Jump to content

Talk:Soul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Veaceslav Savcenco (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

"Science" section

[edit]

1. The topic of this article lies outside the scientific domain. The section labeled science is NOT science, it is merely deceptive persuasive commentary promoting the personal philosophical views of the authors, who happen to also be scientists, and so act with entitlement to label product of their own musings as scientific.

2. Again, more importantly, this topic has nothing to do with science, therefore the science section has no place here. It is as out of place as a section of the page for quantum mechanics titled "jewish rabbinic perspectives" Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think the purpose of that section has to do with findings/perspectives related to scientific investigations of the topic, and does not approach metaphysics beyond the points of view presented. The overall message appears to be "There is no scientific evidence for the soul", which I don't see as contentious (save for parapsychologists). GVO8891 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought (after a little over a year), the problem appears to be that said section is referred to as science instead of philosophy. I'd say it should be changed, but I don't know how so, exactly. GVO8891 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too don’t see the message of ‘there is no scientific evidence for the soul’ as contentious, but to me the whole ‘science’ section appears too heavily weighted against the idea of souls. The opening of a sentence might briefly outline how the soul has been thought of in the sphere of science, but then rather swiftly an unlinked scientist is paraphrased to stress the futility of such endeavours. 217.155.49.123 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== Orthodox Greeks use the Greek word for soul as a Wiktionary template, other nouns have similar declension to psyche (ψυχή), we aren't supposed to select politically motivated templates; not all Greeks are rightists, racists or theists == μη θρησκευτικό πρότυπο - τα πρότυπα κλίσης δεν πρέπει να είναι πολιτικά ή θρησκευτικά κινούμενα

These Orthodox people, even delete the history of the list of the alternative and similar templates for declension.

  • this is the superior alternative: μουσική = music
  • φυσική (physics) bad template, because some people hate physics
  • σιγή (silence) is problematic, because the plural is rare

Christian oppression of opinions which support the importance of the brain (neuroscience) and that a soul is impossible

[edit]

They oppress us. The delete non-religious opinions.
The anterior cingulate cortex ACC isn't the same on all humans. People have different sizes and functionality. The ACC is crucial for behaviour. It inhibits immediate and extreme emotional reactions and promotes social connectivity. Thus god didn't create the instument of free will (brain) equal, thus we cannot blame randomness itself or some unspecified evil, but god himself for not creating all people fair... but it's more simple not to blame the precosmic personhood, and simply to understand that metalogically prephysical personhood is metalogically wrong being non-fundamental and self-causal as algebraic topology and set theory, for example filter (mathematics) (many topological spaces can be created mathematically, they are separate, but metalogically are rigorous and full; personhood is NOT rigorous as a simple (philosophy) because according to information theory it requires memory of many shannons).

So how many non religious were genocided in the last century again, comrade? particularly in china and germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9366:E040:1179:F52D:C5CA:B67 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism section

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a Buddhism section explaining their founding view that a permanent soul or atma doesn't exist? It appears the section did exist and was completely deleted instead of fixed on 9 October 2020. I see references for their views mostly used in the Hinduism section. Jroberson108 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jroberson108 Souls don't exist? so are you saying that a living being is not a living being but just a copy consciousness? You'll confuse yourself if you oppose the existence of Souls.. where does a human go after dying? 'Atman' in Sanskrit means 'Inner Self'. Soul is none other than a person himself / herself. it's just his / her inner self. just tell me that where does a living being go after dying? and your answer should not be 'perishes into nothingness' cuz this is also a principle of Vedic Hinduism, in the school of Vedanta.. Just answer my question. Arkam Knight (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkam Knight: Your response is irrelevant to my question on rescuing the section on Buddhism. Jroberson108 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason your edit was reverted was because the Sanskrit word Atman is unrelated to the Latin and Greek words in the article. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia help me publish this content on Soul?

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

Good morning!!

See https://vasanthkumarnagulakonda.medium.com/what-is-soul-what-is-life-my-thoughts-on-soul-and-life-d43f94299919 and help me publish this content on Soul. Kindly read every link on this post for confirmation that Soul is nothing but Template RNA.

Thanks in advance!

Sincerely Yours, Vasanth Kumar Nagulakonda

Removed Hillman

[edit]

I removed the section on Hillman.

This was previously discussed at Talk:Soul/Archive_1#James_Hillman_-_why_in_the_article?.

