Jerome accurately points out:
do not know why I'm going to write certain things.
Carryover from Repubblicaonline:
Even the animals have a soul. Sustains an Italian two.
not carry the text of the article, but talks about the results of a survey.
First Soul, by wiki.
According to the Platonic and Gnostic dualism, the soul is by nature a symbol of purity and spirituality. Has its origin in the divine breath (hence the meaning of the word, ie wind, breath). For Plotinus the soul is the third hypostasis, whose essence is immortal, intellectual and divine. [...]
According to the Gnostic opposition between God (Perfection, right) and Matter (imperfection, evil), the soul would have been dropped from God in a material body and would have been contaminated by the intrinsic evil of matter itself.
Ending quotes here, the soul in the most traditional sense of the term thus seems to suggest two things: the existence of a god and immortality.
Doubts:
1) the existence of a god, (not only mine, I would say, as doubt). We say that the existence of a god higher than man puts man in a position of inferiority in relation to it, feeding still more general paradigm of hierarchical god-man-animals-other. Sbilanciamoci so saying again that the existence of a god, if proven, would have the advantage, for the man, to leave open a door to
2) immortality, which, if one admits the existence of a god as a separate than would be nothing more than a doubt. With a god-top, however, would come in very classic paradigm of the god-father-judge.
3) Back to Article Republic of doubts about the vagueness of the definition of an animal (which, under the eyes of all, contains the same etymological root of the term soul). All animals have a soul? Only someone? None?
We postulate now the principle of equality, at least to say: God = man = animal (where, however, for god there is any living entity can not be perceived with our senses, then virtually nonexistent, or virtually any, then it changes) .
would continue to remain so doubt 1, would be insignificant at this point, however, since this kind of god can not guarantee immortality. The two certainly would not have reason to exist anymore, because at this point, we could easily forget the immortality there (without a god-Supervisor-court), except by invoking an interesting contrivance, of Hindu origin and taken up by some schools of Buddhism as the karmic wheel of reincarnation.
Let us invoke him.
If god = man = animal (and I stop here to simplify), then we might end up "reincarnation" as gods, men or animals, that the soul would be transported from one existence to another (preserving the remember? do not keep?) and so on until the end of time.
The third question you kill him now saying that the sign would = the same plane all animals, including mosquitoes. Then or soul exists for all or for none. Including mosquitoes.
Also for the principle of equality, if the soul does not exist for man, there the gods, and even for animals. And we should be content with this life.
Forget any solutions "discrete," which tricks the brain-like mass that exceeds a certain threshold may involve the presence of the soul-,-l 'extension of the principle of equality would mean more to the inanimate world extensions of the concept of the soul (The soul touching) - etc. .. Why
soul remains perhaps the most simple on which to debate, that this remarkable invention (or guess) would allow us to position ourselves more confidently in front of the second question, moving more or less slightly from the immortality so-so slightly and calming the fear of death.
To take away by the incredible complications, perhaps the easiest solution seems to finally be to forget the soul in general, and prepare for the inevitability of death. O admit a general definition of soul as much as possible, and prepare the next life by mosquitoes.
je
0 comments:
Post a Comment