Without trying to rouse too much a further debate about what we should have done about her, the furor over what to do about Terry Schiavo got me thinking about a more important, philosophical question: How does one define the soul? Do any of us ever possess such an entity? Perhaps this question has not been expressed formally because to even consider such a subject is politically unpalatable; it would seem really quite rude to go around questioning whether someone possesses a soul – it takes away from their dignity. Likewise perhaps it is because most people would consider the answer obvious – in all of us the body breaths, it moves, the heart still beats – but the reflexiveness of this answer suggests a salient assumption worth examination. Our surest answers are the ones we should surely examine. In questioning whether anyone has a soul – and how we would know if they did – it is not my intention to subtract from the dignity of mankind. I merely want to examine with rigor why we think people have souls and if those reasons are justified. So in spite of how likely this is to be a touchy subject for a large number of people, let us step aside from the political debate for a moment and see if we can define what it means to have a soul.
The soul in the Judeo-Christian sense is a unity uniquely bestowed on each individual by God. It is in their description supernatural, and upon death it returns to the Almighty. Secular philosophers on the other hand would disagree on its unique bestowal and supernatural traits, but they would still suggest that you have one. For more secular philosophies the soul is a certain quality peculiar to each human being which makes them special. It dignifies human life, and it is the trait which makes allows human beings to possess rights. Secular philosophers may not use the word soul – and their technical specifications for it may be different – but there philosophies require this entity as the abstract trait that differentiates human beings from everything else – rocks, trees, National Monuments, and the meat from which the human body is constructed. Soul in my opinion is a more than adequate shorthand for this abstraction so I will continue to use it here.
Whether you think it is supernatural or a mere metaphor, all descriptions of the soul possess common characteristics: it is at the minimum continuous, indivisible, and intangible. As an aside, I would also add sacred to the list of characteristics, but this is much more susceptible to debate. Most people not currently indulging in a bout of Andreyev would say that the soul is — if not sacred — at least important, but this is a matter of taste.
Article comments
1 - Bennett
"As I can imagine at this point I am being wildly misunderstood, I would like to clarify something."
Hi. I waded through your work, found some of it to be interesting, however much it argues in circles. To whit:
"The duality principle of the soul does not allow you to believe whatever you want.
Rather it requires that evidence be brought to bear on the circumstances to determine which conception is more successful at explaining reality, and then assumes that this conception is correct in that case."
"Conception?" "Assumes?"
"Let us consider a problem: Do fetuses in the first trimester possess a soul? Rather than arguing theologically, the duality principle reframes the question to ask, does this fetus show any evidence that it in particular possesses a soul? Does it show the capacity for intentioned action? Does the existence of a soul explain its actions better than its existence as a ball of cells? To these questions I would probably say ?no? with respect to the first trimester, but the answer is very dependent on case.
Can you imagine having a medical/theological/sectarian examination and debate about even a single case of potential abortion???
"What do you think doc, does the 1/2 inch tadpole in her belly move with intent?
Whew, I can't wait to hear what the really smart folks on blogcritics have to say...
I will slap you five for being quite a wordsmith.
Psssst. Please change "there" to "their" in the first few paragraphs.
2 - Jake Young
Thank you for picking up the typo and for the complement.
I agree completely that were I a legislator I would have to, for expediency's sake, probably pick an arbitrary date for when a being has a soul. My point wasn't really one about policy.
My point is mostly that when we see anyone -- a dude on the news, our next door neighbor, etc. -- we are making an 'assumption' that they have a soul even though you cannot prove this. We have a 'conception' of the world where people have souls because this 'conception' is necessary for the world to make sense. I am merely trying to point out that the process by which you determine if someone has a soul -- anyone including Terry Schiavo -- is the same and is totally reliant on this 'conception'.
3 - Bennett
Yeah, I understand, and you did a good job with a tough assignment.
I have a basic problem with the representation of what lies beneath our corporate presense, as a "soul" as contemplated in most judeo-christian belief systems. I, me, am forced to separate what I hope is true, from what I know is true.
I do hope there is more to me than just being an animated bag of meat with a brief but completely unimportant single passage through what we perceive to be existence.
But I don't know what the truth is, and until there is solid proof that our "soul" survives death, as an individual with continuity of memory, I'll just have to hope that this is the case.