How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Soul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Transferred from The Alley Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Soul

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


25 posted 10-25-2004 01:25 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Do animals have souls?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


26 posted 10-25-2004 02:07 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

It seems suggested in Christianity that animals do not have souls.

If animals spirits do not have spiritual "houses" for their spirits then they always have physical houses, so as angels (it is said) have only spiritual "houses" but not physical.  Animals therefore are the equivelent of angels as bodily beings.  Their spirits go directly thro bodys.  Just as angels' spirits go directly thro souls, without another "body in between"  The man however has more: he has a body and soul.  While in world, man must face his soul in facing his body, face his body in facing his soul.  That seems more manifold than animals; more manifold than angels too.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


27 posted 10-25-2004 03:56 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"The naturalist or the Christian both are bound to ambiguity on many points, like it or not.  That's the way God made it."

Now I think that is truth.  
But there are some words to say about Naturalism, and how it inevitably partakes in Spirituality too.
Though Naturalism is not the same as Christianity, it is ever spiritual.  That is because Nature has Spirit too.  You can't miss Spirituality in Nature, or Nature in Spirituality.  Either always touches the other.  In World, in Heaven.  All Naturalists if they look into Nature right, may find the way to God.  A direct path, that even religion-perfectionists may not ever as directly thro symbol symbolize, as symbols are always in one way or another indirect.  God made Nature a path for all beings.  So that even if you can't read words, you may feel Spirit in natural things, and let that Spirit guide you to higher sense, and being and believing.  Thus Naturalists that believe they are not Spiritualists are mistaken. And Spiritualists that believe they are not Naturalists, equally mistaken.  Nature is Spiritual, and Spirit is Natural.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-25-2004 05:01 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


28 posted 10-25-2004 07:10 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Though Naturalism is not the same as Christianity, it is ever spiritual.††That is because Nature has Spirit too.



I was referring to the definition of naturalism which amounts to:  nature = all of reality.


This means the denial of anything supernatural as the foundation for the existence of nature.  In which case, "Spirit" would mean nothing more than a creative story, or subjective embellishment of nature in the human mind.  Because, regardless of whether someone thinks nature is "spiritual" or not, nature would be just a fact of being and nothing more.  Our commentaries would amount to nothing more than tags and titles, given by what (according to naturalism) is just a part of that same whole.


But if nature is derived from something beyond itself ... a supernatural origin and foundation ... then "spiritual" may be applied to nature without absurdity.  In which case, I agree with you that nature is spiritual, and that what is spiritual manifests itself in what is natural.  But only in schema which doesn't make nature everything there is.  Which is not "naturalism" in the sense of the word I am using.  You, Essorant, in that sense aren't a naturalist I think ... though I'm not sure.  Sometimes you sound like you agree with traditional theism, other times like eastern pantheism.  But you are definitely a "naturalist" in the sense of one who greatly respects and reveres the natural beauty and structure of the world around us.  I share that kind of "naturalism" too.  


quote:
God made Nature a path for all beings.††So that even if you can't read words, you may feel Spirit in natural things, and let that Spirit guide you to higher sense, and being and believing.


But according to Christian teaching,  (and our experience as well), nature herself is like a good thing gone bad in many ways.  Creation fell.  Mother Earth turns out to be a step mother.  Her cruelty and waste is equally obvious as her care and conservation.  Obviously such an inconsistent guide is going to lead us right at times and wrong at others.  That's where the need for revelation through words (in the bible) and historical happenings (in redemptive history) comes in.  God has said and done something clarion, that nature could only muffle wimper and groan.


Stephen.

      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-26-2004 01:08 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


29 posted 10-25-2004 09:01 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

I think there is a all too romantic notion
of Nature here.  The Nature we in the West experience
is a Nature conquered, controlled, or at least
edited for consumption to feed our delusions.
Malaria is more a part of Nature than Bambi.
A crocodile dragging a child under more
than a squirrel taking a peanut from your hand.
They say distance lends enchantment. The Congo River
is one thing to a PBS viewer, another to someone living
in the jungle on its bank.

