True Self

This collegium and forum are dedicated to the study, discussion, re-creation and application of classical Roman and Greek religion and philosophy.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

True Self

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:28 pm

Salvete,

Now that, ironically, the topic of death is dying out a little, I'd like to introduce the topic of Self briefly touched upon in our previous topic.

What are your thoughts on "self". Do we have one? If so, where is it located? Do we have a soul? Are we a sum of parts, or are we more than that? And if our self is the sum of all parts, don't we lose ourself if we lose, say, a hand?

I eagerly await your opinions.

Valete!
Draco,
still rector for a few days... :p
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Aulus Dionysius Mencius on Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:07 pm

Salve

The Self, huh? Tough one, with many possible answers, of whom every single one has merit, undoubtedly.

As to where the soul must be situated, that depends on different views. I will present some from the Orient.

The Mongols believe that the soul is in the blood. An interesting little story about that, is that Ghengis khan, came into the world with his wrists closed tightly. A few days later, when he opened them at last, their were two drops of blood in them, as hard as rock.

The Chinese situate the spirit (Shen) in the lower abdomen, at Dan Tian, an accupunture point about three centimeters below the belly button.

Plato sees the spirit (nous, if I recall correctly)as eternal, since it as our body, consists of parts hat have come together coincidentally. After a life cycle, tne particles all return to a metaphysical level, to return later in another cycle, another combination.

But I am not an expert in platonist view, I am rather Orient-minded, and I believe, with the Chinese, that mind and spirit are two separate things.

Vale bene, amices
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
Praefectus Belgicae, Rector of ColMil et Senator
User avatar
Aulus Dionysius Mencius
V. Cornicen
V. Cornicen
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:04 pm
Location: Ganda, Belgica

Postby Tiberius Dionysius Draco on Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:47 pm

Salvete Romani,

personally, I think that every man and woman has a soul. Where that soul is located is of no importance because I think that the soul is inside of your whole body.

This soul is what makes us different from other people because we all look alike, inside and outside (more or less).

I also believe that this soul contains your character and that after you die, it lingers here until it can reincarnate as something else. And so your soul is part of the neverending circle of life.

But the soul remains.

As for your question, Draco, about what happens to you when you lose for instance hand. I think that your true self will indeed change, but not that drastically that you can never become "normal" again. although you will never be the same as you used to be (who would after losing a hand?).

That was my opinion.

Valete bene,

Tiberius Dionysius Draco
User avatar
Tiberius Dionysius Draco
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Marcus Pomponius Lupus on Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:08 pm

Salvete,

personally, I think that every man and woman has a soul. Where that soul is located is of no importance because I think that the soul is inside of your whole body.

This soul is what makes us different from other people because we all look alike, inside and outside (more or less).


As much as I would like to believe this idea, because it has a certain Romantic value and it makes all of us feel so very special and unique, I don't believe any of it.

In my opinion humans are not a a life form with more merit than animals or even plants, we simply have bigger brains due to Darwinian evolution and as a consequence of that, we are able to make theory afer theory about ourself and the world. One of which is that humans posses a soul.

Just think about it, there has never been found a "soul" inside a person's body. This sounds very logical, no one expects this, but it also proves that a "soul" is nothing more than a creation of the mind. To give an example from a famous philosopher "There is a pear standing on top of my head right now, you can't see, smell or touch it, but it's there". That theory has just as much proof behind it as stating that I would have a soul, which no one can see, touch, smell or hear (or in a bizarre way taste...)

As to our true Self, I've talked a lot about that with a close friend but it was just too depressing in the end, so for the sake of my peace of mind I'll just end with the one truth that can't be denied and might be the only answer to this question : I am me

Lupus
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Iurisconsultus
User avatar
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:40 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:13 pm

Ah! Ah! I like this one! Very short and powerful:

Body and soul are one...

No wait, wait! There is no soul.

Or better: What we call "soul" are some biochemical reactions.

Thus: the key to keep our "soul" is to keep our body. If you die, you die as well mentally as physically.

If you lose your hand, your soul doesn't change; because you haven't got one. If they cut your head into two pieces you will die. And thus will your soul (supposed you would have one). However, some other things may change when you lose your hand: your self-esteem, your self-image etc. But not your soul: It doesn't exist.


Loc Bar
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Tiberius Dionysius Draco on Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:38 pm

Salve Barbate et Lupe,

If you have no soul, then what is responsible for your character.

Everybody has got a different character, you can be friendly, grumpy, psychotic, ...

I think that your soul is responsible for all this. So this would also mean that animals have got souls, and why not? It's not because they can't think about it that they don't have one.

And Lupe, what you said about nobody ever finding your soul. Do you mean by this that this proves we don't have a soul?

Then explain me why they have never found any memories inside the human body. Because this would mean that according to you, we don't have any memories. We just think we have.

Or did I misunderstand you?

Valete bene,

Tiberius Dionysius Draco
User avatar
Tiberius Dionysius Draco
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: Belgica

Soulmate!

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:53 pm

Salve!

Tiberius Dionysius Draco wrote:f you have no soul, then what is responsible for your character.


That's an easy one: our DNA of course. Your character is something physically, just like your body (in fact, your character is you body). Often in a family you can compare your e.g. brothers character with that of your father. Similar stuff, hé? :wink:

Tiberius Dionysius Draco wrote:So this would also mean that animals have got souls, and why not? It's not because they can't think about it that they don't have one.


Of course animals don't have souls! Because we don't have them too! I mean: we are not so different from animals. In fact, we are animals too. But we have the gift of being able to think on a higher level. And yes, animals can think too, but not on the same level as us. My cat knows that she has to put her nails into my leg before I will feed it. She has learnt it and she can think.

Vale,

Loc Bar
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Marcus Pomponius Lupus on Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:11 pm

Salve Tiberi,

If you have no soul, then what is responsible for your character.


Your background, the place you were born, the parents you had, your education, your genes, the religion you were raised in, the people around you, the experiences you had,... these things determine someone's personality.

I think that your soul is responsible for all this. So this would also mean that animals have got souls, and why not? It's not because they can't think about it that they don't have one.


Yes, of course, an animal doesn't know it has a heart that pumps the blood around, it has a liver to digest its food,....but still it has all those things. But again, the personality of animals is, in my opinion, a result of its experiences and its genes, rather than a soul.

And Lupe, what you said about nobody ever finding your soul. Do you mean by this that this proves we don't have a soul?

Then explain me why they have never found any memories inside the human body. Because this would mean that according to you, we don't have any memories. We just think we have.


Certain parts of the brain can be identified as responsible for "memories". If these parts become damaged then you can lose memories. So the difference is this: there are indeed no memories "floating" around in your body, but there is a place in your body (those specific parts of the brain) which enables you to have memories, which gives you the ability to have them.

The same goes for "speech", almost everyone has it, but it can't be found inside someone's body of course. However, we can determine which part of the brain is resposible for this ability.

But there is no such thing for a soul, there's not a single part of the body which is responsible for giving someone a soul, or the ability to "grow" a soul during your life. That's why I consider it to be nothing more than a construction of the mind, wishfull thinking in a way.

Sure, you can consider your personality, your past experiences, your ethics and all that to be your "soul" if you feel the need to give it a name, but there is no soul at the origin of your personality, there's no Platonic idea of a "soul" behind or inside every person....in my opinion of course.

Lupus
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Iurisconsultus
User avatar
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:40 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:35 pm

Salvete,

Tiberius asked me to finally write a few comments because, after all, I had started this topic and it was beginning to appear I didn't care. Of course that's not true :D.

Actually, my original question was not whether or not you believe in a soul and how it could be defined. Nonetheless I'd like to make a few comments.

