"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...
- Thread starter gorski
- Start date
That's a surprisingly good entry for Wikipedia. Can't help thinking it gives Aristotle pretty short shrift though--natural teleology is a form of evolutionary theory imo.
And the circlejerk has commenced
Seriously, go away. We're actually making some progress now, and you're not going to disrupt our conversation yet again.
You keep using this word, but you don't say what you mean by it.
What is a soul, to you?
bimble
floofy
What?
You started it. You said that a Homo Sapien is to be defined as an animal with a soul.
I was just quoting you, because the word is absurd if it doesn't come with an explanation of what you mean by it.
Is this soul?
I know what I mean by the term "soul," I was wondering if you did. Do you?
TruXta
tired
I know you get off on this sort of thing, I'm only surprised you haven't got bored of it yet.
Actually I take back what I said about Wiki's dissing of Aristotle. The article does admit that:
"Aristotle did not demand that real types of organisms always correspond one-for-one with exact metaphysical forms and specifically gave examples of how new types of living things could come to be."
But that's still pretty mealy-mouthed praise if you ask me. Aristotle came a lot closer to the truth than Darwin.
I can keep this guy at it all day, if anyone's interested?
Truxta, you've been asked to leave this thread several times now. Are you going to comply or not?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
(((Science)))
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
what gives you the right to order people about?
And you're another one. Either contribute something useful or leave the thread to those who will.
TruXta
tired
It's just a game, relax.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
i have - i have ventured that the question is a taxonomic one and trying to elevate into a philosophical one is just academic masturbation
I know. Truxta's right really. But I seriously do think that all questions are finally philosophical. I think the fact that scientific opinion changes is proof of its untruth.
What is a soul?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
there's no such thing
There exists the nebulous concept, for many. But how can you say a dolphin hasn't got a soul but Dave has, without nailing down what it is.
I suggest three definitions of the soul, each of which is compatible with the others, and all of which begin with the letter "S." Also, each of these definitions has a convenient synonym.
The soul is: (a) spirit (as opposed to body), (b) subject (as opposed to object) and (c) substance (as opposed to appearance).
So (c) means that the soul is the identity of a person (or of anything), the idea being that we not merely are, we are something, and this thing that we are is our soul. Another term for soul in this sense would be "Essence."
And (b) means that the soul is that part of us which acts, rather than is acted upon. We could call it "Will" in this sense.
And (a) means that the soul is whatever in us is not material. We could call this "Mind."
Most philosophers would agree that dolphins have souls, just not immortal souls.
The soul is divided into three parts: appetite, emotion and reason. The first two are shared by human beings and animals; the third is uniquely human. Because it does not depend on the body for its existence, reason (nous) is the soul's immortal part.
That's a good one. I love you phil.
No no, I'm well essentialist me. Historicist-essentialist but still.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
So dolphins and humans are animals with souls. Any others?
Mutual I'm sure. Actually I love you all (or at least I like you all). Seriously Gorski, they're alright once you get to know them.
Similar threads
