Actually, reading further into the discussion, I think that at least as much confusion probably resulted from attempting to argue by definitions. In response to assertions of the definition of the soul, I would ask
Where does this definition come from? Is it a constructed category such that anything that meets the criteria is necessarily a soul? Is it an attempt to formally describe something that people have observed?
If the former, then obviously, if you can show something meets the criteria, it must be a soul. Prepare to see a bunch of wiseasses prove that a ridiculous number of things qualify as souls.
If the latter, what observations are we dealing with?
And if neither, what point does the discussion have?
Good suggestion! Instead of trying to figure out what his definition was, I should have taken a step back and asked him what the definition was supposed to do; detail a construct or circumscribe a phenomenon.
Actually, reading further into the discussion, I think that at least as much confusion probably resulted from attempting to argue by definitions. In response to assertions of the definition of the soul, I would ask
Good suggestion! Instead of trying to figure out what his definition was, I should have taken a step back and asked him what the definition was supposed to do; detail a construct or circumscribe a phenomenon.
Upvoted.