I'm not an expert on philosophy by any means.
I took one "Intro to Philosophy" course in college, which built on the pretty solid foundation I acquired with my high school humanities classes. I also took a course that was cross-listed between the Women and Gender's Studies department and the Philosophy department; it focused primarily on philosophical manifestos written by second-wave feminists (with the occasional first- and third-waver thrown in) on the topics of privilege and oppression, as they relate to gender. Since college, I've read a few books on philosophy - both as research for the novel(s) I've been writing and as a sort of general interest project. These have been mostly compilations of Major Points philosophers have made (as explained by contemporary philosophers or humanities professors who know how to write clearly and concisely), and not the actual, historical texts that, while I'm sure offer more insight and nuance, also require a lot more brain power to parsing and comprehending than I have time to devote.
So in bringing up one of the Big Topics philosophers have debated for today's post, I'm not trying to convince you, or persuade you, or educate you - if you want to know what the Famous Philosophers have said on such things, you're best doing the research and reading yourself. I'm only explaining what I believe - because it "feels right" to me.
The debate is this - are there two types of substances in the world (body and mind, or body and soul, depending on how you want to phrase it), or is there only one substance?
The "body" would be anything we can see or understand in this physical world that we live in. Our physical bodies, with its hands and feet and brain, made up of atoms and molecules. The physical building blocks of life, and the things that we interact with everyday.
The "mind" or "soul" would be something unscientific and incorporeal.
Christianity defines this as our "soul" - the spirit that lives inside everyone, which persists before the body and after the body's demise. This is why murder is a sin - because you're not just killing cells, but cells that are (or were) attached (at least temporarily) to a unique, God-created soul. Christians also believe that this soul continues after the body dies - and goes either to hell or heaven (or purgatory), depending on deeds and misdeeds, what or who you believe in, and what sect of Christianity you're looking at.
Other religions and spiritual ways of thinking define this substance in other ways. Souls can be thought of as being reincarnated - inhabiting one body until that body dies, and then inhabiting another body in another life.
Some say that animals or plants also have such "souls" - and therefore certain animals (or all animals) are off-limits to farm, slaughter, and consume. Many vegetarians or vegans who choose their diets on moral grounds make such arguments.
Others might think of this incorporeal substance as something less connected to an individual person or animal, but something that just kind of floats around and inhabits each of us at different times. Intuition. Fate. Destiny. The ability to communicate in extrasensory ways (mind reading, ESP, etc). Creativity.
In her book "Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear," Eat Pray Love author Elizabeth Gilbert talks about creativity and inspiration as kind of this mythical, spiritual thing. It gives us ideas and sometimes a passion to see that idea through, but it is up to us to take that opportunity when it comes, pursue other opportunities if an idea is not actively knocking on our door, and learn how to be creative without relying on inspiration to guide us every step of the way. Similar to an athlete or musician "being in the zone," artists and writers are capable of creating things they didn't think possible, things that sort of momentarily seize them and take them on a journey over which they have little or no control. But you don't find that "zone" without putting in lots of effort and practice and opening yourself up to such experiences, and you can't rely on that creative spark to always be around.
The ancient Romans thought of this as a "genius." A person was not a genius, he had a genius - a little elf or sprite or guide or fairy or however you want to think of it - who came around and helped occasionally. (Females didn't get geniuses... there was another word for their helper friends; but I don't remember it at the moment.) This would also fit under the idea of this "mind" or "soul" - some otherworldly spark that we can't see or ever fully understand, but that is there and occasionally able to be tapped into a bit, or connected to us.
Whether we have the ability to connect with such incorporeal things or whether we have to wait for those substances to hook up with us is a matter of belief - and would get into another question of Free Will vs. Determinism.
I would also like to point out that many (most) people who believe in some sort of incorporeal substance don't believe in all of those examples that I listed above (or others). Many would find the idea of creativity as a gremlin that gifts inspiration as sort of hokey. Many Christians can easily believe that they have a soul but that animals and plants do not (and are thus perfectly willing to eat all sorts of meat). Historically, there were many groups who even believed that not all humans had souls, or that not all humans had equal souls - that men were inherently created by God to be better than women, or for whites to be inherently smarter or more powerful than blacks or other races. Now, we think such things are ridiculous (racist, sexist, elitist, horrible), but that wasn't always the case. The idea of what this non-body substance might be vary vastly from culture to culture and person to person, as well as throughout time.
But a lot of people believe in something. They believe there is something out there - whether God or gods, Fate or Destiny or Fortune, a person's individual soul, or occasional creativity, or just some other underlying thing that connects all of us mystically/spiritually, like the Human Experience, or the Collective Unconscious, or whatever.
Then there are others who don't believe there is anything besides the body. That any emotions or moods we feel, any ideas we come up with or feel like we've been gifted, any extrasensory understanding we think we may possess, any uncontrollable Force that guides us or hurts us, whether indiscriminately or consciously and deliberately - all of these things are still the same substance. Dreams are just neurons firing in the brain. Religions are just systems based on stories we've created to explain we don't (yet) understand. Everything comes down to chemicals and molecules - how those atoms interact with one another to form plants, and animals, and humans, and human emotions and moods and inspiration and dreams. Pure science.
That is not to say that all scientists cast out all spirituality and believe that there is only one substance - the body. Some scientists are religious. Many undoubtedly believe in souls. Several even say that studying science has brought them to the conclusion that there must be something more - some Divine Creator who designed all of the intricate systems of cells and chemicals that are increasingly observable with the advent of new and better technology.
But pure science is, by definition, based only on that which can be observed or experimented with. Even if individual scientists may yet believe in another substance - mind, souls, spirits - the discipline as a whole does not give that idea much (if any) credence.
With the continued new technology that is being invented and perfected, I think this belief in only one substance (monism) is gaining steam. There is observable proof that drugs and medicines can alter the chemicals in our body and change our emotional state. Or give us purpose and direction and inspiration where depression or chronic pain or some other illness took it away. Or help us see an "alternate reality" or a "different plane of existence." Or increase our likelihood of nightmares and vivid dreams, just by increasing or decreasing the way our cells communicate in our brains or altering hormone imbalances. (I am not a scientist, so my terms/explanations may be off. But you catch my drift.)
Indeed, what proof is there (what proof can there be?) that another substance exists? The only thing that can be cited is that many humans feel like more than just a body - they feel like a soul, too. Many humans want or need to believe that part of themselves will transcend their bodily deaths, or that some things are out of their control and cannot be explained. And science can account for this, too - I'm sure some explanation can be crafted for while so many of us feel this to be true, something about neurons and chemicals and other things that I haven't studied and don't understand. Maybe we believe we're more than firing neurons because our firing neurons fire in such a way and light up the parts of our brains that have us believe that.
But I'm not a scientist. I'm an artist and a writer. I grew up Christian. And though I can shake the idea of God, and deny organized religion, I cannot shake the idea of a soul. I have to be more than just molecules. There has to be something about me that is unique and special that molecules could not recreate somewhere else, in someone else. It's perhaps egotistical to think, and very likely wrong. But the idea of dualism - two substances, the mind and the body, which work (or don't work) together in harmony and which are ruled (or rule) slightly different sets of laws - is too important to me, as a creative person, to give up.
Science may scoff, but many philosophers would agree with my assessment. There is a mind and a body. It is (to me) the more exciting and fun and desirable explanation, and it is (for now at least) the one I'm sticking with.
I took one "Intro to Philosophy" course in college, which built on the pretty solid foundation I acquired with my high school humanities classes. I also took a course that was cross-listed between the Women and Gender's Studies department and the Philosophy department; it focused primarily on philosophical manifestos written by second-wave feminists (with the occasional first- and third-waver thrown in) on the topics of privilege and oppression, as they relate to gender. Since college, I've read a few books on philosophy - both as research for the novel(s) I've been writing and as a sort of general interest project. These have been mostly compilations of Major Points philosophers have made (as explained by contemporary philosophers or humanities professors who know how to write clearly and concisely), and not the actual, historical texts that, while I'm sure offer more insight and nuance, also require a lot more brain power to parsing and comprehending than I have time to devote.
So in bringing up one of the Big Topics philosophers have debated for today's post, I'm not trying to convince you, or persuade you, or educate you - if you want to know what the Famous Philosophers have said on such things, you're best doing the research and reading yourself. I'm only explaining what I believe - because it "feels right" to me.
 |
| From Wikipedia |
The debate is this - are there two types of substances in the world (body and mind, or body and soul, depending on how you want to phrase it), or is there only one substance?
The "body" would be anything we can see or understand in this physical world that we live in. Our physical bodies, with its hands and feet and brain, made up of atoms and molecules. The physical building blocks of life, and the things that we interact with everyday.
The "mind" or "soul" would be something unscientific and incorporeal.
Christianity defines this as our "soul" - the spirit that lives inside everyone, which persists before the body and after the body's demise. This is why murder is a sin - because you're not just killing cells, but cells that are (or were) attached (at least temporarily) to a unique, God-created soul. Christians also believe that this soul continues after the body dies - and goes either to hell or heaven (or purgatory), depending on deeds and misdeeds, what or who you believe in, and what sect of Christianity you're looking at.
Other religions and spiritual ways of thinking define this substance in other ways. Souls can be thought of as being reincarnated - inhabiting one body until that body dies, and then inhabiting another body in another life.
Some say that animals or plants also have such "souls" - and therefore certain animals (or all animals) are off-limits to farm, slaughter, and consume. Many vegetarians or vegans who choose their diets on moral grounds make such arguments.
Others might think of this incorporeal substance as something less connected to an individual person or animal, but something that just kind of floats around and inhabits each of us at different times. Intuition. Fate. Destiny. The ability to communicate in extrasensory ways (mind reading, ESP, etc). Creativity.
In her book "Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear," Eat Pray Love author Elizabeth Gilbert talks about creativity and inspiration as kind of this mythical, spiritual thing. It gives us ideas and sometimes a passion to see that idea through, but it is up to us to take that opportunity when it comes, pursue other opportunities if an idea is not actively knocking on our door, and learn how to be creative without relying on inspiration to guide us every step of the way. Similar to an athlete or musician "being in the zone," artists and writers are capable of creating things they didn't think possible, things that sort of momentarily seize them and take them on a journey over which they have little or no control. But you don't find that "zone" without putting in lots of effort and practice and opening yourself up to such experiences, and you can't rely on that creative spark to always be around.
The ancient Romans thought of this as a "genius." A person was not a genius, he had a genius - a little elf or sprite or guide or fairy or however you want to think of it - who came around and helped occasionally. (Females didn't get geniuses... there was another word for their helper friends; but I don't remember it at the moment.) This would also fit under the idea of this "mind" or "soul" - some otherworldly spark that we can't see or ever fully understand, but that is there and occasionally able to be tapped into a bit, or connected to us.
Whether we have the ability to connect with such incorporeal things or whether we have to wait for those substances to hook up with us is a matter of belief - and would get into another question of Free Will vs. Determinism.
I would also like to point out that many (most) people who believe in some sort of incorporeal substance don't believe in all of those examples that I listed above (or others). Many would find the idea of creativity as a gremlin that gifts inspiration as sort of hokey. Many Christians can easily believe that they have a soul but that animals and plants do not (and are thus perfectly willing to eat all sorts of meat). Historically, there were many groups who even believed that not all humans had souls, or that not all humans had equal souls - that men were inherently created by God to be better than women, or for whites to be inherently smarter or more powerful than blacks or other races. Now, we think such things are ridiculous (racist, sexist, elitist, horrible), but that wasn't always the case. The idea of what this non-body substance might be vary vastly from culture to culture and person to person, as well as throughout time.
But a lot of people believe in something. They believe there is something out there - whether God or gods, Fate or Destiny or Fortune, a person's individual soul, or occasional creativity, or just some other underlying thing that connects all of us mystically/spiritually, like the Human Experience, or the Collective Unconscious, or whatever.
Then there are others who don't believe there is anything besides the body. That any emotions or moods we feel, any ideas we come up with or feel like we've been gifted, any extrasensory understanding we think we may possess, any uncontrollable Force that guides us or hurts us, whether indiscriminately or consciously and deliberately - all of these things are still the same substance. Dreams are just neurons firing in the brain. Religions are just systems based on stories we've created to explain we don't (yet) understand. Everything comes down to chemicals and molecules - how those atoms interact with one another to form plants, and animals, and humans, and human emotions and moods and inspiration and dreams. Pure science.
That is not to say that all scientists cast out all spirituality and believe that there is only one substance - the body. Some scientists are religious. Many undoubtedly believe in souls. Several even say that studying science has brought them to the conclusion that there must be something more - some Divine Creator who designed all of the intricate systems of cells and chemicals that are increasingly observable with the advent of new and better technology.
But pure science is, by definition, based only on that which can be observed or experimented with. Even if individual scientists may yet believe in another substance - mind, souls, spirits - the discipline as a whole does not give that idea much (if any) credence.
 |
| From Wikipedia |
With the continued new technology that is being invented and perfected, I think this belief in only one substance (monism) is gaining steam. There is observable proof that drugs and medicines can alter the chemicals in our body and change our emotional state. Or give us purpose and direction and inspiration where depression or chronic pain or some other illness took it away. Or help us see an "alternate reality" or a "different plane of existence." Or increase our likelihood of nightmares and vivid dreams, just by increasing or decreasing the way our cells communicate in our brains or altering hormone imbalances. (I am not a scientist, so my terms/explanations may be off. But you catch my drift.)
Indeed, what proof is there (what proof can there be?) that another substance exists? The only thing that can be cited is that many humans feel like more than just a body - they feel like a soul, too. Many humans want or need to believe that part of themselves will transcend their bodily deaths, or that some things are out of their control and cannot be explained. And science can account for this, too - I'm sure some explanation can be crafted for while so many of us feel this to be true, something about neurons and chemicals and other things that I haven't studied and don't understand. Maybe we believe we're more than firing neurons because our firing neurons fire in such a way and light up the parts of our brains that have us believe that.
But I'm not a scientist. I'm an artist and a writer. I grew up Christian. And though I can shake the idea of God, and deny organized religion, I cannot shake the idea of a soul. I have to be more than just molecules. There has to be something about me that is unique and special that molecules could not recreate somewhere else, in someone else. It's perhaps egotistical to think, and very likely wrong. But the idea of dualism - two substances, the mind and the body, which work (or don't work) together in harmony and which are ruled (or rule) slightly different sets of laws - is too important to me, as a creative person, to give up.
Science may scoff, but many philosophers would agree with my assessment. There is a mind and a body. It is (to me) the more exciting and fun and desirable explanation, and it is (for now at least) the one I'm sticking with.
No comments:
Post a Comment