John
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


30 posted 10-25-2004 09:27 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I think there is a all too romantic notion
of Nature here...

They say distance lends enchantment.

There's some truth to that.   But the history of art and literature in less technological civilizations, reveals that the same enchantment was present even with those who had less "control".  I think that's universal.  There's always been a fierce and gentle side to the natural world ... as well as an ugly and beautiful.  The selfsame wind can comfort and terrify.


Recognizing both sides of nature is not romanticism but balance.  


Stephen.
  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


31 posted 10-25-2004 11:06 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos
When I say Nature or Spirit I shall mean: Nature and Spirit.  However, the words Nature and Spirit, usually distinguish different states of Nature and Spirit.  When we use Nature it seems like we usually tend toward more "physically driven" being or state.  When we use Spiritual a more spiritually driven being or state.  Over all though, I don't think God is biased for spiritual/physical like humans are; God sees all things at once, as one whole, where all things are equally part of creation.
On a higher level there is probably not much more difference between Spirit and Nature than light and shine (from the sun).  What is the difference between light and shine?  Doesn't light always have shine, and shine always have light?  If one is so convinced that things are mostly physical, then things that are not "physical" shall seem only different states of experiencing a physical whole; if one is so convinced that things are mostly spiritual, than things that are not "spiritual" shall seem only different states of experiencing a spiritual whole.  Overall though, is the whole all this or all that man says? Is God and the Universe and Nature really "biased" for naturalism or spiritualism?  I don't think so.  
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


32 posted 10-25-2004 11:29 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Stephanos,

ďThere's always been a fierce and gentle side to the natural world ... as well as an ugly and beautiful.Ē

The natural world is neither ugly or beautiful; it is.  The fierce and gentle
sides are those of manís view, his attempt to rationalize, even placate, beyond fact.

John

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


33 posted 10-25-2004 11:30 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Essorant,

You're kind of missing the point. Naturalism (Physicalism, Monism etc.) is in direct opposition to Supernaturalism (Spiritualism, Dualism etc.) in that it rejects any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.

When Stephen talks about Naturalism, he's talking about someone like me, not someone like you.

You can redefine the words all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Stephen and I see the world differently.

He's wrong.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


34 posted 10-26-2004 12:59 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

John wrote:

quote:
Malaria is more a part of Nature than Bambi.

A crocodile dragging a child under more
than a squirrel taking a peanut from your hand.

and ...
quote:
The natural world is neither ugly or beautiful; it is


Then tell me ...  If the natural world just "is", why would malaria be more of a part of nature than bambi, or the crocodile more descriptive of nature than the squirrel?  Why is a child for a snack any different than a peanut?  


First you make emotionally charged appeals to what is disagreeable to humanity in nature, to make your point.  Then when I point out that there is both good and ill, agreeable and disagreeable, in the natural world, you resort to the claim of utter subjectivism to refute what I say.  


But this approach also refutes what you said at first.  If everything in nature just "IS", then your statements about what is more characteristic of nature are also meaningless and subjective.  But don't worry, I think you were closer to the truth the first time, when you complained about romanticizing nature.          




Brad:
quote:
He's wrong.


Well Brad, that's about the closest I've ever heard you come to absolutism in a single sentence.  I must be rubbing off on you at least a little.          



Essorant,  Listen to Brad in what he said to you.  

He's right.



      

Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


35 posted 10-26-2004 01:30 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

You're kind of missing the point. Naturalism (Physicalism, Monism etc.) is in direct opposition to Supernaturalism (Spiritualism, Dualism etc.) in that it rejects any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.

YOU are missing the BIGGER POINT if you think all Naturalists must be ATHEIST.
  
  
  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


36 posted 10-26-2004 01:36 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

TRUE Naturalism (Physicalism, Monism Spiritual Naturalism) is in direct AGREEMENT with Supernaturalism (Spiritualism, Dualism etc.) in that it OBEYS any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


37 posted 10-26-2004 04:25 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

"Do animals have souls?"

It's my belief they have a collective soul.

and nodding here,

that lends to many questions of humanity as well, collective or otherwise.

I think we deem ourselves much too much important.

In the grand scheme of what I believe?

We don't mean spit.

ALONE.  



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


38 posted 10-26-2004 06:37 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Essorant,

You sound like Ayn Rand when she had a fit over others' use of objectivism.

Copyright the word if you want.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


39 posted 10-26-2004 12:45 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
. . . in that it OBEYS any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.

But that's either the same thing as theism or pantheism.  Brad's point is that just because you use the word "naturalism" doesn't mean that you are describing what has been understood to be naturalism.  You are redefining it to mean either pantheism or panentheism.  But since there are terms already in place for these beliefs, to hijack the term "naturalism" only causes confusion.


You are only naturalist in the sense that a certain tradition of poetry was "naturalist" poetry.  


If you disagree, I would simply ask you to define what you mean by "naturalism" specifically.  You've been known to redefine words in the past.  Remember what you did to "sexism"?       Words have elasticity, but they're not fluid.


Karen,

You think we're less than spit?  That's pretty depressing isn't it?


Stephen.    
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


40 posted 10-26-2004 12:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Brad,

No I don't want to force clauses on other people.  [ despite my edition of your comment]
Nature is wide and encompassing, therefore to me Naturalist is too.  
It is like trying to make a diverse forest out as only one specific kind of trees even though it has very many kinds that make it a "Forest"
The forest has wolves; if you admire wolves you may call it "the wolves hall" another likes deer he may call it the "The deers' tread"  One likes how the moon comes thro the treetops at night, she calls  "moonlight forest"  There are many ways to believe and admire, as there are many ways to look at something so broad and encompassing as Nature.  And all beliefs of them have substance and truth; for we are all looking at same or similar things and inspired by them, even though we attend different aspects more than others and believe in different ways of approaching them.  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


41 posted 10-26-2004 01:25 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos,
I'm not trying to "hijack" naturalism.  I'm trying to save the term from its state of being hijacked by cold clauses and specifications.   Naturalist a word with Nature in it, therefore its use ought to respect what Nature is, and the meaning of "Nature" modern AND ancient.
It is the same as Spiritualist--Spirit.  If I added a specification under Spiritualism saying :AND you must not eat any meat, only vegetables.  That is just silly.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


42 posted 10-26-2004 01:51 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

You've been known to redefine words in the past.  Remember what you did to "sexism"?       Words have elasticity, but they're not fluid.


But if you go by the words that these are of, Naturalism: Nature, Sexism: Sex, you shall see my redefinitions are not without a basis.    
To me it is illogical to express "nature" or "sex" as many or more general things, and then confine naturalism and sexism for only one thing that is most narrowed and specified.  The word derived from the word that has a broad meaning should have the room to be as broad as the word it is derived from.  That means it may be narrower, but may be broader too, all within respect of what is derived from.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-26-2004 05:30 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


43 posted 10-26-2004 03:35 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Here is an example of pure English words (instead of greekish or latinish words):

From Old English:

(ge is pronounced like "ye" and sc as "sh"; ic as "ich" in rich)

lichama (or bodig): "body"

lichamlic "bodily; physical"

gast "spirit"

gastlic "spiritual"

sawol "soul"

Scieppend "Shaper, Creator: God"

gesceaft "creation; creature"

gecynd "nature"  

gecynde "natural"

Gesceaft is based on the word scieppan "to shape, to create"  (the pt became ft by sound changes); with a collective prefix ( sometimes used for emphasis) ge-"together". *[edit: see endnote below]

Gecynd and Gecynde are  where our modern noun and adjective "kind" comes from.  

