Hey
Jim!
this is a late response to one of your messages, sorry about that, wanted
my response to be p-r-e-c-i-s-e and concise (love that word, "concise" btw,
learned it from Creed.. like literally 'learned' cause I didn't know it before)
and waited until I had time to answer you..
oh, ok I get it now - with the semi-automatic quotes
concerning the point you've made here: <<Since I
see more in animal actions than simply I want to eat. I see jealosy and the need
to interact with other beings. So I can't see why man would have the exclusive
on a "soul">>
well,
the interaction part is not a real argument because animals have to interact
with each other - it's just easier to live in a group and when you live in a
group you have to interact. Moreover, their behavior (the way I see it) is
simply based on instincs and reflexes - so there's no real
intelligence behind it - wooohooo.. have to be careful what I say - what I
mean by intelligence is -- as the definition (having a lot to do with
definitions lately anyway) says: 'inter'- (latin: between, among) '-legere'
(latin: read), which makes out of inter-legere (=intelligence): to read between
the lines, to have an INSIGHT - where have I picked up this insight aspect?
hehe, Jackson.. ;-)
well,
I don't think animals possess a soul because their actions are determined by the
basic drives, namely the sexual, the.. ehmm.. I forgot the word..
well, hunger and thirst and the survival drive. We, being a bit of animals
ourselves, are also driven by those urges, but the difference resides in the
fact that we can reflect upon our behavior and control those insticts. We can
shape our lives whereas the animals do not have any influence whatsoever as to
how to live their lives.
I've
got a cool quote on this: "Conquer thyself. Till thou hast done this, thou art
but a slave for it is almost as well to be subjected to another's appetite as to
thine own." (Robert Burton/ 17th century) What do you say to this? I agree
completely.
And as
for the word "soul" - I consider the soul to be the decisive
force residing in us, sort of a conscience (in a way - don't take me
literally here... I'm NOT being precise at all now) and that which makes us
humans in the end. And a gift from God.
About
the senses - actually, it's a very interesting perspective you've portrayed here
(I mean mentioning people that don't have the 5 senses by nature). First of
all, I also admire people that were deprived of one or even two of their senses.
They really inspire me and make me reflect upon my own life and the way I take
everything for granted. But coming to our discussion. This actually is a
very good way of analyzing the senses question - going backwards
(sort of, I mean like going to the point of having an even more limited number
of senses) and observing how such people perceive reality. The only
problem is the impossible of a comparison between the way people with
different numbers of senses perceive reality - unless a person loses his/her
(for example) sight due to an accident because in such a case such
person has already experienced the sensation of seeing the
world - it's an interesting idea, don't you think?
... to
be continued