quote:

Originally posted by NowPower:
While I can sort of appreciate what you’re saying here – I’m still a bit confused. This answer would indicate that the word ‘soul’ is interchangeable with ‘spirituality’. Or have I got that wrong?

If that’s right then could you try to elaborate on what you take to be the soul? What part of human (or, indeed, animal) consciousness falls under your title of ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’. And what is ‘God’s’ relationship with this spirit/soul? Could ‘God’, as a word, be interchangeable with ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’?

From having lengthy discussions with some of the atheists on here, I think it would be to your favour if some of the definitions were cleared up before continuing. I know my woolly wording hasn’t done me any favours at all with this lot in the past!

I always meant to reply to this but never quite got around to it

What do we mean by spirit? What do we mean by soul?

The spiritual is the non-material dimension of the world. materialism (philosophically speaking rather than ethically speaking) is common. materialism as a metaphysics would seek to deny the spiritual dimension. Certain metaphysical reflections however point to a realm beyond the material. For Aquinas, our ability to abstract the general from the particular points to the non-material dimension. He makes the distinction between matter taking on a form and mind taking in a form.

Aquinas situates Body and Soul within the Aristotelean metaphysics of form and matter. The soul is the form of the body.

A soul is the form of a living thing and both Aristotle and Aquinas identify 3 levels of soul. Plant souls - growth and nutrition. Animal souls - senses and movement - human souls - reason. Each level of soul incorporates the lower levels - i.e. humans don't have 3 souls.

Certain abilities the we identify with MIND - will and reason - would be seen by Aquinas as powers (abilities) of the human rational soul.

SO in answer to the "what do you mean by..." questions I offer in response what Aquinas meant by them

Thomas Aquinas - the first ever deep fat Friar

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:

The spiritual is the non-material dimension of the world.

Wiki:

quote:

In common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a parameter or measurement used to describe some relevant characteristic of an object...

In mathematics, dimensions are the parameters required to describe the position of any object within a conceptual space—where the dimension of a space is the total number of different parameters used for all possible objects considered in the model.

So far, you've failed to meaningfully define yout terms. Therefore if you use them as premises for any logical argument, you're scuppered. Try again.

quote:

He makes the distinction between matter taking on a form and mind taking in a form.

Dualism is dead, bro.

quote:

Aquinas situates Body and Soul within the Aristotelean metaphysics of form and matter. The soul is the form of the body.

And why should we take the word of a 4th Century Theologian (aka professional bu115h1tt3er) who knew little to nothing about what matter is, and what brains were?

quote:

A soul is the form of a living thing and both Aristotle and Aquinas identify 3 levels of soul. Plant souls - growth and nutrition. Animal souls - senses and movement - human souls - reason. Each level of soul incorporates the lower levels - i.e. humans don't have 3 souls.

ROTFLMAO.

quote:

Thomas Aquinas - the first ever deep fat Friar

Your antiquated notions are 17 centuries out of date. Do try to keep up, 007,

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:

The spiritual is the non-material dimension of the world.

Wiki:

In common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a parameter or measurement used to describe some relevant characteristic of an object...

In mathematics, dimensions are the parameters required to describe the position of any object within a conceptual space—where the dimension of a space is the total number of different parameters used for all possible objects considered in the model.

So far, you've failed to meaningfully define yout terms. Therefore if you use them as premises for any logical argument, you're scuppered. Try again.

lame

quote:

Dualism is dead, bro.

I agree - but then Aquinas isn't a dualist

quote:

And why should we take the word of a 4th Century Theologian (aka professional bu115h1tt3er) who knew little to nothing about what matter is, and what brains were?

Why shouldn't we. Are we cleverer now than then? Do we write better plays or compose better music or paint prettier pictures?

quote:

Your antiquated notions are 17 centuries out of date. Do try to keep up, 007,

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:

lame

What's wrong HaW, not got an argument so all you do is name-call? Define you terms. Define them meaningfully and unambiguously. Then we can get round to you enumerating your premises. One step at a time, eh?

And why should we take the word of a 4th Century Theologian (aka professional bu115h1tt3er) who knew little to nothing about what matter is, and what brains were?

quote:

Are we cleverer now than then?

This is why I detest theists to the core. They are so ready to diss the millenia of progress we've made as a species to prop up their antediluvian superstitions. And yet so prepared to leverage the benefits of said progress in order to do so. Utter hyprocrisy.

[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn't we. Are we cleverer now than then? Do we write better plays or compose better music or paint prettier pictures?
[QUOTE]

Clearly your not.....

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:
What's wrong HaW, not got an argument so all you do is name-call? Define you terms. Define them meaningfully and unambiguously. Then we can get round to you enumerating your premises. One step at a time, eh?

