tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6075455938199824242..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Animal souls, Part IIEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50257843580725102152016-06-26T09:43:26.616-07:002016-06-26T09:43:26.616-07:00I'm not sure how we get to the position that G...I'm not sure how we get to the position that God can't grab the same material that made up ol' Spot in the first place and put him back together, infusing the same sense memories he had when he died. <br />Of course Our Lord is under no obligation to do so, and for the time being, old Spot is really gone. <br />I'm just not getting the argument that it'd just be another Spot, not the same Spot. As if God were not outside of time and couldn't simply bring the dog back if He willed it<br />Not that He would, or that it would be necessary for Heaven to be perfect. I'm just looking at that one small part of the argument here.<br /><br />Craig Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373881450495871014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74126096611676075262015-07-09T03:49:35.035-07:002015-07-09T03:49:35.035-07:00I think not.
The soul is not a completely unmoved...I think not.<br /><br />The soul is not a completely unmoved mover, but a mover which is moved per accidens (transported with its body) and by final causes, but it is unmoved in relation to the movement it is causing.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62909417583274002132015-07-08T15:10:52.387-07:002015-07-08T15:10:52.387-07:00I thought that the Thomistic proof of an unmoved m...I thought that the Thomistic proof of an unmoved mover could be applied to creatures with intelligence in order to prove that every living and aware thing has an immaterial soul (for every living thing's actions there is an immaterial source of such actualization, just bound to the ultimate source of actualization being God). Am I wrong in thinking of applying certain aspects of this argument to prove the soul of every living thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49874463106334835842015-07-08T04:04:46.863-07:002015-07-08T04:04:46.863-07:00It seems believers in DiaMat have a preference for...It seems believers in DiaMat have a preference for anonymity.<br /><br />Why is that?<br /><br />In order to not expose themselves to the kind of persecution they wrongly THINK would come on an outspoken adherent of DiaMat?<br /><br />Or in order so that a few of them may look out where I commented and so persecute me with repetitions of a few slogans over and over again, under where I commented?<br /><br />In that latter case, believing in DiaMat is not all of their story, I would say.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25901714523397832572015-07-06T23:27:23.049-07:002015-07-06T23:27:23.049-07:00Belief in the afterlife is nothing more than wishf...Belief in the afterlife is nothing more than wishful thinking. Why are people still debating this? There's nothing to see here, nothing to discuss. When you die, that's it - you're gone, forever! End of story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70683802090805041182015-06-25T09:03:03.549-07:002015-06-25T09:03:03.549-07:00Patristic interpretations are not quite totally di...Patristic interpretations are not quite totally different.<br /><br />There was universal peace around the time Christ was born.<br /><br />But a more lasting fulfilment is that barbarians and very civilised and gentle men had peace together, even if the number of nations was limited.<br /><br />Clovis and Remigius etc.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79780996493129409932015-06-06T14:06:33.985-07:002015-06-06T14:06:33.985-07:00Regarding the Isaiah verses, Maimonides is quite c...Regarding the Isaiah verses, Maimonides is quite clear. The verses are an allegory to all the nations of the world dwelling together in peace.Etzelniknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37061258673434936082015-05-18T04:29:54.519-07:002015-05-18T04:29:54.519-07:00"I have imagine conscious experience in anima...<i>"I have imagine conscious experience in animals as immaterial. I wonder what peoples thoughts are on that?"</i><br /><br />Depends a bit on what matter is.<br /><br />But as ordinarily understood now, yes.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21082873090341986612015-05-17T08:49:05.271-07:002015-05-17T08:49:05.271-07:00I don't know if it is necessary at all, but I ...I don't know if it is necessary at all, but I think it's plausible that different animals might exist in heaven. Tapeworms don't have much of a point if thy aren't tapeworming, but if heaven is a physical place at all, which it must be if we're in it, it doesn't stand to reason that God would quit his hobby of making non-rational animals just because the animals in our corrupted world all eat and poop. Maybe animals in heaven just sing and dance or something.Samihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649613938638506260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53261079286445980402015-05-15T12:14:13.069-07:002015-05-15T12:14:13.069-07:00@young and rested
There would indeed be a depriva...@young and rested<br /><br />There would indeed be a deprivation in the experience of the sensitive faculties of the creature, thus a wrong. However intent would also play a major role. In the case of non-rational creatures we apply a completely different philosophical backdrop to our application of ethics. It's wrong, in a different way and is of a different kind because the lack of the self reflective philosophical potentialities of animal forms.<br /><br />Correct me if I am wrong.Irish Thomistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36874725766461550602015-05-15T12:07:48.549-07:002015-05-15T12:07:48.549-07:00I have imagine conscious experience in animals as ...I have imagine conscious experience in animals as immaterial. I wonder what peoples thoughts are on that? Irish Thomistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57567694551558613812015-05-13T23:46:42.083-07:002015-05-13T23:46:42.083-07:00Speaking personally, I have few real dogs in this ...Speaking personally, I have few real dogs in this fight--I definitely agree with Brandon and Dr. Feser that the question hinges on the natures of animals and plants, not on any sentimental question of human completeness and incompleteness relative to the Beatific Vision--but I do tend to think that Aquinas' arguments here are not ultimately conclusive, at least per the existence of some sort of animal and plant life in the new creation. Aquinas does seem to indicate that such life would have to be rather different, to say the least--but per our current understanding, that is equally true about the heavens and the elements as well. This gets to the larger question of how we can both affirm a new heavens and a new earth with Isaiah and Revelation, and affirm with Paul that creation will be freed from all corruption. This is very hard for us to conceive of, living as we do in a world intimately tied up with corruption on almost every level--and indeed, since this new world involves specific, creative divine action, since it is essentially a supernatural creation, it is even harder to anticipate. There are not, nor will there be, many certainties here.<br /><br />More broadly, I think both sides are being occasionally somewhat facetious here. There are certainly arguments for the existence of animals and plants in the new creation that do not involve appeals to sentimentality or human completeness--indeed, Aquinas gives a number of them in his objections, as do many others, and they by no means lack persuasive power. Likewise, as both Brandon and Dr. Feser point out, the question is not whether God loves animals or not, or whether God wants us to be happy, but solely whether the natures of animals as they currently exist are compatible with the next life as we know it, and to what degree animals and plants are of necessity, fittingness, or benefit to the perfection of the new creation. Either way, God's goodness, and our happiness, is assured. Likewise, it is better in my experience to try to engage directly with Aquinas' arguments and ideas, rather than to stay at a distance and merely state what Aquinas says either to affirm or refute. The great thing about Aquinas is the way he lays out his arguments for you, inviting you to understand and to critique, and even providing you ammo to do so. Even where (by the doctrine of the Church or scientific knowledge) we now know he was dead wrong, he almost always gives you everything you need to know exactly *how* he went wrong. The same is true when he is right. It is great fun and greatly educational to watch Aquinas reason--not least of all because, unlike the Church, he is not remotely infallible.Captain Peabodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15649162745798097841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6348541448740925602015-05-13T23:46:13.062-07:002015-05-13T23:46:13.062-07:00Well, as is his wont, St. Thomas here (http://dhsp...Well, as is his wont, St. Thomas here (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia5.htm#5:9) gives both sides of the argument, as well as his resolution. His replies to the objections here are almost all based on the arguments he lays out in favor of his position. The strength of his position is thus based almost entirely on the arguments he gives in resolving the question. In this case, his arguments are essentially (1): Animals and plants are ordained to the completion of the universe only in relation to the mobile nature of the world and in relation to man, (2): Animals and plants as material entities contain an active principle of corruption within themselves that could not be offset by an essentially external source without violence to their natures, (3): Animals and plants are moved entirely by the motion of the heavens and the stars, and so could not continue once the heavens cease moving in the new creation. These are Aquinas' essential arguments, and his position stands or falls with them. <br /><br />Of the arguments, #3 seems to me the weakest, since it is essentially based on both the discredited philosophical idea that the motions of the stars are what moves creatures on the earth, which no longer possesses any philosophical force. #1 is stronger, but certainly very debatable, since it is essentially an argument as to the ultimate value and significance of animals and plants within the created order. Since Aquinas himself acknowledges that serving man as food is not the primary or sole motive for the existence of animals and plants, this part of the argument is decisive only when taken in conjunction with the other. This argument, then, hinges on the claim that there will be no motion within the new heavens, which has its persuasive aspects but is (despite arguments to the contrary) not remotely de fide.<br /><br />The #2 argument is by far the most convincing and the most cogent. One possible objection that occurs to me is that Aquinas assumes here that the material heavens and the elements are incorruptible (which is what exempts them from these considerations and allows them to endure into the new heavens and new earth), which we know now is obviously not the case. To follow Aquinas' argument all the way here, then, would seem to necessitate the denying any material existence to the new heavens and the new earth at all, which is obviously contrary to the de fide teaching of the Scriptures and Church Fathers. This is a pretty straightforward reductio ad absurdum, or argument by contradiction. Another way to get out of this argument would be to say that God might be able to give the animals an inner source of preservation rather than an external one, in an analogous way to that done with man and his own material existence (though it's hard to see how this could be). Or it could be argued that viz a vis animals (as opposed to human beings), an external source of preservation would not constitute violence, since (per Aquinas) animals are already moved and constituted through an external source, which must thus be natural to them. Thus, animals could be preserved through their relationship with man, or the heavens, or God.<br /><br />#2 really is a strong argument, though, and it cuts to the core of all three arguments, which is the fact that animals by nature are extremely tied up with the changeable, corruptible, material nature of the current world, such that it is very difficult to see how they could possibly continue in any meaningful sense to exist in a new heavens and earth that is (per Paul) essentially incorruptible. In a sense, modern evolutionary theory has only underscored this reality. It's difficult to conceive of an animal as it is now understood that is not intimately tied up in seemingly all aspects of its being with a cycle of corruption and change. This is not inescapable, per se (there are other ways to conceive of animal and plant life), but it's still very compelling.Captain Peabodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15649162745798097841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55468712761750889172015-05-12T07:31:07.523-07:002015-05-12T07:31:07.523-07:00To an anonymouse (if I may say so) who had said:
...To an anonymouse (if I may say so) who had said:<br /><br /><i>A LOT OF YOU GUYS ATTEMPT TO SAY THAT MENTAL PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECTIVE PHYSICAL ARE OBJECTIVE, WELL MENTAL STATES ARE ALSO OBJECTIVE. ... STOP WASTING YOUR TIME, EVERYTHING IS PHYSICAL.</i><br /><br />1) You are confusing Thomism, which is stating certain aspects of reality are not material, with Locke's or perhaps even earlier distinction between quantitative aspects being objective and qualitative aspects being subjective.<br /><br />Whether redness of a rose really is redness in the rose (objective redness, contrary to Locke) or only becomes red when I or you or other person sees it (subjective quality as Locke said), the fact of SEEING is a mental fact, as opposed to redness simply being there perhaps objkectively which is a material and bodily one.<br /><br />2) Less important, in passage I left out, you think lie-detector tests can prove you lie or prove you don't lie. They can't.<br /><br />Chesterton wrote an excellent story with Father Brown about the lie detector superstition.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6726158713323354112015-05-11T08:31:35.404-07:002015-05-11T08:31:35.404-07:00This may be poorly conceived, but is it possible f...This may be poorly conceived, but is it possible for an animal to be wronged according to this view? It is well known that animals undergo pain and suffering, so I guess my question here is whether or not the suffering of animals is considered to be any sort of evil for which God would 'need' to "compensate" them? If I torture Fufu to death, is justice achieved by punishing me? Wouldn't the evil experienced by Fufu be something that cannot be righted since Fufu no longer exists? I'm wondering if it is considered mere sentimentalism to think that animal suffering requires some kind of divine action. <br /><br />Thanks for being patient with me. As I mentioned before, I'm pretty new to philosophy and have nothing by way of a formal education in it aside from an intro to logic undergrad course.young and restednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35459615899197179742015-05-09T19:36:44.449-07:002015-05-09T19:36:44.449-07:00Anonymous,
Thanks for taking the time to lay out ...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to lay out the lines of your reasoning in an orderly manner; I now have a better understanding of your some of comments.<br /> <br />For St. Thomas (and others (such as, e.g., St. Augustine)), metaphor is included in the literal sense. This may seem somewhat unusual (of course it does), but when he contrasts the literal sense of Scripture with its spiritual or mystical sense, it then becomes clear why metaphor is included in the literal sense. <br /><br />And when it is understood that St. Thomas includes metaphor in the literal sense, then it'll likely no longer appear that St. Thomas inadvertently showed or demonstrated something he explicitly denied.<br /><br />At any rate, if thinking about a future without plants or animals induces depression, then it's probably a (very) good idea not to be thinking about it. ;)<br /><br />God bless.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91061994129826367892015-05-09T12:04:00.485-07:002015-05-09T12:04:00.485-07:00Glenn, thank you for your reply. To be clear, St....Glenn, thank you for your reply. To be clear, St. Thomas does not say there will be animals, or plants, in the new heavens and the new earth, he says the opposite; but I do think he shows it. And maybe I’ve written too colloquially. I apologize. Please, let me try again.<br /><br />In his answer in article five of question five of his Disputed Questions, St. Thomas quotes Apocalypse 10:5,6, Job 14:12, Romans 8:22, and St. Isidore then says, “I answer that following the teaching of holy men we hold that at some time the celestial movement will cease, although this be a matter of faith rather than of demonstration by reason.” In article five, St. John, Moses, St. Paul, and St. Isidore are read plainly and literally.<br /><br />In his objections in article nine of the same question, St. Thomas quotes Ecclesiastes 3:14, Romans 1:20, Apocalypse 22:2, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 66:24 and St. Augustine, but either reads them equivocally - there is some hidden Aristotelean meaning - or metaphorically, and even says “Other expressions, if there be any, should be interpreted in the same way [metaphorically].” And of course, there are other expressions in Scripture and the Fathers. There are even those that say there will be time, Isaiah 66:23 for example. But here Solomon, St. Paul, St. John, David, Isaiah, and St. Augustine are not read plainly and literally. But I follow St. Thomas’ earlier example, and do. This is how I think he shows or demonstrates, not purposely, that there will be animals, and plants, and also bacteria, fungi, viruses, &c. in the new heavens and the new earth.<br /><br />So, I agree with St. Thomas “… that following the teaching of holy men… at some time the celestial movement will cease...” I continue to follow the teaching of holy men, though, in saying that there will be plants and animals - and even new celestial movement - in the new heavens and the new earth. And like St. Thomas says of the ceasing of the heavens, I say this cannot be demonstrated by reason, it is a matter of faith. The fact that it is called a new earth says as much too - what is an earth without soil, without earthiness, without its nature? That is not an earth. And we know, at least farmers know, there is no soil without plants and animals. One objection I could think of, is that there will be no seas, and you might ask, what is an earth without seas? But this earth did not have seas in the beginning, when it was good, according to Scripture. So maybe that is not really much of an objection to the point of soil.<br /><br />And to be clear, when I say he says it will be so because the Bible says so, I am not suggesting he attributes this ceasing to the will of the Bible or holy men, or some natural process. It will all be as a result of the will of God. I hope this was clearer. And thank you again for your replies. I will not respond again, because I am not well in my mind and should never have read a philosopher’s blog to begin with. My wife has scolded me. In my case, thinking about a future without plants or animals is literally depressing. Please, keep me in your prayers. I am,<br /><br />Anonymous<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12337570232290877422015-05-09T09:48:22.166-07:002015-05-09T09:48:22.166-07:00(s/b "...does not say what he has been said t...