Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Soul definition essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Soul definition essay
The Soul
The topic of this paper is the soul. In this paper I will be discussing how the soul exists, what the purpose is and the difference between the body and the soul. Most people define the soul as the spiritual part of a human being or animal considered to be immortal. I do believe it differs from the actual body and that it continues to live on after the body is gone. I believe that there is a soul, because that is what I was taught in church. The Bible has taught me there is a body and the soul is the life and personality that fills the body. There as several quotes in the Bible that refers to the soul. Such as Mathew 10:28 “and do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (King James Version, Mat 10.28). That verse is saying don’t fear the man
…show more content…
This is insinuating that everyone does have a soul and it differs from the actual body itself. Also another verse is Ezekiel 18:4 “Behold, all souls are mine, the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine, the soul who sins shall die” (King James Version, Ezek 18.4). God is saying that all souls belong to him and the souls of sinners will parish in hell. This again is telling us that we all have souls. The soul controls the vessel which is the body. The soul is the light that fills the darkness of the body. The soul is the personality, mind, will and emotions of a person. Plato said, “The soul drives the body as though it were a chariot pulling two horses, one that desires to do what is righteous and the other desiring to do what is sinful” (Plato, “Phaedrus”). Many
In the reading by Richard Swinburne, he evaluates the mortality of the soul and its interaction with the human body. His position is best described as attributing the soul to a light bulb, and the brain to a functioning socket:
There were multiple uses of the word soul in the final chapter, many of which talked of the inability for a man’s soul to escape the forest.
Soul is a very difficult term. It is thought by many to be a spirit that passes
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
A human body is separated from soul, but it is under the control of soul. Plato’s idealism are incorporated into Christian to attract many christians “whose world views were shaped by Greek philosophy and religions” (Matthew, 295). Platonism makes Christians believe “whatever associate with soul and spirit” was better than whatever was associated with body and matte” because God is able to “directly act” on soul. Plato’s idea indicates that anything relate to soul is holy and hence better, and anything in relation to body is earthly and evil. Platonic dualism indirectly shows us that soul is on a higher status than body. Moreover, Descartes continued on platonic dualism and concluded that “only soul was the real person”, and “the body was a machine with the lower value and status”(Tallon, 117). Therefore, soul is considered as higher
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
In arguing for the distinction between mind and body, Descartes seeks to show that the two are independent substances and can exist separately. It will be useful to outline Descartes’ argument based on clear and distinct perception by listing his premises and conclusion. The essay will then analyse each premise in turn, arguing that the argument fails because his premises are faulty. The argument, found in the Sixth Meditation, runs as follows
The nature of mind and body has been debated constantly, but the answer has always been present in our own minds. In Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, two extremely different characters, Sydney Carton and Charles Darnay, are presented, and much quarreling has arisen over their being representative of the clash of the mind and the body, and if so, which is which. Sydney Carton is symbolic of the mind and Charles Darnay of the body. The mind, Carton, and the body, Darnay, are one being who react to situations adversely; but where the body is physical, the mind is philosophical, and the mind gives life to the body.
For myself I lean more towards the side of the religious belief structure. Your soul is more what makes you who you are. Your personality, social interactions, and morals are dictated by your soul. Therefore your body and brain are more of the physical structure that you inhabit when you are living. A sad but relevant
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
Accordingly, the model would be that a human person is a multi-level being in which there is a kind of ultra-powerful transcendental unity of both apprehension and life and that body is a real but lower appearance and effect of Unity. That Unity used to be called "soul".
If, as Epicurus claims, everything is either body or void, the soul must also be one of these two things. It cannot be void, as the void is nothing and can consist only of nothing, so therefore it must be a body or compound of bodies (Letter to Herodotus 63). He believes that the soul is most responsible for sense-perception, and that it must be enclosed within the body to facilitate this (Letter to Herodotus 63-64). If this is the case, it must therefore be acknowledged that the soul must exist...
"Soul" has, historically, always been tied up with morality and religious dogma, and I believe modern neuropsychology and psychobiology has effectively refuted any scientific basis for a "Soul." To state as fact, "The soul exists," one must first socratically define Soul. More on this later:
The Mind and the Physical Body Since the times of Plato and Aristotle, the argument of dualism and mutualism of the mind and body has been in existence. Dualism has been the driving force behind the existence of the mind/body problem and has been by far the majority view due largely to the influence of Descartes. In recent times, modern medicine has taken a shift towards mutualism. Outside stimuli, as perceived by the mind, affect the body either beneficially or adversely. While the body as an organism has the capacity to heal, evidence proves that the mind expedites recovery.
I cannot say with any degree of certainty that we do not have an immortal soul – one can rarely be certain about anything of the sort either way. Our universe is beyond our current understanding and in fact could very well be capable of producing such a thing as a soul. I am open to the discovery of new knowledge, but I feel that, to be trusted, that knowledge must be well supported and be testable by producing consistent results. Similarly, although we may not have a physical explanation for consciousness yet, progress is being made in these investigations and there is still much work to do. In either case, I say just because there is no answer now does not mean there will never be.