May
10
What is a soul?
Filed Under Uncategorized
If there’s anything I’ve learned in my brief exposure to English and linguistics last semester, it’s that language is innately arbitrary. There is no real connection between the object that represents a door and the word door. What seems to attach an abstract concept and a concrete object together is our mutual acceptance that the word door unequivocally represents the thing that we use to pass from one room to another. What if it was common practice to call the thing we sit on a door, as opposed to chair. Would that have made a difference to anyone? Maybe it would right now, but not if we had learned it the other way around in Kindergarten.
So where am I getting with this here? Well, the concept of a soul is quite possibly the most abstract, transparent, and elusive concept known to man (by man, I really mean just me). The word is naturally arbitrary, yes, but it is also elusive because it serves no practical function. The word doesn’t serve the function of describing a part of our body that could aid doctors in conducting a surgery (a heart, for example), and it’s not a word that describes a thing we use everyday (like a telephone). We’ve created a lot of words in our history, but the word soul is (dare I say it) pointless.
Now don’t get me wrong here. I’m not complaining that the word is abstract. We have thousands of abstract words, which are perfectly fine. The concept of soul is almost no different than the concept of love (almost is the key word). I can’t hold love, I can’t see it, and I can’t smell it, just like a soul. However, I know (or do I?) what love is based on some physical and concrete associations I have about love (kiss, hug, sex, etc.). A soul, on the other hand, has no physical and concrete associations. There is no way I can witness my soul in action unless I die, and that’s ONLY IF religious texts are accurate, which nobody can say for sure if they are or not. In contrast, with love, I know for sure I’m experiencing it when I hear cheesy 80s jazz music.
Now there’s a lot of talk about how only human beings have souls, but animals and machines do not. To those I say: who are we as human beings to assign a soul to ourselves and to others? I mean big freakin’ deal, we have the ability to create abstract words and come up with complex ideas, but that’s only by virtue of acquiring language. Trust me, if Gorillas could acquire language, they’d be boasting about their benevolent souls and our lack of. I mean after all, we start wars, commit genocidal acts, create weapons of mass destruction, emit harmful vapors into the atmosphere, cut down rainforests recklessly, and eat wastefully. Who would win the debate over who has a soul and who doesn’t? Us or them?
I’d go as far as to say that machines can have souls too. Why not? I can say anything I want. I, however, lack authority. Who am I to say machines have souls? I am neither a philosopher, scientist, nor a priest. No one will ever agree with me, and thus, I might as well be crazy. But who’s really crazy? The one who blindly believes the word of authority, or the one who uses their own mind and makes a decision for themselves? After all, if the argument is that God’s creatures have souls, then aren’t animals God’s creatures too? By that logic, animals should have souls, and so should machines, because man plays the role of God by creating intelligent and productive entities (when we do create a fully sentient intelligence, that is).
Is the word “soul” a word that we’ve created to give meaning to our very existence? If so, I guess it does serve a practical purpose after all, but just not a very good one. When there is a possibility to know the meaning of existence, then there’s naturally a possibility to find a lack of meaning to existence. A lack of anything leads to desire. Desire leads to greed. Greed leads to hate. Hate leads to death. Death leads to…well, I guess we’ll never know, because by then, it’s already too late.