Believe to believe

[STT]

I encounter to many individuals in this forum that they declare that they believe in existence of soul and the mere belief is enough for them. It seems reasonable to accept their argument based on their believes when they are questioned about something, like soul, but what if belief itself is subject of question. You can say that you believe on soul because your belief says so but you cannot say that you believe on your belief because your belief says so. This is simply circular.

 

[Beryllos]

I believe my beliefs. Not only that, I doubt my doubts.

More seriously, I believe in God, a God of love. There are many good reasons and arguments. This leads me to believe and hope in eternal life, which I think implies a soul.

 

[ThundersnowIV]

I encounter to many individuals in this forum that they declare that they believe in existence of soul and the mere belief is enough for them. It seems reasonable to accept their argument based on their believes when they are questioned about something, like soul, but what if belief itself is subject of question. You can say that you believe on soul because your belief says so but you cannot say that you believe on your belief because your belief says so. This is simply circular.

…and?

 

[Bookcat]

They are not believing “just to believe” they are believing for other reasons. They just do not take the time to articulate it.

One who believes in Jesus Christ and that he founded a Church - might yes “just believe” there is a soul etc without seeking to parse it out etc - for they believe the Church…

One does not need to parse everything out or take the time to go into everything one believes…

Once one knows and believes Jesus and his Church …there is not “need” “necessarily” to look into the details of everything…

There is much I simply just believe…without a need to investigate…

Much of what a person I trust tells me…like of course my Wife…

or …

That the bridge was built right that I am driving over…

That the plane was built right …that I am flying in…

Etc.

All this is quite reasonable.

 

[Wesrock]

Personally, I think it can be argued based on a distinction between matter and form as co-principles of material being and that it is arguable that certain powers of the intellect cannot be accounted for through a materialistic philosophy without denying that we are persons, capable of thinking and acting, and that the denial of the soul necessarily leads to a description of reality in which we are nothing more than quark-gluon reactions, and not individuals with knowledge, beliefs, opinions, meaning all of this discussion is not actually discussion at all but more comparable to sea shells washing up on a beach in particular patterns, perhaps recreations of Hamlet and such not withstanding, and so any idea of speaking of ourselves as persons, intents, preferences, etc… is ultimately pointless.

But to just state “I believe because I believe” is not really a proper response on a board titled “philosophy.”

 

[Perplexity]

I used to be a big fan of hylemorphic dualism, but I have since come to a more Proclean view of the soul, on which individuality is not the result of a combination of matter and form, but the combination of matter and form a result of individuality.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

I encounter to many individuals in this forum that they declare that they believe in existence of soul and the mere belief is enough for them. It seems reasonable to accept their argument based on their believes when they are questioned about something, like soul, but what if belief itself is subject of question. You can say that you believe on soul because your belief says so but you cannot say that you believe on your belief because your belief says so. This is simply circular.

Belief in soul is not really spiritual. To me it’s logical. Have you ever been to a viewing? The body in the casket once held something that no longer is there. Energy that was once there, is no longer there. Where did it go? No one knows, but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist anymore. We see lightning for a time, and then not. Where did it go? Did it not exist? Just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I don’t believe in soul because of what is taught. I believe in soul because it’s “tangibly” seen!!

What is death!?!?!?! Death proves soul.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

I used to be a big fan of hylemorphic dualism, but I have since come to a more Proclean view of the soul, on which individuality is not the result of a combination of matter and form, but the combination of matter and form a result of individuality.

I’m not familiar with the terms, but I understand the concepts you mention. Why can’t it be both? Simultaneously? Why separate it all?

 

[STT]

I believe my beliefs. Not only that, I doubt my doubts.

That is a correct statement but you didn’t read me carefully since I was talking about something else: “you cannot say that you believe on your belief because your belief says so”

More seriously, I believe in God, a God of love. There are many good reasons and arguments. This leads me to believe and hope in eternal life, which I think implies a soul.

Could you make an argument with the axiom that God exist and then deduce that you have a soul?

 

[STT]

…and?

There is nothing more than: “you cannot say that you believe on your belief because your belief says so”.

 

[STT]

Personally, I think it can be argued based on a distinction between matter and form as co-principles of material being and that it is arguable that certain powers of the intellect cannot be accounted for through a materialistic philosophy without denying that we are persons, capable of thinking and acting, and that the denial of the soul necessarily leads to a description of reality in which we are nothing more than quark-gluon reactions, and not individuals with knowledge, beliefs, opinions, meaning all of this discussion is not actually discussion at all but more comparable to sea shells washing up on a beach in particular patterns, perhaps recreations of Hamlet and such not withstanding, and so any idea of speaking of ourselves as persons, intents, preferences, etc… is ultimately pointless.

I thought about this a lot. If that is soul who think then we have such a complex brain. Think of a body which is joined to a soul and the body does not have structure that normal body has. Our body has special structure and to me there is a big question here: what really a brain does?

But to just state “I believe because I believe” is not really a proper response on a board titled “philosophy.”

Thanks for clarification.

 

[STT]

I used to be a big fan of hylemorphic dualism, but I have since come to a more Proclean view of the soul, on which individuality is not the result of a combination of matter and form, but the combination of matter and form a result of individuality.

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

 

[fhansen]

I encounter to many individuals in this forum that they declare that they believe in existence of soul and the mere belief is enough for them. It seems reasonable to accept their argument based on their believes when they are questioned about something, like soul, but what if belief itself is subject of question. You can say that you believe on soul because your belief says so but you cannot say that you believe on your belief because your belief says so. This is simply circular.

As Augustine put it, he believed so that he could understand. As we, hopefully with caution, allow ourselves to entertain the supernatural truth-claims of the Christian faith, we begin to understand better who we are as humans and what this world we live in is all about. This understanding brings a groundedness to it all, with order and purpose and meaning, and fills in certain knowledge that we sense is missing. It “makes sense” that a designer stands behind the grand designs and complexity that we observe in our universe, and this designer would of necessity be superior to its creation, since it-ourselves, for one–didn’t design and make its creator. And a superior creator could confirm and make known to its creation-ourselves as individuals- the truth regarding the claims which are said to be revealed by the creator in the case of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

The obstacle isn’t that the truth-claims are unreasonable; rather it’s that we might prefer not to believe them; we may resist belief, and the humility required in order to believe, in a superior personal creator. So God leaves the choice, of acknowledgement of and subjugation to Him, up to us.

 

[Bookcat]

They are not believing “just to believe” they are believing for other reasons. They just do not take the time to articulate it.

One who believes in Jesus Christ and that he founded a Church - might yes “just believe” there is a soul etc without seeking to parse it out etc - for they believe the Church…

One does not need to parse everything out or take the time to go into everything one believes…

Once one knows and believes Jesus and his Church …there is not “need” “necessarily” to look into the details of everything…

There is much I simply just believe…without a need to investigate…

Much of what a person I trust tells me…like of course my Wife…

or …

That the bridge was built right that I am driving over…

That the plane was built right …that I am flying in…

Etc.

All this is quite reasonable.

 

[Perplexity]

I’m not familiar with the terms, but I understand the concepts you mention. Why can’t it be both? Simultaneously? Why separate it all?

Classically based philosophical systems analyze particular phenomena in terms of a background metaphysics.

For Thomists, this background metaphysics takes “being” as its starting point. Analyzing particular phenomena from this perspective results in a picture of what sort of thing something is first and foremost. Thus “we” are analyzed by Thomists in terms of what we as human beings are, or as compounds of form and matter – hence, ‘hyle’ (matter) ‘morphic’ (form) dualism.

But, for Procleans, this background metaphysics takes “unity” as its starting point. Analyzing particular phenomena from this perspective results in a picture of who a thing is first and foremost. Thus, “we” are analyzed by Procleans in terms of who we as individuals are, or as partless, unique units.

In hylemorphic dualism, “we” are wholes; in Proclean metaphysics, “we” are not. In hylemorphic dualism, our parts individuate us; in Proclean metaphysics, parts are only “ours” because we are already individuated.

I hope this hasn’t just muddled the issue for you.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I cannot follow you here. Could you please elaborate?

I don’t know my Proclus, but perhaps Perplexity is alluding to a paradox in which the combination of matter and form in ourselves is destined to reflect our individuality.

As to your main question soul refers especially to the grouping of psychological things like intellect, will, memory, imagination, emotions etc.

That these things are existent is at least a more important question than that they are “eternal” (as if we understood what that word meant!)

We don’t need to be admitted to a profession to be scientists. Every day a child wakes up and breathes, he/she pursues the adventure of investigation (until it is “educated” or shamed out of him/her).

Keep all the hypotheses on the table. Never stop!

It’s never clear whether or to what degree dilemmas of fact arise from linguistic or conceptual tangles, fads or fashions, intellectual bullying, paradigms lost or regained, etc etc.

 

[STT]

I don’t know my Proclus, but perhaps Perplexity is alluding to a paradox in which the combination of matter and form in ourselves is destined to reflect our individuality.

As to your main question soul refers especially to the grouping of psychological things like intellect, will, memory, imagination, emotions etc.

That these things are existent is at least a more important question than that they are “eternal” (as if we understood what that word meant!)

We don’t need to be admitted to a profession to be scientists. Every day a child wakes up and breathes, he/she pursues the adventure of investigation (until it is “educated” or shamed out of him/her).

Keep all the hypotheses on the table. Never stop!

It’s never clear whether or to what degree dilemmas of fact arise from linguistic or conceptual tangles, fads or fashions, intellectual bullying, paradigms lost or regained, etc etc.

I see and thanks.