7 Answers

  1. This is something that makes you warm inside, something that can be developed, something that asks for music so much, that makes you sad in the fall. This is something that is inexplicable in words, but so understandable and without words to a person. At the same time, it's something you turn a blind eye to when you don't need to. Or when you need to do something, when you said something that the TV is obliged to do. At this time, she dies. You're leaving her. And when you get close — you know what the hell you've been waiting for all this time.

    The soul is what lets you know who you are. Every day, she tries her best to tell you what you need. But you don't listen to it, or you don't believe it exists.

    The soul is the firefly of your thorny forest path, which if you trust — miracles will begin to happen.

  2. In fact, the term “soul” is quite clearly defined, to varying degrees, in various scriptures. The most detailed description is given in the most ancient holy scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, for example, in Chapter 2.�

    Based on these sources, I can explain the soul as a part of God, a true living being, i.e. the soul is the very person I or you. The soul exists eternally like God, and in its original (pure) form is full of knowledge and bliss. Our material body is just a shell of the soul, which allows the individual (soul) to live in a material world, different from the spiritual world, where God lives.

    The world of God is eternal and there all souls serve the one whole, i.e. God.�

    Our world is a temporary material one , where we serve ourselves .

  3. The first of the philosophers who tried to bring Christian dogmas into a single system was Origen, who lived in the third century. He believed that a person consists of both spirit, soul and body. The spirit does not belong to man himself, it is as if it is given to him by God and is always directed to good and truth. The soul is our own “I”, determines the beginning of individuality, and if free will is the most important definition of human nature, then it is the soul according to Origen, and chooses between good and evil. By nature, the soul must obey the spirit, and the body must obey the soul. Hence, we can conclude that evil does not come from God, not from nature itself, not from the body, it comes from the human abuse of freedom, which is a divine gift.

  4. The first thing that asks for an answer. There is no soul or it was set incorrectly oparadalenie!) I decided for myself-the soul is divisible, takes everything that comes to hand! A hero cube will be formed! And if it's the other way around, keep your asses down..)

    It really divides!)

  5. Since the author of the question requires the respondent to give his own explanation of the soul, then:

    1. The soul is not “what” or “not what” (not to be confused with “something”!). That is, the soul is undoubtedly there, which is confirmed by the obvious (for an attentive person) experience of one's own mental suffering or spiritual exultation. For someone who has experienced these states, the expression “the soul hurts” is not just a poetically abstract metaphor, but a phenomenologically accurate grasp of the actual state of a human being at some significant moments in his life. But at the same time, the soul is nota thing – real or imagined, material or ideal, physiological or mental, individual or collective, and so on. Thus, we leave aside objectifying ideas about the soul in religious, psychological, cultural, moral and other interpretations of it. (We do not dismiss these ideas as false, but leave them aside until the necessary conditions for their correct understanding are clarified)

    2. One of the first (in European philosophy) brilliant attempts to “grasp” the essence of the soul is Plato's dialogue “Phaedo”. Here there is no definition of the soul in the usual definitional sense, and at the same time the entire text (namely Socrates ' speech) is permeated with an insubstantial and real meaning of this concept. One of these valid definitions literally goes like this:�

    And the purification of the soul – is it not (as stated before) to detach the soul from the body as thoroughly as possible, to train it to assemble from all its parts, to concentrate on itself, and to live as far as possible, both now and in the future, alone with itself, freed from the body as from fetters? [Plato. Phaedo, 67c]

    The soul is revealed here as gathering itself, concentrating itself, and holding itself together. That is, it is not something immobile, given (granted and guaranteed) to a person in some already completed form and requiring, in the maximum case, only the preservation of this gift intact-immobility. On the contrary, man does not have a soul until his own effort to collect this whole from the disordered and poorly understood set of fragments of natural, empirical (in Plato – bodily) life. And this gathering cannot be completed once and guarantee subsequent peace and comfort: what is collected must be kept from disintegrating by constant effort, preserved in the unique unity of one's soul. You can't become a saint (a hero, a genius, a human being after all) once and for all! The effort to be human must be reproduced continuously, and this is the work of the soul.

    1. Aristotle gives a definition that is more familiar in its logical form, but requires additional and competent interpretation-the definition of the soul:

    The soul is necessarily an entity in the sense of the form of the natural body, which has the possibility of life… The soul is the first entelechy of the natural body, which has the possibility of life. [Aristotle. About the soul, 412a20-25 ]

    Here the soul is described as a “what”, but this “whatness” (one of Aristotle's favorite expressions) of the soul is the objectivity of the defined concept, and not the objectivity of the content of this concept, i.e. logical, not real. And this reverses the usual automatism of reading and understanding these Aristotelian words. The soul does not belong to someone (for example, a person, as opposed to an axe), is assigned to something (to a natural body) and depends on whether this body realizes its inherent possibility of life, but just the opposite. Natural organic (i.e. the body (man) that has organs has life only in possibility, and only the soul as “entelechy” (according to Aristotle – fulfillment, which has become)�translates this possibility into reality: the soul is not already inherent in the living body, but for the first time animates it, does not trivially belong to a living person, but realizes the possibility that it has to live truly human (and not just organic, animal, automatic, etc.) life. Aristotle's “first entelecheia” is the knowledge of, respectively, only knowledgeable and conscious (co-nataliny – i.e., with knowledge and conscious of it) of the human person, in the proper sense and live a human life. Thus the soul is the life, and breaking language stereotypes, enclose: Not a living person has a soul, and the man is alive and living the implementation of the soul.

    Something like that. Good luck! :))

Leave a Reply