even had more time to see - and use - these expressions firsthand.

 

Is it ok to hurt someone if they can't feel it? I don't have much interest in that subject, at least in this thread; I was mainly trying to find the meaning of the statements in the original post. However, I will say this: the expression of a moral judgment is as much a part of language as everything else. Please note that this fact does not make good and evil subjective.

[Tommycat]

No, because even if a person does not show it physically, they can have emotions. If you have love for someone but don't express it, it only means that you don't express it. Acting is NOT remembering. I remember things all the time without acting on that memory. In fact I remembered an old band mate from years ago that just popped into my head. From what you are saying here is that my memory did not exist until I just now stated it on this board. I'm saying it existed to me, but not to you, as that is merely your perception of my memory, not whether I actually remembered.

 

Actions do not define the person. The person's thoughts do. Only your perception changes when you see the actions. A man can be racist, but never act on that racism, never say anything about his feelings, that does not mean he isn't racist. It simply means he has not acted on that racism. A man can be intensely in love with someone and never act on that love, that does not mean he has no love. It just means he never acted on that love. I can be an internally violent and disturbing person, but on the outside I can pretend to be all nice and "normal" but really be ready to slit the throat of a random person just to see the red. It wouldn't mean that I'm not psychotic until I actually act on that thought. Only your perception would change to see the psychotic person that lurked inside me.

 

So what you are saying is that you used a poor method of defining soul because by your last statement, hehasnoheart is one word so hehasnosoul is also another word not defining the soul at all, but only the phrase itself.

[Samuel Dravis]

No, because even if a person does not show it physically, they can have emotions. If you have love for someone but don't express it, it only means that you don't express it.

When have you ever heard someone say, "He is sad" when the person, quite clearly, is not sad? Perhaps they would say this in certain circumstances. "His mother just died and he has gotten drunk" (i.e., he's not acting sad at this moment), but we understand that he is drunk because he is sad. But to say it of someone who never, ever did anything we associate with sadness? It would just be an incorrect use of the word. To say of a child playing on a swingset laughing: "She is a very sad girl." How to handle that? I'd probably reply, "Don't you know what sadness means?"

 

Acting is NOT remembering. I remember things all the time without acting on that memory. In fact I remembered an old band mate from years ago that just popped into my head. From what you are saying here is that my memory did not exist until I just now stated it on this board. I'm saying it existed to me, but not to you, as that is merely your perception of my memory, not whether I actually remembered.

What I am saying is that words describe what we do. "Remembering" as an objective word does not rely on your personal subjective experience. Whatever you might "remember" without acting on it is not remembering in the same sense the the word is used. What is more, there is no such thing as subjectively remembering something; words are objective and only have objective meanings.

 

Subjective "memory" has no objective ground and therefore you could not assign any truth value to it. However, objective memory (as it is used in language) is about whether the circumstances of reality conform to what you say about those circumstances. I.e., you DO have the bandmate you thought about; you say you remember when you talk about something that has happened. However, there's always a distinction between a false memory and a true one. If this memory was true it would have THESE results. A subjective memory has no such correction measure and therefore it says absolutely nothing significant.

 

The past isn't what you feel it was; the past is what actually happened at such-and-such time, and memory is the word we use to talk about that concept.

 

You say you just remembered that band member. Guess what? You've just made an objective statement! Instead of a feeling, there is something concrete involved. Like I said before, even using words is an action.

 

Actions do not define the person. The person's thoughts do.

I have already addressed these exact statements in #34.

 

 

Only your perception changes when you see the actions. A man can be racist, but never act on that racism, never say anything about his feelings, that does not mean he isn't racist. It simply means he has not acted on that racism.

I ask you: in what circumstances do we say someone is racist? Feels racist?

 

A man can be intensely in love with someone and never act on that love, that does not mean he has no love. It just means he never acted on that love.

I ask you: in what circumstances do we say someone is in love? Has love?

 

I can be an internally violent and disturbing person, but on the outside I can pretend to be all nice and "normal" but really be ready to slit the throat of a random person just to see the red. It wouldn't mean that I'm not psychotic until I actually act on that thought. Only your perception would change to see the psychotic person that lurked inside me.

I ask you: in what circumstances do we say someone is psychotic? Violent? Disturbing?

 

So what you are saying is that you used a poor method of defining soul because by your last statement, hehasnoheart is one word so hehasnosoul is also another word not defining the soul at all, but only the phrase itself.