And why should we take the word of a 4th Century Theologian (aka professional bu115h1tt3er) who knew little to nothing about what matter is, and what brains were?

I wasn't calling you lame I was calling your argument lame. You can happily search my threads on this Forum and you will find that I never indulge in ad hominum insults - unlike many of the people I dialogue with

running off to the dictionary to look up the meaning of the word dimension has about as much point to it as pointing out that Aquinas was not a 4th Century theologian - but a 13th century one (and was as much philosopher as theologian if truth be told). Such nit picking would be completely irrelevant to the point being made - pedantic.

Besides, I did define my terms. For "spiritual" read "non-material"

quote:

This is why I detest theists to the core. They are so ready to diss the millenia of progress we've made as a species to prop up their antediluvian superstitions. And yet so prepared to leverage the benefits of said progress in order to do so. Utter hyprocrisy.

I haven't "dissed" anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:

I wasn't calling you lame I was calling your argument lame.

I argue that ill-defined terms lead to misunderstandings and fallacies and you call that lame? Gee, you're sharp

quote:

You can happily search my threads on this Forum and you will find that I never indulge in ad hominum insults - unlike many of the people I dialogue with

You make - yet another - faulty inference. The "name calling" is in responding (IMO childishly) with a single word reply to an argument.

quote:

running off to the dictionary to look up the meaning of the word dimension

1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. Clue's in the name, see.

2. I didn't "run" anywhere.

3. I provide the definitions as two examples of technical terminology, not as colloquial understandings which I think we all realise you would do nothing but equivocate over. Well I ain't going to give you the freedom to shift the goalposts.

Kindly provide a technical, unambiguous definition of what a dimension is and we can continue.

quote:

has about as much point to it as pointing out that Aquinas was not a 4th Century theologian - but a 13th century one (and was as much philosopher as theologian if truth be told).

Yup, my mistake.

quote:

Such nit picking would be completely irrelevant to the point being made - pedantic.

Pedantry - otherwise known as attention to detail - is the heart of critical thinking. So I'm afraid I'm not going to let you get away with anything.

quote:

Besides, I did define my terms. For "spiritual" read "non-material"

That's not a definition of what it is, that's a definition of what it isn't. Try again. Besides, the term in question that you didn't define was dimension

Look - my use of the word "dimension" is perfectly correct english. You have space time dimensions - correct - but there are other uses of the word as you well know and the particular meaning that I intend for you to infer is quite clear from the context. You are being pedantic.

I can't believe you have actually driven me to this - but here is the definition in the New Oxford dictionary og English OUP 2001: "noun an aspect or feature of a situation problem or thing: water can add a new dimension to your garden"

So when I speak of the spiritual dimesion of the world I am speaking about a non-material aspect of reality.

And yes you can define spiritual as non-material because it arises out of a metaphysical speculation to points to a dimension beyond a material dimension governed by laws of nature.

Glad you rekindled this topic Have a Word because I didn't see nor partake in the discussion last time and this is a kind of topic I enjoy pondering and discussing very much.

I don’t think the ad has such a stirring affect on us because of the humour involved of an ape banging some drums. Indeed humour is more often than not the domain of a despot who tries to wrench feeling from life not through a connection with their self and thus the real doorway to life but out of a skewed sense of indifference with the world around them.

The director draws us into the ad via a carefully crafted intro speaking to our sentience and we connect with the gorillas emotionally by observing facial features and gestures like we do amongst fellow humans. The fact that people today might prefer to concentrate on the gorilla banging drums in the end is IMO a sign of the times and indifferent society. We have all pretty much agreed that the fact that we are drawn to this add is mostly about the emotional connection in the beginning and the humour then becomes null en void once we’ve seen the add and know what is coming…

What I’m getting at is this - it strikes me as odd to approach the topic of spirituality through humour. Why not ask people what it is that stirs us from within about the ad because this is what spirituality is about…

Spirituality \ spirit \ soul - are synonyms for permanence…they suggest that there is a permanent aspect to life which in turn makes life ultimately real.

I loved the ad. The whacky humour of the gorilla playing drums is great but it is not permanent as has already been suggested by other posters and is thus not the stirring aspect of the ad. For me the parts I most enjoyed and will continue to enjoy are those aspects of emotional connection with something that materially is not “me” but ultimately in a spiritual sense is…

IMO the very real ability to emotional connect with another entity which in a physical sense seems to be discrete provides evidence for aspects of life that are real and operate beyond physical boundaries. These aspects are rationally hard to define and the simple truth is that they rationally at present cannot be…we need a sixth sense for this…but that is a whole new can of worms to open and one that collective human rationale is not yet ready for…

For me the beauty of life is that to learn and grow something need not be on Wiki nor peer reviewed to be ultimately real and a function being. I enjoy applying conscious effort to many endeavours out of which the most rounded and tempered understanding is surely one derived from both physical and spiritual endeavours as one…

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

Dualism is dead, bro.