Trying to translate such words as "Creationism" and "Naturalism" into pure English we literally it seems we come to:

shaftness/shapedness: creationism

kindness: naturalism

Sceaft of gesceaft is spelt the same as sceaft that our modern English "shaft" comes from.  I believed they may be related.  However, it looks more like "shaft" may actually be related to "shave" not "shape"    
Shaft\, n. [OE. shaft, schaft, AS. sceaft; akin to D. schacht, OHG. scaft, G. schaft, Dan. & Sw. skaft handle, haft, Icel. skapt, and probably to L. scapus, Gr. ????, ????, a staff. Probably originally, a shaven or smoothed rod. Cf. Scape, Scepter, Shave.] From Dictionary .com
Nevertheless sceaft from gesceaft were "shaft" too if it evolved to modern English.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-26-2004 09:55 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


44 posted 10-26-2004 07:24 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Stephanos,

I was directing myself to Western manís
romantic perceptions of Nature.

John

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


45 posted 10-26-2004 10:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant:
quote:
Stephenos,
I'm not trying to "hijack" naturalism.††I'm trying to save the term from its state of being hijacked by cold clauses and specifications.



Essorant, my point was that you were attempting to use the word in a way that it has NEVER been used, in ancient or modern times.  I recognize that there are several different senses in which the word "naturalism" is used.  I just don't think panentheism or pantheism is one of them.  You're only confusing those who read your explanations by not using terms which more accurately refer to what you are saying.  


When you say that nature is obedient to an external mind, or has a consciousness of it's own, you are describing specific views (theism, pantheism, or even panentheism).  To call this "naturalism" is simply a mistake.  That's all we're saying.  If you doubt me, look up "naturalism" in the dictionary.  Then for further clarification look up "theism", "pantheism", and "panentheism".  


You might think the accepted definitions of these words are "cold clauses and specifications", but that's irrelevant.  It's a communication issue.  And specificity is a good thing when it's needed.  In speaking about the differences between particular worldviews, such as we often discuss in Philosophy, some precision is needed don't you think?


Stephen.    
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


46 posted 10-26-2004 10:42 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

But eytmology is not the basis of meaning.

Usage is.

I'm not saying you're wrong about what you think Naturalism should mean. You're simply wrong when it comes to how Stephen and I are using it.

I don't know, do you want Stephen and I to use a different word?

Any suggestions?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


47 posted 10-26-2004 11:18 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I was directing myself to Western manís
romantic perceptions of Nature.

Yes, I know.  And my response was that I don't think it's only "Western", but more universal.  There's been a widely distributed idealism of nature, as evidenced by the history of literature.


What I was trying to say, was that the reason for this is that nature does indeed have agreeable nurturing characteristics as well as adverse ones.  And it's only "natural" that one would be praised, and the other lamented in art


Stephen.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


48 posted 10-26-2004 11:34 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
I'm not saying you're wrong about what you think Naturalism should mean. You're simply wrong when it comes to how Stephen and I are using it.

I don't know, do you want Stephen and I to use a different word?



I don't know Brad ... to use a cliche'  "If it ain't broke don't fix it".   I think Essorant should explain why "naturalism" would be appropriate for something which "supernaturalism", "theism", "pantheism", or "panentheism" all express quite well (despite their own differences).  


I for one, can suggest reasons why the word "naturalism" is inadequate to describe what Essorant believes.  It only mentions nature with nothing added to or set apart from it.  Yet Essorants beliefs contain something over and above nature, which ought to (for communicative reasons) be expressed somewhere in the word itself.  Such signification is especially needed seeing that the word "naturalism" has never been widely used in the way Essorant wants to use it.


So I'd rather persuade Essorant to use a different word, than to consider you and I using another word in this case.  It's not that I wouldn't agree to do so, but I don't think it would help eliminate the unneeded confusion that's already present, concerning what our terminology means.


I would like to ask Essorant why "naturalism" should be used to describe what he believes rather than the several other terms which might more precisely do so.  Persuade me.  Until then, I'm pretty satisfied with Webster.

Stephen.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


49 posted 10-27-2004 12:22 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Fair enough. But I'm interested in knowing whether of not he understands the difference.

To try to bring this back on topic, I don't believe we have a soul. You do. Playing word games isn't going to bring those two positions any closer. Either you agree or you don't, but unless you want to play, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus", how is he going to make the distinction?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Soul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors