Talk:Soul/Archive 2

Text in lead
I recently removed the following passage from the lead:

"Some belief systems (including the Abrahamic religions) argue that only human beings have souls and therefore that among the biological organisms of the Earth only they possess immortality and the possibility of union with the divine. In contrast others (such as Jains) believe that all biological organisms have souls"

My reasons for removing it can be found on this talk page.

Stevertigo has restored that passage to the lead, although he has marked it so that it is hidden to those who are viewing the article. More precisely, he has restored the following text:

"belief systems (including the Abrahamic religions) argue that only human beings have souls and therefore that among the biological organisms of the Earth only they possess immortality and the possibility of union with the divine. In contrast others (such as Jains) believe"

I take it that Stevertigo restored this text because he was unsure whether it should be removed. I have no real problem with restoring the text, as long as it remains hidden. But I'm curious to know whether Stevertigo (or anyone else) has any particular reason for wanting to keep the text. I think the text makes an unsupportable and false generalization about "Abrahamic religions" and misrepresents Jainism. Again, my reasons can be found here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the best way to resolve this would be to make sure that each section of the article makes it clear on who exactly believes what, so that generalizations and simplifications can be avoided and also the lead can improve. The recent distancing of WP Hinduism from this article has me wondering whether inviting some editors from all these projects to review or improve the corresponding sections would help the overall quality of the article. I consider the Hinduism issue especially important, as the ancient Greek philosophers mentioned here took many of their ideas about ψυχή and πνεύμα straight from Hinduism. Hoverfish Talk 18:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The lede as it stands refers too much to animist concepts and doesn't mention Abrahamic faiths as it should. According to the Abrahamic religions, animals don't have souls in the sense that humans to, and certainly no inanimate objects have souls. I will leave it to Phatius to accurately represent the view of Jains. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I still think the lede's statement about "Abrahamic religions" should be qualified somewhat. Perhaps we could say "some Abrahamic religions" or "only human beings have immortal souls". It is quite common to see Christian writers describe animals as having souls: --Phatius McBluff (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is the popular saying in (Orthodox Christian) Greece: "Don't hurt the animals, because they too have souls". It is also used by the clergy especially as a counsel to children. So even if Christian dogma has it that animals do not have immortal souls they are still said to have "souls" by the clergy. Hoverfish Talk 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I will be bold and change the wording in the lede to "Some religions (including the Abrahamic religions) teach that only human beings have immortal souls". --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Prominent 'Use' of the Soul in Popular Culture
This new trivia section could become an endless list. The selection here presented expresses a very limited view. Obviously the user who started it likes gothic, but depending on user preferences it can extend to a huge area of literature, cinema and other arts where "soul" is mentioned as an important issue. Can it be limited in scope somehow? Hoverfish Talk 10:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the concept of an IPC section for this topic borders on the farcical. I'm just going to delete it, and any explanations of why it's not utterly ridiculous to have one can go here. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it could be limited in scope, I think removal is the best option. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Change to 'Soul'
Hi Gareth,

Thanks for your note - the change is actually crucial, there is no mention of the soul in the Old Testament / Torah and so any discussion of the Hebrew terms must make it clear that the words translated into the word 'soul' in English do not mean 'soul'. The 'soul' was a Greek concept added to Christianity & Judaism after 300AD. Let me know if you need more detail.

My best,

Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.210.139 (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I have restored your revision. Please leave a note when you see this to let me know. Sincerely,  –&#32; –&#32;Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 10:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good morning, Thank you Dan for your kind explanation on my Talk page this morning.


 * Received - many thanks Gareth.


 * My best,


 * Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.210.139 (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

–&#32;Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 10:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! I shall copy this to the article Talk page to back up our editing. –&#32;

Category:Fictional soulless, Category:Fictional characters who absorb souls, Category:Artificial souls in fiction
I believe these categories to have enough examples that they would be valid. Bleach (manga), Soul Caliber, Final Fantasy VII, Legacy of Kain, Ghost Rider, Spawn. Ryulong is reverting all of my edits. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:ANI on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Spirit?
They mean the same thing so, merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozo33 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Further revision required
I have inserted the relevant templates and tags, as I have only been able to complete a partial revision today. In addition to the lack of citations, the text is written in a non-encyclopedic tone—this is not an academic, philosophical or spiritual article. I will attempt to complete it in due course. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Soul Revolution
Enlightenment What dose it mean to be enlightened? Light suggest it means you see, know or understand something intellectual, spiritual, or psychological. Being enlightened involve a special understanding. The Soul Revolution conventions are to make a difference in the world and serve a greater good. Individual freedom would end up contributing to revolutionary stirring. Enlightenment is aimed to understand the logic and rationale behind the working of the world. This understanding is the purpose of all human kind. The belief in natural religion that stressed ethical living and rationality came to be deism. The enlightenment will bring a wave of new ideas, vibrations and cosmic radiation. But not everyone will embrace the enlightenments rational ideas.