Everyone here seems to agree that the idea of a complete body/soul dichotomy is an ancient superstition, an old-fashioned thought that cannot be rationally proven. So there are no real dualists here. Hence my question about the hand. If *you* are *you* (the physical you only), and your hand is severed, are *you* still *you"? After all, you lost a part of yourself. If you still think you are the same person (in terms of personality)... then where is your self located? Where is it?

Locate, I think it's a bit cheap to blame everything on our DNA. Some types of DNA, for example, have a larger chance of developing forms of cancer while others don't. But both of these people can get cancer anyway. DNA may predispose you but it doesn't determine your character completely. Lupus added social background and education to the mix that would produce our individuality.

A part from these factors I also think our need for individuality arises from a need of existing. Basically, every person is born with many, many abilities and potential characteristics, yet only a fraction of them is developed (compare: 1 year olds can produce *all* vowels in human languages but as they grow older only narrow down on those of their native language and even forget how to produce the other vowels). During adolescence most people consciously begin to change their lifestyle and themselves. One of the factors that plays a role in this is the idea you want to have that you exist: I am this, and not that. I like X, and not Y. If you were everything, or liked everything... you would be featureless. And, paradoxically, your identity would be considered boring, flat and featureless too.

True Self, in my opinion doesn't exist. I'm surprised that Mencius didn't mention this when he talked about the eastern views (I got your sms, by the way, amice ~ it seems that you've traced back my sources! :lol:). Like Hume, Buddhists believe that our "self" is a chain of impressions, emotions and thoughts but not something fixed, something firmly rooted as a soul or even something as predictable as a chemical engine that is our brain.

Like the boy in the Matrix said: there is no spoon. There is no self. Self is an illusion you need to keep yourself alive

Valete!!
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Marcus Pomponius Lupus on Thu Jun 19, 2003 6:54 pm

Salve Draco,

scripsisti

Anyway, it's an interesting question. I also see that no one responded to my last response on the True Self debate. It seems I am too powerful of a rhetor, wa ha ha.


Oooh, what vile techniques to inspire discussion ! ;-)

But anyway, here goes,

quoque scripsisti

If *you* are *you* (the physical you only), and your hand is severed, are *you* still *you"? After all, you lost a part of yourself. If you still think you are the same person (in terms of personality)...


By this, you simply present us with the same problem as with the body/soul dichotomy, only now you make a difference between body and personality. Will I have changed when I lose my hand ? Yes, my body will have another form and I will weigh slightly less.

But will I have changed in terms of personality ? You'll have to explain me first what you think "personality" is and how one develops his or her personality, because we may have different opinions (and in answering this, you'll probably have the answer to "will it change my personality ?" as well ;-))

vale bene
lupus
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Iurisconsultus
User avatar
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:40 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Thu Jun 19, 2003 7:25 pm

Salve Lupe!

Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:scripsisti

Anyway, it's an interesting question. I also see that no one responded to my last response on the True Self debate. It seems I am too powerful of a rhetor, wa ha ha.


Oooh, what vile techniques to inspire discussion ! ;-)


I am evil, after all.

Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:But anyway, here goes,

quoque scripsisti

If *you* are *you* (the physical you only), and your hand is severed, are *you* still *you"? After all, you lost a part of yourself. If you still think you are the same person (in terms of personality)...


By this, you simply present us with the same problem as with the body/soul dichotomy, only now you make a difference between body and personality. Will I have changed when I lose my hand ? Yes, my body will have another form and I will weigh slightly less.

But will I have changed in terms of personality ? You'll have to explain me first what you think "personality" is and how one develops his or her personality, because we may have different opinions (and in answering this, you'll probably have the answer to "will it change my personality ?" as well ;-))


Actually, no. I contend that what we perceive as our personality is a construct of our ego but has no real, independent existence, because everything is interdependent (there can't be big without small, no cold without warm, no bank without money, etc etc) and is thus in a continuosly fluctuating continuum (despite the fuzziness this is really what I mean, nothing more, nothing less).

There still is no spoon 8).

Vale bene,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Marcus Pomponius Lupus on Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:16 pm

Salve Draco,

Actually, no. I contend that what we perceive as our personality is a construct of our ego but has no real, independent existence, because everything is interdependent (there can't be big without small, no cold without warm, no bank without money, etc etc) and is thus in a continuosly fluctuating continuum (despite the fuzziness this is really what I mean, nothing more, nothing less).


That's all very nice (and has a *lot* in common with the ideas of de Saussure about language), but you still haven't answered the question you asked us about the hand. My idea of a personality is the sum of DNA, background, religion, education, experiences,....ever changing and never within our grasp.

So about the hand, yes it will change me, both in a physical and psychological way, my attitude towards life and other people might change, perhaps I will become bitter, perhaps I will become stronger through it, but it will most likely change my personality.

Note that I use "personality" for lack of a better word, perhaps I would better describe it as "the sum of everything that makes me *me*"

So, where do we differ in our opinions then ? Will losing a hand change anything according to you, Draco ?

Vale bene
Lupus
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Iurisconsultus
User avatar
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:40 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Fri Jun 20, 2003 5:56 pm

Salve Lupe,

Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:That's all very nice (and has a *lot* in common with the ideas of de Saussure about language)


Actually what de Saussure said (was it in 1916?) was remarkably like Buddhism (from the 5th century BCE :)). I borrowed my ideas from the Buddha.

Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:... but you still haven't answered the question you asked us about the hand.


Of course, losing your hand will alter your personality because it alters your experiences and has psychological effects.

But the hand question was related to Locatus' position that self/personality = physical existence. So if I were to lose my hand, according to his logic, there would be *two* me's! :) And if he doesn't think that, appearently the self is not the body.

Marcus Pomponius Lupus wrote:My idea of a personality is the sum of DNA, background, religion, education, experiences,....ever changing and never within our grasp.


You're on your way to Enlightment, amice :D.

Vale,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

ah, ah!

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Fri Jun 20, 2003 6:01 pm

Salve Draco,

Now I understand your talking about the hand!

Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:But the hand question was related to Locatus' position that self/personality = physical existence. So if I were to lose my hand, according to his logic, there would be *two* me's! And if he doesn't think that, appearently the self is not the body.


First of all, spare the world of two "you's" :twisted: .
Second: no, there wouldn't be two "you's" (thank Marx for that!) because the biochemical processes concerning your personality are concentrated in your brains, and not in your hands. If it was possible to slice your head into several parts and keeping them alive, then you would have several "you's", but each with some disorders, as they won't have every part of the brain that needs a human to function.

Vale,

Loc
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Anonymous on Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:23 am

Just think about it, there has never been found a "soul" inside a person's body


Such a statement only proves the hopelessly shallow, fundamentally flawed, and laughably inadequate nature of what often passes for 'human rationalism' and, by extension, 'human intelligence' as well.

My idea of a personality is the sum of DNA, background, religion, education, experiences...


While the above things undoubtedly influence your temporal reality and sense of self to an extent, they are just that, temporal and ultimately a non-issue. I'd be curious to know how you would attempt to justify or otherwise account for your "something from nothing" philosophy, along with the absolute denial of any notion of Objective Truth and Ultimate Reality.

Indeed, the burden of proof lies on you, because the evidence to support the contrary is overwhelming and already perfectly abundant to those who are clearly able to see the human condition - striving solely for temporal things that don't even matter - as the ultimate exercise in futility and sheer audacity that it is. If nothing else, the atheistic/nihilistic viewpoint only serves to represent 'human reasoning' at its absolute worst.

The very fact that the vast majority are not able to see the greater picture, nor comprehend the existence of things beyond their pathetically weak, limited, and narrow scope of reality, is proof in and of itself that, in the final analysis, we still have light-years to go in terms of spiritual evolution before we can ever hope to achieve true enlightenment and progress while in a human capacity on this infinitesimally small particle of dust we call Earth or, more than likely, as a higher form of life in a better part of the vast expanse of space.

*C. IVLIVS IVLIANVS OCTAVIANVS*
Anonymous
 

Postby Marcus Pomponius Lupus on Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:49 pm

Salve Octaviane,

To be honest, I'm afraid I don't fully understand your posting, I'm not sure if I understand every nuance correctly, blame that on having Dutch and not English as a mother language, but here goes,

scripsisti:

Such a statement only proves the hopelessly shallow, fundamentally flawed, and laughably inadequate nature of what often passes for 'human rationalism' and, by extension, 'human intelligence' as well.


Absolutely, I believe the human brain cannot understand everything there is (cf. Kant) and that what we often call "knowledge" is little more than fiction ("knowledge" in the Middle Ages included "knowing" that the Earth was the center of the universe for example).

However, I don't think that this statement proves that, because the burden of proof, in my opinion, does not lie on me, but on those who believe, for example, in a soul, in an afterlife, ... Prove me that there is a soul and I will believe it, just as I have learned as a kid that fire is dangerous by coming close to it once.

The part where you quoted me (about the fact that no soul has been "found") continued : "This sounds very logical, no one expects this, but it also proves that a "soul" is nothing more than a creation of the mind."

And I still support that vision, what evidence is there for a soul ? None. There is just as much evidence for having a soul as there is for each of us also having a funny looking hat on our head, which no one can see or touch...

I respect people who believe in a soul, but as long as there is not the slightest proof for it....then why believe it ? Because it has a Romantic value ? Because we all feel so very special and unique when we should have a soul ?

quoque scripsisti:

I'd be curious to know how you would attempt to justify or otherwise account for your "something from nothing" philosophy


This is where I'm really not quite sure about what you mean, so forgive me if I took something the wrong way.

"Something from nothing" theory....hmm, I don't know if that is how you could describe what I believe. In reference to a personality however, I support that. A person only starts existing when two cells have joined together. At this point, DNA makes up for a part of his personality and throughout his life his personality will be formed by his experiences, nothing else. I really can't think of anything else (other than the soul theory of course) that would influence someone's personality, can you name me something ?

et quoque scripsisti:

If nothing else, the atheistic/nihilistic viewpoint only serves to represent 'human reasoning' at its absolute worst.


This is where I absolutely disagree. An atheistic vision means that a person does not believe in a God, a Buddha, an Allah, ... The result is a belief in the fundamental loneliness of humankind. There is no God watching us from his Heaven, there is no Superbeing judging our every move. And the burden of proof lies on everyone who believes in such beings, for the same reasons as with the soul theory. It's not the atheist (who believes there is no God) who should prove that he doesn't exist, it's the Christian who should prove that he does exist.

"Human reasoning at its absolute worst", is believing in dogma's and abandoning all critical sense. "Human reasoning at its absolute worst" would be to denie the entire Darwinian theory and believe in creationism. (as it so happens, I read on the train this morning that in the state of California the word "Dinosaur" will be censured, because it would upset people who don't believe in the Darwinian theory - for the Americans out there, is this true ? and is this not an example of "human reasoning at its worst" ? )

I really don't understand why a professor at our university, who is an atheist, would be an example of "human reasoning at its worst", while another professor, who believes in a (non-proven) soul and a (non-proven God) would be someone who "reasons slightly better"...

I hope I didn't misunderstood too much and made a complete fool out of myself as a result of that ;-)

Vale bene
Lupus
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Iurisconsultus
User avatar
Marcus Pomponius Lupus
Eques
Eques
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:40 pm
Location: Belgica

correction!

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:42 pm

Salvete!