(s/b "...does not say what he has been said to say.")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56540597136603199342015-05-09T09:47:58.207-07:002015-05-09T09:47:58.207-07:00(s/b "...does not say what he has been said t...(s/b "...does not say what he has been said to say.")Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69686784185562592732015-05-09T09:24:23.984-07:002015-05-09T09:24:23.984-07:00Anonymous,
1. To be clear, I did not say that St....Anonymous,<br /><br /><b>1.</b> <i>To be clear, I did not say that St. Thomas says there will be plants and animals in the new heavens and the new earth.</i><br /><br />It is true you did not explicitly say, "St. Thomas says there will be plants and animals in the new earth." But it is also true you implicitly said as much (at least insofar as animals are concerned):<br /><br />"There may not be animals in Heaven, but there most certainly will in the new heavens and the new earth: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia5.htm#5:9."<br /><br /><b>2.</b> <i>He demonstrates that, though, when he demonstrates that the heavens will stop.</i><br /><br />Shall we take your word that that is so? Or consult what St. Thomas wrote to see if it is so? Let's give the benefit of the doubt, then check with St. Thomas just to be sure:<br /><br />"In plants and animals to be is to live, and in corporeal things this cannot be without movement. ... Now these things have no moving principle that is not dependent on the first movable: since the very souls of animals and plants are wholly subject to the influence of the heavenly bodies. Therefore when the heavenly movement ceases it will be impossible for them to retain movement or life. It is evident then that at the renewal of the world the aforesaid things will be unable to remain."<br /><br />(Why might this not likewise apply to rational animals, such as humans? St. Thomas addresses this question in a separate article.)<br /><br /><b>3.</b> <i>The heavens will stop, not because of any rational proof, but because the Bible says so - St. Thomas says that in article five of the same question.</i><br /><br />Once again, St. Thomas does not say he has been said to say. <br /><br />He does not say in article five of the same question that the heavens will stop because the Bible says so, but that "following the teaching of holy men we hold [i.e., subscribe to the belief] that at some time the celestial movement will cease[.]"<br /><br />Further, St. Thomas is quite clear, elsewhere, that he believes the stoppage of the heavens will occur neither naturally nor because the Bible said they will, but due to an act of God, i.e., "<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5091.htm#article2" rel="nofollow">as a result of the will of God</a>".<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />Etc., etc.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br /><i>I am, Anonymous, and not a philospher, just a simple farmer loving what God has made, and hoping He makes it again</i><br /><br />One can be a simple farmer, love what God has made, and hope He makes it again, without allowing his simpleness, love or hope to unfittingly arbitrate what other people have actually said.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91939895950777548382015-05-08T17:38:35.253-07:002015-05-08T17:38:35.253-07:00To be clear, I did not say that St. Thomas says th...To be clear, I did not say that St. Thomas says there will be plants and animals in the new heavens and the new earth. He demonstrates that, though, when he demonstrates that the heavens will stop. The heavens will stop, not because of any rational proof, but because the Bible says so - St. Thomas says that in article five of the same question. It is a matter of faith, not reason. St. Thomas then quotes in article nine, and others have quoted elsewhere, Scripture after Scripture after Scripture that says there will be bodies - spiritual bodies, but bodies nonetheless - and lions, lambs, trees, fruit, worms, everything God has made, gardens even, in the world to come. These Scriptures come from the same accounts, poems, visions, &c. that clearly demonstrate the heavens will be stopped. These same Scriptures also demonstrate, then, that the heavens will be started again, their motion being necessary to plants and animals. I am,<br /><br />Anonymous, and not a philospher, just a simple farmer loving what God has made, and hoping He makes it againAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71269837400539276672015-05-08T11:18:59.327-07:002015-05-08T11:18:59.327-07:00@ young and rested
Maybe I'm missing somethin...@ young and rested<br /><br /><i>Maybe I'm missing something here or haven't read carefully enough, but it seems to me like saying that animals are entirely corporeal is a little like an argument from silence. I get that humans are believed to have incorporeal properties because you can at least supposedly show that they perform certain things like rational thought that cannot be accounted for in purely material terms. What I don't get is how you can argue that animals are entirely physical just because you can't name anything that shows that they aren't. I don't see why the door can't be left open on this. </i><br /><br />Take a look at Tyrell's posts in this comment thread and my responses. He was asking about what you are suggesting: some unknown factor by virtue of which, it turns out, non-human/non-rational animals are immortal.<br /><br />The short answer is that the assumption would be gratuitous, if what one is suggesting is that non-human animals have some property 'inaccessible' to humans. Why believe it is the case with animals rather than with trees or rocks? This, by the way, has nothing to do with Thomism. If the possibility of an undiscoverable factor that determines immortality is a problem for Thomism, then it's a problem for materialism and probably everyone else as well. But it's not a problem for Thomism.<br /><br />The reason it <i>feels</i> like there might be such a factor with animals is probably that one is still feeling about the ways in which animals are special relative to rocks and trees. They possess qualia, as well as some sort of proto-intentionality, perhaps. But the Thomist claims that these don't imply immortality because they don't amount to the same power for 'becoming all things' that the human sort of intentionality does. (And this is the case even if these things are problematic for strict <i>materialism</i>. For qualia-related considerations, at least given the backdrop of contemporary materialism, only doubtfully support anything more than property dualism.)Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32237017521387329692015-05-08T10:53:14.016-07:002015-05-08T10:53:14.016-07:00Maybe I'm missing something here or haven'...Maybe I'm missing something here or haven't read carefully enough, but it seems to me like saying that animals are entirely corporeal is a little like an argument from silence. I get that humans are believed to have incorporeal properties because you can at least supposedly show that they perform certain things like rational thought that cannot be accounted for in purely material terms. What I don't get is how you can argue that animals are entirely physical just because you can't name anything that shows that they aren't. I don't see why the door can't be left open on this. <br /><br />I'm a total novice here so I apologize if I've used terms improperly or was not clear in what I was trying to say. If anyone can offer a brief answer I'd be appreciative.<br /><br />Thanks.young and restednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82935526148313880972015-05-08T10:31:41.008-07:002015-05-08T10:31:41.008-07:00Greg wrote: I have said before on this blog that I...Greg wrote: <i>I have said before on this blog that I think applying Bayesian principles to most philosophical theses is a hopeless endeavor.</i><br /><br />I think it worth mentioning that there are fields where, the answer to uncertainty isn't inductive reasoning. It's to keep looking for a deductive proof.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04470664030455998305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62390463721281286582015-05-08T10:17:06.378-07:002015-05-08T10:17:06.378-07:00WHY IS THERE SUCH A BIG DEAL OVER ANIMAL SOULS ANY...WHY IS THERE SUCH A BIG DEAL OVER ANIMAL SOULS ANYWAY. THE Soul is fake AND YOU ARE ALL WASTING YOUR TIME. IN FACT I CAN PROVE THE SOUL IS FAKE.<br />MOST OF YOU ASSUME THAT FROM SUPPOSED IMMATERIAL ASPECTS OF THE MIND, THERE IS A SOUL. WELL THAT'S FAKE. A LOT OF YOU GUYS ATTEMPT TO SAY THAT MENTAL PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECTIVE PHYSICAL ARE OBJECTIVE, WELL MENTAL STATES ARE ALSO OBJECTIVE. SAY FOR EXAMPLE I HIT MY HAND AND FEEL A THROBBING FEELING IN IT WHICH I CALL PAIN. AT THE SAME TIME MY FRIEND ALSO HITS HIS HAND ON THE TABLE AND GETS HURT. I TELL HIM I'M IN PAIN AND THAT I FEEL A THROBBING FEELING IN MY HAND AND HE TELLS ME THAT HE FEELS A THROBBING FEELING AS WELL. WE LATER BOTH GO TAKE A LIE TEST AND IT SHOWS THAT WHEN WE BOTH SAY THAT WE FEEL A THROBBING FEELING, We ARE TELLING THE TRUTH. THEREFORE WE KNOW THE OTHERS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE AND MENTAL STATES ARE OBJECTIVE LIKE PHYSICAL STATES AND THE MIND IS PHYSICAL. STOP WASTING YOUR TIME, EVERYTHING IS PHYSICAL. I KNOW NONE OF YOU CAN REFUTE MY ARGUMENT THAT I JUST MADE.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com