Hehasnoheart is used in a specific situation. Hehasnosoul is also used in a specific situation. The trouble arises when people start using them in ways that haven't been defined. As expressions, they are very similar in meaning, with Hehasnosoul perhaps being a little more critical. Try saying Hehasnosoul about a rock to someone; they'll have to ask you what you mean, just as I ask you here what soul means when you've taken it out of context.

[Tommycat]

Ok, so those poker players out there always show the exact emotion on their faces, in their actions etc? If I have a Royal Flush, I'm gonna be pretty well tickled pink about it. If I show that emotion, then I give away my advantage. That is just one example of an emotion that is not expressed. It is there, but the other players are not able to see that expression(unless I am a terrible poker player). I SOOOOO want to play poker with you. All I have to do is show I'm sad and you think I am sad.

 

WE say someone is in love, racist, etc by what they show, but they do not have to show it. They can be in love without acting on it.

 

For instance I was in love with a woman at one time that was married. I did not show that love. She had no idea I was in love with her. I was best friends with her husband, and could not show that love. So I held it inside and kept it hidden away. There is an exact example that occurs so often it appears in literature from almost every culture. Thought without action. It appears that you have never experienced this in your life. Great for you.

 

Look I'm not going to sit here and pick everything apart. All I'm going to say is in your example "His soul has left his body" What has left his body? That is the only example from post 4 that "soul" could not be interchanged with "heart"(though technically if his actual heart did leave his body, I think the soul wouldn't be far behind). Or you can turn it around and state that the soul is the non-literal version of the heart(aka not the blood pump).

 

I would really love to get back on topic, but we are stuck on this whole soul business.

[Samuel Dravis]

Ok, so those poker players out there always show the exact emotion on their faces, in their actions etc? If I have a Royal Flush, I'm gonna be pretty well tickled pink about it. If I show that emotion, then I give away my advantage. That is just one example of an emotion that is not expressed. It is there, but the other players are not able to see that expression(unless I am a terrible poker player). I SOOOOO want to play poker with you. All I have to do is show I'm sad and you think I am sad.

Not at all. Circumstance! In a poker game, I know what is expected of people. They will be intentionally hiding physical reactions. They quite literally aren't expressing emotion, being emotional. I won't say that they felt a certain way or not, since I don't know except by what they say or do afterwards. They could say, "I felt great about that hand!" and I know what they mean in the context of a poker game. If they were playing another game where bluffing did not matter, I would wonder why they were being so serious. Different games, different expectations, different meanings.

 

I wouldn't say that someone who was on the ground writhing and screaming horribly "could be faking." I would see what was wrong with them and perhaps get an ambulance. Different circumstance. I might ignore such actions from a person in a play, however.

 

WE say someone is in love, racist, etc by what they show, but they do not have to show it. They can be in love without acting on it.

 

For instance I was in love with a woman at one time that was married. I did not show that love. She had no idea I was in love with her. I was best friends with her husband, and could not show that love. So I held it inside and kept it hidden away. There is an exact example that occurs so often it appears in literature from almost every culture. Thought without action. It appears that you have never experienced this in your life. Great for you.

Ok, you agree that the standards by which we say people are in love are their actions. Good. Further, you assert that these actions are not the only thing that constitutes being in love. OK; I can handle that. Now I ask: "what else constitutes being in love then?" And you say: "well, I feel a certain way." Alright. I ask, "So how do I know if someone is in love, then? What sort of thing will let me on that love is in the air?" And you answer: "There's no way because I refuse to give any criteria to distinguish love from not-love." And I determine that your use of "love" is meaningless. You're not even attempting to communicate anything.

 

But you might object: "It is not meaningless! I do so know what love is!" to which I have to say, "If you don't have anything to compare love to then how do you know it is real love?" "It is real love because I defined it so." Ok then: "Well--you can't define something meaningfully without a standard." I don't know how to reply to that without acknowledging that I can't define it without a standard. Feelings aren't standards, so either we have to say that there is some objective facts that can show I'm in love - or I haven't been using words properly.

 

Look I'm not going to sit here and pick everything apart. All I'm going to say is in your example "His soul has left his body" What has left his body? That is the only example from post 4 that "soul" could not be interchanged with "heart"(though technically if his actual heart did leave his body, I think the soul wouldn't be far behind). Or you can turn it around and state that the soul is the non-literal version of the heart(aka not the blood pump).

Well, in the normal use of the term, when we say, "His soul has left his body" it simply means that the guy is dead. Nothing leaves like someone can leave a house; it's just a particular arrangement of words we say to refer to this circumstance. That's why I pointed out that "He has no soul" can be smashed into one word and still retain its meaning (of a heartless person). We can do the same to this: Hissoulhaslefthisbody.

 

The meaning of a sentence is independent of the words used in that sentence. I'm sure you're familiar with aphorisms like "When in Rome do as romans do." It doesn't mean ONLY for Rome, it is more general than that. So: Wheninromedoasromansdo. I was just trying to show that a sentence is an expression of a particular meaning, and it can be thought of as a single "word" (so that literal interpretations of each word are not necessary).

[Tommycat]

BUT by your definition of emotions, they had no emotions during that game because they did not show them. That is false. They had emotions, but did not express them. Your judgement about the requirement of actions is incorrect. Why does there have to be a specific circumstance for a person to hide their emotions? Some people just don't like people to know too much about them. Actually strangely enough that former band mate of mine did a great job of hiding his emotions. He seemed very happy. Right up until he shot so much heroine into his veins that it could have killed 4 healthy people. But no, he wasn't unhappy at all until he decided to act on it? WRONG, he was unhappy for a long time, but never expressed it.

 

I have more memories of other things in life that make me happy and sad in my daily life, but those memories need not be spoken about to exist. Memories of things that I wanted to do but never did. I have memories of desires that I never filled. Memories of things that will never happen(ie stories I had come up with). I have thoughts that will never go spoken. I have emotions that will never be displayed. While to an outside observer it may appear that I do not have these thoughts, memories, and desires, they do exist. That memory of my former band mate did not go spoken about until this forum. It was an example of one that I had that no action came from(obviously until this forum). Hence actions do not define the person. The person is who he is despite what his actions show the public. For instance a tough guy may actually be a coward. His actions show him to be tough and brave on the outside, however he is afraid on the inside.

 

You missed the point. You haven't answered what is leaving the body. Sure you say he is dead, but they could say He'sDeadJim. So what has left the body that makes him dead. In My estimation and by my definition, all that made him who he is, is no longer there. I'm stuck with this body to get rid of in whatever manner we generally do. You used the others to define what a soul is, but this one you left out what soul meant in the phrase.

[Totenkopf]

Frankly, I think some people really do mean an outside force that they believe is ruling over/overseeing what goes on "down here".

[Samuel Dravis]

BUT by your definition of emotions, they had no emotions during that game because they did not show them. That is false. They had emotions, but did not express them. Your judgement about the requirement of actions is incorrect.

What do I expect emotions to look like in a game of poker?

 

Why does there have to be a specific circumstance for a person to hide their emotions?

Because of this: human beings live in a certain way. They act like human beings do. That means in general they laugh when they're happy and they cry when they're sad. Do this when happy, that when sad. They joke in these situations, they don't joke in others. There is no reason for these actions, it's just what they do. Why do we act like this? Because that is what people do.

 

That is why there needs to be a specific circumstance in which people express their emotions differently. In the Poker game it is an assumed rule: "Suspend what we normally do in order to play this game." Instead of giving off the normal cues for emotion, the person who can best act nonchalant wins the game. Someone who wants to win badly will put on the most blank face they can, and that is an appropriate and expected expression of emotion in the context of playing a poker game.

 

Children play a game where they see who can stare at the other blankly the longest (usually exploding into laughter when one fails). Why is this a fun game? Because that action is so unnatural.

 

Some people just don't like people to know too much about them. Actually strangely enough that former band mate of mine did a great job of hiding his emotions. He seemed very happy. Right up until he shot so much heroine into his veins that it could have killed 4 healthy people. But no, he wasn't unhappy at all until he decided to act on it? WRONG, he was unhappy for a long time, but never expressed it.

I am sorry to hear that.

 

What I can say about it is this: your friend was not playing the game that we play when living. He broke the rules, so to speak, insofar as he did X when everyone expects Y, R when everyone expects T. Is it any wonder we can't make sense of his actions? It is not an option for me to suicide because I do not live in a way that makes it viable; I can't even comprehend a situation in which I would behave like that: acting happy and then killing myself. It's not an option for me to hide my emotions (i.e., act in one way only) because I don't live like I'm playing a poker game all my life. I want people to understand me.

 

It's like that quote above: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him." Why not? Because he lives and experiences the world in completely different way than we do. His seeing is not our seeing; his smell, not our smell.

 

Your friend's world is a world very different from mine, and I don't pretend to understand it. The way he acted means he must not have wanted you to react in certain ways (i.e., suggesting possible drug treatment, your showing concern, etc). Yes, we say, "He must not have been happy" because we see what he has done. If he had not killed himself or done anything else "sad", however, we would not say he was unhappy...

