Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Souls
Message-ID: <1570@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 23:23:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1570
Posted: Wed Aug 21 23:23:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 14:30:13 EDT
References: <1195@umcp-cs.UUCP> <540@utastro.UUCP> <1206@umcp-cs.UUCP> <542@utastro.UUCP> <5486@fortune.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 22

> There are many notions of what happens after death.  According to 
> some Buddhist traditions, for example, there is no such thing as a "soul";
> rather there are components of a personality which may disintegrate at 
> the time of death and behave differently from each other.  
> The Oxford American Dictionary, while an excellent guide to conversational
> English, is a poor guide to religious and philosophical usage.  I think
> a dictionary of philosophy would have a more interesting definition of the 
> word "soul". [POLARD]

They may not use the same word (after all, Buddhism was not founded by English
speaking people), but the concept of soul applies to some extraphysical
part of the person (not the body).  Whether you use that word or not,
the concept applies if you are talking about something that last after the
body has died.

> In any case, the way we describe the universe may not have much to do 
> with the way the the univers actually is.

Hear hear!  As in "Anything's possible but..."  On the other hand...
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr