The Soul of People - Essay Example

Do people have souls? Introduction As much as I would like to believe in the idea of a soul and the notion that a part of us is immortal, I feel that it is nothing more an idea to let human beings achieve the connection to immortality which they have sought since ages past. Considering that the idea of the soul in our present age is connected more with the notion of religion and belief and less with scientific fact, it is no surprise that the central support for the existence of souls comes from religious texts and the opposition from scientific facts. Essentially, this means that belief in people having souls is a religious concept which is impossible to prove with the dictates of science or natural philosophy. On the other hand, there are several other ways to explain the idea of the soul which come from the scientific realm and which are based on logical arguments given by philosophers across the ages. However, living in this age and the times we are going through the endless assault of reality and technology leaves little room for imaginary things like a soul. Zindler (1985) makes no secret of his disdain for the idea of human beings having a soul when he says that: “Whenever I peruse a dictionary, I am struck by the amazing number of words which refer to nothing at all in the real world. Many of the words are obviously fabulous: leprechaun, unicorn, gremlin, Philosophers Stone, Zeus, elf, Fountain of Youth, ghost, etc. Others, though referring equally to non-existent things, are less obvious: The Mean Sun, The Average Citizen, vital force, spirit, and soul (Zindler, 1985, Pg. 1).” He then goes on to describe how ancient philosophers and biological experts were simply building on the works of others who had to differentiate between a live human a dead one simply by saying that the soul had departed the body. Zindler (1985) considers their idea of the soul to be akin to meaning life, consciousness and breath. For example, he says that, “The word spirit — generally a synonym for soul — comes from the Latin spiritus, and clearly meant breath originally. Spiritual and respiratory both derive from the same root (Zindler, 1985, Pg. 1).” Therefore the idea of live functional human beings having a soul is more or less supported by Zindler but not in the way that religious dogma would have us believe. Essentially, Zindler (1985) seems to have skirted the question altogether by saying that soul and the act of breathing are one and the same thing therefore unquestionably we have souls which ‘depart’ our body once we die. However, to label that soul as anything more than what it really is becomes nothing more than an extension of our own need for immortality that our soul will live on forever somewhere even if we shuffle off this mortal coil (Lorenz, 2003). Plato’s Views Since Zindler (1985) discusses what the ancient philosophers considered the soul to be, it might be useful to examine what Plato said in The Republic about the soul. Plato suggests that the soul is certainly present in the body and serves four essential functions. It is responsible for the life of the body, the cognitive processes, and intellectual abilities as well as for giving moral virtues. However, we have more or less understood that in this day and age self preservation, instinctual reactions, cognition and intellect all come from the brain and specific regions in the brain which may even cease to function in cases where there is a chemical imbalance or damage (Lorenz, 2003). Morality is an interesting function assigned by Plato to the soul since this means that human beings have some internalized morality which comes from the soul and if every human being is born with it, we would have some idea of wrong or right to begin with and such norms should be a normal consideration for everyone. However, even a brief look at human history and culture will show us that universal morality and universal ideals about good and bad are not exactly universal. What may be considered a crime in one culture or during one age is actually an accepted practice in another. Therefore morality comes not from an entity called the soul within a person; it comes from society and the things which a person experiences as a part of society. To attribute morality to the soul instead of how society functions and how the world should be placed on the principles of justice takes the credit away from the lawgivers, revolutionaries and those who sought equality and gives it to something which is non-existent to begin with. Aristotle’s Views We can certainly see this happening in Aristotle’s explanation for the soul since according to Aristotle, the soul is a system of abilities which is displayed by animated bodies such as humans and animals and he makes it a point to say that is not a physical aspect such as the mind but an ethereal object (Lorenz, 2003). However, Aristotle qualifies this by saying that the abilities of the soul are dependent on the bodily parts and the abilities of the entity to which the soul belongs to. Similarly, other philosophers which came after the two giants of ancient philosophy have worked with the idea of the soul and have given it attributes which are better placed elsewhere. For instance, for the atomist Epicurus the soul is made from similar substances such as fire and wind which have certain properties but the physical attributes are difficult to define. The functions of the soul are to guide the individual in rational behavior, irrational thoughts, desires and impulses and again these can be attributed to the mind much better than an ethereal object of which we have no real constituency (Lorenz, 2003). While we can with the benefit of hindsight say that the ancient philosophers were wrong when it comes to the soul it must be understood that they were only working with the given tools of their times. They tried to answer what is essentially a scientific question with (as we understand them) unscientific means that led them to conclude that there is more to the human body than the workings of the mind. However, when look at the question from the scientific perspective which we have today, where experiments, hypothesis and results are important we have Barberini (2006) saying that: “What experiment could one do to prove or disprove the existence of a "soul"? While each individual will have things they may take as evidence for or against the idea that we have "souls," one will find that there is no objective criterion that people will agree on (Barberini, 2006, Pg. 1).” Conclusion I feel that if we look at the question from a philosophical or a religious point of view there can only be an answer in the positive simply because it is important to the fundamental concepts of both the fields. Even atomist philosophers seem to agree with the idea of living things having a soul but if we look at the question using scientific analysis, we can certainly find better avenues to assign the functions, purposes and elements of a soul. At the same time, since the question remains in the philosophical and religious realms, it is very difficult to argue against it with a philosophical bent since the support against the idea comes from science alone. Word Count: 1,299 Works Cited Barberini, C. “Do We Have Souls?” Howard Hughes Medical Institute. 2006. HHMI.org. 1 Dec. 2006 Lorenz, H. “Ancient Theories of Soul” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2003. Stanford.edu. 1 Dec. 2006 Zindler, F. “Spirit, Soul and Mind.” American Atheists. 2006. Atheists.org. 1 Dec. 2006. Read More