3 ms·
In secular world views there is no such thing as a soul, thus it can not be eaten. Finding the proper language for these phenomena is however an interesting top
by zxcb1 9y ago
In secular world views there is no such thing as a soul, thus it can not be eaten. Finding the proper language for these phenomena is however an interesting topic.
- nordsieck 9y agoEnough people either have a dualist world view or are familiar enough with the idea that soul seems to be a serviceable word.
- zxcb1 9y agoWell, my point is that you can not believe that your soul is being eaten without believing in the metaphysical framework(s) from which the concept emerged, otherwise the parent comment makes no sense. The closest secular definition you get is System 1.
- lostcolony 9y agoThank you for being pedantic over a word literally (yes, literally) everyone reading it, yourself included, understood and interpreted correctly to mean the author's intent. You are providing a valuable service. /sarcasm
- zxcb1 9y agoI am sorry for that, but it is not obvious to me at all. Thats why I commented. One of the problems online is one of meaning, communication, context, definitions etc that we actually understand what someone is trying to convey. You for example felt the need to use a sarcasm expression, as you were unsure of me actually “getting” it.
- andai 9y agoYou spend too much time on the computer.
- wu-ikkyu 9y agoIn the secular world, the mind is akin to the soul. Judging from the first sentence, that is what the author is referring to.
- andrepd 9y agoIn the reasonable world, people will understand that "soul" here is meant figuratively, not literally, and avoid starting off-topic tangents :)