A few days ago, I was invited to a dinner with a professor, a graduate student, and two undergrads, all from the university that I used to attend. Our topic of conversation, while we devoured some of the best thai food I've had in ages, was this: What is the relationship of the flesh to the soul?

Now, normally this would turn into something of a religious debate of some sort, but our goal was to steer away from that as best we could or, at the very least, keep religion from governing the talk. We succeeded, but where we went and what we determined (or rather what we didn't determine) was fascinating. Hell, the discussion itself was fascinating, and so it is my hope to attempt to create something similar here to see what you lot believe.

Divided into teams, of a sort, during the initial conversation, my group (myself and the token grad student), began by examining common phrases. We began with the following cliches:

- "The eyes are the window to the soul" wondering, 'if the eyes were said to be the window to the soul, what then was the flesh'? My companion and I reasoned that that made it some sort of container (though he nay-sayed that word, preferring the word vessel instead, for it introduced the idea of giving into the equation, bringing to the table the idea that to have a soul is to give of it/yourself in some way, and that the flesh, as a vessel, held what was to be given). I found this idea/concept to be particularly appealing as one who is looking to pursue a career as a professor at some juncture, finding that, in both the act of teaching and the act of learning, you give of yourself, whether it be to another or to your passion for x.

- Those who abuse animals or commit terrible atrocities are often said to have no soul.

- When you find the person you were meant to be with you are said to have found you soul mate.

These last two cliches/concepts we took to create the idea that the soul is tied somehow to the human capacity to kindness, that it is a thing born of kindness, perhaps.

The other group introduced the idea that the flesh might be a sort of projection of the soul, and the idea that the flesh served to limit the soul (whatever the soul might be) in so far as the soul could go only as far as the flesh would allow (bringing us back to the idea of it being a container or vessel).

I am now setting these ideas down as a jumping-off point / kick-starter for a discussion on the relationship of the flesh to the soul, as any good discussion needs a starting point. I am truly curious to hear what the lot of you either a) think about the concepts/ideas introduced above or b)would like to put on the table/discuss, and, of course, how you all feel/what you all think about the age old question: 'what is the soul?'

*breaths deeply*

This can turn into a doozie. To me flesh is an irrelevant container that holds the ego until your ready to go back into the nothingness of the All Mother. I just enjoy myself and try to make the people I love happy. Whether people believe in it or not the soul has been the a topic of debates threw out the ages. With many of the same arguments repeated threw out time. The cycles of life death and rebirth are constantly in motion and growing just as the seasons are. Just as we are. We are all pieces of the same spirit. One race, one Earth, one Sun, one multiverse.

So you see where I'm coming from I think a bit of back ground information is needed about my self and upbringing.

My first memory if from when I was three I was left out in the snow by my older cousin. He buried me in snow like it was sand on a beach and then put a heavy rock where my legs were under the snow. We had been fighting earlier because he didn't like that I had to stay in his room instead of him while my mom and dad were on a trip. I couldn't move the large rock with my 3 year old arms and my aunties house was a large farm so they couldn't hear me crying. He left me there and went home for dinner. I was very warm from struggling to get the rock off of me meanwhile the temperature around me grew colder as it got dark. After fighting for a long time I fell asleep because the snow was like a blanket.

When I woke up again in the waking world I was nearly naked and it was to the sound of one of my aunts saying "She's breathing!" The aunt I was staying with panicked and called my other aunt who happens to be a registered nurse. And though there is no medical records of it because the family "handled it". I know I died that day because of everyone's reactions around me. My parents came home from their trip immediately, My cousin got sent to Juvenile hall (He was 13 and should have known better legal age for a minor to baby sit is 12 in Canada) and then there's "dream" I had.

