Without A Soul?

[Dispector]

It seems to me as though conscience is something that “comes with” the soul and is an inseparable part of the human person, but I have nothing with which to back that up. It just seems right. Could someone please either confirm or refute that with viable reasoning.

I can see your argument. Additionally, they believe most psychopaths come from broken homes where affection at early parts of life have been withheld. So, it is possible that the conscience of a psychopathic individual has been impaired due to previous experiences. I think you have a valid argument.

Unfortunately, I do not have my catechism handy to provide actual Church teaching on the issue. As Briceh181 said, if anyone has anything they can use to confirm or refute please post. It’s an interesting topic.

 

[briceh181]

Yes, it certainly is an interesting topic. I hope to read your thoughts and arguments after you are able to find the official church teaching on the matter as far as it is defined.

 

[greylorn]

A good case can be made that humans are not only occasionally born without souls, but that the soul may depart the body of certain individuals (due to brain trauma, drug misuse, or surgical damage to the “tuner” section of the brain). Also, some bodies will harbor different souls at different times in one form of multiple personality disorder.

However these possibilities are not open to acceptance by anyone who simply declares that the soul is the principle of life, and that all living beings have one. That is not a particularly useful definition of soul because it allows for no distinctions.

Before posters jump all over these statements, let me point out that this particular thread lacks something which is essential to any possible resolution of the question: a definition of the soul.

That would change the answers considerably. For example, rossum’s declaration that Buddhism does not believe in the soul is contrary to my understanding of Buddhism— which takes many different and often contradictory forms. For example, Buddha’s original teaching is that the soul originally comes into existence as an epiphenomenon thanks to the complex activity of brain, and manages to persist upon the demise of the body. Then, not knowing what to do with its sorry self, it has to scamper into another body, continuing the cycle. This is clearly a different concept from the official Catholic version, but given the vague understanding of the actual nature of soul, it would seem to qualify within that category.

Simply taking the definition from Websters won’t do the job, because it is too broad.

I recommend Descartes’ definition. In any case, should the original query be modified to include a definition, we might first have to quibble about that. Upon choosing one she likes, the question might well be restated in a more specific context.

Clarity is a great way to start the new year.

 

[jmcrae]

A good case can be made that humans are not only occasionally born without souls, but that the soul may depart the body of certain individuals (due to brain trauma, drug misuse, or surgical damage to the “tuner” section of the brain). Also, some bodies will harbor different souls at different times in one form of multiple personality disorder.

The soul, being the life of the body, this is impossible, unless the person is dead, or has two bodies. (Hypothetically, it might be possible for someone who has absorbed a twin, where the body of the twin is still alive in some sense, might have two souls, but the twin’s soul would probably not have consciousness.)

Before posters jump all over these statements, let me point out that this particular thread lacks something which is essential to any possible resolution of the question: a definition of the soul.

On the contrary, I’ve been giving the definition of the soul = the life of the body in nearly every post of mine on this thread.

This is clearly a different concept from the official Catholic version, but given the vague understanding of the actual nature of soul, it would seem to qualify within that category.

The understanding of the soul is only “vague” to those who haven’t studied the Church’s teachings on the subject. The Church is very clear that the soul - in Latin, “anima” which means literally, “it makes it move” - is the life of the body.

 

[mlz]

Take this how you will,…but TV is for losers.

Take your TV outside.Load your shotgun & shoot the TV.

seriously.

Although much of TV is very poor to awful, there are wonderful programs and networks such as EWTN which has helped me understand and look at the Catholic faith.

mlz

 

[greylorn]

The soul, being the life of the body, this is impossible, unless the person is dead, or has two bodies. (Hypothetically, it might be possible for someone who has absorbed a twin, where the body of the twin is still alive in some sense, might have two souls, but the twin’s soul would probably not have consciousness.)

On the contrary, I’ve been giving the definition of the soul = the life of the body in nearly every post of mine on this thread.

The understanding of the soul is only “vague” to those who haven’t studied the Church’s teachings on the subject. The Church is very clear that the soul - in Latin, “anima” which means literally, “it makes it move” - is the life of the body.

You have been giving your definition of soul, perhaps, but yours is not the only definition, and it does not appear in my copy of Websters Dictionary. It may not be the definition accepted by whomever initiated this thread.

I’ve been studying the Church’s definition of “soul” since before you ware born, and the definitions of other religions as well. I’ve also studied other subjects which have some relationship to the concept. As part of my ongoing effort to learn, may I clarify your “life of the body” definition of soul?

Given that apes, rodents, and cockroaches have bodies which are alive, do they, in your opinion, have souls?

Does your definition imply that when the body dies, the soul dies?

Can the soul exist independently of the body? If so, how does your definition apply after death?

Given that many English words have Latin roots which are recognizable (e.g. anima => animate, animal, etc.) how was the Latin “anima” transmogrified into “soul?”

 

[jmcrae]

You have been giving your definition of soul, perhaps, but yours is not the only definition, and it does not appear in my copy of Websters Dictionary. It may not be the definition accepted by whomever initiated this thread.

Since this is a Catholic web site, and since we are requested to give answers to questions in accordance with Catholic Church teaching, rather than giving our own personal opinions, it makes sense to use the Catholic definition, don’t you think?

I’ve been studying the Church’s definition of “soul” since before you ware born, and the definitions of other religions as well. I’ve also studied other subjects which have some relationship to the concept. As part of my ongoing effort to learn, may I clarify your “life of the body” definition of soul?

Given that apes, rodents, and cockroaches have bodies which are alive, do they, in your opinion, have souls?

Yes, they do - they have what the Church calls “animal souls” that don’t have a separate existence apart from the bodies that they enliven and give shape to. As you well know, if you’ve been studying this subject for longer than I have, since (I presume) you would have read everything that I have read (especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church), and more.

Does your definition imply that when the body dies, the soul dies?

Human souls are rational, and have independent existence, unlike animal souls. Again, you have read all about this in the Catechism, so why am I repeating it to you? Nevertheless, to show you that I have done my homework, I am telling it to you.

Can the soul exist independently of the body? If so, how does your definition apply after death?

The rational, immortal human soul exists by itself temporarily after death, and will be rejoined to its own body on the Day of Judgment, as we read in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” Again, as you already know.

Given that many English words have Latin roots which are recognizable (e.g. anima => animate, animal, etc.) how was the Latin “anima” transmogrified into “soul?”

This, I don’t know, but I’m sure you can look it up just as easily as I can.