Actually Imugi what you said makes a lot of sense. Perhaps it’s poetical but it’s a very interesting way of seeing existence. I especially like the ’sculpture being contained in a block of marble’ thought experiment.

John P: we agree 100%!

Likewise, there is no supernatural, and I don’t believe in any duality of being. Advances in neuroscience seem to be pointing to our consciousness, what we often call our soul, as a simple function of the brain. There is only that singularity. I look forward to Sam Harris completing his doctorate in that field, as I expect he’ll have a lot of good things to say about the soul.

I have no problem with the metaphorical use of the term, any more than I have a problem with the metaphorical use of the heart as a center for our emotions. Clearly the heart does not control emotion. It’s just a muscle. Same with the soul. It’s a nice concept, and give us something to rhyme with on Hallmark cards, but it explains nothing.

For example, you and I, as human beings, have the same soul because we each are exercising the same mode of existence (which we call human). Dogs have their own mode of existence. I think we could look at artifacts, like cars and chairs, as having souls as well—or perhaps as simply having “modifications” of souls which exist naturally (i.e. the scultpure is potentially contained in the block of marble).

In terms of our metaphysical understanding of the world, I think it does add something. If we regard each being as an expression of the universe, then the soul of x basically sets the boundaries for x’s expression. We can look at the soul both as the potential of each being, or as the *limit* of each being. In the language of existentialism, we might say it is where existence stops, bordered by nothingness.

Perhaps that’s more poetical then metaphysical?

Do you think it adds anything metaphysically to our understanding of the world?

I, very much like you, shudder when anything dualistic comes my way!

Option #2 I think could be explored in much more detail, I think. Typically, when we think of a “soul” we think of some kind of detachable, ectoplasmic consciousness which is contained (perhaps trapped?) inside the body. Could it not be possible that the “soul” is not contained by the body, but contains the body? Aristotle’s theory of hylomorphism is still somewhat dualistic, but I think it presents a much more coherent view of the soul. In this sense, soul is not simply “body” nor is it a “ghost”, nor is it a “metaphor”. It means something more like “mode of being” or “capacity for existence”. In this sense, everything that is has a “soul”, although not a Platonic/Cartesian soul.

I guess I pretty much agree with what have to say about Option 3, but I think in a sense it’s more than simply a metaphor