On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:16:06PM -0500, ScruLoose wrote: > ,-------------------------------------------------------------------------. > > -ScruLoose- | You don't *have* a soul. You *are* a soul. < > > Please | You *have* a body, temporarily. < > > do not Cc me. | - A Canticle For Liebowitz < > `-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
This reminds me of some text from my favorite book: "The Illusion of Technique" by William Barret, p.79: "In his sudden and abrupt fashion Wittgenstein lets fall the observation: `My attitude toward him is an attitude toward a soul. I am not of the <i>opinion</i> that he has a soul.' [178e] The statement dangles there in the text, and is not given the further explanation it cries out for. I do not think my friend <i>has</i> a soul, in the sense of some Cartesian substance hidden in his head or diffused throughout his body. Nevertheless, my attitude toward him is still that toward a soul. It would be more correct to say that he <i>is</i> a soul, rather than that he <i>has</i> as soul -- just as, by the way, it is more correct to say that he is a body than that he has a body." // Your second statement's disagreement with the text is what caught my eye. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
