What has a Soul?

[Dargoo_Faust]

Simple question, complicated answer. I'm asking this as I came across a conundrum. While the Soul page mentions that stuff is assumed to have a soul unless specified otherwise, I feel like we assume some things don't have souls, such as weapons and vehicles.

However, I want to understand: do we have an exact criteria for what has a soul and what doesn't? If so, what is that criteria? Would a rock have a soul? Would a virus (which isn't technically alive)? How about mindless microbes? Would it be based on being able to think?

 

[Hykuu]

I don't think something being Mindless would deduce it from having a Soul, probably Life force is what you need for it to be to qualify as having a soul

Rocks aren't sentient or alive at all, so i doubt it would qualify.

Viruses should not have a soul until stated otherwise.

 

[Antoniofer]

Personally, I assume that anyone with consciousness and is sapiens has a soul, I do not consider talking animals to have one (in a universe where they talk by default maybe). Naturally emotionless, mindless and artificial beings are considered to be soulless (at least for me).

 

[Darkmon_cns]

I don't think I'm qualified to answer but I would think intelligents wouldn't really matter for somthing like having a soul. I would also think trees and plants wouldn't normally have it. (After all the idea of what a soul is is somewhat subjective in fiction)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah, I understand it's a very vague and subjective question, but verse equalization exists, and we should have some sort of default assumption to make with verses that don't go in-depth with the concept.

Maybe we should only assume it works on intelligent, living beings if the Soulhax was only used on humans, then expand our criteria as the verse does?

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Cut

As I've said I'm far from the most qualified person to consider that. Perhaps you should ask some of the other staff to comment here?


Either way my answer would be the same as before limiting it by intelligents seems odd to me. on the other hand many religions believed that humans are the only things on earth that have souls like chrstenalntiy, but there are still some that believe animals had sprites (native Americans did literally warship Sprite animals from time to time)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That's fair and true. I'll wait for more input on this.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

That's a really deep and philosophical question Dargoo. OvO

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We gon' get woke with this thread.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

That's a really deep and philosophical question Dargoo. OvO

Ironically deep philosophy/religion are probably the answer as believe in it or not religion is essential the souce material for the idea of a soul

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Personally, I believe that living biological creatures have a soul. Anything else unless stated otherwise does not. So robots and objects don't have a soul.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Personally, I believe that living biological creatures have a soul. Anything else unless stated otherwise does not. So robots and objects don't have a soul.

The golem from mythology (which has a page here I believe) is essentially the idea of a robot in a religion and is described as being a soulless being. So that's the answer from religion (if my memory on it is right)

 

[Antoniofer]

Philosophy/theologically speaking animals has no souls, they are living beings but soulless, reason why they have no consciousness nor emotions, only instinct. That apply from microorganism to large animals.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We also have to take into consideration that this might not be a religious question, but one where we might need to take what we see at face value in verses.

For example, if we only ever see soulhax on humans in a verse, intelligent living beings would be the best assumption as that's one common interpretation which lines up with the verse, yet doesn't make assumptions on animals.

If a verse introduces animal souls we would assume most living things have souls, although plants and microbes could be debated.

And after that it would vary greatly from verse to verse, as they hardly go that in depth.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Philosophy/theologically speaking animals has no souls, they are living beings but soulless, reason why they have no consciousness nor emotions, only instinct. That apply from microorganism to large animals.

That wasn't the case in Chinese mythology I believe. Or the before mentioned native American culture (if my memory isn't wrong)

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Cut

I was under the impression you were asking about a standard Assumption. (AKA for a veres that doesn't have soul manipulation at all) after all it isn't assumed that soul manipulation dosen't work on a character from a verse without it.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Oh, no, that's totally not what I'm talking about.

Verse equalization usually handles that (for example, it's already been discussed Atheist verses would have souls under VE if one character had soulhax). I'm mostly talking about verses that have soulhax.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Oh, no, that's totally not what I'm talking about.
Verse equalization usually handles that. I'm mostly talking about verses that have soulhax.

But then wouldn't you still need to talk about a Standard assumption for a verse without it?

If say not having a soul means (like for all profiles we have) that standard soul manipulation doesn't work on you then of course it would matter? Just saying veres equalization wouldn't change that.

Edit: and what about an animal from such a verse? Such lines get blurry fast.

 

[Amexim]

The better question in fiction is, what DOESN'T have a Soul, and when is this true. In Japanese mythology, chairs can gain Souls after existing for 1,000 years. Doesn't exactly clarify if it needs to be a full chair, or if a shattered chair's splinters gain a Soul, or if dust— what determines that, essentially, is unknown. But anything CAN have a Soul, in the same way anything can happen in fiction, and magic/chi/Mystical energies can work in any way and still be the same stuff.