 

Yes, there's an assumption here: that other people share our way of living. I can't comprehend what it is to live as an amoeba, or a lion, or an ape, or even someone who acts radically different than those around me. A person that doesn't show emotion ever? A person that never says anything intelligible? A person who is completely insane? I might well suppose that they were robots and not people. No, I don't know what it is to live like those people, just as I don't know what they mean by sadness if they don't ever show it.

 

Your friend finally showed his sadness, it's true. It is a tragedy that he chose that way to express it. Consider what we say about it: "Those people aren't in their right mind. They have to be helped, cured." That's an expression of worldviews colliding. They're actually insane to us; we don't understand the motivations involved.

 

Consider: what would be the point of ascribing our type of emotions to someone whom it clearly does not fit? Sadness to a person who is never sad; happiness to a person who never acted happily in his life?

 

"But emotions are subjective!" No, they cannot be, if we are to mean anything by them. As I said before: what is the standard for judging sadness if it is subjective? If there is no standard, then there is no coherent concept of sadness (try to differentiate "sadness" from "happiness" subjectively). To talk about a subjective emotion then is as ridiculous as to say that "He has no heart" is to be meant literally. It's wrong to say that "he has no heart" is meant that way. It's wrong to say that an emotion has a specific meaning when that meaning is not specified.

 

A=B? OK - you've told me something about a relationship between A and B. Now tell me what A means! But there is no meaning.

 

Trying to derive meaning from the subjective is like trying to get out of quicksand by diving headfirst into a massive pit of full of it.

 

I have more memories of other things in life that make me happy and sad in my daily life, but those memories need not be spoken about to exist. Memories of things that I wanted to do but never did. I have memories of desires that I never filled. Memories of things that will never happen(ie stories I had come up with). I have thoughts that will never go spoken. I have emotions that will never be displayed. While to an outside observer it may appear that I do not have these thoughts, memories, and desires, they do exist. That memory of my former band mate did not go spoken about until this forum. It was an example of one that I had that no action came from(obviously until this forum). Hence actions do not define the person. The person is who he is despite what his actions show the public. For instance a tough guy may actually be a coward. His actions show him to be tough and brave on the outside, however he is afraid on the inside.

I don't know what it means to say someone is tough on the outside but afraid on the inside apart from what they've done. They might have said "I get scared every time I walk by the bed in the dark because I think about a monster under it." And we'd understand that. But not if they act brave when they say it. The swing their feet over the side, crawl underneath the bed, etc. "I'm afraid of the underside of the bed"? That doesn't describe the situation in the least.

 

How about if they tell you that they're not afraid of anything under the bed, yet act as if the devil himself was poking an iron around the bottom? What if they hysterical when they are told to go to bed? "AAaaaaaahh! I'm not afraid of anything under the bed! AHHHHHHHH Don't take me there!!!"

 

That doesn't make any sense whatever. I somehow doubt you'd EVER use those words to describe those situations. Do you really assume people are liars because they could be acting in a different way than normal? I don't think you do.

 

Saying that they were "scared inside" or "not scared inside" in those contexts merely serves to make the words meaningless. You can't equivocate scared and not-scared without destroying the meaning of both concepts.

 

You missed the point. You haven't answered what is leaving the body.

Nothing has literally left the body.

 

Sure you say he is dead, but they could say He'sDeadJim.

And this would be used in the same context, right? I imagine it would mean the same thing as hissoulhasleftthebody.

 

So what has left the body that makes him dead. In My estimation and by my definition, all that made him who he is, is no longer there. I'm stuck with this body to get rid of in whatever manner we generally do. You used the others to define what a soul is, but this one you left out what soul meant in the phrase.

I agree. Everything that made him a living person is no longer there, and hissoulhaslefthisbody is an expression of that idea. "Soul" in this use is simply a particular sound that we use in conjunction with others in this situation. You can point to a dead person and say "hissoulhaslefthisbody" and point to a living person and say, "heisalive". The meanings of those would be the same as saying someone is dead or alive.

[PoiuyWired]

On the "God Shag You" comment, well the christian faith also have some holy ghost shagging virgins... and virgin birth from god is quite a common theme in religions and the like.

 

Why should you obey him? What if he has bad things planned for you? Do you not deserve a chance for something better, even if you must make it for yourself?

 

Well, think of god as some person playing The Sims. He may be nice and perfect and help you on your problems. He may also decide to place you in some screwed up situation just to see how you react.

