The Death of the Soul

[phildwyer]

I wait for Phil's threads like squirrels wait for spring - a new sense of hope and that all is cyclical and alright with the world

Personally, I wait for them as a chance to talk to you. Having anything nice for lunch today? Its breakfast time here, I'm having pita bread with humus and a banana.

 

[Crispy]

I fully accept that Butler is opposed to the notions of both an "authentic human nature" and determinism. That is my whole point. She does not believe in an independent consciousness, subject or "soul," and this is a position she and postmodernists in general share with scientific fundamentalists like Dawkins, and sociobiologists like Becker. All of them propound the ideological project of neoclassical economics, which is to claim that market behavior is natural. This does not involve claiming an "authentic human nature" because it is asserted that the natural world behaves in the same way as the market.

Anybody with half a brain can spot the massive gap between economist's models of human behaviour and actual human behaviour. Just because she might believe that the human mind is entirely material does not mean she believes it is entirely deterministic.

 

[articul8]

I fully accept that Butler is opposed to the notions of both an "authentic human nature" and determinism. That is my whole point. She does not believe in an independent consciousness, subject or "soul," and this is a position she and postmodernists in general share with scientific fundamentalists like Dawkins, and sociobiologists like Becker. All of them propound the ideological project of neoclassical economics, which is to claim that market behavior is natural. This does not involve claiming an "authentic human nature" because it is asserted that the natural world behaves in the same way as the market.

Again, it makes no sense to speak of "natural" world, since any notion of a pre-discursive nature could be posited through the conceptual matrix of discourse itself. This is not to say that 'nature' is equivalent to the operations of markets. It is, rather, to say that all our ideas of what is and isn't to be considered "natural" are governed by the operations of Power operative in any given discursive regime. Actually, although Butler follows Foucault in demolishing the idea of fully centred, autonomous subject, the later Foucault has to rehabilitate a (qualified) notion of subjective agency...

But not an "independent" consciousness - If that is to mean anything coherent at all, it could only mean God (how quickly your rehabilitation of "soul" lands you up to your eyeballs in the mire of religious superstition)

"Subject" is not a secular equivalent of "Soul". Subject necessarily implies "subject of " of "subjected to ". This implies that all subjective identities are intersubjective, relational, socio-cultural. The concept "soul" suggests a locus of irreducible (God-given) objective individual self-identity.

 

[trashpony]

Personally, I wait for them as a chance to talk to you. Having anything nice for lunch today? Its breakfast time here, I'm having pita bread with humus and a banana.

How lovely of you to say so

I shall continue to attempt to derail your thread with squirrel related analogies in that case

Incidentally I disapprove of eating humous for breakfast - particularly with a banana!

 

[phildwyer]

How lovely of you to say so

I shall continue to attempt to derail your thread with squirrel related analogies in that case

Incidentally I disapprove of eating humous for breakfast - particularly with a banana!

Let me assure you that your sciurine wit is always welcome here. May one inquire as to the origin of your aversion to bananas for breakfast?

 

[Fruitloop]

Anybody with half a brain can spot the massive gap between economist's models of human behaviour and actual human behaviour.

Unsurprisingly this thought has occured to economists as well - Kahneman is pretty instructive on problems of framing, heuristics etc, to the point of demonstrating that several of the supposed axioms of rational choice don't actually hold.

 

[TeeJay]

This time, however, I am determined not to allow them to distract us from the issues at hand. I shall therefore ignore them entirely, and deal only with those who raise serious objections to my argument.

Let me assure you that your sciurine wit is always welcome here. May one inquire as to the origin of your aversion to bananas for breakfast?

You have failed immediately!

Why am I not surprised?

 

[gurrier]

Yes, Gurrier has been the loudest proponent of the absurd theory that consciousness is an illusion, but there have been many others.

Yawn. No Phil, I don't think that consciousness is 'an illusion'. I have gone into some detail about what I think consciousness is. It exists, that's for sure, as does 'self' whatever you mean be that.

On the other hand, the picture of the world presented to the consciousness by the senses and the non-conscious nervous system is not the same thing as reality. The idea that the world which appears to the consciousness is equal to the world as it exists is the illusion. That's not even controversial and almost impossible to refute too (if you know the evidence).

 

[Alf Klein]

How lovely of you to say so

I shall continue to attempt to derail your thread with squirrel related analogies in that case

Incidentally I disapprove of eating humous for breakfast - particularly with a banana!

Surely humous is only objectionable for breakfast when eaten with a banana

 

[fela fan]

It seems that, once again, this gravest of subjects can only be discussed to the accompaniment of a cackling Greek chorus of irreverent mockery. This time, however, I am determined not to allow them to distract us from the issues at hand. I shall therefore ignore them entirely, and deal only with those who raise serious objections to my argument.

Such is the way of these boards mate.

Do not hold your breath. The crowd will drown you out as always.

It's why britain is slowly subsiding into a deep pit.

If you can't discuss this on urban, a supposedly alternative voice, then forget it.

They can fuck themselves up for all they want. Idiots.

 

[trashpony]

Surely humous is only objectionable for breakfast when eaten with a banana

I disagree. Humous is not a suitable foodstuff for consumption at breakfast time, regardless of whether it is accompanied by a banana.

Should Phil have consumed an unaccompanied banana, that would be perfectly acceptable.

I do hope we're clear on that point.

 

[maes]

Such is the way of these boards mate.

Do not hold your breath. The crowd will drown you out as always.

It's why britain is slowly subsiding into a deep pit.

If you can't discuss this on urban, a supposedly alternative voice, then forget it.

They can fuck themselves up for all they want. Idiots.

bluestreak posting:

what a ridiculous daily mailtastic post. many choose to laugh because you can't prove the existence of the soul. it's fine to try, whatever, but don't expect people to suddenly sit up and go "oh, phil and fela can achieve what generations of philosophers and theologists have failed in". it's absurd... if the soul exists you can't prove it does this way FFS.

 

[Alf Klein]

I disagree. Humous is not a suitable foodstuff for consumption at breakfast time, regardless of whether it is accompanied by a banana.

Should Phil have consumed an unaccompanied banana, that would be perfectly acceptable.

I do hope we're clear on that point.

Not at all. If the Humous had been eaten with the pita alone that would have been fine. It's the consumption of the banana for breakfast, with or without humous that is wrong

 

[trashpony]

Not at all. If the Humous had been eaten with the pita alone that would have been fine. It's the consumption of the banana for breakfast, with or without humous that is wrong

Interesting perspective. I suggest you and I never have breakfast together.

 

[Alf Klein]

I suggest you and I never have breakfast together.

You are not the first person to say that

 

[gurrier]

Not at all. If the Humous had been eaten with the pita alone that would have been fine. It's the consumption of the banana for breakfast, with or without humous that is wrong

Humous is well known to be a lunch-time food. At a push, an early evening snack. But breakfast is a travesty.

Has anybody else noticed that phil's only supporters on this board all seem to be loonspud conspiranoids? They share a burning resentment about the fact that people won't sit back and lap up their bollocks and instead insist on pointing and laughing at them.

Loonspuds for justice (a sheeplike audience will do too)!

 

[Alf Klein]

Humous is well known to be a lunch-time food. At a push, an early evening snack. But breakfast is a travesty.

Has anybody else noticed that phil's only supporters on this board all seem to be loonspud conspiranoids? They share a burning resentment about the fact that people won't sit back and lap up their bollocks and instead insist on pointing and laughing at them.

Loonspuds for justice (a sheeplike audience will do too)!

I'm neither for or against Phil in this case. I approve of half of his breakfast and condemn the other

 

[gurrier]

I'm neither for or against Phil in this case. I approve of half of his breakfast and condemn the other

Damn, the lizards have got another one.

 

[In Bloom]

sit back and lap up their bollocks

 

[Jo/Joe]

phil, do you believe free will exists? if so, where does it reside? and do you agree with current neuroscience that the mind (and consciousness) is modular, rather then one single thing?

 

[Crispy]

phil, do you believe free will exists? if so, where does it reside? and do you agree with current neuroscience that the mind (and consciousness) is modular, rather then one single thing?

It exists, but let us first determine the meaning of this word 'exist'

Neuroscience is a tool of capitalist dogmatics who want to prove that people react rationally to stimuli. It therefore cannot be trusted.

 

[Jo/Joe]

gah, you're so predictable phil !

 

[fela fan]

bluestreak posting:

what a ridiculous daily mailtastic post. many choose to laugh because you can't prove the existence of the soul. it's fine to try, whatever, but don't expect people to suddenly sit up and go "oh, phil and fela can achieve what generations of philosophers and theologists have failed in". it's absurd... if the soul exists you can't prove it does this way FFS.

yeah, it was a bit ott wasn't it!

But, i don't expect anybody to do anything with my posts - they can accept them, think about them, or reject them - their choice. And if in the process they wanna laugh at me, then that too is their choice. Glad to be of service!

Anyway, here's a tip for you bluestreak: don't waste your life and precious time on 'proof'.

I know the soul exists, and that is all the proof i need. I have no need to prove it to anybody. They can do their own bloody work!

 

[118118]

Seeing as this thread is a response to criticism on your God thread, are you then going to try and show that the soul can exist indpendent of the self/brain.

 

[In Bloom]

yeah, it was a bit ott wasn't it!

But, i don't expect anybody to do anything with my posts - they can accept them, think about them, or reject them - their choice. And if in the process they wanna laugh at me, then that too is their choice. Glad to be of service!

Anyway, here's a tip for you bluestreak: don't waste your life and precious time on 'proof'.

I know the soul exists, and that is all the proof i need. I have no need to prove it to anybody. They can do their own bloody work!

Very deep. But unless you intend to explain why you believe in the existence of the soul, its all a bit pointless, isn't it?

 

[revol68]

i believe fucking a virgin cures aids, i don't need proof I JUST KNOW!

 

[bluestreak]

yeah, it was a bit ott wasn't it!

But, i don't expect anybody to do anything with my posts - they can accept them, think about them, or reject them - their choice. And if in the process they wanna laugh at me, then that too is their choice. Glad to be of service!

Anyway, here's a tip for you bluestreak: don't waste your life and precious time on 'proof'.

I know the soul exists, and that is all the proof i need. I have no need to prove it to anybody. They can do their own bloody work!

you know what, i don't. that's why i laugh at this thread. i haven't a clue if the soul exists or not, but i reckon i'll find out eventually. or i won't, depending. it'll be an interesting discovery if it does, and if not, then well, at least i haven't wasted my time worrying about it.

 

[In Bloom]

you know what, i don't. that's why i laugh at this thread. i haven't a clue if the soul exists or not, but i reckon i'll find out eventually. or i won't, depending. it'll be an interesting discovery if it does, and if not, then well, at least i haven't wasted my time worrying about it.

Bloody fence sitters

 

[parallelepipete]

On the recent "God" thread, we learned that an overtly theist vocabluary is simply too much for most people to bear. Few seem able to carry on a discussion using terms like "God" or the "soul." In fact, the concept of the "soul" excited great derision, and many people took the imputation that they have a "soul" as a kind of *insult.* I wondered why this might be, and I believe I have now explained it.

I have a simple explanation for my own aversion to these terms. Having been brought up as a Catholic, I rejected it because I found nothing beyond the most basic statements of ethical/moral standards which bore any relation to living what I saw as a good life, and most of it appeared to be an exercise in forming a social group through storytelling and ritual. As a scientist, which trains me to be open-minded, I have experienced nothing which hints at the existence of any form of supernatural being. That does not automatically exclude such a being, but gravitates very much away from such a conclusion. And since different religions (or sometimes sects of the same religion) cannot agree on the nature of their god(s) (is he/she/it/they vengeful or merciful, FFS?), the very word "God" seems to be hopelessly imprecise.

As for the soul, this is a completely philosophical concept with no evidence for its existence whatsoever, and is invariably tied up with distancing humans from other animals, or used as the consciousness principle with which we were imbued by the above supernatural being.

In short, both of these word are useless except within a religious setting, and that setting is hardly going to be rational about the nature of God or the soul. The "self" is a far more useful and interesting concept, which does not depend on the invocation of theology to advance explanations for human nature.

 

[parallelepipete]

you know what, i don't. that's why i laugh at this thread. i haven't a clue if the soul exists or not, but i reckon i'll find out eventually. or i won't, depending. it'll be an interesting discovery if it does, and if not, then well, at least i haven't wasted my time worrying about it.

Oi, don't bring the game theory justification of religious belief into this!

(i.e. You stand to lose much more if you're an atheist and it turns out that god exists, than if you're religious and it transpires that there is no god. Never mind that if god is truly benevolent, he/she/it would be far more concerned with things like how well you treated others and looked after the lovely planet he gave you...)