My reasons for doing so were that Hillman content here and in his own articles was scant and cited self-published work; and Hillman does not have recognition on the level of the other thinkers on this topic like Socrates, Avicenna, Aquinas, and Kant; and this article is long enough to merit some cuts. Hillman content could go in a new sub article for various other perspectives on this topic, but I do not think his view merits being here as fundamental global thought. @Cosmic Latte:, you had opinions on this ten years ago. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red-figure vase with illustration of Charon

[edit]

The caption says that the red-figure vase shows the Greek Charon, but it actually shows the Etruscan figure Charun, who is very different 93.22.135.170 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Spirit_(vital_essence) with Soul

[edit]
CLOSED
There is no traction here for a merge. Closed "no merge" per STATUS QUO. (This discussion was also started at the wrong article, but I'm leaving it here since it's now closed). Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "scribble" 17:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. These two articles are extremely closely related if not the same topic. Both articles outline similarities. While there is some attempt at differentiation, it seems to come from a specific (possibly wp:undue) Christian focus. By contrast the Egyptian, Shamanic, and other multi-part souls are accepted as part of this single topic and specifics are addressed under their own article.

I acknowledge that there is a length concern for the merged article. However, some material between the two articles is repeated and the better, more general, version can be kept. The main expansion in length (assuming the better Soul article is used as the base) would be an improved lead and overview that could be brought from the Spirit article. Some material in the Spirit article, specifically about ghosts, djinn, etc needs to be moved to other appropriate articles with relevant aspects used to link through context. (ie; some believe ghosts to be some or all of the soul which has remained in the physical world.) If further length mitigation is needed, the content of the Christianity sub-sections can be split/moved into a separate article, bringing it into line with the coverage of other religious traditions.

I believe Soul would be the better final location for a merged article due to the term's common use in English. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Admittedly, the Spirit article has some WP:NOTDICT-related problems (I just tried improving it a little), but I'm pretty sure that many different religions and philosophical systems do distinguish between the soul and the spirit. For example, in Ancient Greece, the difference between psyche and pneuma was considered to be meaningful. As you say, the Soul article is already quite long, so merging related concepts into this article is probably a bad idea unless they really do describe the exact same thing, which I think is not the case here. (By the way, the same merge suggestion was discussed and rejected in 2012 at Talk:Spirit (vital essence)#Merging with Soul.) Jhvx (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Attha" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Attha has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17 § Attha until a consensus is reached. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Location of our souls

[edit]

im surprised "shirikodama" isn't mentioned in regard to our souls! Hiway134 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"True death" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect True death has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1 § True death until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corruptionism vs Survivalism Debate

[edit]

Would it be fitting to add information about the the Corruptionism vs Survivalism debate to this article? This is the debate in (perhaps not exclusively) Catholic theology on whether the soul, separated from the body after death, is still a person. Survivalism (life after death) redirects to Parapsychology which is different. I'm talking about philosophical distinctions, not ghost hunting. Not sure if this needs to be its own article or would fit better somewhere else. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has no information on this subject. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the debate, but why not as a sub-section for the Catholic viewpoint? If WP:RS covers this issue, its WP:NOTE is established and can be added. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put the section under Christianity, partly because it is more of a Thomist debate rather than a Catholic debate and that Venn diagram is not quite a circle. It also just seems to fit better after presenting the debates about the origin of the soul and the trichotomic view. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

[edit]

@PRH, let's chat about this here. I think it is tricky—though we try to do it most of the time, even with non-empirical phenomena—to affirm out of the gate that the soul is. It is qualified in that sentence, but given how universal or visceral such a statement potentially comes off to readers (i.e. implying to a reader who may not feel that they "have a soul" that they do, somewhat), I do think our indirect approach is best as far as that goes.

Secondly, I don't find it necessary to attribute the "ordinary people" remark to Goetz. Remsense ‥ 论 18:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the problem – it is a blanket statement about pretty much all of humanity, and we all know how much people disagree about whether souls even exist to begin with, or what they are. And I do think it is necessary to attribute "ordinary people" to Goetz because Goetz uses those very words himself (it's right there in the citation), and "ordinary people" can mean pretty much anything the writer wants (what are the criteria for being "ordinary"?) The term is also very easy to abuse (You didn't believe in souls as a child? Then you're not an ordinary person!)
Since Wikipedia doesn't allow original research and must follow the NPOV policy, we should probably look for other citations and synthesize the definition from them.
PRH (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes blanket statements are correct. It doesn't seem like a fraught or minority claim in the scholarship that humans generally understand themselves as having souls. If other sources disagree then certainly, but it's not our place to dismiss scholarship if the issue is just that we disagree. Remsense ‥ 论 19:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that @PRH's version does address a couple of issues with the current opening sentence. Firstly, we say next to nothing about the soul in the primary clause of the sentence. If you drop the relative clause, you are left with "The soul is often discussed in the context of religion, theology, psychology and philosophy", which doesn't seem like it should be the first thing we say about the soul. Secondly, it helps the reader understand what "ordinary" means. As far as I am aware, there is no technical anthropological definition of "ordinary person" (if there is, we should be in some way pointing that out). It is also unclear what is meant by "initially believe in". In PRH's version, it is clear that whatever is meant by "ordinary" is whatever Goetz meant and "initially" is replaced with the clearer "naturally inclined".
Perhaps we go with 'The soul is regarded by many cultures across the world as the immaterial self possessed by humans. According to Stewart Goetz, most "ordinary people" are naturally inclined to believe in souls.' Mr. Squidroot (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical about what is an abstract syntactical argument concerning what the emphasis perceived by the reader would be—I don't read the present sentence as having a focus or clarity issue.
On one hand, I'm sure there's no technical anthropological definition of "ordinary person". On the other, there's not another way I can think of to effectively communicate what would appear to be (at least what Goetz puts forth as) an uncontroversial claim about most people. I read "most ordinary people" more or less as "most people, all else being equal". That is, if one doesn't feel themselves to have a soul, there's probably some specific reason for that. This is wishy-washier than I'd like, so yes I'm happy to collate other scholarship on this. Remsense ‥ 论 19:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"At least what Goetz puts forth as" - all the more reason to attribute the whole statement to Goetz, and not leave it unattributed as though it's some universally agreed-on truth. Using citations and attributions is good practice on Wikipedia, so I fail to see how attributing the words to the person who actually used those words is a bad idea. PRH (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should only attribute views to particular scholars if the statement is somehow particular to them. If it's a well-established view in the field, and we're not quoting somebody as a wordsmith or susperstar in their field, we should not explicitly attribute the view to them. Remsense ‥ 论 19:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can change it back if you prove that it's a well-established view in the field by finding other citations - in particular by pointing out how "ordinary person" is a commonly used term and not just lazy vague language. PRH (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's for the reason I just said. Whenever an editor puts all the epistemological responsibility onto someone else on a point they ostensibly care a lot about, it's a bit disappointing, and it seems more like maintaining the version that is most comfortable rather than actually finding out and reproducing what scholarship has to say. Remsense ‥ 论 20:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth reiterating that one can't prove a negative. Goetz isn't a crackpot, and he's being quoted for his entry in a perfectly mainstream reference work, in which he as a philosopher defers to the consensus of anthropologists and psychologists. It is unclear what issue comes from the "vagueness" here. It one wants detail, it is provided in the actual article, as listing of various people groups who conceive of the soul, doing nothing but affirming (if not proving) the basic merits of the statement in the lead. Remsense ‥ 论 20:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, detail would be good here - not necessarily to disprove Goetz' statement here (it may very well be true), but to explain which categories of people he and the scientists he was referring to were talking about. PRH (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from Goetz, "ordinary human beings at all times and in all places...", is not qualified with "most". No matter what Goetz meant exactly by "ordinary" (something like "not academically trained philosophers", it seems to me), I think it is safe to say he was talking about most people. Given that, I suggest we drop the word "ordinary" and just state what "most people" believe. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Mr. Squidroot! I know this is a bit off-topic, but since you are already here, would you consider doing a GA review of this article? I would greatly appreciate it! Brent Silby (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never done a GA review but there is a first time for everything so I wouldn't mind giving it a try! My biggest hesitation is that I still don't think we are meeting MOS:FIRST here. When we say "A soul, regarded as..., is discussed in the context of..." we are primarily telling the reader where souls are discussed, not what they are. Introducing a subject where both its nature and its existence are contested is always going to difficult, but, to me, a simple improvement would be to make the relative clause the first sentence. For example: "The soul is regarded as the immaterial self. Most people are naturally inclined to believe in it and it is often discussed in the context of..."
@Remsense I understand you didn't think there was a problem with the first sentence but would something like I am suggesting be at least equally acceptable? Also looking for opinions of @Brent Silby and @PRH. If the current version is the best we can reach consensus on, I can accept this is a "me problem" and ignore it for the sake of the GA review. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The soul is regarded as the immaterial self. Most people are naturally inclined to believe in it and it is often discussed in the context of..."
That sounds good to me! Brent Silby (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually had a thought that the topic of whether people are naturally inclined to believe in souls is best left out of the lead altogether and addressed in a separate section of the article. That section would also explore why such beliefs exist. PRH (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it! Remsense ‥ 论 01:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Squidroot I did change the first sentence as per your request. I believe that the article is definitely looking ready for a GA review now. Brent Silby (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soul&oldid=1284396652"