 

Oftentimes people would calling an optimistic view on such adverse situations "faith/Test" or something like that, and questioning such events would be considered "You Just Lost The Game" And yes, dieties throwing people in weird situations just to see how they react is described in many religions.

[ET Warrior]

The mind, the memories, the personality, the life force, the morals, emotional traits.

But all of these things are directly controlled by the brain, a very physical entity. And there is a lot of evidence that it is directly controlled by the brain, people who suffer head trauma to certain areas have ended up with completely different personalities than they had before the accident.

 

If the thing that makes us who we are is incorporeal why would brain trauma cause a change in personality?

[Tommycat]

Sorry SD, the person is who they are whether their actions show it or not. They have feelings even though they may not express them. Many comedians are really very unhappy individuals. The only difference between when they show it and when they do not show it is OUR perception of that person. Many people internalize their negative feelings. Those that express them are less common. Perhaps that is why I have such a hard time explaining this to you. Again Good for you if you always express all your emotions except under specific circumstances. The reality is that what we see of a person is usually only about 10% of who they really are.

 

@ET: Well that could be interpreted as the brain damage being like a short circuit in the translation from the soul to the world.

[Samuel Dravis]

Sorry SD, the person is who they are whether their actions show it or not. They have feelings even though they may not express them. Many comedians are really very unhappy individuals. The only difference between when they show it and when they do not show it is OUR perception of that person. Many people internalize their negative feelings. Those that express them are less common. Perhaps that is why I have such a hard time explaining this to you. Again Good for you if you always express all your emotions except under specific circumstances. The reality is that what we see of a person is usually only about 10% of who they really are.

If you know those comedians are unhappy then they must have expressed that in some way. It doesn't matter if it was kicking a rock or cussing out a fan. Doesn't matter if it was purposefully avoiding people or not watching their favorite TV show anymore. Unless you have some other way of determining their happiness, all you seem to have done is assert you know something without actually having a method of getting that information. An interesting claim, but since I have already posted twice why such subjective knowledge can't be obtained I won't argue it further.

[Tommycat]

You've never been sad without showing it? Wow!

 

A person can be sad for a long time without showing that sadness. Just because you cannot obtain that information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means that YOU have no way to tell, but it doesn't mean the person is not sad. It may be later that you find out about it. You must not be married....

[RobQel-Droma]

Uh, you seem to have missed the point.

 

How exactly did I do this?

 

I'm sorry you're not sure.

 

I'm sorry you didn't reply to my question.

 

No, it's not putting myself on the level of God. That's good for you, I'm not, hell I'm not even convinced there is a God. And no, loyalty is a human concept. Faith is the matter of God. It's not about loyalty for him, it's about belief in him. You don't owe him some blood-debt, he just hopes you worship him because he likes it.

 

Well, if there isn't a God, then this is all a moot point. But if there is a God, and He created you, that would mean as well that He gave you the ability to understand and come up with a concept such as loyalty, right? If there is a God, in other words, humans couldn't come up with something that God didn't already know and give us the means to understand. So....

 

.... how exactly are we not indebted to at least give glory to God for creating us? I'm not trying to be pushy, I'm just wondering. I would think that even on a philosophical sense, a being who could create and shape us into who we are deserves respect from his creations.

[Samuel Dravis]

You've never been sad without showing it? Wow!

 

A person can be sad for a long time without showing that sadness. Just because you cannot obtain that information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means that YOU have no way to tell, but it doesn't mean the person is not sad. It may be later that you find out about it. You must not be married....

I don't deny there is a subjective. I do deny that there's any point in talking about it. In order to communicate, words must mean the same thing to the person you're talking to as yourself. The subjective excludes that possibility by its very nature. Ergo, words cannot be based on or refer to the subjective... I can't even intelligibly say, "There are things that we can't talk about" because I haven't defined things in this context...and will never be able to. You can't say someone is subjectively sad because that use of "sad" is undefined. See what I mean?

[Totenkopf]

You know, Sam, it might just be that some people are better able to comport themselves around others and hide their sadness or sorrow from view. But frankly, sad is sad. The subjective part is more likely to come into play over the source of that sadness. You just might not be able to explain cogently why something is bothering you, not so much that it IS bothering you.

[ET Warrior]

@ET: Well that could be interpreted as the brain damage being like a short circuit in the translation from the soul to the world.

So, despite all evidence to the contrary, the soul is what makes us who we are, despite the fact that the brain appears to have 100% control over our thoughts and actions?

 

If people who suffer from depression take anti-depression medication they aren't really happy, they've just short-circuited the sad feelings to make us think that they're happy?