The "dream" was beautiful. And I haven't had one so vivid or similar since. The snowflakes became tiny sparks of light and I sat up. I found myself on the other side of the rock somehow. I just thought to myself huh that was easy how come I couldn't do that before. I looked back at where I was laying and saw myself still laying there. So I started to climb on and off of the rock jumping into the snow that didn't break when I jumped. It frustrated me that it wasn't crunching so I started yelling at it and hitting it. The bushes started to laugh at me yelling at the snow. It asked me why I was yelling at myself. That scared me because bushes aren't suppose to talk. The points of light that were the snow before formed into a woman.

She was radiant love. I was transformed out of my winter clothes into a sundress my mom made me. Her hair was crazy long. Like Rapunzel long. It also changed colors kinda like an opal or a spectrum. And it flowed around her like she was in the bathtub. Her hair moved around me and lifted me above the ground. She was also sky-clad (naked) and it made me giggle. She started asking me a lot of questions at once with out saying a word. "Why haven't you come home yet? Is there something important you want to do? What do you want to learn? Where will you learn it? Would you like a hug? What games are you playing? Will you have children? What will you call them? How many? Are you sure you want to? Am I a Mermaid Princess? Are you? You have faith they'll find you? Will you tell them about our game? Are you hungry? Do you want to stay still? Will you remember me? " Also during the time she was asking me these things I remember seeing my grandmother holding a baby with another child baby beside her. "They'll be waiting." Also some of the responses she gave to me and things she asked were silent, like it was censored spoilers.

When I was warped in her hair I don't know how to explain it...unless you've been on some kind of drugs. It was like I what I imagine being held by light or a rainbow would be like. I could feel the colours change in her hairs as they held me. She touched my forehead and ran her finger down the bridge of my nose before I woke up.

Best dream Ever.

A few years later when I was first in kindergarten (french immersion Catholic private school) I saw a statue of Mary and asked if she was God as a princess God. The Nun looked at me like I was the worst person in the world and rolled her eyes. I corrected myself and said Queen God instead of princess. She snorted and said there was no such thing as what I was trying to say and the closest thing would be called a goddess. Also that only stupid people long ago believed in more then one god.

Of coarse I never asked her if she was a separate thing from god I asked her if she was god AS a girl (Princess or Queen). I told her she was the stupid one and that god is Omnipresent (as I had just learn in class that day) why couldn't he appear as a woman if "he" wanted. I told her I know he like to be a girl sometimes too because I saw her when I slept in the snow and that he had pretty hair when he was a girl. I also pulled a "NUH UH! DO TOO!" on the Catholics having more than one god. (Holy Trinity, Mother Mary, Joseph, 3 wise men, 12 apostles, Lucifer, not to mention all the saints I listed on). . . yeah, I got pulled out of that school within 3 weeks of that school year. My parents we're not impressed with the way it was explained to me, and were very supportive of me.

That's when my still living grandmother starting teaching me about the Fae in her garden and Celtic Goddess on the side, while still attending church. Mom read me the story of the graces and 9 muses almost every night. I loved it and the beautiful pictures of the goddesses. My grand father told me about the Valkyries and how they would take all brave souls to "heaven". I was always hungry for a new goddess tale. Still am. I re-discovered Hindu mythology within the last 5 years. Amazing stories about the soul from that culture. Mom and dad started buying me different archeology books about Egypt and Mayans and Aztecs when the local shop ran out of mythic books. (When I was little there were no where near common place as they are today)

~

In my personal beliefs, I follow no religion but my own heart path. While I identify with The Mother figures from many different pantheons I don't have a specific set of gods or goddess I pray to. I think as I've always thought since I was a child. They are all the same Omnipresent spirit as the vision I saw in my dream. Sometimes the mother is Father and the father is a bush asking why you're yelling at snow. The story changes a bit with time, but it's generally the same. Also sometimes mother can be father and can become separate to tell us a story or truth. The name or names makes no difference because she is the same.

Light and dark co-exist in all of us. In all her aspects. She is love, hate and everything in-between. This life in which we are all currently experiencing isn't really ours alone because I believe we're all co-creators of the All Mother's soul. Animals, plants, people are all different drops of water in her ocean.

For less poetic people in the new fact based religion of science. . . think of her as Matter and anti-matter. She(we) is(are) light and dark, good and evil, the matter/anti-matter that both creates and destroys all the universes, dimensions and time. Simply put, she is all. Just like you, because your a part of her all. :)

Those cliches are all very romantic, but your question, "What is the soul?", is a religious question. The "soul" is a religious or spiritual entity. So steering a discussion of "the soul" away from religion leaves nothing to discuss.

I don't believe in the soul. I believe that what you probably think of as the soul (the thing which allows one to think consciously) is part of the brain, and the brain is a part of the flesh. Thus the "soul" is not contained by the flesh; it is the flesh.

I don't find it to be an inherently religious question at all. Sure, it has become the preoccupation of a number of high profile religions (and those who ascribe to those religions can add to this discussion), but that does not, in and of itself, tie the question or the concept of 'the soul' to religion. In fact, the question of the soul (it's components, make up, feasibility, purpose, etc.) has been discussed for ages without tossing religious beliefs into the mix.

Here, you can see a quick summary of Plato's tripartite theory of soul as written about in his Republic:

Plato argues that the soul is composed of three parts: the appetitive, the rational, and the spirited. These three parts of the soul also correspond to the three classes of a just society. Individual justice consists in maintaining these three parts in the correct balance, where reason (aided by spirit) rules, and appetite obeys.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the spirit or something that is spiritual is automatically religious in nature. While this is often the case, it is not always so. Technically the only discussion that necessitates that religion be brought in in order to make the discussion fruitful or worthwhile is a discussion on religion itself (either in the broad sense or in a more specific sense).

This is such a fascinating subject, I hardly know where to start. I actually have two degrees in this exact subject-- I studied analytical philosophy, but more specifically my specialist subject was what Philosophers call "The Mind/Body Problem".

In short-- What is the relationship between the physical thing, the body (or brain) and the apparently non-physical thing, the mind (or soul)? How can you resolve the fact that the two things are very different in nature, but seem to depend so intrinsically on one another.

---------- Post added 05-06-2013 at 04:25 PM ----------

The Philosphy of Mind typically focuses on three major positions that divide the possibilities, and from there theorists tend to find nuances within those broad areas, or occasionally theories that sit outside or straddle them.

Dualism - That mental phenomena are non-physical, and the mind and body are not identical. (Such non-physical minds are often call "souls" in the Philosophical context.) The most famous dualist is Renee Descartes, so you'll see a lot of talk of Cartesian Dualism.

Materialism - That the only real entities are physical ones (matter and energy) and the mind is just an expression of the physical body. Also sometimes called "physicalism".

Idealism - In this context, that the only real things are mental ones. That the physial world doesn't truly exist.

Of course, these aren't the only options by any means, but I think they interestingly sketch out the territory. When considering what you believe about the relationship of the mind to the body, it may help to consider which of these comes closest.

@Ser: I am operating under the assumption that the terms "spiritual" and "religious" can be used interchangeably. However, if by religion you specifically meant organized religion, then there is a clear difference, and religion would then be a subset of spirituality.

I am familiar with that theory of Plato's. I briefly studied Plato in a course on the history of psychology. That theory is not too dissimilar to Freud's id, ego, and superego which came a long while after! Neither really have scientific support though.

And I guess that's all I meant to say. I don't see the purpose in studying the metaphysical because you have no facts and no evidence and all you can do is guess and speculate.

@Tam: Hm, those classifications are interesting. I think I would consider myself a materialist; the "mind" or "soul" is really only an illusory projection of a physical machine - the brain. Idealism is interesting though. Sounds a little bit like solipsism. And there is some truth to that. We generally trust what we sense, but how do we know that our senses aren't deceiving us? One of the only things I could agree with from Descartes' dualism was his realization that the only thing he could be absolutely certain of was his own existence. "I think, therefore I am."

In analytical philosophy, we learn to be very careful with the meanings of our terms-- both in choosing wisely, and paying attention and trying to rectify when we're using different meanings for the same words. What can see like a semantic quibble can actually bring people closer to understanding each other, and if not agreeing then at least discussing differences in a more effective way.

For instance... I believe the definition of spiritual that Seridano was using was something close to "Relating to the immaterial or the soul", while the definition of religious she was using was something close to "Relating to faith or devotion". Whereas "vox" seems to associate them both with "related to the supernatural".

And here's the thing-- I think Vox just isn't interested in discussing options other than Materialism, because that's what he believes in. I'm a Materialist too, but just saying that ends the conversation. Philosophy isn't only about talking about what you do or don't believe though, it's about examining it, under the light of logic and critical thinking. So let's do that.

An interesting thing about words is that we must always define them in terms of other words, and the same with those words, and so on. So we must either (a) come back to the term with which we started or (b) have an infinitely long chain of words meaning other words. In either event, simply citing the definition of every word does not bring the parties involved to a similar understanding. In mathematics and logic, this problem is avoided using primitive terms, which are terms everyone is expected to have the same understanding of almost innately. In geometry, point, line, and plane are some primitive terms. I don't know what our primitive terms would be in this conversation, but we could always just keep going back until we agree on something.

I would say that is probably a valid distinction. Though, I do have a hard time critical examining something that is entirely immaterial because I lack any faith that it exists. The soul doesn't exist in any physical sense, so what can we possibly say about it objectively?

The first sentence of your post describes what analytical philosophers mean by "analytical". Understanding concepts, and the words we attach to them, by analysing them in terms of other concepts. I don't think there's any problem with the fact that that process has no bottom, because it's a network, not a stack.

It's interesting, what you say about contemplating the existance of the immaterial. What's odd to me is that I am sure that you believe that non-material things exist-- You have already spoken of the mind (not the brain), and of the definitions of words, and of euclidean geometry. None of those exist in any physical sense, and yet you're willing to discuss their nature.

I don't see how it being a network instead of a stack makes it immune to the problem I described. Stacks exist within the network. I can always trace back from one word within each definition either to infinity or back where I started. But obviously, we do have a way of dealing with this, so in that sense it isn't a problem.

I do not believe in the mind. I mean to place quotations around it when I use it, but sometimes I forget or get lazy. I think of "mind" as synonymous with "soul". I defined them together earlier as an illusory projection of the brain, which is physical. As for geometry, most geometric objects don't really exist and are idealized so that mathematics can be built around them. But I suppose that ideas can "exist" in some sense. But is an idea the same as an immaterial object?

Okay, let me try putting this another way.

You say you don't believe in the mind. If everyone merely states their beliefs, that isn't a discussion, or critical thinking.

So, can you explain why you don't believe in the existence of the mind?

The eyes are the window to the soul- I think you took a very literal meaning of that phrase. Doesn't it mean that the eyes are very expressive revealing your innermost thoughts... it's kind of like 'his smile didn't quite touch his eyes', or 'her eyes betray her mind'... I've read enough trashy romances to know this ;P

Anyway nitpicking aside, in a religious context, the spirit is seen separate from the body. In Abrahamic and eastern religions, the body is depicted as weak, prone to age and disease, something that causes the soul to suffer. In Abrahamic religions death is the only escape where depending if you have been naughty or nice your soul is whisked away to someplace in heaven or hell or some place in between. While in Eastern religions, the concept of rebirth is predominant. The soul is seen as something which is trapped in the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara). Bodies are again seen as vessels prone to disease and age, that causes physical and emotional suffering. Only by reaching spiritual enlightenment (moksha or nirvana) can one break free of samsara. How one does this differs across Eastern religions.