Lupus wrote:("knowledge" in the Middle Ages included "knowing" that the Earth was the center of the universe for example).


Eeeep... . In the middle ages they didn't know the earth was flath; they suspected it, as they had no proof! But I think we have discussed this on an other topic already.

Lupus wrote:It's not the atheist (who believes there is no God) who should prove that he doesn't exist, it's the Christian who should prove that he does exist.


That's so true... . Otherwise it would be to easy to state things: "I believe there is a giant rabbit on a planet somewhere in the universe watching us every night between 00:00h and 01:23h." Prove me wrong! :wink:

I'm one of those atheists too, and I do not see it as evil being an atheist, not believing in gods, heavens, hells and afterlives (etc.). But I do not judge people who do. I see it as a human error to believe; but I don't mean anything evil, bad or whatever with it. We're humans after all, aren't we? In the other topic "one love..." in this same collegium I already have commented on that one.

Valete,

Locatus Barbatus
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Mon Jun 23, 2003 8:08 pm

Salve Draco

Even though this has been discussed, i would like to offer my point of view on this topic.
the self is located in the psyche or soul. Our soul is what define us as a human being. Our character, our flaws, our good sides, everything what makes our character can be found here. It is also our soul that contains the memory of past lifes. We don't remember anything about it, when we live, but it is there. If we would say lose a hand, we only lose a hand and adapt to it, so we do change but only to the circumstances. Same goes for losing legs or arms. We adapt, but we stay the same. Self= character, personality which is a part of our soul.
Some say that our soul is our blood as it was stated here, but others believed that our soul is located in our heart which makes some sense since our heart is most important muscle of our body that keeps us alive. You can say that by "stealing" once heart you would "steal" their soul as well, but this isn't true. Our soul is everywhere in our body but at the same time nowhere. It can't be seen nor touched. Regarding the "stealing" of once heart is pure symbolism or metaphorism at its best.
vale
Romulus
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:43 pm

Salve Octaviane;

Caius Iulius Octavianus wrote:Indeed, the burden of proof lies on you, because the evidence to support the contrary is overwhelming and already perfectly abundant to those who are clearly able to see the human condition - striving solely for temporal things that don't even matter - as the ultimate exercise in futility and sheer audacity that it is. If nothing else, the atheistic/nihilistic viewpoint only serves to represent 'human reasoning' at its absolute worst.


While this is impressive rhetoric, atheism and nihilism are not the same. Nihilism always supposes atheism but not the other way around.

If you claim atheism is wrong, the burden of proof rests on *you*.

Caius Iulius Octavianus wrote:The very fact that the vast majority are not able to see the greater picture, nor comprehend the existence of things beyond their pathetically weak, limited, and narrow scope of reality, is proof in and of itself that, in the final analysis, we still have light-years to go in terms of spiritual evolution before we can ever hope to achieve true enlightenment and progress while in a human capacity on this infinitesimally small particle of dust we call Earth or, more than likely, as a higher form of life in a better part of the vast expanse of space.


How can you know this?

You're facing the same problem as Plato. Plato claimed a perfect realm existed, the realm of Ideas, and that this world was only an imperfect, malformed and ugly reflection of it. The question is: how did he know this? He had not visited the other realm, he didn't receive visions and could not claim logical fundaments (e.g. like mathematical calculations) even though his system appeared to be logical in itself.

Romulus Aurelius Orcus wrote:Our soul is everywhere in our body but at the same time nowhere. It can't be seen nor touched.


So it's invisible, intangible and has no clear location? Then it might just as well not be there at all.

Vale bene,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Tue Jun 24, 2003 2:00 pm

Salve Draco
A friend of mine believes that souls are actually energy of the person that died. This energy "lives" where the body has died. As one does lets say astrally project himself in another room, this astral body is pure energy. There are known cases where people leave their body without doing and visit other places without being seen by anyone. Its there, we can't see it.
vale

Romulus
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica


Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron