Do Nonhuman Animals Have Souls?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Interesting. So you are saying that if the soul were immaterial, then it should be able to directly interact with the physical world despite the body being incapacitated due to the brain's failure. However, most of the widely accepted philosophical beliefs that claim that there is a transient soul hold that it does not interact with the world directly, but through the body.
Dualism, advocated for by Plato, says that the soul is the center of thought, self-knowledge, and being; the body is merely a shell through which the soul interacts with the material. If this is true, then no matter what happens to the brain, the soul remains intact. However, the vehicle the it interacts with the world is crippled, making communication between the soul and physical world more and more difficult. All memories are either attached to the transcendent soul or, if forgotten, accidental qualities that do not make the soul what it is.
Aristotle advocates for Hermaphroditism, which states that the soul is the "blueprint" of the body. For example, since your soul contains the essence of humanity, your body contains humanity in its form and function. Because you contain humanity, you are capable of doing all things intrinsic to "humanity" such as acquire memories, think, and walk. However, the intrinsic ability to do these things does not mean that one HAS to be able to do them. Though our humanity makes man capable of playing an musical instrument, it does not mean the he has to in order to be human. Non-musicians are just as human as musicians. In this worldview though the humanity found in man's soul makes him capable of proper mental function, he does not have to have perfect mental integrity in order to maintain both his soul and humanity.
Plato also adhered to the emission theory of vision, where we are able to see things because of rays emitted from our eyes.
I'm not questioning his philosophy but both he and Aristotle in your examples are describing function of the soul the existence of which they have not proven.
That is true. One of the biggest hurdles for a transcendent soul is that there is no empirical evidence since, if it does exist, it is beyond our senses. But is empirical evidence the final say?
Empedocles, a Greek Materialist who lived about the same time as Plato, got a little closer to how sight works by claiming that it was not only the of rays from our eyes that provided us with vision but also the rays from a light source. We now know that sight comes entirely from external light, which is converted into neurological signals which are then interpreted by the brain to create a mental picture. It is an neurological interpretation of the world.
Though sight and all of our other senses are super valuable, how can we say that they are the best form of evidence when we have never experienced anything besides them. Not to question their validity, but their exclusive validity; there seems to be some decent evidence for a transient soul based on arguments of reason for example.
Pages