416: Ask David: The "Soul" Revisited; Acountability: Is "personality" another illusion? And more!

Podcast 416 Ask David

is it reckless to question the existence of the "soul?"'

How can I make myself accountable?

Do we have a "personality," or is that just another illusion? 

Do questions about the "self" and "free will" involve All-or-Nothing thinking?

The answers below were prepared prior to the podcast, and simply based on email exchanges. Be sure to listen to the live podcast discussion to get a variety of opinions and comments!

Questions for today's podcast.

#1: Weren't your comments on the self a bit reckless, given that the existence of / or belief in the "soul" is a prerequisite for most religions?

#2: How can I make myself accountable for doing the exercises in your books?

#3. Holy asks if the concept of having "a personality" is the same as the question of having "a self?"

#4. Could questions about the "self" and "free will" involve All-or-Nothing Thinking?

 

Question #1. (not question, just a comment worthy of a response)

Your comments on the "self" were shallow, mocking and restless.

The recent episode on 'Do I have a self?' (Episode 406) was very shallow and mocking of people who thought there was a soul/self. Given a soul is a prerequisite for most religions, dismissing it out of hand without meaningful discussion seems reckless.

David's response

Thanks, there's a lot of truth in your comment and we'll definitely include this on an upcoming Ask David!

To give a brief response prior to the show, I would say that I am not trying to defend or attack any religion, but don't want to give up my right to freedom of thought. I, David, am not saying that the "soul" does not exist, but what I am saying is hard to convey, and I probably won't be successful now, either.

But, when you talk about a "soul," I do not have any idea what you mean by that word, or what you are referring to, if anything. To me, words like "self" or "soul" are simply language that is "out of gear," as Wittgenstein might say. Meaning can only occur in a specific concept. It is not the case that there are "pure meanings" for abstract concepts. Thinking along those lines was the huge error that Plato and Aristotle made.

Now, let's say I go to YouTube and listen to some really kick-ass music that I totally love. I might say, "Wow, that guy (like James Brown, for example) really has soul!"

What I'm saying is that I tremendously admire and appreciate his talent, his energy, and so forth. I am not referring to something metaphysical.

My concern about your comment is that it sounds scolding, at least to my ear, like the "morality police," perhaps. Personally, I have seen a great deal of evil done in the name of this or that religion, and I have no doubt that you have, too!

Still, I am sure you have strong religious beliefs, which I respect, and apologize for having offended you. But I admit I am ambivalent, and partially happy that you are offended, and speaking out, because I believe that critical thinking is also tremendously precious, just as your religious beliefs are precious to you.

In a selfish way, I have to confess I am also happy for the criticism, because controversy stirs up interest, and I am trying to interest people in our podcasts, which are ultimately dedicated to healing and relief of suffering.

Still, I cannot deny the truth in your comment, that my "critical thinking" can be a disguise for a put down.

When I wrote Feeling Good, I was very aware already (in the 1970s) that the chemicals categorized as "antidepressants" had few or no clinically significant effects above and beyond their placebo effects, and subsequent research has validated this.

But I did not emphasize this in that book because I did not want to pull the rug out from anybody, and hurt anybody's feelings. After all, if you are getting a nice "placebo effect," that's a good thing, at lest to some extent.

Now, I'm older, so I'm more willing to speak my mind, and let the chips fall where they may.

And you have bravely spoken your mind, too. Kudos to you!

And that's the end of m