I agree - but then Aquinas isn't a dualist
[QUOTE]

We'll leave Aquinas aside for a minute, since you clearly are a dualist. You're proposing a split between body & soul/ mind. By any normally accepted definition of dualism, that make you a dualist.

Or "any philosophy, religion or world-view that presupposes there is a supernatural realm in which immaterial bodies (souls, gods, demons, angels and the like) reside. The idea that a soul can survive the death of a physical body or be reincarnated in another body (human or other) also requires some kind of dualist conception of the world." - 50 philosophy ideas (you really need to know - page 31) So perhaps we should start with your definition of dualism since it is clearly different.

quote:

Originally posted by TheCarpenter:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Have a Word:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

Dualism is dead, bro.

I agree - but then Aquinas isn't a dualist

quote:

We'll leave Aquinas aside for a minute, since you clearly are a dualist. You're proposing a split between body & soul/ mind. By any normally accepted definition of dualism, that make you a dualist.

Or "any philosophy, religion or world-view that presupposes there is a supernatural realm in which immaterial bodies (souls, gods, demons, angels and the like) reside. The idea that a soul can survive the death of a physical body or be reincarnated in another body (human or other) also requires some kind of dualist conception of the world." - 50 philosophy ideas (you really need to know - page 31) So perhaps we should start with your definition of dualism since it is clearly different.

Dualism is not specifically to do with a belief in a spiritual and corporial dimension to reality but a belief that somehow good and evil are equal and opposite forces - or that the soul is entrapped in the body.

Christianity is distinct from the first wordview in that God created everything and created it good. It was only late through freewill that evil entered the world. Or to some it up in one line - God and the Devil are not equal because God created the devil - God created the angel lucifer who through the sin of pride fell from grace (I shall not serve)

Neither is the soul somehow trapped in the body - because the soul is the form of the body. There is an intimate link. We are body and soul. Rather than being in the body - if anything the body is in the soul. An analogy would be a river. THe "soul" of the river is not the water - but the river bed. The water is the body and the river bed is the soul. THe body is in the soul. The water flows out into the sea much like our hair and finger nails and skin flow out (off) of us.

WHen we die our soul survives death even though part of our nature dies. Aquinas speaks of the disembodied soul existing in an unnatural way - but of course we as christians believe in the resurrection of the body which will be reunited with the soul.

When people talk of dualism they are generally thinking of a Descartian Ghost in the Machine. THis is not the Catholic vision. Aquinas is the man

anyway guys - I'm giving up the internet for lent - so pick this up later...

Live Long and Prosper

HaW

quote:

Originally posted by Have a Word:
Look - my use of the word "dimension" is perfectly correct english.

Of course it is, HaW. But scientists - and philosophers - do their best to ensure that the words they use have a precise meaning, sometimes different from the identical word in colloquial usage. This is not just to prevent misunderstanding, but to attempt to prevent constructing fallacious arguments. Indeed, one often finds that on closer examination, colloquialisms make no intrinsic sense when viewed critically. The crude, approximate, ballpark, touchy-feely definitions we use in ordinary conversations are shunned when we desire to construct valid arguments. And, conversely, are embraced when we wish to make an invalid argument look like a valid one:

quote:

You have space time dimensions - correct - but there are other uses of the word as you well know and the particular meaning that I intend for you to infer is quite clear from the context.

...and here you illustrate my point perfectly.

quote:

You are being pedantic.

Why thank you HaW, I do my best. As I said, pedantry is a crucial skill for software developers, scientists and other thinkers, who seek understanding of things. As opposed to hand-waving obfuscation.

quote:

I can't believe you have actually driven me to this

sic.

quote:

- but here is the definition in the New Oxford dictionary og English OUP 2001: "noun an aspect or feature of a situation problem or thing: water can add a new dimension to your garden"

As I pointed out, dictionary definitions are not the same as encyclopedia definitions, the latter of which tend to illuminate technical definitions, the former colloquial ones.

quote:

So when I speak of the spiritual dimesion of the world I am speaking about a non-material aspect of reality.

So you're talking about something that, if you took all the matter away, would still be there. I see. Have you tried this recently?

quote:

And yes you can define spiritual as non-material

Sure you can. It's just not very clever to.

quote:

because it arises out of a metaphysical speculation to points to a dimension beyond a material dimension governed by laws of nature.

"Speculations", eh? And how might one determine if one's speculations actually hold?