3 ms·

As a sidepoint, I'm going to have to argue that while a soul can be considered a rational concept, it is by know means scientific. I have not aware of any peer

As a sidepoint, I'm going to have to argue that while a soul can be considered a rational concept, it is by know means scientific. I have not aware of any peer reviewed research utilizing the scientific method to show that a soul exists. But to get to your main point, my question again is why are plants excluded from this state? I really don't get it. You call out that animals are different because they aren't inanimate beings, but neither are plants. Plants are complex, highly evolved multi cellular organisms that are certainly not inanimate. If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. It's a similar moral argument for why you shouldn't eat humans. But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't. From any biological perspective plants are just as alive as animals. Plants communicate, respond to touch, many even actively kill other organisms (venus fly traps, bird catcher trees, etc.), they've been experimentally verified to exhibit some type of memory, and they respond to all sorts of stimuli (for example, turning towards the sun). Rationally, isn't that pretty darn alive? It seems shortsighted to think that plants lack a spirit/soul.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. ... But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't" It's not, it's pretty close to the same thing as we pragmatically view life as something beyond material. In Scientific Materialism - you are merely a random bag of particles. There literally can be no 'life' in randomness. By very definition, you cannot exist in those terms. 'Soul/spirit/animus' etc. are crude words we all use to describe that which animates life beyond the pure randomness of our material explanations. Though you can try to describe life in biological terms, and it's practical ... it's has some major flaws. Surely, after 4 decades of Star Trek we can all cognize forms of life which don't fit our classical biological view. More abstract notions of life would therefore have to be designed and they inch closer and closer to a metaphysical perspective that just doesn't work as Materialism. So, if you consider the word 'Soul' to mean some concrete idea, but which is totally imaginary, like 'some God' or whatever, then sure - I see your point - but really, the existence of the terminology 'Soul/Spirit' etc. is simply grasping at something more meta, they are used to describe effectively life. Ergo - 'same scale'. We've used and understood gravity in very crude terms for 1000's of years and yet we did not specifically understand the mechanics of it. It didn't mean we were wrong so much as we just had a crude grasp of it. Scientific Materialism is a really useful tool, but it's not a Truth. It has it's limits and these issues highlight those limits quite well.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"If the argument is that animals are a life form that are closer form of life to humans so that's why you shouldn't eat them, I can buy that argument. ... But that's a lot different from claiming that animals have souls/spirit/animus and plants don't" It's not, it's pretty close to the same thing as we pragmatically view life as something beyond material. In Scientific Materialism - you are merely a random bag of particles. There literally can be no 'life' in randomness. By very definition, you cannot exist in those terms. 'Soul/spirit/animus' etc. are crude words we all use to describe that which animates life beyond the pure randomness of our material explanations. Though you can try to describe life in biological terms, and it's practical ... it's has some major flaws. Surely, after 4 decades of Star Trek we can all cognize forms of life which don't fit our classical biological view. More abstract notions of life would therefore have to be designed and they inch closer and closer to a metaphysical perspective that just doesn't work as Materialism. So, if you consider the word 'Soul' to mean some concrete idea, but which is totally imaginary, like 'some God' or whatever, then sure - I see your point - but really, the existence of the terminology 'Soul/Spirit' etc. is simply grasping at something more meta, they are used to describe effectively life. Ergo - 'same scale'. We've used and understood gravity in very crude terms for 1000's of years and yet we did not specifically understand the mechanics of it. It didn't mean we were wrong so much as we just had a crude grasp of it. Scientific Materialism is a really useful tool, but it's not a Truth. It has it's limits and these issues highlight those limits quite well.