On Reality: Part Two

In an effort to document my existential musings, I have decided to ask myself big questions- and then pick apart my claims.

Why?

Boredom. Panic. Why not?

Pretentious. Pseudo-philosophical. Phony.

Pertinent. Poetic. Practical.

When’s the last time you really sat down and sober-mindedly thought about the universe?

Right now.

Let’s go.

Do we have an immaterial soul?

I would say absolutely. Originally, I defined the soul as the energy inside of us that cannot be created nor destroyed and can only change sizes, shapes, and manifestations. This energy moves throughout all living things (plants, animals, and humans). I could go a step further and say that the soul is the reason we have certain aptitudes towards some things and certain reservations towards others. For example, let’s look at a farmer, and for arguments sake, let’s look at a farmer who has an aptitude for farming, not just someone who’s been farming their entire life. After all, anyone can master a skill with enough time and practice. Back to the point- I would argue that this farmer’s soul has been a crop before. That there is a special reason deep inside this farmer that they know and have a connection with the crops, and feel deeply for them, and therefore are a successful farmer.

That’s nice, but it’s a little wishy-washy. What actual proof do you have that the soul exists?

Let me stay on the topic on plants for a second, and let me ask: what makes a tree a tree? Is it the branches, the roots, the leaves, or are these just elements that make a tree’s body? Is it the tree’s ability to grow, or is that just a policy of life? Most importantly, is the tree still a tree after it falls down and dies? Or is is just a pile of rotting wood? The wood is still there, but is the tree? Do we still treat the tree the same as if it were living? No. Often, we find no problem in cutting the branches of trees and using them in our fires, but, generally, we do not do this with living trees.

Living trees are not dry enough to be used in fires.

Yes, that is true, but we still treat living and dead trees differently, even though they are almost identical. What is different is the living element- something that identifies and defines trees as more than just wood and leaves, and that is what I believe the soul is.

Ok, sure. Living and dead trees are different. How does this relate to humans?

Well, take the word “tree” and replace it with “human”. Honestly, it’s not that different. We treat the living human body differently than we do the dead human body, and I don’t believe it’s just because our body is functioning at full force. Even when it isn’t- say when we’re sick, or even in an extreme case, when/if we’re in a coma- we still treat the living as if there’s something more there.

That’s a little more poetic than sound.

Maybe it is, but that doesn’t make it less true. Without going into supernatural causes or coping mechanisms, we all have a part of “us” that is immaterial. An essence that contains the wisdom and nature of our times in the universe. Something that if we were to be without, we would no longer be “us” but “it”.

I don’t know if someone could truly explain what the soul is, but I will try my best: It is part of our identity. It is what inhabits our bodies and drive us through the nuances of life. It is the energy inside every living thing that we cannot exist without. It is existence with meaning and purpose- both of which we don’t have to understand. While, perhaps, too poetic, at this time I can only conclude that we have souls.

Part Two of the “On Reality” series.

See Part One — on if our environments are real.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.