"You Are What You Think"

You Are What You Think"

You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the seat of our self consciousness, mentality, conscience and volition. There's a correlation between mind and body. "I'm worried sick" is a telling common phrase. Fear, worry, anxiety cause tensions which affect the body. Sins such as pride, jealousy, bitterness, vindictiveness, implacability, hatred and guilt will inevitably result in self induced misery. Disorientation to grace leads to needless agony of soul.

Some people live their entire lives cleverly attempting to hide from family members and friends. They deceive themselves. Others eventually see through the camouflage and sham. The scene played out precisely the same in ancient times. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 | "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]You Are What You Think"

You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the ...[text shortened]... : Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)[/b]

"What am I when I am not thinking? Nothing? What am I when I think about a Ferrari? Am I a Ferrari? Some clarification would help "me" think about this less confusedly.

Originally posted by JS357

"What am I when I am not thinking? Nothing? What am I when I think about a Ferrari? Am I a Ferrari? Some clarification would help "me" think about this less confusedly.

"The human soul is the seat of our self consciousness, mentality, conscience and volition." (OP)

If not actively thinking and awake, you're probably thinking passively or day dreaming. When there isn't any new information to process (or decisions to be made), there's plenty stored in your frames of reference and memory center. If you're thinking about a Ferrari, you've probably been promoted to a corner office or won the lottery. lol (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]You Are What You Think"

You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the ...[text shortened]... : Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)[/b]

"You are what you think" is probably closer to the truth than either "You are the sum of your actions" or "You are what you eat". But, honestly, I don't really understand your claims. I know from past experience that asking you for clarification is something of a fruitless exercise, but I'll give you one more chance. If you would, please clarify what you mean by the 'soul'. Is your account of the soul something that is going to commit one to some form of dualism? (This is also the cue for Suzianne to sweep in like a shrieking harpy to charge me as dishonest for asking for clarification.)

Originally posted by LemonJello
"You are what you think" is probably closer to the truth than either "You are the sum of your actions" or "You are what you eat". But, honestly, I don't really understand your claims. I know from past experience that asking you for clarification is something of a fruitless exercise, but I'll give you one more chance. If you would, please clarify what y ...[text shortened]... eep in like a shrieking harpy to charge me as dishonest for asking for clarification.)

"Is your account of the soul something that is going to commit one to some form of dualism?"

Your definition of "dualism"? "Mind-Body"? Other?

"... I'll give you one more chance."

Generous of you. Thanks.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]You Are What You Think"

You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the : Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)[/b]

Awesome...
I think I am "A genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist, ... "

Am I now Iron Man?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]You Are What You Think"

You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the ...[text shortened]... : Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)[/b]

If you look up up Jerem., 17:9 in other bible versions, the translation is more accurate. They say the heart is incurably sick. It can not be repaired nor rehabilitated. One needs a "new" heart.
Those that come to God receive a new heart, a new nature.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Is your account of the soul something that is going to commit one to some form of dualism?"

Your definition of "dualism"? "Mind-Body"? Other?

"... I'll give you one more chance."

Generous of you. Thanks.

By 'dualism' I am referring to a thesis that holds, in the context of some domain of dialogue, that there exist two fundamentally distinct (disparate) kinds of things. And here, yes, the context at issue would be the mind-body question. So, basically I am asking if your view of the body-soul relationship entails dualism in the above sense. I'm trying to better understand what you mean when you state that the 'soul' is the "seat of consciousness, etc...." Are you talking about something fundamentally distinct in kind from, say, the brain? Relatedly, is your view one that holds that this soul can exist absent a body? Could a soul jump around from body to body? And if a soul doesn't perish when its associated body dies, then what would be sufficient for the perishing of a soul?

I don't think we'll agree on the body-mind questions. Apart from that, though, I tend to agree with your basic initial point. Or put it this way, I at least strongly agree with your statement that the essence of a person is not merely reducible to what he/she does. That seems very obvious to me. For a general example, you could hypothetically imagine two persons, S1 and S2. Suppose S1 and S2 both routinely perform act A; but suppose S1 does it for reasons R1 and S2 does it for reasons R2, where R1 and R2 differ radically. These persons both do A; but they do it for radically different reasons, which implicates to that extent radically different underlying characters, intentionality, and motivation. Surely such things are relevant to the constitution of the person and they differ for S1 and S2, even though both do A.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]You Are What You Think"

You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the ...[text shortened]... : Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV)[/b]

I sort of agree. It seems to me that you tend to become the way you think and behave, which is I think sort of what you're getting at, right?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

I sort of agree. It seems to me that you tend to become the way you think and behave, which is I think sort of what you're getting at, right?

Precisely!

Originally posted by checkbaiter
If you look up up Jerem., 17:9 in other bible versions, the translation is more accurate. They say the heart is incurably sick. It can not be repaired nor rehabilitated. One needs a "new" heart.
Those that come to God receive a new heart, a new nature.

Which other versions?

Originally posted by LemonJello
By 'dualism' I am referring to a thesis that holds, in the context of some domain of dialogue, that there exist two fundamentally distinct (disparate) kinds of things. And here, yes, the context at issue would be the mind-body question. So, basically I am asking if your view of the body-soul relationship entails dualism in the above sense. I'm trying t ...[text shortened]... o the constitution of the person and they differ for S1 and S2, even though both do A.

"By 'dualism' I am referring to a thesis that holds, in the context of some domain of dialogue, that there exist two fundamentally distinct (disparate) kinds of things.

And here, yes, the context at issue would be the mind-body question.

So, basically I am asking if your view of the body-soul relationship entails dualism in the above sense.

I'm trying to better understand what you mean when you state that the 'soul' is the "seat of consciousness, etc...."

Are you talking about something fundamentally distinct in kind from, say, the brain?

Relatedly, is your view one that holds that this soul can exist absent a body?

Could a soul jump around from body to body?

And if a soul doesn't perish when its associated body dies, then what would be sufficient for the perishing of a soul?

I don't think we'll agree on the body-mind questions.

Apart from that, though, I tend to agree with your basic initial point.

Or put it this way, I at least strongly agree with your statement that the essence of a person is not merely reducible to what he/she does.

That seems very obvious to me.

For a general example, you could hypothetically imagine two persons, S1 and S2. Suppose S1 and S2 both routinely perform act A; but suppose S1 does it for reasons R1 and S2 does it for reasons R2, where R1 and R2 differ radically.

These persons both do A; but they do it for radically different reasons, which implicates to that extent radically different underlying characters, intentionality, and motivation.

Surely such things are relevant to the constitution of the person and they differ for S1 and S2, even though both do A." (LJ)
_________________________

Please summarize these fifteen sentences in three. 10 Q. (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"By 'dualism' I am referring to a thesis that holds, in the context of some domain of dialogue, that there exist two fundamentally distinct (disparate) kinds of things.

And here, yes, the context at issue would be the mind-body question.

So, basically I am asking if your view of the body-soul relationship entails dualism in the above sense.

...[text shortened]... ___________________

Please summarize these fifteen sentences in three. 10 Q. (gb)

That's some sort of joke, right?

Originally posted by LemonJello
By 'dualism' I am referring to a thesis that holds, in the context of some domain of dialogue, that there exist two fundamentally distinct (disparate) kinds of things. And here, yes, the context at issue would be the mind-body question. So, basically I am asking if your view of the body-soul relationship entails dualism in the above sense. I'm trying t o the constitution of the person and they differ for S1 and S2, even though both do A.

All by itself, the statement "You think" or Descartes "I think..." sets up the conclusion in favor of dualism. And then treating "I act" and "I eat" differently than "I think" sets it off in the direction of mind-body dualism.

Descartes should have said "Thinking is happening, therefore _______________" and explored what logically followed. I thing, the logical conclusion is, "thinking is happening" without predicating a thinker.

It seems unjustified to privilege thinking over acting or eating so as to identify it with the subject of the sentence, "I think." The fact is, we intuit "I think" and indeed, I (any verb) as a statement of an entity doing something that is not that entity.

Originally posted by JS357
All by itself, the statement "You think" or Descartes "I think..." sets up the conclusion in favor of dualism. And then treating "I act" and "I eat" differently than "I think" sets it off in the direction of mind-body dualism.

Descartes should have said "Thinking is happening, therefore _______________" and explored what logically followed. I thing, the log any verb) as a statement of an entity doing something that is not that entity.

All by itself, the statement "You think" or Descartes "I think..." sets up the conclusion in favor of dualism.

I don't see how. Statements like "You think..." and "I think..." are, by themselves, quite consistent with monism. Dualists and monists can employ such statements alike.

And then treating "I act" and "I eat" differently than "I think" sets it off in the direction of mind-body dualism.

Not sure what you mean. Who treats them differently? And "differently" in what sense? And then how would that implicate mind-body dualism for those persons?

Descartes should have said "Thinking is happening, therefore _______________" and explored what logically followed. I thing, the logical conclusion is, "thinking is happening" without predicating a thinker.

"Thinking is happening, therefore thinking is happening" is tautological in structure. Of course you are right that P follows from P as a logical conclusion. But, that's vacuous. At any rate, as I understand it, Descartes' line is best captured by something like "I am thinking; therefore I exist". This also seems logical to me, in that it seems the consequent follows with necessity from the antecedent. But, it seems your point is that a skeptic with respect to 'I' could simply deny the antecedent; whereas the same skeptic would not be able to deny your alternative "thinking is happening". Is this what you mean?

At any rate, I don't see how the Cogito itself implicates anything regarding ontological dualism. Of course, Descartes was a dualist; but that was not so just in virtue of the Cogito. In fact, unless I am mistaken, there's a part of the Meditations 2 after the Cogito in which the meditator explicitly expresses, with respect to the Cogito, that it may as well still be the case that the 'I' he is talking about is simply identical with some physical body.

It seems unjustified to privilege thinking over acting or eating so as to identify it with the subject of the sentence, "I think." The fact is, we intuit "I think" and indeed, I (any verb) as a statement of an entity doing something that is not that entity.

Not sure what you mean here. I don't know anyone who actually thinks "I think" is a statement of an entity doing something that IS that same entity, so I am not sure to whom this is relevant.

Of course, when someone says "You are what you think", we have to do some unpacking here to understand what they actually mean. Good luck if you want to get anywhere with Bobby on this. I still have little idea of what he actually means, which is why I hesitate to say I agree with him. The only thing I said with conviction is that I do agree with his general claim that one's constitution is not simply reducible to what one does.