Welcome to Gaia! ::

I most certainly believe that humans are reincarnated as animals, after all, a human is a type of animal xd

Seriously though, I do find that I believe it to be possible for a human to be reincarnated into an animal. As far as plants, unicellular organisms and the like, I would say that it is very probable, and most certainly holds in the Geaeistic (Gaiaistic) and Animistic theories. As such, I see that being reincarnated into such an existence is entirely possible, further, this possibility stems largely from one of my own personal philosophies of relativism (though I must admit I am in no way a proponent of the philosophy of simple relativism for that philosophy is, in itself, a paradox).

The philosophy of simple relativism essentially states that truth is that which is subjective, such that if one believes something to be true then that thing is true. Therein lies the contradiction of this philosophy. If all truth is subjective, then that allows such an objective statement to be false, thus making the philosophy false, for a true philosophy cannot be built off of false premises. In other words, the statement, everything is relative, is an objective statement about the philosophy making it such that if it is true, it automatically becomes false, for one thing becomes objective and is thus no longer subjective. Further, once it becomes false, there is then an objective truth. In both cases, there is an objective truth which makes the philosophy false.

So, in a sense, the simple relativist holds that all truth is subjective.

faith matters aside, i think you mentioned it: so that we can have a second chance. if i'm going to become one with God, i'd want to be the best i could be. i personally think it's harsh to spend an eternity being tortured for something that i did in one short lifetime. and i feel that it is not that you do not remember it entirely, but you do not have verbalizible memory, in other words, instinct. i think i yields to a greater feeling of compasion toward living creatures if you think they have souls, just like you, and thus should have the rights of humane treatment like yourself. i think there a better explanation for "why bad things happen to good people" when it's coupled with the idea of Karma, and it gives me a strong sense of universal justice if someone can't get away with being a horrible to someone and simply escape repercussions with death.

Personally, I like it here, I cannot see why anyone would not want to come back to earth. However, this may be due to my inability (which I am damn near positive is the same inability everyone else has) to imagine a world or a realm that is not quite like the one I currently reside in. Furthermore, and somewhat surprisinly (as I tend to have a severe abhorrance of most philosophy considered Nietzsche-esque), I am in complete agreement with the following from Nietzsche: "One should want nothing more when they die than to live there life over again." I feel that if, when you die and you don't want to live your life over again, then you have done something wrong with your life. You have not enjoyed what you have had the chance to enjoy by whatever the hell it is that gave us this chance to enjoy this thing we call life.



It may be true that we don't deserve second chances; but that's not the real issue here. The real issue is that you think that 50-80 yrs of life is some sort of significant time. Really, in respect t o infinity, it is infintisimally small; it is not much more than a mere mathematical point (or for a better analogy a collection of 50-80 of them) on a line. Keep in mind there are an infinite amount of points on a line.

Further, 50-80 yrs is absolutely nothing compared to a geological timeframe, much of which is devoted to millenia and the like. For a rough estimate, considering the whole of the earths existence (I think the current estimate is around a couple hundred million to a couple billion) 50-80 yrs is no more than a mere 5-15 seconds: In terms of psychology and memory, that is about the limit of your sensory memory (far less than the five-25 minutes awarded to short-term memory and even less than the 25 minutes to decades awarded to you long-term memory). So, to complete both analogies. In the geological timeframe, we exist for the equivalent of a mere, at best, 15 seconds. Couple this geological timeframe with a psychological memory analogy, we are known by whatever it is that exists, for what could be seen for (when compared to the geological timeframe) 15 seconds; that is enough to merely enter your sensory memory. Meaning, essentially, we are simply percieved as existing, then we stop existing.

So, when our life-span is taken into consideration with respect to the geological timeframe, we are in existence for such a short amount of time.

But who (or what) gets to decide what has a soul and what doesn't? How can one even define a soul? And how can one tell that one even has a soul?

Sorry, just random philisophical questions...

Easy, the creator. Since the creator created everything, the creator gets to decide. Now, if one is to believe that abiogenesis is the cause of life, then it is, in my mind, much harder to hold the idea of a soul.


Easily, they can use words in a way such that the term soul is shorthand for the words they are using. For example, if I want a soul to be a special area in the brain, I could say that if one has a special area in their brain, they have a soul; and from then on, I could just say 'soul' instead of 'special area in the brain'.

Granted, that was more of a smartass answer, the problem is, you only made it so that the question could be inferred as 'How can one objectively define soul,' as well as ' How can one simply define soul, either objectively or not objectively.' I gave the smartass answer using the latter inferrence, if only to prove the point that your question, while still a good one, should be more explicit.


For that matter, how can one tell they actually have a body? What stops an idea like George Berkeley's "I am nothing more than a mind, and all that is, is my perception," other than personal aesthetics?