12 June 2013: I’ll tell you how the sun rose

Illustrates how we get from x to y

Illustrates how in Kant, the Cartesian cogito’s premise (cogito/je pense/ich denke/I think) implies the existence of the soul. Esme Sesame, the Cat, Esme’s Grampa, Esme’s Granny Mama all know they think. Therefore they have a soul. But what is it? At this point I know less and less.

Up at dawn. 25 minute workout (125 supine pull-ups, 125 steps, walking and climbed up to and down from the first floor). Lovely rainy dawn.

I’ll tell you how the sun rose, —
A ribbon at a time.
The steeples swam in amethyst,
The news like squirrels ran.

Emily Dickinson

Ahhh, pain much less than yesterday.

Kant Notes

A simple argument for the immortality of the soul.

I shall post this argument in outline form since I raise complex issues in it, and I am hungry, I am tired and my butt hurts. I need to go back to the ward for lunch for that reason and write the full essay later.

1. Kant
1.1. Fascinating and almost comprehensible Doctrine of the Soul in “On the Paralogisms” reinforced, as in happenstance, by today’s reading of Adorno’s commentary.
1.2. As far as I can determine:
1.2.1. We really know quite a lot about the soul
1.2.1.1. Immaterial
1.2.1.2. Surprisingly has (can have) a location in space and time
1.2.1.2.1. When embodied this is the location of the body
1.2.1.2.2. When not embodied the location is simply “unknown”
1.2.1.2.3. Take your soul to Paris!
1.2.1.3. Immortal
1.2.1.3.1. A simple argument for the immortality of the soul.
1.2.1.3.1.1. Does “Mortality” apply to all biological entities?
1.2.1.3.1.1.1. Not as a matter of empirical or logical fact
1.2.1.3.1.1.2. Below certain levels of complexity
1.2.1.3.1.1.2.1. Certain species of jelly fish may be immortal
1.2.1.3.1.1.2.2. Viruses and such may be
1.2.1.3.1.2. But this means that because the soul is not a biological entity, and because “mortality” is (1) meaningless outside the category of “biological entity” and empirically false outside a subset of sufficiently complex biological entities, then
1.2.1.3.1.3. Either
1.2.1.3.1.3.1. “Mortality” as applied to the soul is meaningless “psychobabble”
1.2.1.3.1.3.2. Or the soul is immortal: but since the question of the soul’s mortality is meaningful, then
1.2.1.3.1.3.3. The soul is immortal Q.E.D.
1.2.1.3.1.3.3.1. NOTE, however, that this proof completely leaves unanswered how the immortal soul knows and perceives lacking sense organs or a brain. The proof is even more troubling than where we were, wondering where we go after death, or witnessing the death of a loved one as portrayed by Emily Dickinson or in Terence Malick’s film The Thin Red Line

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: