• TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Mohamed, Ph.D

    🏵️🏵️The essence of thinking like a soulist reflects a deeper connection to one’s purpose and understanding of life. In Islam, we are reminded that every soul is significant, as stated in the Quran, “And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right” (Quran 17:33). Recognizing the divine purpose behind our thoughts and actions is fundamental. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasized the importance of intention, declaring that “Actions are but by intention.” When embracing a soulist mindset, focus on purifying your heart and intentions, aligning them with the teachings of Islam.

    Thank You, Vi- Grail, for Your insightful reflections. Your thoughts bring to light how essential it is to nurture our souls, Vi- Grail.

    What steps will You take to align Your mindset with this deeper spiritual understanding?

    Mohamed, Ph.D

    I don’t think Mohamed read Your article

  • fear is not a Weltanschauung@zirk.us
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    @Grail refreshing. I sort of had an unformed beginning of this thought after a person who tried to convince me that simulation theory was a novel and compelling reality that broadly went ‘ok, let’s say you successfully prove conclusively that you don’t exist, but that doesn’t make it any easier to decide what you’re having for breakfast’, or more axiomatically 'i think i think, therefore i might as well be"

  • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Soulists believe that if objectivity exists, it’s inaccessible to human minds at our current level of development. And if beliefs can’t be sorted by objective truth, then our criterion for deciding what we should believe is by how useful a belief is.

    Okay, reasonable

    Or in simpler terms, usefulness decides truth.

    Wait what?

    If the big questions are unsolvable, you don’t stress over them, you do what you can.

    Okay yeah, that’s me, and I’d think most reasonable people as well.

    It is me, or the author, who’s having trouble with the word “truth” (and “believe”)?

    This same author, in another article, defines ‘soulism’ as basically anarcho-antirealism. Outside of that, it’s hardly been written about, so They kinda get to define it however They want, but Their description seems to contradict itself

    • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t see the contradiction between soulism and anarcho-antirealism. Soulism as a term originates on the internet as anarchism which opposes natural laws. Destroying natural laws requires destroying the system that places reality above people. In other words, destroying realism.

        • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The truth is what we should believe. According to realists, we should believe in reality. According to realists, truth is objective. According to soulists, we should believe in whatever’s useful. According to soulists, truth is a choice and we have a responsibility to make a good choice.

          • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            It sounds like They describe soulists as arguing that the truth is unknowable, so believe nothing and simply use the most helpful assumptions as a guide.

            And elsewhere it sounds like They’re saying soulists delude themselves into fully believing those most helpful assumptions as objective truth

            That’s an important difference

            • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Soulists definitely don’t believe in an objective anything. I wrote the article, and I can’t see any part of it where I said soulists believe in an objective truth.

              Let’s take this theory into the practical. “Trans women are women.” Is that an objective truth? No, women don’t objectively exist. It’s a subjective truth. But it’s a very important subjective truth that everyone needs to agree with and genuinely believe in if we’re going to have a free society.

              • TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                13 hours ago

                Ah okay, so it is me who’s having trouble with the word “truth”.

                To me, the default definition of ‘truth’ is objective truth, but in this context it’s more broad than that, right?

                So when You said “usefulness decides truth”, I read it as “usefulness decides objective truth” (which I see now is not the correct way to understand what You wrote).

                “subjective truth” just seems like an oxymoron to me, though I see it’s a fairly hot topic now that I’m looking into it

                Regarding Your practical example, I would argue that “woman” is a social construct which objectively exists. Though I get what You’re saying and I agree

                Thank You for sharing your article and discussing it with me btw (also I really enjoy Your writing style)

                • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Thank you. In the spirit of this article which says that everyone naturally thinks like a soulist, please allow Me to argue that you’re already familiar with the concept of subjective truth. “Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father.” That’s not an objective truth either. Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker don’t exist. Star Wars isn’t real. It’s just a story. Yet, the vast majority of people in our society can all agree that Vader is Luke’s father (unless they’re making an argument that Anakin and Vader are different people). It’s a truth culturally ubiquitous. Everyone knows it.

                  You already intuitively understand how to navigate the concept of fictional truth. You might be familiar with the term “canon”. You know how to make arguments about what is and isn’t canon, and you have opinions about canon, which you’re capable of defending. There is no objectivity in fiction. It’s all made up. If we all decided that Luke is Rey’s father, it would be true. The truth is whatever you can convince people to believe. And you know how to navigate these kinds of situations. You don’t need objectivity in order to work with truth. You never did.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Were the rest of you… not already choosing what to believe based on the utility of those beliefs? It seems so fundamental to self-awareness.

    • Grail (capitalised)@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      In a fundamental sense, everyone does. But most people don’t think of themselves as operating that way. They deny that instinct in themselves. They believe in objectivity and a real world. That’s why so many arguments about religion focus on the question “are the gods real?”, rather than “is religious thinking good or bad for us?” There’s plenty of debate to be had about the utility of religion. Prayer healing works through the placebo effect. Religion is a part of programs like Alcoholics Anonymous. And on the other side, people argue that dogmatic thinking leads to oppression and atrocities. But most arguments about religion don’t go along those lines of utility. What most people care about is reality and objective truth.