Talk:Soul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Veaceslav Savcenco (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

"Science" section[edit]

1. The topic of this article lies outside the scientific domain. The section labeled science is NOT science, it is merely deceptive persuasive commentary promoting the personal philosophical views of the authors, who happen to also be scientists, and so act with entitlement to label product of their own musings as scientific.

2. Again, more importantly, this topic has nothing to do with science, therefore the science section has no place here. It is as out of place as a section of the page for quantum mechanics titled "jewish rabbinic perspectives" Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think the purpose of that section has to do with findings/perspectives related to scientific investigations of the topic, and does not approach metaphysics beyond the points of view presented. The overall message appears to be "There is no scientific evidence for the soul", which I don't see as contentious (save for parapsychologists). GVO8891 (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought (after a little over a year), the problem appears to be that said section is referred to as science instead of philosophy. I'd say it should be changed, but I don't know how so, exactly. GVO8891 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too don’t see the message of ‘there is no scientific evidence for the soul’ as contentious, but to me the whole ‘science’ section appears too heavily weighted against the idea of souls. The opening of a sentence might briefly outline how the soul has been thought of in the sphere of science, but then rather swiftly an unlinked scientist is paraphrased to stress the futility of such endeavours. 217.155.49.123 (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== Orthodox Greeks use the Greek word for soul as a Wiktionary template, other nouns have similar declension to psyche (ψυχή), we aren't supposed to select politically motivated templates; not all Greeks are rightists, racists or theists == μη θρησκευτικό πρότυπο - τα πρότυπα κλίσης δεν πρέπει να είναι πολιτικά ή θρησκευτικά κινούμενα

These Orthodox people, even delete the history of the list of the alternative and similar templates for declension.

  • this is the superior alternative: μουσική = music
  • φυσική (physics) bad template, because some people hate physics
  • σιγή (silence) is problematic, because the plural is rare

Christian oppression of opinions which support the importance of the brain (neuroscience) and that a soul is impossible[edit]

They oppress us. The delete non-religious opinions.
The anterior cingulate cortex ACC isn't the same on all humans. People have different sizes and functionality. The ACC is crucial for behaviour. It inhibits immediate and extreme emotional reactions and promotes social connectivity. Thus god didn't create the instument of free will (brain) equal, thus we cannot blame randomness itself or some unspecified evil, but god himself for not creating all people fair... but it's more simple not to blame the precosmic personhood, and simply to understand that metalogically prephysical personhood is metalogically wrong being non-fundamental and self-causal as algebraic topology and set theory, for example filter (mathematics) (many topological spaces can be created mathematically, they are separate, but metalogically are rigorous and full; personhood is NOT rigorous as a simple (philosophy) because according to information theory it requires memory of many shannons).

So how many non religious were genocided in the last century again, comrade? particularly in china and germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9366:E040:1179:F52D:C5CA:B67 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism section[edit]

Shouldn't there be a Buddhism section explaining their founding view that a permanent soul or atma doesn't exist? It appears the section did exist and was completely deleted instead of fixed on 9 October 2020. I see references for their views mostly used in the Hinduism section. Jroberson108 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jroberson108 Souls don't exist? so are you saying that a living being is not a living being but just a copy consciousness? You'll confuse yourself if you oppose the existence of Souls.. where does a human go after dying? 'Atman' in Sanskrit means 'Inner Self'. Soul is none other than a person himself / herself. it's just his / her inner self. just tell me that where does a living being go after dying? and your answer should not be 'perishes into nothingness' cuz this is also a principle of Vedic Hinduism, in the school of Vedanta.. Just answer my question. Arkam Knight (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkam Knight: Your response is irrelevant to my question on rescuing the section on Buddhism. Jroberson108 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason your edit was reverted was because the Sanskrit word Atman is unrelated to the Latin and Greek words in the article. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia help me publish this content on Soul?[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

Good morning!!

See https://vasanthkumarnagulakonda.medium.com/what-is-soul-what-is-life-my-thoughts-on-soul-and-life-d43f94299919 and help me publish this content on Soul. Kindly read every link on this post for confirmation that Soul is nothing but Template RNA.

Thanks in advance!

Sincerely Yours, Vasanth Kumar Nagulakonda

Removed Hillman[edit]

I removed the section on Hillman.

This was previously discussed at Talk:Soul/Archive_1#James_Hillman_-_why_in_the_article?.

My reasons for doing so were that Hillman content here and in his own articles was scant and cited self-published work; and Hillman does not have recognition on the level of the other thinkers on this topic like Socrates, Avicenna, Aquinas, and Kant; and this article is long enough to merit some cuts. Hillman content could go in a new sub article for various other perspectives on this topic, but I do not think his view merits being here as fundamental global thought. @Cosmic Latte:, you had opinions on this ten years ago. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red-figure vase with illustration of Charon[edit]

The caption says that the red-figure vase shows the Greek Charon, but it actually shows the Etruscan figure Charun, who is very different 93.22.135.170 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Spirit_(vital_essence) with Soul[edit]

CLOSED
There is no traction here for a merge. Closed "no merge" per STATUS QUO. (This discussion was also started at the wrong article, but I'm leaving it here since it's now closed). Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest "scribble" 17:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These topics WP:OVERLAP, are WP:REDUNDANT, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. These two articles are extremely closely related if not the same topic. Both articles outline similarities. While there is some attempt at differentiation, it seems to come from a specific (possibly wp:undue) Christian focus. By contrast the Egyptian, Shamanic, and other multi-part souls are accepted as part of this single topic and specifics are addressed under their own article.

I acknowledge that there is a length concern for the merged article. However, some material between the two articles is repeated and the better, more general, version can be kept. The main expansion in length (assuming the better Soul article is used as the base) would be an improved lead and overview that could be brought from the Spirit article. Some material in the Spirit article, specifically about ghosts, djinn, etc needs to be moved to other appropriate articles with relevant aspects used to link through context. (ie; some believe ghosts to be some or all of the soul which has remained in the physical world.) If further length mitigation is needed, the content of the Christianity sub-sections can be split/moved into a separate article, bringing it into line with the coverage of other religious traditions.

I believe Soul would be the better final location for a merged article due to the term's common use in English. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Admittedly, the Spirit article has some WP:NOTDICT-related problems (I just tried improving it a little), but I'm pretty sure that many different religions and philosophical systems do distinguish between the soul and the spirit. For example, in Ancient Greece, the difference between psyche and pneuma was considered to be meaningful. As you say, the Soul article is already quite long, so merging related concepts into this article is probably a bad idea unless they really do describe the exact same thing, which I think is not the case here. (By the way, the same merge suggestion was discussed and rejected in 2012 at Talk:Spirit (vital essence)#Merging with Soul.) Jhvx (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Attha" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Attha has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17 § Attha until a consensus is reached. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soul&oldid=1210498558"