Is Immortality possible if man has no soul?

GrimoireA3 wrote: If man, in fact, does not possess a soul - is immortality still possible? Does something else substitute for a soul? Mind? Life force? Metabolism?

First define "soul" and then prove without a shadow of a doubt that a man has one.

You asked does something else substitute for a soul- mind, life force, metabolism... If these are substitutes for a soul, then does that not mean that these too are essentially the soul, so it would be merely a question of semantics? If not, I would have to ask, like Coach, what is your definition of "soul"?

coach wrote: First define "soul" and then prove without a shadow of a doubt that a man has one.

LOL - Coach, you should know that a man can prove anything if he is allowed to write the definitions.   :-)


Edited by pointwithinacircle - August/12/2016 at 8:34am

Personally, I define Spirit as the active force, the force that chooses, does, and creates.  I define soul as the passive force that receives, responds, and is formed.  Using my definition, I don't how it would be possible for any living thing to exist without both a spirit and a soul.

Socrates, is that you?

pointwithinacircle wrote: Personally, I define Spirit as the active force, the force that chooses, does, and creates.  I define soul as the passive force that receives, responds, and is formed.  Using my definition, I don't how it would be possible for any living thing to exist without both a spirit and a soul.

Hi Pointwithinacircle,

Excellent reasoning. Good for you. BUT! - it has been stated before and refuted.

For example: The Trichotomic view of humanity has people consisting of a body (soma); soul (psyche), and spirit (pneuma). Yet it has been noted how both 'spirit' and 'soul' are used so interchangeably throughout the Holy Book of Law, scholars have reduced the philosophical/theological view of humanity to only: Body & Soul [a dichotomic view of man]. And this dichotomy (body & soul without spirit) is the accepted condition of mankind.

Adept? wrote: Coach wrote: the entire conversation becomes an exercise of Baconian "Idol's of the Marketplace" dribble. LOL!

Glad I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith because us Catholics do not believe in idols.

pointwithinacircle wrote: coach wrote: First define "soul" and then prove without a shadow of a doubt that a man has one. LOL - Coach, you should know that a man can prove anything if he is allowed to write the definitions.   :-)

Yes, and that is a fallacy in logic called "Begging the Question" [petition principii]: assuming the truth of a statement a priori without proof.

I intentionally did not provide a definition.

GrimoireA3 wrote: Glad I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith because us Catholics do not believe in idols.

Edited by Adept? - August/13/2016 at 2:55pm

GrimoireA3 wrote: ... Does something else substitute for a soul?

There is no substitute; it's either there, or it is not.

BroScubaSteve wrote: Socrates, is that you?

No, I'm over here, six feet under the hemlock tree.

oh oh oh!

I do not have a soul, but I do posses a substitute!

GrimoireA3 wrote: BroScubaSteve wrote: oh oh oh! I do not have a soul, but I do posses a substitute! And that substitute being what?

It's a joke.

It has nothing to do with a "soul" in freemasonry though so don't read too much into it.

Kind of like when engineers joke with each other. Laymen don't get it unless you're in the profession.






Edited by BroScubaSteve - August/17/2016 at 8:35am

BroScubaSteve wrote: I was commenting on the Socratic method of postings here on Mastermason.com more than his actual philosophies.

Interesting, since I haven't yet read a Socratic Method of reasoning on any post since I've been participating on these forums. Nor a syllogism.

Adept? wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: Glad I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith because us Catholics do not believe in idols. Adept? wrote: Really...?   Yes, really. The Catholic Church frowns on idolatry. Adept? wrote: Idol worship (depending on which definition you use) would fit catholicism perfectly in my opinion. The opinion of a non-Catholic with obvious biases and a questionable command of comparative religion? Adept? wrote: What with all their saints (some prayed to in place of god or jesus) NOPE, never. No, the saints are not part of the Holy Trinity, therefore no Catholic puts the saints in place of Jesus or God himself. I consider that slanderous. Adept? wrote: and the "virgin" mary (almost explicitly prayed to before god or jesus) hence the term "hail mary" Again, NOPE, Total misinterpretation. The mother of God is rightfully venerated, but Mary is also not part of the Holy Trinity therefore no Catholic puts her before the father, son, or the holy ghost. Adept? wrote: Catholicism, at the very least, borders on what could very easily be viewed as poly-theism. Hardly. The triune God is one. The concept of the Trinity was the result of 500 years of Catholic participation in the Great Medieval debates [the theists vs. the atheists] on the attributes of God, and the Trinity is an advanced concept not commonly understood by non-Roman catholics. Catholicism is also accepted as one of the world's monotheistic religions. Adept2, you may not realize it but you sound exactly how the anti-Masons argue against Freemasonry - the same use of stereotypes, innuendo, bias, misconceptions, and some slander.

pointwithinacircle wrote: coach wrote: First define "soul" and then prove without a shadow of a doubt that a man has one. LOL - Coach, you should know that a man can prove anything if he is allowed to write the definitions.   :-)

Pointwithinacircle,

You seem to have rediscovered a famous maxim from the American philosopher (from Harvard) W. V. Quine, who stated: "That nearly any statement can be made to fit with the data, so long as one makes the 'requisite compensatory adjustments'. (~1964?)

BroScubaSteve wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: BroScubaSteve wrote: oh oh oh! I do not have a soul, but I do posses a substitute! And that substitute being what? It's a joke. It has nothing to do with a "soul" in freemasonry though so don't read too much into it. Kind of like when engineers joke with each other. Laymen don't get it unless you're in the profession.

Being a retired engineer, I got it.

GrimoireA3 wrote: Adept? wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: Glad I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith because us Catholics do not believe in idols. Adept? wrote: Really...?   Yes, really. The Catholic Church frowns on idolatry.

Yet, it occurs within the faith and does so daily.

Adept? wrote: Idol worship (depending on which definition you use) would fit catholicism perfectly in my opinion. The opinion of a non-Catholic with obvious biases and a questionable command of comparative religion?

Invalid invalidation.

Adept? wrote: What with all their saints (some prayed to in place of god or jesus) NOPE, never. No, the saints are not part of the Holy Trinity, therefore no Catholic puts the saints in place of Jesus or God himself. I consider that slanderous.

So, by calling them saints, and not minor-gods, that invalidates the claim?

Adept? wrote: and the "virgin" mary (almost explicitly prayed to before god or jesus) hence the term "hail mary" Again, NOPE, Total misinterpretation. The mother of God is rightfully venerated, but Mary is also not part of the Holy Trinity therefore no Catholic puts her before the father, son, or the holy ghost.

So, praying to an entity outside the HT is okay and not a sign of idolatry?

Adept? wrote: Catholicism, at the very least, borders on what could very easily be viewed as poly-theism. Hardly. The triune God is one. The concept of the Trinity was the result of 500 years of Catholic participation in the Great Medieval debates [the theists vs. the atheists] on the attributes of God, and the Trinity is an advanced concept not commonly understood by non-Roman catholics. Catholicism is also accepted as one of the world's monotheistic religions.

With a host of saints, not minor-gods, all who one can pray to for whatever their specialty is?

GrimoireA3 wrote: BroScubaSteve wrote: I was commenting on the Socratic method of postings here on Mastermason.com more than his actual philosophies. Interesting, since I haven't yet read a Socratic Method of reasoning on any post since I've been participating on these forums. Nor a syllogism.

Socratic dialogue is a formal method by which a small group (5-15 people), guided by a facilitator, finds a precise answer to a universal question (e.g. "What is happiness?", "What is integrity?", "Can conflict be fruitful?", etc.).

Basically, a man walked the streets and started talking to total strangers to ponder life and the world around them to arrive at a truth or common ground that can be accepted.

If this type of dialogue isn't Socratic, then my University better refund me my money.


Edited by BroScubaSteve - August/18/2016 at 6:37am

GrimoireA3 wrote: BroScubaSteve wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: BroScubaSteve wrote: I was commenting on the Socratic method of postings here on Mastermason.com more than his actual philosophies. Interesting, since I haven't yet read a Socratic Method of reasoning on any post since I've been participating on these forums. Nor a syllogism. <span ="_tgc"="">Socratic dialogue is a formal method by which a small group (5-15 people), guided by a facilitator, finds a precise answer to a universal question (e.g. "What is happiness?", "What is integrity?", "Can conflict be fruitful?", etc.). Basically, a man walked the streets and started talking to total strangers to ponder life and the world around them to arrive at a truth or common ground that can be accepted. If this type of dialogue isn't Socratic, then my University better refund me my money. </span> Is your university accredited?

If you're not joking: Why would that be important to anyone seeking and obtaining truth authentically, honestly and openly?

If you're joking: HAR!!! HAR!!!

That is a definition of dialectics or of free association to solve a problem. The Socratic Method is a teaching method of asking a series of questions which will guide the student to the already known correct answer, a technique of explaining a difficult concept to the uninitiated. Not a method of truth seeking. If I knew the answer to my own question, yet others were unable to grasp the concept then, like Socrates, I would use the Socratic Method to ask a series of questions to guide you to the correct answer.

That's one opinion. Here's another: Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.

And I still haven't seen the Socratic Method used on Masonic Forums.

Are you blind?

GrimoireA3 wrote: The Socratic Method is a teaching method of asking a series of questions which will guide the student to the already known correct answer, a technique of explaining a difficult concept to the uninitiated. Not a method of truth seeking. If I knew the answer to my own question, yet others were unable to grasp the concept then, like Socrates, I would use the Socratic Method to ask a series of questions to guide you to the correct answer. coach wrote: That's one opinion. Here's another: Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. That's a Wikipedia definition!

No kidding. What gave it away?

Not an example of your understanding of the Socratic Method.

Actually, your statement is wrong. It is my understanding of the Socratic method. I bolded the more agreeable parts for greater emphasis and to point out to you my understanding.

Wikipedia has been refuted as a valid citation by every professional scholar in America's universities.

So what! It provides to me the words that express quite clearly my understanding. You appear to be one who would throw a baby out with its bathwater.

Wikipedia is good for solving barroom arguments or research for grade school book reports, but not for scholarly research nor for intellectual discussion.

Is that what we are doing here? scholarly research or intellectual discussion? Based upon your not yet defining what "soul" is after how many days, I can't say that either criteria is being met at this point.

So stop quoting Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual!

You seriously misunderstand what I want out of this.

Wikipedia is academic idolatry!

But I thought for you as an RC, idolatry is something that you don't believe in?

Nevertheless, your point is moot. What I reposted is an opinion. I share it without reservation. As far as what wiki is good for, man are you barking up the wrong tree.

So coach, if you want to impress with an understanding of the Socratic Method, try citing a primary source, like Socrates, and read a good translation from his student (since Socrates wrote noting down).

Thanks. There are no primary Socratic sources. The man didn't write anything down. Socrates was "supposedly" the teacher of Plato. His stories were likely a Platonic fabrication. But that's another rabbit hole for another day.

BTW - When I truly want to impress, I'll let you know.

And I still haven't seen the Socratic Method used on Masonic Forums. coach wrote: Are you blind? Nope, 20/20!

As per your offered definition, the question was designed to lead you to an already known answer. It appears from your response that more questions are required.

And I perfectly see...

Man, you sure do have a high opinion of your abilities.

...there is no Socratic Method used here since I've been participating on Mastermason forums! And no Freemason yet has demonstrated an understanding of that concept - not even you coach.

Once again, your opinion.

Edited by coach - August/22/2016 at 9:05am

droche wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: Wikipedia is good for solving barroom arguments or research for grade school book reports... Not in my classes. Although I do not teach grade school per se, I teach special education students in the high school, the vast majority of whom are at an elementary (grade school) level. I do not allow my students to use wikipedia in research. Anyway, this thread is turning into a p*ssing contest, and I realize I just contributed to it- my apologies- but can we get off it and return to more intellectual and civil discussion?

AMEN!

GrimoireA3 wrote: droche wrote: Anyway, this thread is turning into a p*ssing contest, and I realize I just contributed to it- my apologies- but can we get off it and return to more intellectual and civil discussion? Yes, I noticed the same thing. In fact, almost every thread has digressed into some sort of 'one up manship' contest.

Welcome to the internet.

GrimoireA3 wrote: ... assuming there is such thing as a soul, is immortality possible without it??

Once you have define what it is, then such a question could be entertained within that offered definition.

However, since you have yet to define "soul", anything put forth is fancy filled unfounded conjecture.

coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: Adept? wrote: Coach wrote: the entire conversation becomes an exercise of Baconian "Idol's of the Marketplace" dribble. LOL! Glad I grew up in the Roman Catholic faith because us Catholics do not believe in idols. I grew up in the RC faith too and although we do not believe in idols, we do believe that they do exist. Hence the reference, and it is valid.

Yes, the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of idols and does not believe in them, nor teaches the belief in idols. The reference is obtuse.