Truth About Souls and Spiritual Evolution People are selling their souls to the devil out of ignorance its an important problem in the world and people are suffering, till this day people still get influenced. Symbolism is the only thing being done to prevent it. They end up in a parallel hell without anything to show except for becoming a mental slave not being able to react to the souls thoughts that go through their mind .In this dream state they can barely talk about idea, And are made to be, blind to the reason. These things should be talked about in religious churches, schools and the media and the realm of sciences. People need to spread awareness about this serious situation. Once you understand the problem you can resolve them. Spiritual Evolution, Knowledge is power. Christ consciousness is when you have control over what you think and speak. People who sell their souls know what you are saying and thinking. They have black eyes in their reflection. The Truth about God and Divine Reality is Telepathy. Open your mind to the one consciousness. The rest of your destiny is within you.

Saving Souls spreading awareness about this Soul Revolution.

New Thought A system of thought which affirms the unity of God with man, the perfection of all life, and the immortality and eternality of the individual soul forever expanding. Tenets of New Thought:°•Infinite Intelligence or God is omnipotent and omnipresent.°•Spirit is the ultimate reality.°•True human self-hood is divine.°•Divinely attuned thought is a positive force for good.°•All disease is mental in origin.°•Right thinking has a healing effect.

Chakras Energy Centers The perfect awakening of self realization takes place through love. Purification of body, mind and consciousness. Wisdom is the light of liberation, Ignorance is the darkness of suffering.

(Sahasrara) Spiritual comprehension's:I am connected to the Divine Source of the Universe.

(Ajna) Perception,Intuition: My mind is open it new vision. I expand my awareness through my higher self.

(Vishuddha) Philosopher,Expression: I am aligned with my highest truth and communicate this with love and honour. My words echo softly within the Universe.

(Anahata) Sharing,Love,Equilibrium: My heart is open to receive the energy of love. I Radiate this essence, I walk my path with Ease and Grace.

(Manipura) Inspiration,Creative,Wisdom: My will and Divine will are One. I am connected to the abundant flow of the Universe and easily manifest my dreams.

(Swadhisthana) Absorption,Growth: I Love all dimensions of Myself. I delight in weaving the creative tapestry that is my life.

(Muladhara) Creative energy: I am connected with the energy of Mother Earth. My body, mind and spirit are grounded, centered and purified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parable12 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Development and composition of the soul.
I was wondering if there was an expert on this who could possibly write and post a section on how a soul develops from the joining of a spermatozoa and an ovum. If there is in fact such a thing as a human soul, then its stages of development from inception (It must have a beginning right?) should be included in this article. Perhaps a section on the composition, properties and characteristics of a soul should also be included. I've been told that the soul's destiny is what life is all about. These important issues should not be left out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.218.167 (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not my article, but it could be a case of lack of data here, for little can be measured and reported on, first hand, here, of perception and qualia of consciousness at that state. Though on a physical basis, if soul is a characteristic that permeates the body, it is mostly the mother's soul imparted through sustinance, and under the effects of the DNA of the father's cell.  Perhaps some religious special texts describe the theological ideas written on the matter, but science will be void on this matter, most likely.  The Christian Bible has a reference where Elizabeth's Baby John leapt in her womb at the approach of Mary with Jesus, indicating the presence of soul and or God with Mary at virtually conception.  But that is the extent of that data source and detail, as you have requested, but addresses one of your questions, as to views of the moment the soul may exist.  Likewise, from personal experience, soul order structure is related to body size and data absorbed.  When I was a small child, human vision was grainy and poor response, and now is quite sharp as an adult, though I feel quite similar in my personal sense of self, thinking that far back how I felt compared to today, being only smarter in the english language and world's dangers and benefits.  This may have to do with neural network resolution, as well as quantum entanglement qualia sense structure.  But without systemic quantum measurement devices available, the balance between the two is indistinguishable and unmeasurable ... to tell what part is young neural nets, and what part is the soul.  For the soul might be perfect and somewhat constant as my experience suggests, and the physical body is restraining senses while growing onto such a quantum entanglement structure soul, or vice versa for other's experience.   (LoneRubberDragon) 75.82.144.206 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The article moves randomly between the idea that the soul has physical qualities such as mass and the idea that it is incorporeal. For example, under "parapsychology," the question of "whether a soul separate from the brain . . . exists" is then addressed with a section on "weight of the soul," as if weight proves or disproves the soul's existence. Yet the opening sentence of the article is "The soul, in many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal . . . essence of a living thing." I have three degrees in religious studies and would have gotten a D if I'd turned in something like this for a theology or philosophy of religion class. AmyinNoCal (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

etymology of word soul
under the entry Soul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul) we read "The Modern English word soul is cognate with other Germanic and Baltic terms for the same idea, including Gothic saiwala, Old High German sêula, sêla, Old Saxon sêola, Old Low Franconian sêla, sîla, Old Norse sála as well as Lithuanian siela.

user Remigiu in article False cognate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate) added today (2013-06-22 11:49) to the list "German Seele and Lithuanian siela (both meaning "soul")". False cognates are pairs of words in the same or different languages that are similar in form and meaning but have different roots.

is it possible to exist on wikipedia two conflicting information?

PrzeszczeryDoBulu (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that the old Germanic words do not mean the same idea. Those old words refer to the living or animate aspect of a thing... not the same as today's Christian notion of some divine entity that exists within a body, 89.176.34.187 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The word soul came from the Germanic belief in souls being born out of and returning to sacred lakes (see ref. A handbook of germanic etymology---Vladimir Orel (ISBN 90 04 12875 1)). Hence the connection between the Old Saxon word Seola (soul) and the Old Saxon word Seo (sea). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.229.100 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed grammer. Citation needed
I have fixed the grammatical errors mostly. Just need help in finding citations.Freethinker (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

When we eat a good food,we say it is very good with an expression OH! Now who is getting this pleasure ?? When we get pain,who gets the pain ?? Body and organs of our body is the components to receive the joy or pain for our SOUL.

Souls are not necessarily immortal, I am changing the first sentence
The very first sentence states that souls are immortal, by definition. This is contradicted multiple times in the remainder of the article, so I am simply going to edit it. Just one source is the Oxford English Dictionary online edition, which as of 2016-11-30 lists 15 "senses" for the word "soul", and only one "sense" has immortality in the definition. The idea that souls are immortal is strongly linked to Christianity (and Judaism and other related religions), so putting this characteristic in the first sentence seems to minimize other significant religions and philosophical viewpoints. For counter-examples, one need only read later in this article about non-European views on souls. Fluoborate (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Aristotle believed both that all living beings had souls, and that the soul died with them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree. Immortality is also disputed in Judaism.  Made a change to the next sentence and added a citation related to this.  Steveok1 (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnywhy:: "one need only read later in this article about non-European views on souls." Those non-Europeans used the word "soul"? No-- Europeans, likely Christians, must have translated non-European words into the word "soul". That's a form of arrogant cultural presumption. Those sections should be removed-- this article is about the '''European word "soul", and thus the European conception of soul. The article is not about words in other cultures that some European Christian decided are synonyms for "soul".'''

The Problem of Induction - Deniers of the soul are subject to the Problem of Induction
I happen to believe that the soul is proven by OBEs (Out-of-Body-Experiences), Van Lommel studies, NDEs (Near-Death-Experiences) and Phantom Feelings, I think that those who deny the existence of the soul don't know what they are talking about or that they are lying about the issue. Because I sense that they are subject to the Problem of Induction, they don't know about the "black swans" from their "little" Life-Worlds of information! That is, they have never incarnated (at least never revealed), they have never been forced out of their bodies into seeming death by abuse or wanton of suicide, etc! They don't have it in their "little" Life-Worlds (of first-hand/second-hand information)! And how difficult can it be? One can never do "soul walking" in forcing oneself out of the body by drowning in a pool or large bathtub because that's illegal! So how can one prove the soul other than scour the Earth for the very stories (the credible ones, possibly also confirmed by MRI/fMRI)?! (Dualism is winning!) --109.189.66.223 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to learn what the problem of induction actually is, in fact you are falling on that fallacy because you go from the premise (which BTW is false) "Some people have souls" because of the OBE to the conclusion "All human beigns have a soul". That is a clear example of the problem of induction, which obviously is a fallacy. I think all the people (like me) who dont believe in souls just states that there is no provable evidence. I'm open to grant its existence, but only when there is a good reason to do it.

You cite some "evidence" for soul. van Lommel research has been discredited by the scientific community, he just grabs some vague facts and make logical assumptions not granted by evidence or reason. OBE or NDE just proves that humans can see things who arent actually happening, that is consistent with our knowledge of the brain and many common life situations(happens when we sleep, when we are under the influence of some material substances, etc.). Of course you can see yourself as if you are out of your body, you can induce any image to anyone in a guided meditation. That just proves that our brains can be induced. You can have those moments, but in any instant of that "travel" I can manipulate your "soul" acting on your body: if I hit you, or inject you some hallucinogens you can prove that your conciousness was never something independent of your body. If you really can travel in the real world without your body, show me some classified information that you read "inside" an intelligence building, tell me every day the colour of the clothes the guy nextdoor before you see him and then check that info. Those are easily ways the OBE people can show as the thruth.

181.171.106.181 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

False Equivalence
Johnywhy (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC) The article opens with a contradictory false equivalence.

"In many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, there's a belief in the incorporeal essence of a living being, which Christo-Europeans call the soul. [1] Soul or psyche (Greek: "psychē", of "psychein", "to breathe") are the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc."

The first paragraph specifically uses the word "incorporeal", which means "WITHOUT a physical body, presence or form", which currently has NO scientific evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporeality

The second paragraph lists "reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.", ALL of which have DO have scientific evidence as being WITH a physical body, presence or form.

This may be an attempt to create the impression that a non-physical "soul" is scientifically grounded.

"Psyche" and Other Etymologically-Unrelated Words Should Be Moved To "Synonyms"
Johnywhy (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC) ""Soul or psyche (Greek: "psychē", of "psychein", "to breathe") are the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, feeling, consciousness, memory, perception, thinking, etc.""

This article is about soul, not psyche. The excerpt above casually equates them, without providing any evidence they are synonyms. In an article which defines a WORD, it's critical that all words be used carefully, not casually.

* If the 2 words are idiomatically synonymous today, that needs a reference. The way it's currently written, it implies the words are used interchangeably today, which i doubt.

* If they were synonymous some time in the past, that needs a reference. Even if "psyche" might be shown to have been synonymous with "soul" at some point in the past, that does not make "psyche" part of the etymology of "soul".

Inclusion of the word "psyche" in the article could be a religiously-motivated attempt to create the impression that "soul" has a scientific basis.

There are other ancient words mentioned in the etymology section, which are NOT shown to be part of the etymology of SOUL. It appears the only reason they are included is because the author of the section believes they have a similar meaning. Similar meaning does NOT make a word part of the ETYMOLOGY. Those words should be moved as well. "Etymology" does not mean thesaurus.

Immortality is not a necessary characteristic of “soul”
The definition to the concept of “soul” given at the beginning of the article, indicates that the soul must be immortal. Mind you, originally and historically, the concept of “soul” was synonymous with that of “psyche” or “mind.” There is plenty of empirical data to prove that the mind is certainly not immortal. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction: There is plenty of empirical data to prove that the brain is certainly not immortal. The mind is not synonymous with the brain. There are philosophies, western too, that consider the mind eternal. Hoverfish Talk 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This misunderstanding persists elsewhere in the article. Sean Carroll's position is wrongly stated as "the idea of a soul is in opposition to quantum field theory" and "for a soul to exist" 'Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics.'" This may indeed be Carroll's position, but the context of these quotations implies no such thing. It concerns itself with the incompatibility of physics and an immortal soul. AmyinNoCal (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"originally and historically, the concept of “soul” was synonymous with that of “psyche” or “mind.”"

--Please provide a citation for this statement. --Johnywhy (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Stevenson reincarnation research
The line that I add a reference to is:

"Others point to research that has been conducted at the University of Virginia as proof that some people are reborn"

Since 'others' can include anyone, I think I should be able to cite this website: https://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html. Citing Stevenson himself is incorrect, as he did not point to research done at UV, he actually did it. On what other basis should I not include this reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs) 10:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That website does not appear to be what WP considers a WP:reliable source.
 * Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~.
 * Again, this discussion should occur on the talk page of the article.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback jmcgnh. I'll move the discussion to that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Content fork
A recently created article (Animal souls) is a fork of this article. I have gone ahead and turned that article into a redirect, but here is a link to the last non-redirect revision for merging purposes. signed,Rosguill talk 02:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It is likely the Self was mistaken for the Soul
Since the accumulation of knowledge in science and medicine has often challenged our understanding of past conclusions. It is likely the Self was mistaken for the Soul. And the physical body and the physical brain which houses the mind are one; and Dualism is a fantasy. See:Psychiatry for Social Workers by Alistair Munro M.D. and Wallace McCulloch M.Sc., Pergamon Press,London,1969, page.109 Miistermagico (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thinking process (of the soul), but don't write "of the soul"
If experiencing doesn't lead to awareness and if it doesn't get integrated; then having a soul is the same as not having one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:6100:8488:4981:EF3C:463D (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ Wikipedia does not use original research. You must cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims (see WP:BURDEN). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

information theory
add quotations of logicians and mathematicians, who used information theory in their analyses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:6100:8488:4981:EF3C:463D (talk • contribs)
 * No, you add it -- but only if you cite secondary or tertiary professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that specifically address the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions hate fuzzy wuzzy animals?
I'm deeply offended by this statement made in the first section of this page: "Some belief systems (including the Abrahamic religions) argue that only human beings have souls and therefore that among the biological organisms of the Earth only they possess immortality and the possibility of union with the divine" (the citation for this is ONLY about the "union with the divine" and also is derived from other Wikipedia articles instead of a credited outside source). To my knowledge most if not all Abrahamic faiths don't address the issue of animals having souls in texts like the Bible and the Quaran. It therefore has been left open to personal interpretation by members of the priest castes. But show me anyone who has simultaneously owned a dog and believed it to be nothing but a soulless creature. Many if not most dog owners consider their dogs as an integral part of their family and ascribe human emotions and sentiments onto them. I am both a believer in an Abrahamic God and an ethical vegetarian. So if adhere to a Christian belief system but strongly believe that animals to some extent have souls, then the sentence in question is gonna need some actual damn citations from various Abrahamic religions. 129.3.139.125 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, animals have souls, but not a "spirit" as defined by Abrahamic faiths, and that the souls may not be the same as human souls. I agree that citations are needed.66.110.251.145 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, animals do have spirits. If they didn't, they wouldn't join humans (which themselves are animals) in the afterlife. 12.17.177.164 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the statement should be removed from the lead, and I will do so after posting this comment.
 * Do "Abrahamic religions" believe that animals have souls? It depends on what you mean by "soul". Catholic theologians (following Aristotle) have long affirmed that animals have souls, but by "soul" they simply mean life, not a spiritual substance capable of surviving the body's death. (For a quick, obviously non-RS source, see here. Also, see this discussion of Thomas Aquinas's views on the soul.) I believe that the Old Testament attributes nefesh (commonly translated as "soul") to animals, although I don't know the relevant verses off-hand. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the lead. The statement about Jains was also incorrect. The wording implied that Jains believe that all living organisms have souls but that inanimate objects do not. In fact, Jains believe that even pure elemental matter (earth, fire, water, wind) contains souls. See here. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the generalization of this to all Abrahamic faiths is an incorrect statement and find the statement offensive. In Judaism there are five different types of souls not just nefesh and each one has a completely different context. For a reference here is an article by Rabbi Gershom which clearly shows that Judaism is not clear on the subject and it is open to interpretation see Do animals ave souls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.169.183 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Islam seems to hate animals even more, mostly canids. If you happen to be canine, you're immediately a filthy, mangy, unclean creature, no matter how much of a germaphobe an individual canine may be. (Yes, dogs and wolves have phobias.) 12.17.177.164 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

A debate about animal souls
There are some things I just don't get about this particular debate. If only human souls are immortal, then why are non-human animals depicted as being a part of Heaven? If their souls weren't immortal, they would just die and become nothing. In fact, why is the mere existence of animal souls even debated? People argue, as this article mentions, that only humans have souls as if to say animals can't think, feel, or have personality which it's been scientifically proven that they can. 12.17.177.164 (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These questions assume that:
 * One particular religion (or at least their concept of an afterlife) is empirically proven.
 * That particular religion is in agreement as to what form the afterlife takes.
 * That popular culture doesn't mess up in their depictions of that afterlife.
 * Those three above points are far from true. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Section related to St. Thomas Aquinas
His thought about the soul is the fundament of the Roman Catholic Doctrine, byt it also received by many other Christian denominations. The quaestion 76 is relevant in a similar degree to the previous Question 75, which was just cited in the WP article.

It was cited 4th-century De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus to say that any body has a uniquwe soul and, vice versa, that any soul belong to a unique body. In sop doing, Aquinas recalled himself to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the soul.

Into this unique soul, there are operating three distinct parts: nutritive, sensitive and intellectual. Not secondary is to say that for Aquinas our sensitive soul is the same than that of other animals, sharing the same essence and the same genus. But the human beings are the unique to have a sensitive soul which is immortal due to to the fact that it is united to an intellectual soul.

The soul has been compared with animals and then with angels, with which human beings share their intellectual substance. If angels can appear into a body, they couldn't have neither matter nor flesh.

Not less important is to say that the body can't be the cause of the soul -both of the parents' body and the one to which the soul is united-, because in general the intellectual power is not an act of the body and that makes it capable of understanding immaterial and universal truths (Quaestion 76, Article 1, Reply to Objection 3). With Aristotle, Aquinas affirmed that "understanding is an act which cannot be performed by a corporeal organ, like the act of seeing" (q.76, a. 1, Reply to Ojection 1) and that "understanding is not possible through a corporeal instrument (De Anima iii, 4)". The section needs probably to be futher detailed.

The text has been halved, adding the tripartition of a unique soul and the two dogmas of the St Augustine's ''De Eccl. Dogmat.'', which Aquinas cites with a remarkable retraction of St. James and Syriac fathers. And this aspect points out he had read original texts of Syriac fathers and/or a commentary written by Augustine. So it becomes relevant for the WP article. The original text is available here.Theologian81sp (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You are the soul.
The cycle of your existence, and the observations you make in that cycle (0<1), are of plurality 'c' of units 1/c, irrespective of whether the unit 1/c is an hour, a year or some other unit of measurement of the interval of your existence. The transformation through that cycle can be marked as (0<u<1), where '0' is your birth and '1' is your death. Symbol 'u' stands for the moment 'now' in which is located your consciousness of existence of that which you are observing. In that unit 'now' there is also your memory and the picture of yourself. The 'now', at the point 'u', is static and of magnitude 1/c, as seen from the outside. The internal plurality of the unit 'u' is variable during the transformation through the cycle (0<u) of your past. It varies as u=n/c. Position 'n' of your consciousness, defined by the limit of your I, decides on the plurality within 'u'. The position 'n' varies as (0<n<c). The u=n/c is one of 'c' units 'now' of your life, each 'now' containing the memory of that which was observed along the interval of (0<u) of your past, from your birth at '0' to the present 'now' at 'u'. Each 'u' is always a 'now' within the larger 'now' of plurality 'c' parts 1/c of your life. KK (178.182.20.86 ([[User talk:178.182.20.86
 * talk]]) 13:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC))But who is this 'soul' which does all that observing and who is conscious of existence of that which he observes? Who am I as the 'soul'? I am my self and my memory 'The store of truths' Memory As the 'soul' I come from before my body was born and I shall exist after my body is dead. Neither the beginning '0' nor the end '1' of the interval of time of existence of the observer are perfect. 'Organization of the reality' Reality KK (78.146.73.50 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

The soul is the inner person that perceives, is aware, experiences and thinks. The mind is the souls reality. Some debates about immortality, spirit, immateriality,etc, confuse the basic functions of the soul yet all debates imply these basic functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayjacobus (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Why are writing these things here? Subhobrata Chakravorti (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The mathematical explanation seems unrelated to improving the page. "You are the soul" is something taught in Hinduism, which further explains that you are not the temporary and ever-changing body, but the eternal, individual and immortal soul (jiva-atman) that is both consciousness and counscious. Other religions may touch on similar points. Not sure if any of this could help expand any of the content though. Your equation, rewritten as (birth < now < death), seems overly simplistic and assumes this life starts at birth when it is actually conception. Also, the equation doesn't take into account reincarnation or afterlife. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent English transliteration of ψυχή: psykhḗ, psūchê, psyche
In the first sentence appears this: ψυχή psykhḗ. The second paragraph shows this: ψυχή psūchê. Both cases refer to Ancient Greek. The spelling needs to be the same in both cases. An article can't have inconsistent spellings of the same word, three sentences apart.

So I've changed the second appearance to match the first: ψυχή psykhḗ

If any expert in Ancient Greek can justify the second spelling, I guess that's fine, and go ahead and change it. But be sure to change both occurrences. The two spellings need to be the same.

Later appearances in the same article refer to the Koine Greek and use the transliteration psyche. I've left that the same because Koine Greek is centuries later than Ancient Greek, so maybe that transliteration is OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omc (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)