The general assumption should be, anything that is alive in some way that isn't artificial or is stated to have a Soul has one.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

Are manmade viruses artificial?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I personally agree with Amexim's proposal.

Although that begs the question of "what is alive?", which is hotly debated for microbes such as viruses, which many consider to be not alive in the conventional sense.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Are manmade viruses artificial?

Viruses in general are considered to not be alive, although that fact is being debated more oft now.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

This made think of Alex Mercer who originally had immunity to soul manip for not having a soul as he is a virus.

 

[Huesito88]

Viruses in general are considered to not be alive, although that fact is being debated more oft now.

/\

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mean, Alex clearly isn't analogous to a real life virus.

What Huestio mentioned is also true, Biologists are debating whether or not we should classify viruses as alive much more.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

I mean he's not a normal virus, because if something like Blacklight really existed irl the world would be over run pretty fast if that was what you meant.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I mean he's not a normal virus, because if something like Blacklight really existed irl the world would be over run pretty fast if that was what you meant.

Viruses aren't (theoretically) considered to be alive due to the inability to reproduce without a host cell, the inability to react to their environment outside of a cell host, and they don't use energy outside of cells.

Alex clearly doesn't meet the latter two criteria for being a virus.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

Ah, I see.

 

[DMUA]

It's a deep question of philosophy, but if you want a versus debating answer, it's case by case. If it's a living being, it should have one. If it's specified otherwise, it doesn't. If it's inorganic like a robot, unless specified otherwise, it shouldn't have a soul. If it's only techically not life by scientific standards, but still organic like a virus, it should be assumed to have a soul unless proven otherwise.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

I personally agree with Amexim's proposal.
Although that begs the question of "what is alive?", which is hotly debated for microbes such as viruses, which many consider to be not alive in the conventional sense.

If you would stick to the scientific definition of life.... the mule would be immune to Soul manplation. It can't reproduce. And therefore by thatvl definition is not alive and dose not have a soul. See the problem yet?


@Amexim you have this wrong. Chairs don't gain souls of there own they (kinda) pick up the energy of thos around them as they exist. Which (forms?) Into a soul that is my understanding of that bit of culture. It's the demeanor and stature of thos around them that decides how they act when they become possessed.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Cut

I do disagree with you. Religion is where the idea of a soul comes from. It should be what's considered when thinking of somthing like this.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Dark

That is but one of the reasons viruses aren't considered to be alive. And I'm not saying I know the answer, especially since what "alive" is is a question that is constantly debated in the philosophical, theological, and biological communities.

Mules can react to their environment, and use energy, however. The definition of "life" is far more complicated than that, so I'm not in a position to debate, though.

 

[DMUA]

Cut

I do disagree with you. Religion is where the idea of a soul comes from. It should be what's considered when thinking of somthing like this.

Yes, but, not all fictions abide by these rules.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

@Dark
Cut

Which is why I kept saying that it would be best to consider religions. You avoid clear Counterdictions like the mule example.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Yes, but, not all fictions abide by these rules.

That is not what were talking about if you scroll up.

Edit: scrolling up this thread is more cluttered then I thought..

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That is not what were talking about if you scroll up.
No, we're talking about verses with soulhax, and a standard assumption when soulhax actually exists in a verse.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Actually it went like this.

You were trying to do that then (I) the other person here didn't get that message clearly.

Apone that the other person said that you would need to talk about that as well and we started to talk about if said thing needs to be talked about.

Then Amexin commented and I steped away for a bit (I'm still not sure which discusses she was trying to contribute to)

Then you started talking about what is alive so I brought the mual Contradiction.

Then DMUA commented.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Either way DMUA clearly did not read the rest of the thread or he would have understood the point of me bringing up mythology.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Also this is still on the Q&A borde. You should make a content revision thread for such a discussion.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Nah, I'll keep this on Q&A. I'm asking a question and we are looking for answers. I'll make a seperate CRT if we need to change the page itself. For one, Mules are alive. They meet several of the basic criteria, consuming energy, reacting to their envrironment, etc. The only thing it lacks is the ability to produce, and that is only because of human-assisted intervention. The cells inside the mule can also still divide. For example, a sterile human would by all means be alive.

Using religion or mythology to define a power or ability here is a completly terrible idea. We would have to support one viewpoint in order to stay consistent, which means we'd have to reject the viewpoints of other cultures as a result.

Ergo, we should define this through consistency in fiction or on a biological basis.