View source for Soul

{{Short description|Immaterial essence of a living being}}
{{other uses|Soul (disambiguation)}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2020}}

[[File:Schiavonetti Soul leaving body 1808.jpg|thumb|Depiction of the soul leaving the body at the moment of death: ''[[The Grave (poem)|The Grave]]'', illustrated by [[William Blake]], engraved by [[Luigi Schiavonetti]], 1808]]
The '''soul''' is the purported [[Mind–body dualism|immaterial]] aspect or [[essence]] of a [[Outline of life forms|living being]]. It is typically believed to be [[Immortality|immortal]] and to exist apart from the material world. The three main theories that describe the relationship between the soul and the body are [[Interactionism (philosophy of mind)|interactionism]], [[Psychophysical parallelism|parallelism]], and [[epiphenomenalism]]. [[Anthropology|Anthropologists]] and [[Psychology|psychologists]] have found that most humans are naturally inclined to believe in the existence of the soul and that they have interculturally distinguished between souls and bodies.

The soul has been the central area of interest in philosophy since [[Ancient history|ancient times]]. [[Socrates]] envisioned the soul to possess a rational faculty, its practice being man's most godlike activity. [[Plato]] believed the soul to be the person's real [[self]], an immaterial and immortal dweller of our lives that continues and thinks even after death. [[Aristotle]] sketched out the soul as the "[[Actus primus|first actuality]]" of a naturally organized body—form and matter arrangement allowing natural beings to aspire to full actualization.

[[Medieval philosophy|Medieval philosophers]] expanded upon these classical foundations. [[Avicenna|Ibn Sina]] distinguished between the soul and the spirit, arguing that the soul's immortality follows from its nature rather than serving as a purpose to fulfill. Following Aristotelian principles, [[Thomas Aquinas]] understood the soul as the first actuality of the living body but maintained that it could exist without a body since it has operations independent of corporeal organs. During the [[Age of Enlightenment]], [[Immanuel Kant]] defined the soul as the "I" in the most technical sense, holding that we can prove that "all properties and actions of the soul cannot be recognized from materiality".

Different religions conceptualize souls in different ways. [[Buddhism]] generally teaches the non-existence of a permanent self ({{tlit|sa|[[anattā]]}}), contrasting with [[Christianity]]'s belief in an eternal soul that experiences death as a transition to [[God in Christianity|God]]'s presence in [[Heaven in Christianity|heaven]]. [[Hinduism]] views the {{tlit|sa|[[Ātman (Hinduism)|Ātman]]}} ('self', 'essence') as identical to ''[[Brahman]]'' in some traditions, while [[Islam]] uses two terms—[[rūḥ]] and {{tlit|sa|[[nafs]]}}—to distinguish between the divine spirit and a personal disposition. [[Jainism]] considers the soul ({{tlit|sa|[[Jīva (Jainism)|jīva]]}}) to be an eternal but changing form until liberation, while [[Judaism]] employs multiple terms such as {{tlit|hbo|nefesh}} and {{tlit|hbo|neshamah}} to refer to the soul. [[Sikhism]] regards the soul as part of God ({{tlit|pa|[[Waheguru]]}}), [[Shamanism]] often embraces soul dualism with "body souls" and "free souls", while [[Taoism]] recognizes dual soul types ([[hun and po|{{tlit|zh|Hun}} and {{tlit|zh|po}}]]).

==Etymology==
The English noun ''[[:wikt:soul|soul]]'' stems from the [[Old English]] {{lang|ang|sāwl}}. The earliest attestations reported in the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' are from the 8th century. In the [[Vespasian Psalter]] 77.50, it means 'self', 'life' or 'animate existence'. In [[King Alfred]]'s translation of ''[[De Consolatione Philosophiae]]'', it is used to refer to the immaterial, spiritual, or thinking aspect of a person, as contrasted with the person's physical body. The Old English word is cognate with other historical [[Germanic languages|Germanic]] terms for the same idea, including [[Old Frisian]] {{lang|ofs|sēle}}, {{lang|ofs|sēl}} (which could also mean 'salvation', or 'solemn oath'), [[Gothic language|Gothic]] {{lang|got|saiwala}}, [[Old High German]] {{lang|goh|sēula}}, {{lang|goh|sēla}}, [[Old Saxon]] {{lang|osx|sēola}}, and [[Old Norse]] {{lang|non|sála}}. Present-day cognates include Dutch {{lang|nl|ziel}} and German {{lang|de|Seele}}.<ref name="oed">{{cite dictionary |title=soul, n. |url=https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/185083?rskey=HutjgX&result=1 |dictionary=OED Online |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=23 June 2022}}</ref>

==Religion==

===Buddhism===
[[File:The wheel of life, Buddhism Bhavachakra.jpg|thumb|[[Bhavachakra]] describing the cycle of ''saṃsāra''; the wheel of life caused by craving to a self, thus giving raise to rebirths in one of the [[Saṃsāra (Buddhism)#Realms of rebirth|six realms of existence]].]]
The concepts of {{tlit|sa|[[anatman]]}} (not-self) is fundamental to [[Buddhism]]. Early Buddhists were suspicious about the spiritual value of a soul. They wanted to clearly reject the notion of a mortal body and eternal soul dualism that [[Jainism]] posited and that lead to ascetics starving themselves to death to free the soul from the mortal prison.<ref name="McClelland, N. C. 2018 p. 17">McClelland, N. C. (2018). Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma. Ukraine: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. p. 17.</ref> From a historical perspective, the doctrine of {{tlit|sa|[[anatman]]}} evolved out of two main philosophico-religious beliefs: eternalism (sassata-''vada'') and annihilationism (''anuyoga'').<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 55.</ref> The eternalists assert the eternity of the soul; ritual purity, [[Deva (Buddhism)|celestial beings]], [[Svarga|heaven]] and [[Naraka|hell]], mortification of the body, etc.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 58">Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 58.</ref> In contrast, the annihilationists deny the immortality of the soul and believe that the soul only exists as long as the body does.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 58"/> Since they believe that the soul dies with the body, they prescribe practising self-indulgence ({{tlit|sa|kamasukhallikanuyoga}}) in order to enjoy pleasures experienced through the senses.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 58"/> The Buddha rejects both views and identifies their origins to be caused by two cravings: Desire for immortality drags people to eternalism, when life is pleasurable, while unpleasant states lead to annihilation because of the craving for self-discontinuity. Buddha identifies both views as soul-theories, as both identify a self through craving.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. pp. 63–64.</ref>

The idea of an unchanging soul conflicts with the principles of dependent origination and cessation of all of the five aggregates.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 170.</ref> Due to their impermanence, they are considered "empty" or "without essence".<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 170.</ref> Through the lens of impermanence, Buddhists recognize that all phenomena—whether physical or mental—are in a continuous cycle of arising and dissolving, with nothing being permanent, including the perception of a self or soul.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 69.</ref> In Buddhism, the only absolute is ''[[Sunyata|Śūnyatā]]''.<ref>Buddhist Text and Anthropological Society ''Journal of the Buddhist Text and Anthropological Society, Band 5, Teil 1'' The Society, 1897 digitalized: 21. May 2014. p. 1.</ref> The self is a retrospective evaluation of sensual experience. This sensory experience then leads to craving and the formation of the thought "this is mine", whereby creating the notion of a self.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 169.</ref> It is this continuity of craving to a self, which gives raise to a new birth.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 303">Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 303.</ref> Buddhists regard the identification of an independent soul with perception as mistaken, since our perception of the world depends on the sense organs.<ref>McClelland, N. C. (2018). Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma. McFarland. pp. 16–17.</ref> In the Cetana-sutta, the flow of consciousness maintains the connection between one birth to another,<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 303"/> and also determines the conditions of the conceptions into the mother's womb, where they forget about their previous lives.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. pp. 305–308.</ref> The {{tlit|sa|Mahavedalla-sutta}} mentions three modes of self-continuity: sensual self-continuity ({{tlit|sa|kama-bhava}}), fine-material mode ({{tlit|sa|rupa-bhava}}), and immaterial self-continuity ({{tlit|sa|arupa-bhava}}), the latter two take place among those who practise absorption meditations ({{tlit|sa|jhana}}) and become brahmas. <ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 295.</ref>

However, even this transmission of consciousness cannot be identified with a soul, for the very possibility of losing consciousness would be inexplicable. Were there a soul, Buddhists would associate it with something entirely devoid of sensibility—yet such an entity would lack any basis for being identified as "me".<ref name="McClelland, N. C. 2018 p. 17"/> Another argument against an autonomous soul is that it could will itself to never die or get sick, however, death and sickness happen against the will of individuals.<ref>Gethin, R. (1998). ''The foundations of Buddhism''. Oxford University Press. p. 137.</ref> The final argument is that, within Buddhist thought, nothing has been identified as unchanging or permanent.<ref name="McClelland, N. C. 2018 p. 17"/> Since consciousness too is impermanent, an unchanging soul cannot exist.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 302.</ref><ref>McClelland, N. C. (2018). Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma. McFarland. p. 16.</ref> Thus, every individual is a complex interplay of physical and mental phenomena, all dependent on countless conditions; once these phenomena and conditions are removed, no enduring self can be found.<ref>Gethin, R. (1998). ''The foundations of Buddhism''. Oxford University Press. p. 139.</ref>

====Unanswerable question====
The Buddha left [[The unanswerable questions|ten questions unanswered]], one of which concerned the existence of a soul ("Is the soul one thing and the body another?" and "Who is it that is reborn?").<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 298">Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 298.</ref><ref>Karunadasa, Y. (2015). ''Early Buddhist teachings'' (New ed.). Simon and Schuster. p. 143.</ref> This led some people to believe that the Buddha only rejected a soul defined through one (or more) of the [[five aggregates]] (''Skandha'').<ref>The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Pain. Vereinigtes Königreich, Taylor & Francis, 2017. p. 294.</ref><ref name="McClelland, Norman C 2018. p. 18">McClelland, Norman C. Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma. Ukraine, McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers, 2018. p. 18.</ref><ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. p. 168.</ref> Another interpretation holds that he remained silent, because the Buddha considered the question irrelevant to the pursuit of enlightenment. Whether he knew the answer remains a matter of debate.<ref>Karunadasa, Y. (2018). ''Early Buddhist teachings'' (New ed.). Simon and Schuster. pp. 153–154.</ref> Yet another view argues that the Buddha remained silent, because the question itself is invalid.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 298"/>

Those who argue that the Buddha affirmed a self, independent from body and mind, as proposed by the eternalists or annihilists, argue that the soul is something transcending the five aggregates.<ref name="McClelland, Norman C 2018. p. 18"/><ref>Gowans, C. (2004). Philosophy of the Buddha: An introduction. Routledge. pp. 56; 67–68.</ref> Some Buddhists of the [[Mahayana]] tradition believe that the soul is not absolute, but immortal; the soul cannot die, although influenced by karma, since the soul is unborn and unconditioned.<ref>Buddhist Text and Anthropological Society. ''Journal of the Buddhist Text and Anthropological Society, Band 5, Teil 1''. The Society, 1897, digitalized: 21 May 2014. p. 1.</ref> In support for that view, Christopher Gowan points at Buddhist texts possibly implying some sort of self, such as references to personal pronouns,<ref name="Gowans, Christopher 2004. p. 68">Gowans, Christopher. Philosophy of the Buddha: An introduction. Routledge, 2004. p. 68.</ref> and the need for a self who suffers in order to aim for release in nirvana.<ref name="Gowans, Christopher 2004. p. 68"/> Due to the implicit references in the Buddhist doctrines, Gowan also rejects the view that they are merely conventions of speech,<ref name="Gowans, Christopher 2004. p. 68"/> rather the best way to understand Buddha's teachings coherently would be to distinguishing between a substantial self and an ever changing self beyond the five aggregates.<ref name="Gowans, Christopher 2004. pp. 72">Gowans, Christopher. Philosophy of the Buddha: An introduction. Routledge, 2004. pp. 72–73.</ref> The Buddha would have rejected the former, but implicitly affirmed the latter.<ref name="Gowans, Christopher 2004. pp. 72"/><ref name="McClelland, Norman C 2018. p. 18"/>

In contrast, others hold that the Buddha remained silent on this matter, because they are invalid questions.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 298"/> When asked such a question ("Who is reborn?") the existence of a self is presupposed.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 58"/> However, if souls do not exist, no one can be reborn in the first place, and thus, there is no accurate answer to the question.<ref name="Somaratne, G. A 2021. p. 58"/> This view also disapproves of later responses within traditional Buddhist schools, such as [[Theravada]], who answered the question on identity in paradoxical terms, yet whereby implicitly affirming some sort of self or soul.<ref>Somaratne, G. A. The Buddha's Teaching: A Buddhistic Analysis. Singapur, Springer Nature Singapore, 2021. pp. 298–299.</ref>

====Two Truths====
In the early Buddhist text ''[[Milinda Panha|Milinda's Questions]]'', the nature of the enduring self is examined through a dialogue between the Greek king Milinda and the monk Nāgasena. When asked about his identity, Nāgasena explains that in truth, there is no Nāgasena, because his name is merely a label. To illustrate his point, he refers to Milinda's chariot and asks whether its essence lies in the axle, the wheels, or the framework. Milinda concedes that the chariot's essence is not found in any single part, but maintains that the term 'chariot' is still meaningful, as it refers to the combination of all its parts.<ref name="Pain. Vereinigtes Königreich 2017. pp. 294">Palden Gyal and Owen Flanagan The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Pain. Vereinigtes Königreich, Taylor & Francis, 2017. pp. 294–295.</ref><ref name="Gethin, R. 1998 p. 139">Gethin, R. (1998). ''The Foundations of Buddhism''. Oxford University Press. p. 139.</ref> Nāgasena agrees—and adds that this is precisely his point: there is no Nāgasena beyond the five aggregates that constitute him. Like the chariot, the person is a conventional designation applied to a collection of interdependent components.<ref name="Gethin, R. 1998 p. 139"/>

The example of Milinda's chariot relates to the Buddhist [[Two truths doctrine]].<ref name="Pain. Vereinigtes Königreich 2017. pp. 294"/> Accordingly, the conventional truth refers to phenomenal truths of the perceptive world, including persons, but ultimately, they are devoid of essence and independent existence.<ref name="Pain. Vereinigtes Königreich 2017. pp. 294"/> Upon realization of the self as a mere convention, fear of death and attachment to self-permanence would cease, as there is no self to attach to in the first place.<ref name="Pain. Vereinigtes Königreich 2017. pp. 294"/> This interpretation of ''Milinda's Questions'' was often compared to [[David Hume]]'s [[bundle theory]].<ref>Giles, James. "The no-self theory: Hume, Buddhism, and personal identity". Philosophy East and West 43.2 (1993): 175–200.</ref>

===Christianity===
{{See also|Soul in the Bible}}
[[File:SoulCarriedtoHeaven.jpg|thumb|Depiction of a soul being carried to heaven by two angels by [[William-Adolphe Bouguereau]]]]

The [[Bible]] teaches that upon death, souls are immediately welcomed into [[Heaven in Christianity|heaven]], having received forgiveness of sins through accepting Christ as Savior.<ref name=":13" />{{better source needed|date=April 2025}} Believers experience death as a transition where they depart their physical bodies to dwell in God's presence.<ref name=":13" />{{better source needed|date=April 2025}} While the soul is united with God at death, the physical body remains in the grave, awaiting resurrection.<ref name=":13" />{{better source needed|date=April 2025}} At the time of the [[Universal resurrection|resurrection]], the body will be raised, perfected, and reunited with the soul.<ref name=":13" />{{better source needed|date=April 2025}} This fully restored, glorified unity of body and spirit will then exist eternally in the renewed creation described in Revelation 21–22.<ref name=":13">{{Cite web |title=What happens after death? |url=https://www.gotquestions.org/what-happens-after-death.html |website=GotQuestions}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=April 2025}}

[[Paul the Apostle]] used ''psychē'' ({{math|ψυχή}}) and ''pneuma'' ({{math|πνεῦμα}}) specifically to distinguish between the Jewish notions of ''nephesh'' (נפש), meaning soul, and ''ruah'' (רוח), meaning spirit<ref>{{cite book |last1=Αρχιμ. Βλάχος |first1=Ιερόθεος |title=Ορθόδοξη Ψυχοθεραπεία |date=30 September 1985 |location=Εδεσσα |publisher=Ιερά Μονή Τιμίου Σταυρού |page=Τι είναι η ψυχή |url=https://www.oodegr.com/oode/dogma/psyxi1.htm |access-date=25 January 2023 |chapter-url=https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/THEOL160/%CE%9A%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%BC%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B1%20%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%B1%20%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%20%CE%B8%CE%B5%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE%20%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%81%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%B7/%CE%9F%CE%A1%CE%98%CE%9F%CE%94%CE%9F%CE%9E%CE%97%20%CE%A8%CE%A5%CE%A7%CE%9F%CE%98%CE%95%CE%A1%CE%91%CE%A0%CE%95%CE%99%CE%91.pdf |language=Greek |chapter=Κεφάλαιο Γ' |archive-date=25 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230125171147/https://www.oodegr.com/oode/dogma/psyxi1.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Request quotation|date=April 2025}} (also in the Septuagint, e.g. Genesis 1:2 רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים = {{math|πνεῦμα θεοῦ}} = ''spiritus Dei'' = 'the Spirit of God').{{Citation needed|date=April 2025}} This has led some Christians to espouse a [[trichotomy (philosophy)|trichotomic]] view of humans, which characterizes humans as consisting of a body (''soma''), soul (''psyche''), and spirit (''pneuma'').<ref>{{cite web |date=1 July 1912 |title=Soul |url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111128201145/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm |archive-date=28 November 2011 |access-date=13 November 2011 |website=newadvent.org |quote=In St. Paul we find a more technical phraseology employed with great consistency. Psyche is now appropriated to the purely natural life; pneuma to the life of supernatural religion, the principle of which is the Holy Spirit, dwelling and operating in the heart. The opposition of flesh and spirit is accentuated afresh (Romans 1:18, etc.). This Pauline system, presented to a world already prepossessed in favour of a quasi-Platonic Dualism, occasioned one of the earliest widespread forms of error among Christian writers – the doctrine of the Trichotomy. According to this, man, perfect man (teleios) consists of three parts: body, soul and spirit (soma, psyche, pneuma).}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=April 2025}} However, others{{who|date=April 2025}} believe that "spirit" and "soul" are used interchangeably in many biblical passages and so hold to dichotomy: the view that each human comprises a body and a soul.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Baker |first=Daniel |date=2015 |title=Are We Body-and-Soul or Body-Soul-and-Spirit? |url=https://cornerstoneapex.org/blog/are-we-body-and-soul-or-body-soul-and-spirit |access-date= |website=Cornerstone Fellowship Church of Apex |language=en-US |archive-date=15 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240815175244/https://cornerstoneapex.org/blog/are-we-body-and-soul-or-body-soul-and-spirit |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews|author of Hebrews]] said, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hebrews 4:12 - New American Standard Bible |url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204:12&version=NASB |access-date=2025-04-13 |website=[[BibleGateway]] |language=en}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=April 2025}}

The "origin of the soul" has proved a vexing question in Christianity. The major theories put forward include [[creationism (soul)|soul creationism]], [[traducianism]], and [[pre-existence]]. According to soul creationism, God creates each individual soul directly, either at the moment of conception or at some later time. According to traducianism, the soul comes from the parents by natural generation. According to the pre-existence theory, the soul exists before the moment of conception.{{Citation needed|date=April 2025}} There have been differing thoughts regarding whether human [[embryo]]s have souls from conception, or whether there is a point between conception and birth where the [[fetus]] [[ensoulment|acquires a soul]], [[consciousness]], and [[personhood]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Pacholczyk |first=Tadeusz, Father, PhD |title=Do embryos have souls? |url=http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0116.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629203818/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0116.htm |archive-date=29 June 2011 |access-date=13 November 2011 |website=Catholiceducation.org |department=Catholic Education Resource Center}}</ref>

Corruptionism is the view that following physical death, the human being ceases to exist (until resurrection) but their soul persists in the afterlife. Survivalism holds that both the human being and their soul persist in the afterlife, as distinct entities, with the soul constituting the human.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Oderberg |first=David S. |author-link=David S. Oderberg |date=2012-12-22 |title=Survivalism, Corruptionism, and Mereology |url=https://philosophy-of-religion.eu/index.php/ejpr/article/view/257 |journal=European Journal for Philosophy of Religion |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=1–26 |doi=10.24204/ejpr.v4i4.257 |issn=1689-8311}}</ref> Most [[Thomism|Thomists]] hold to the corruptionist view, arguing that a human person is a composite of matter and soul.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal |last=Spencer |first=Mark |date=2014 |title=The personhood of the separated soul |url=https://www.academia.edu/download/47972932/09NV12-3_Spencer_Personhood.pdf |journal=Nova et Vetera |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=863–912}}</ref> Survivalists argue that while a person is not identical to their soul, it is sufficient to constitute a person.<ref name=":12" /> In recent years, a middle view has been put forward: that the separated soul is an incomplete person.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=De Haan |first1=Daniel D. |last2=Dahm |first2=Brandon |date=2019 |title=Thomas Aquinas on Separated Souls as Incomplete Human Persons |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/761040 |journal=The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review |language=en |volume=83 |issue=4 |pages=589–637 |doi=10.1353/tho.2019.0036 |issn=2473-3725 |archive-date=19 July 2024 |access-date=29 March 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240719140208/https://muse.jhu.edu/article/761040 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> It argues that the soul meets most of the criteria of a person but that the survivalist view fails to capture the unnaturalness of a person surviving death.<ref name=":2" />

===Hinduism===
{{Main|Ātman (Hinduism)|Jiva}}
{{translit|sa|Ātman}} is a [[Sanskrit]] word that means inner [[self]] or soul.<ref>
{{cite dictionary
 |title= ātman
 |dictionary=Oxford Dictionaries
 |publisher=Oxford University Press
 |year=2012
|url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atman
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151223074014/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atman
 |archive-date=23 December 2015
}}
</ref><ref name=davidlorenzenatman>
{{cite book
 |first=D. |last=Lorenzen |author-link=David Lorenzen
 |year=2004
 |title=The Hindu World
 |editor1-first=Sushil |editor1-last=Mittal
 |editor2-first=Gene   |editor2-last=Thursby
 |publisher=Routledge
 |isbn=0-415-21527-7
 |pages=208–209
 |quote=Advaita and Nirguni movements, on the other hand, stress an interior mysticism in which the devotee seeks to discover the identity of individual soul (''Ātman'') with the universal ground of being (''Brahman'') or to find god within himself.
}}
</ref> In [[Hindu philosophy]], especially in the [[Vedanta]] school of [[Hinduism]], ''Ātman'' is the [[first principle]],<ref>
{{cite book |last1=Deussen |first1=Paul |author-link=Paul Deussen |title=The Philosophy of the Upanishads |last2=Geden |first2=A.S. |date=June 2010 |publisher=Cosimo Classics |isbn=978-1-61640-240-2 |page=86}}
</ref> the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain [[Moksha|liberation (''moksha'')]], a human being must acquire self-knowledge (''ātma [[jñāna]]''), which is to realize that one's true self (''Ātman'') is identical with the transcendent self ''[[Brahman]]'' according to [[Advaita Vedanta]].<ref name=davidlorenzenatman/><ref>
{{cite book |last=King |first=Richard |title=Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism |publisher=State University of New York Press |year=1995 |isbn=978-0-7914-2513-8 |page=64 |quote=''Ātman'' as the innermost essence or soul of man, and ''Brahman'' as the innermost essence and support of the universe. (...) Thus we can see in the [[Upanishad]]s, a tendency towards a convergence of microcosm and macrocosm, culminating in the equating of ''Ātman'' with ''Brahman''.}}
</ref> The [[Āstika and nāstika|six orthodox schools of Hinduism]] believe that there is ''Ātman'' ('self', 'essence') in every being.<ref name="Jayatilleke-2010">
{{cite book |last=Jayatilleke |first=K.N. |author-link=K. N. Jayatilleke |title=Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge |publisher=[[Motilal Banarsidass]] |year=2010 |isbn=978-81-208-0619-1 |at=pp.&nbsp;246–249, from note&nbsp;85 onwards}}
</ref><ref name="Collins-1994">
{{cite book |last=Collins |first=Steven |title=Religion and Practical Reason |publisher=State University of New York Press |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-7914-2217-5 |editor1-last=Reynolds |editor1-first=Frank |page=64 |quote=Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: ''anattā'', Sanskrit: ''anātman'', the opposed doctrine of ''Ātman'' is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence. |editor2-last=Tracy |editor2-first=David}}
</ref><ref name="Shankara-1908">
{{cite book |last=Shankara |first=Acharya |author-link=Adi Shankara |title=Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad and the Commentary of Sankara Acharya on its First Chapter |title-link=Brihad Aranyaka |publisher=Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature |year=1908 |page=2 (quote), pp.&nbsp;2–4 |translator-last=Roer |translator-first=Edward |section=Introduction |quote= |section-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3uwDAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2 |via=Google books}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite magazine
 |first=Katie |last=Javanaud
 |date=July–August 2013
 |title=Is the Buddhist 'no-self' doctrine compatible with pursuing ''nirvana''?
 |magazine=[[Philosophy Now]]
 |issue=97
|url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana
 |via=philosophynow.org  |access-date=17 September 2024  |url-status=live
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206211126/https://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Is_The_Buddhist_No-Self_Doctrine_Compatible_With_Pursuing_Nirvana
 |archive-date=6 February 2015
}}
</ref>

In [[Hinduism]] and [[Jainism]], a {{translit|sa|[[Jīva (Jainism)|jīva]]}} ({{langx|sa|जीव}}, ''{{IAST|jīva}}''; {{langx|hi|जीव}}, ''{{IAST|jīv}}'') is a living being, or any entity imbued with a life force.<ref>
{{cite book
 |first=Matthew |last=Hall
 |year=2011
 |title=Plants as Persons: A philosophical botany
 |publisher=State University of New York Press
 |isbn=978-1-4384-3430-8
 |page=76
 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SqzkqnETEVYC
}}
</ref> The concept of ''jīva'' in Jainism is similar to ''Ātman'' in Hinduism; however, some Hindu traditions differentiate between the two concepts, with ''jīva'' considered as an individual self, but with ''Ātman'' as that which is the universal unchanging self that is present in all living beings and everything else as the metaphysical ''Brahman''.<ref name="varenne46">
{{cite book
 |first=Jean |last=Varenne |author-link=Jean Varenne
 |title=Yoga and the Hindu Tradition
 |year=1989
 |publisher=[[Motilal Banarsidass]]
 |isbn=978-81-208-0543-9
 |pages=45–47
 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=meUWxDDqzuAC&pg=PA46
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite book
 |last1=McLean  |first1=George F.    |author1-link=George F. McLean
 |last2=Meynell |first2=Hugo Anthony |author2-link=Hugo Anthony Meynell
 |year=1988
 |title=The Nature of Metaphysical Knowledge
 |place=Washington, DC
 |publisher=Council for Research in Values and Philosophy
 |isbn=9780819169266
 |page=32
 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kO8-980xGk8C&dq=hiranyagarba&pg=PA32
}}
</ref> The latter is sometimes referred to as ''jīva-ātman'' (a soul in a living body).<ref name="varenne46" />

===Islam===
{{Main|Nafs|Rūḥ}}
[[Islam]] uses two words for the soul: ''rūḥ'' (translated as 'spirit', 'consciousness', 'pneuma', or 'soul') and ''nafs'' (translated as 'self', 'ego', 'psyche', or 'soul').<ref name="Talib">{{cite journal |last1 = Deuraseh |first1 = Nurdeen |last2 = Abu Talib |first2 = Mansor |year = 2005 |title = Mental health in Islamic medical tradition |journal = The International Medical Journal |volume = 4 |issue = 2 |pages = 76–79}}</ref><ref name="brag">{{cite journal |last1 = Bragazzi |first1 = NL |last2 = Khabbache |first2 = H |display-authors = etal |year = 2018 |title = Neurotheology of Islam and Higher Consciousness States |url = http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/742/1296 |journal = Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy |volume = 14 |issue = 2 |pages = 315–21 |archive-date = 15 June 2021 |access-date = 27 June 2020 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210615090208/https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/742/1296 |url-status = live }}</ref> The two terms are frequently used interchangeably, although ''rūḥ'' is more often used to denote the divine spirit or "the breath of life", while ''nafs'' designates one's disposition or characteristics.<ref>{{cite book |title=[[Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān]] |volume=5 |editor=Jane Dammen McAuliffe |year=2006 |publisher=Brill |chapter=Soul |author=[[Th. Emil Homerin]]}}</ref> The [[Taj al-'Arus min Jawahir al-Qamus]] lists several meanings of ''nafs'', including two from the [[Lisān al-ʿArab]], including spirit, self, desire, evil eye, disdain, body.<ref name="doi.org">Calverley, E.E., & Netton, (. (2012). Nafs. In P. Bearman (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0833</ref> [[Lane's Lexicon]] notes that humans consist of ''nafs'' and ''rūḥ''. The former applies to the mind and the latter to life.<ref name="doi.org"/> Attribution of ''nafs'' to [[God in Islam|God]] ([[Allah]]) is avoided.<ref name="doi.org"/> [[Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi|Al-Bag̲h̲dādī]] also rejected that God has ''rūḥ'' in order to have life, as Christian beliefs, and proposes that all spirits (''arwāḥ'') are created.<ref name="doi.org"/>

In the [[Quran]], ''nafs'' (plurals: ''anfus'' and ''nufūs'') refers in most cases to the person or a self.<ref name="doi.org"/> It is used for both humans and [[djinn]] (but not to [[Angels in Islam|angels]]).<ref name="doi.org"/> When referring to the soul it is of three types: the commanding self (''ammāra bi ’l sūʾ''), remniscient of the Hebrew ''nefes̲h̲'' (physical appetite) and the [[Apostle Paul|Pauline]] idea of "flesh" (φυχή) and is always evil, its greed must be feared, and it must be restraint.<ref name="doi.org"/> The accusing self (''lawwāma'') is the soul of the deserters. Lastly, there is the tranquil soul (''muṭmaʾinna''). This typology of the soul is the foundation for later Muslim treatises on ethics and psychology.<ref name="doi.org"/>

====Islamic philosophy (<span lang="ar-Latn">''falsafa''</span>)====
[[File:Miraj by Sultan Muhammad.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|1543 illustration of Muhammad's Night Journey. His ascension to the heavens is often interpreted as an [[allegory]] for the human soul ascending to the celestial realms in Islamic philosophy.]]
Most [[Muslim philosophers]] (Arabic: {{tlit|ar|falsafa}}), aligned with their Greek predecessors, broadly accepted that the soul is composed of non-rational and rational elements.<ref name=":14">Inati, S.(1998). Soul in Islamic philosophy. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis.</ref> The non-rational dimension was subdivided into the vegetative and animal souls, while the rational aspect was split into the practical and theoretical intellects.<ref>Adamson, P., & Taylor, R. C. (Eds.). (2004). The Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy. Cambridge university press. p. 309.</ref><ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012">Calverley, E. E., & Netton, (2012). Nafs. In P. Bearman (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0833</ref> While all agreed that the non-rational soul is tied to the body, opinions diverged on the rational part: some deemed it immaterial and naturally independent of the body, whereas others asserted the entirely material nature of all soul components.<ref name=":14"/> [[Ibn Hazm]] uses {{tlit|ar|nafs}} and {{tlit|ar|rūḥ}} interchangeably.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> He also rejected [[metempsychosis]] that all souls were already created then the angels were commanded to bow before [[Adam in Islam|Adam]], waiting in [[Barzakh]] until the blown into the embryo.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/>

Consensus held that during its union with the body, the non-rational soul governs bodily functions, the practical intellect manages earthly and corporeal matters, and the theoretical intellect pursues knowledge of universal, eternal truths.<ref name=":14" /> These thinkers maintained that the soul's highest purpose or happiness lies in transcending bodily desires to contemplate timeless universal principles.<ref name=":14" /> All agreed the non-rational soul is mortal—created and inevitably perishable. However, views on the rational soul's fate varied: [[al-Farabi]] suggested its eternal survival was uncertain; [[Avicenna|Ibn Sina]] claimed it was uncreated and immortal; and [[Averroes|Ibn Rushd]] argued that the entire soul, including all its parts, is transient and ultimately ceases to exist.<ref name=":14" />

For [[Ibn Arabi]], the soul is human potential, and the purpose of life is the actualization of that potential.<ref>Chittick, William, "Ibn ‘Arabî", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), chapter 6 URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ibn-arabi/>.</ref> Human experience is whereby always between the body ({{tlit|ar|jism}}) and spirit ({{tlit|ar|rūḥ}}),<ref name="plato.stanford.edu">Chittick, William, "Ibn ‘Arabî", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), chapter 6 URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ibn-arabi/>. chapter 3.3</ref> and thus the individual experience is limited to imagination ({{tlit|ar|nafsânî}}).<ref name="plato.stanford.edu"/> Wavering between its body and spirit, the soul can choose (free-will) between either ascending to realization or descending to the materialistic mind,<ref name="plato.stanford.edu"/> which Ibn Arabi compares to [[Muhammad in Islam|Muhammad's]] [[Isra' and Mi'raj|Night Journey]] ({{tlit|ar|miʿrāj}}).<ref>Chittick, William, "Ibn ‘Arabî", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), chapter 6 URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ibn-arabi/>. chapter 6.0</ref> This allows the soul to determine its own tragectory in a [[Karma|karmic]] chain of causalities, towards paradisical or infernal levels, depending on the person's understanding, traits, and actions.<ref>Chittick, William, "Ibn ‘Arabî", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), chapter 6 URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ibn-arabi/>. chapter 5</ref>

====Theology (<span lang="ar-Latn">''kalam''</span>)====
[[File:4DModel.jpg|thumb|A visual rendition of the Islamic model of the soul showing the position of {{tlit|ar|nafs}} relative to other concepts]]
[[Al-Ghazali]] ({{floruit|11th century}}) reconciles the [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] views on the soul with Avicennan philosophy ({{tlit|ar|falsafa}}).<ref>Tamer, Georges. Islam and Rationality: The Impact of al-Ghazālī. Papers Collected on His 900th Anniversary. Vol. 1. Vol. 94. Brill, 2015. p. 101.</ref> Al-Ghazali defines human as a spiritual substance ({{tlit|ar|d̲j̲awhar rūḥānī}}), neither confined, nor joined, nor separated from the body.<ref name="Abul Quasem 1975 p. 44">Abul Quasem, M. (1975). The ethics of al-Ghazali: A composite ethics in Islam. p. 44.</ref><ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> It possesses knowledge and perception.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> He identifies the immaterial self with the {{tlit|ar|al-nafs al-muṭmaʾinna}} and {{tlit|ar|al-rūḥ al-amīn}} of the Quran and {{tlit|ar|nafs}} for bodily desires which must be disciplined.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/><ref name="Rassool, G. H. 2022 p. 81">Rassool, G. H., & Luqman, M. M. (2022). Foundations of Islāmic psychology: From classical scholars to contemporary thinkers. Routledge. p. 81.</ref> He, however, refuses to elaborate on the deepest nature of the soul, as he claims it is forbidden by ''[[sharia|sharīʿah]]'', on grounds that it is beyond comprehension.<ref name="Abul Quasem 1975 p. 44"/>

According to al-Ghazali, {{tlit|ar|nafs}} consists of three elements: animals, devils, and angels.<ref name="Rassool, G. H. 2022 p. 80">Rassool, G. H., & Luqman, M. M. (2022). Foundations of Islāmic psychology: From classical scholars to contemporary thinkers. Routledge. p. 80.</ref> The term for the self or soul is [[Qalb|heart]] ({{tlit|ar|ḳalb}}).<ref name="Rassool, G. H. 2022 p. 80"/><ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> The {{tlit|ar|nafs}}, in al-Ghazali's concept of the soul, is best be understood as [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]], a 'vehicle' ({{tlit|ar|markab}}) of the soul, but yet distinct.<ref name="Abul Quasem 1975 p. 44"/><ref name="Rassool, G. H. 2022 p. 81"/> The animalistic parts of {{tlit|ar|nafs}} is concerned with bodily functions, such as eating and sleeping, the devilish part with deceit and lies, and the angelic part with contemplating the signs of God and preventing lust and anger.<ref name="Rassool, G. H. 2022 p. 80"/> Accordingly, the inclinations towards following either {{tlit|ar|nafs}} or the intellect is associated with supernatural agents: the angels inspire to follow the intellect ({{tlit|ar|ilhām}}) and the devils tempt to give in into evil ({{tlit|ar|waswās}}).<ref>amer, Georges. Islam and Rationality: The Impact of al-Ghazālī. Papers Collected on His 900th Anniversary. Vol. 1. Vol. 94. Brill, 2015. p. 104.</ref><ref>Zaroug, Abdullahi Hassan (1997). "Al-Ghazali's Sufism: A Critical Appraisal". Intellectual Discourse. 5 (2): 150.</ref>

[[Qadi Baydawi|Al-Baydawi]]'s psychology shows influence from the writings of al-Ghazali, whom he also mentions explicitly.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> His classification of souls is elaborated in his ''{{tlit|ar|Ṭawāliʿ al-anwār}}'', authored {{circa|1300}}.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> Like, al-Ghazali, he is in support of the existence of the soul as independent from the body and offers both rational as well as Quranic evidence.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> He further adds that {{tlit|ar|nafs}} is created when the body is completed, but is not embodied itself, and is connected with {{tlit|ar|rūḥ}}.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/>

When discussing the souls, al-Baydawi establishes a cosmological hierarchy of heavenly Intellects.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> Accordingly, God, in his [[Tawhid|unity]] ({{tlit|ar|tawḥīd}}), first creates the Intellect ({{tlit|ar|ʿaḳl}}), which  is neither body, nor form, but the cause of all other potentialities. From this Intellect, a third Intellect is produced up to the tenth Intellect, which in turn influences the elements and bring fourth the spirits ({{tlit|ar|arwāḥ}}). Below these Intellects are the "souls of the spheres" ({{tlit|ar|al-nufūs al-falakiyya}}) identified with the heavenly angels.<ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/> Below them are the incorporeal earthly angels, both [[Cherubim#In Islam|good]] and [[Shayatin|evil angels]] ({{tlit|ar|al-kurūbiyyūn}} and {{tlit|ar|al-s̲h̲ayāṭīn}}), angels in control of the elements and the "souls of reasoning" ({{tlit|ar|anfus nāṭiḳa}}), as well as djinn.<ref>Calverley, E. E. & Pollock, J. (Eds.). (2022) Nature, Man and God in Medieval Islam: Volume One. Brill. pp. 645–647.</ref><ref name="Calverley, E. E. 2012"/>

====Ismailism====
[[File:Muhammad ibn Muhammad Shakir Ruzmah-'i Nathani - A Soul Symbolized as an Angel - Walters W65944A - Full Page.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|Muhammad ibn Muhammad Shakir Ruzmah-'i Nathani{{snd}}''A Soul Symbolized as an Angel'' (1717)]]
[[Ismailism|Ismaili cosmology]] is largely described through [[Neo-Platonic]] and [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] ideas.<ref name="Walker, P. E. 1993 p. 95">Walker, P. E. (1993). Early philosophical Shiism: the Ismaili Neoplatonism of Abū Yaʻqūb al-Sijistānī. Vereinigtes Königreich: Cambridge University Press. p. 95.</ref><ref name="Daftary, F. 2020 p. 86">Daftary, F. (2020). Short History of the Ismailis: Traditions of a Muslim Community. Edinburgh University Press. p. 86.</ref> Two influential Ismaili teachers are [[Abu Ya'qub al-Sijistani]] during the 10th century and [[Nasir Khusraw]] during the 11th.<ref name="Walker, P. E. 1993 p. 95"/> One of Sijistani's key doctrines is the immateriality of the soul, which belongs to the spiritual domain but is captured in the body of the material world.<ref name="Walker, P. E. 1993 p. 95"/><ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 212">Lange, C. (2015). Paradise and hell in Islamic traditions. Cambridge University Press. p. 212.</ref> In his [[soteriology|soteriological teachings]], the soul needs to discard sensual pleasures for the sake of intellectual gratification through spiritual ascension.<ref>Walker, P. E. (1993). Early philosophical Shiism: the Ismaili Neoplatonism of Abū Yaʻqūb al-Sijistānī. Vereinigtes Königreich: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref name="Daftary, F. 2020 p. 86"/><ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 211">Lange, C. (2015). Paradise and hell in Islamic traditions. Cambridge University Press. p. 211.</ref> One of Sijistani's arguments is, that sensual pleasure is finite, and thus cannot be part of the eternal soul.<ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 211"/> Although not made explicit by Sijistani himself, other Ismaili authors propose that a soul attached to material pleasure will be reborn in another sensual body on earth, first as a dark-skinned person, a Berber, or a Turk, then as an animals, an insects, or a plant, all believed to be progressively less likely to pursue spiritual or intellectual virtues.<ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 212"/>

In this context, [[Nasir al-Din al-Tusi]] identifies the earthly world with {{tlit|ar|[[Sijjin|sijjīn]]}}.<ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 214">Lange, C. (2015). Paradise and hell in Islamic traditions. Cambridge University Press. p. 214.</ref> The {{tlit|ar|[[zabaniyah]]}} are identified with the nineteen evil forces that distract human being from heavenly truths and diverge them to material and sensual concerns, including distorted imagination ({{tlit|ar|khayāl}}).<ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 214"/> The paradisical [[houri]]s are conceptualized as items of knowledge from the spiritual world, the soul is united with in a form of metaphorical marriage, per Surah 44:54.<ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 214"/> This type of knowledge is inaccessible to those souls remaining in the earthly domain or hell.<ref name="Lange, C. 2015 p. 214"/>

Nasir Khusraw equates the rational soul of humans with a spirit potentially angel and demon.<ref>Nasr, S. H., and Aminrazavi, Mehdi. An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, Vol. 2: Ismaili Thought in the Classical Age. Iran, I. B. Tauris, 2008. pp. 319–323.</ref><ref name="Islamic Philosophy 2017 p. 186">The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Philosophy. (2017). Vereinigtes Königreich: Oxford University Press. p. 186.</ref> The soul is a potential angel or potential demon, depending on their obedience to God's law.<ref name="Islamic Philosophy 2017 p. 186"/> The obedient soul is growing to a potential angel and becomes an actual angel upon death, while the soul seeking out sensual delights is a potential demon and turns into an actual demon in the next world.<ref name="Islamic Philosophy 2017 p. 186"/><ref>Nasr, S. H., and Aminrazavi, Mehdi. An Anthology of Philosophy in Persia, Vol. 2: Ismaili Thought in the Classical Age. Iran, I. B. Tauris, 2008.</ref>

===Jainism===
{{Main|Jīva (Jainism)|Vitalism (Jainism)}}
[[File:Atman.jpg|thumb|Depiction of the concept of soul (in transmigration) in Jainism. The color gold represents {{tlit|sa|nokarma}}, the quasi-karmic matter, Cyan depicts {{tlit|sa|dravya karma}}, the subtle karmic matter, orange represents the {{tlit|sa|bhav karma}}, the psycho-physical karmic matter, and white depicts {{tlit|sa|sudhatma}}, the pure consciousness.]]

In Jainism, every living being, from plant or bacterium to human, has a soul and the concept forms the very basis of Jainism. According to Jainism, there is no beginning or end to the existence of soul. It is eternal in nature and changes its form until it attains liberation. In Jainism, {{tlit|sa|jīva}} is the immortal essence or soul of a living organism, such as human, animal, fish, or plant, which survives physical death.<ref name="jajinixxii" /> The term {{tlit|sa|ajīva}} in Jainism means 'not soul', and represents matter (including body), time, space, non-motion and motion.<ref name="jajinixxii">{{cite book|author=J Jaini|title=Outlines of Jainism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=54A9AAAAIAAJ|year=1940|publisher=Cambridge University Press|pages=xxii–xxiii}}</ref> In Jainism, a {{tlit|sa|jīva}} is either {{tlit|sa|samsari}} (mundane, caught in cycle of rebirths) or {{tlit|sa|mukta}} ('liberated').<ref>{{Cite book |last=Siddhāntacakravartin |first=Nemicandra |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qN82XwAACAAJ |title=Gommatsara Karma-kanda |date=1927 |publisher=Central Jaina Publishing House |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Buddhism and Jainism |date=2017 |publisher=Springer Netherlands |isbn=978-94-024-0851-5 |editor-last=Sarao |editor-first=K. T. S. |editor-link=K. T. S. Sarao |series=Encyclopedia of Indian Religions |page=594 |doi=10.1007/978-94-024-0852-2_100397 |editor-last2=Long |editor-first2=Jeffery D. |editor2-link=Jeffery D. Long |chapter=Jiva }}</ref>

According to this belief until the time the soul is liberated from the {{tlit|sa|[[Saṃsāra (Jainism)|saṃsāra]]}} (cycle of repeated birth and death), it gets attached to one of these bodies based on the [[Karma in Jainism|karma]] ('actions') of the individual soul. Irrespective of which state the soul is in, it has got the same attributes and qualities. The difference between the liberated and non-liberated souls is that the qualities and attributes are manifested completely in case of {{tlit|sa|[[siddha]]}} ('liberated soul') as they have overcome all karmic bondage, whereas in case of non-liberated souls they are partially exhibited. Souls who rise victorious over wicked emotions while still remaining within physical bodies are referred to as {{tlit|sa|[[Arihant (Jainism)|arihants]]}}.<ref>{{cite book |last=Sangave |first=Vilas Adinath |author-link=Vilas Adinath Sangave |title=Aspects of Jaina religion |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I8RUPwAACAAJ |edition=3rd
|publisher=Bharatiya Jnanpith |year=2001 |pages=15–16 |isbn=81-263-0626-2}}</ref>

Concerning the Jain view of the soul, [[Virchand Gandhi]] said that, "the soul lives its own life, not for the purpose of the body, but the body lives for the purpose of the soul. If we believe that the soul is to be controlled by the body then soul misses its power."<ref>{{cite web |title=Forgotten Gandhi, Virchand Gandhi (1864–1901) – Advocate of Universal Brotherhood |url=http://www.all-famous-quotes.com/Virchand_Gandhi_quotes.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921112719/http://www.all-famous-quotes.com/Virchand_Gandhi_quotes.html |archive-date=21 September 2013 |publisher=All Famous Quotes}}</ref>

===Judaism===
The [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] terms {{lang|he|נפש}} {{tlit|he|[[nephesh|nefesh]]}} ('living being'), {{lang|he|רוח}} {{tlit|he|[[ruach]]}} ('wind'), {{lang|he|נשמה}} {{tlit|he|neshamah}} ('breath'), {{lang|he|חיה}} {{tlit|he|chayah}} ('life') and {{lang|he|יחידה}} {{tlit|he|yechidah}} ('singularity') are used to describe the soul or spirit.<ref>''Zohar'', ''Rayah Mehemna'', ''Terumah'' 158b.  See Leibowitz, Aryeh (2018). ''The Neshamah: A Study of the Human Soul''. Feldheim. pp. 27, 110. {{ISBN|1-68025-338-7}}.</ref>

Jewish beliefs concerning the concept and nature of the soul are complicated by a lack of singularly authoritative traditions and differing beliefs in an afterlife. The conception of an immortal soul separate from and capable of surviving a human being after death was not present in early Jewish belief,<ref>Tabor, James, [http://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/death-afterlife-future/ What the Bible says about Death, Afterlife, and the Future.] "The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any [[Resurrection of the Dead|resurrection or return from death]]. Human beings, like the beasts of the field, are made of "dust of the earth", and at death they return to that dust (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). The Hebrew word {{tlit|he|nephesh}}, traditionally translated 'living soul' but more properly understood as 'living creature', is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal."</ref> but became prevalent by the onset of the Common Era. This conception of the soul differed from that of the Greek, and later Christian, belief in that the soul was viewed an ontological substance which was intrinsically inseparable from the human body.<ref>
"Modern scholarship has underscored the fact that Hebrew and Greek concepts of soul were not synonymous. While the Hebrew thought world distinguished soul from body (as material basis of life), there was no question of two separate, independent entities. A person did not have a body but was an animated body, a unit of life manifesting itself in fleshly form—a psychophysical organism (Buttrick, 1962). Although Greek concepts of the soul varied widely according to the particular era and philosophical school, Greek thought often presented a view of the soul as a separate entity from body. Until recent decades Christian theology of the soul has been more reflective of Greek (compartmentalized) than Hebrew (unitive) ideas.", Moon, "Soul", in Benner & Hill (eds.), Baker encyclopedia of psychology & counseling, p. 1148 (2nd ed. 1999).</ref> At the same time, a burgeoning belief in an afterlife required some form of continued existence following the end of mortal life in order to partake in the world to come. This need for apparent dichotomy is reflected in the [[Talmud]], where the biblical psychophysical unity of the soul remains, but the possibility of the soul's simultaneous existence on both a physical and a spiritual level is embraced. This essential paradox is only reinforced by subsequent Rabbinical works.<ref name="JewSoul">{{cite book|title= The Concept of Soul in Judaism, Christianity and Islam|publisher=De Gruyter|year=2023|isbn= 9783110748239|pages=1–18}}</ref> Ultimately, the specific nature of the soul was of secondary concern to rabbinical authorities, and indeed remains as such in most modern traditions.<ref name="JewSoul"/>

As spiritual and mystic traditions developed, the Jewish concept of the soul underwent a number of changes. [[Kabbalah]] and other mystic traditions go into greater detail into the nature of the soul. Kabbalah separates the soul into five elements, corresponding to the [[five worlds]]:<ref>{{cite web |title=Nurturing The Human Soul&mdash;From Cradle To Grave |url=https://www.chizukshaya.com/2013/01/the-five-levels-of-mans-soul.html |website=Chizuk Shaya: Dvar Torah Resource |access-date=10 June 2022 |date=6 January 2013 |archive-date=25 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221025111428/https://www.chizukshaya.com/2013/01/the-five-levels-of-mans-soul.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Neshamah: Levels of Soul Consciousness |url=https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380651/jewish/Neshamah-Levels-of-Soul-Consciousness.htm |website=Chabad.org Kabbalah Online |access-date=24 April 2024 |archive-date=23 April 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240423225245/https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380651/jewish/Neshamah-Levels-of-Soul-Consciousness.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

# {{tlit|he|[[Nephesh|Nefesh]]}}, related to natural instinct.
# {{tlit|he|[[Ruach]]}}, related to emotion.
# {{tlit|he|Neshamah}}, related to intellect.
# {{tlit|he|Chayah}}, which gazes at the transcendence of God.
# {{tlit|he|Yechidah}}, essence of the soul, which is bound to God.

Kabbalah proposed a concept of reincarnation, the {{tlit|he|[[Gilgul]]}} ({{tlit|he|[[nefesh habehamit]]}}, the 'animal soul').<ref>Weiner, Rebecca [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/reincarnation-and-judaism Reincarnation and Judaism] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230414065736/https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/reincarnation-and-judaism |date=14 April 2023 }}. jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Retrieved July 2, 2024</ref> Some Jewish traditions assert that the soul is housed in the {{tlit|he|[[Luz (bone)|luz]]}} bone, although traditions disagree as to whether it is the [[Atlas (anatomy)|atlas]] at the top of the spine, or the [[sacrum]] at bottom of the spine.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Scholem |first=Gershom |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qJesQGFsSwsC |title=Kabbalah |date=1978 |publisher=Meridian |isbn=978-0-452-01007-9 }}</ref>

===Shamanism===
{{See also|Soul dualism}}
[[File:Manunggul Jar.jpg|thumb|The [[Neolithic]] [[Manunggul Jar|Manunggul burial jar]] from the [[Tabon Caves]], [[Palawan]], Philippines, depicts a soul and a [[psychopomp]] journeying to the spirit world in a boat ({{circa}} 890–710 [[BCE]]).]]

Soul dualism, also called "multiple souls" or "dualistic pluralism", is a common belief in [[Shamanism]],<ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last= Sumegi |first= Angela |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=ZBtKf35fABEC |title=Dreamworlds of Shamanism and Tibetan Buddhism: The Third Place |date= 2008 |publisher= State University of New York Press |isbn= 978-0-7914-7826-4 |language =en}}</ref><ref name="Bock">{{cite thesis |last =Bock |first =Nona J.T. |date =2005 |title =Shamanic techniques: their use and effectiveness in the practice of psychotherapy |type =MSc |publisher =University of Wisconsin-Stout |url =http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2005/2005bockn.pdf |archive-date =25 October 2022 |access-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20221025110045/http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2005/2005bockn.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="jackson"/> and is essential in the universal and central concept of "[[soul flight]]" (also called "soul journey", "[[out-of-body experience]]", [[Religious ecstasy|"ecstasy"]], or "[[astral projection]]").<ref name="Hoppal2007">{{cite book |last1 =Hoppál |first1 =Mihály |title =Shamans and Traditions |date =2007 |publisher=[[Akadémiai Kiadó]] |location =Budapest |isbn =978-963-05-8521-7 |pages =17–26}}</ref><ref name="jackson">{{cite book |first1 =Ulf |last1 =Drobin |editor1-first =Peter |editor1-last =Jackson |title =Horizons of Shamanism |chapter =Introduction |publisher =Stockholm University Press |year =2016 |pages =xiv-xvii |isbn =978-91-7635-024-9 |url =https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/32054/619233.pdf?sequence=1 |archive-date =17 September 2022 |access-date =8 March 2021 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20220917102925/https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/32054/619233.pdf?sequence=1 |url-status =live}}</ref><ref name="Winkelman2"/> It involves the belief that humans have two or more souls, generally termed the "body soul" (or "life soul"), and the "free soul". The former is linked to bodily functions and awareness when awake, while the latter can freely wander during sleep or trance states.<ref name="Bock"/><ref name="Winkelman2">{{cite book |first1=Michael James |last1=Winkelman |editor1-first=Kasumi-Clements |editor1-last=Niki |title =Religion: Mental Religion |chapter =Shamanism and the Brain |publisher =Macmillan Reference USA |year =2016 |pages=355–372 |isbn =9780028663609 |url =https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323547873}}</ref><ref name="Winkelman">{{cite journal |last1=Winkelman |first1=Michael |title=Shamanic universals and evolutionary psychology |journal=Journal of Ritual Studies |date=2002 |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=63–76 |jstor=44364143 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/44364143 |archive-date=18 August 2022 |access-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20220818035112/https://www.jstor.org/stable/44364143 |url-status =live }}</ref> In some cases, there are a plethora of soul types with different functions.<ref name="Merkur"/><ref name=Kul-ConSl>{{cite web |url =http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol4/hing.htm |title =Conceptions of soul in old-Estonian religion |volume =4 |last =Kulmar |first =Tarmo |author-link =:et:Tarmo Kulmar |access-date =8 March 2021 |archive-date =16 January 2019 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20190116192657/http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol4/hing.htm |url-status =live }}</ref> Soul dualism and multiple souls appear prominently in the traditional animistic beliefs of the [[Austronesian peoples]],<ref name="tan">{{cite book |first=Michael L. |last=Tan |title=Revisiting Usog, Pasma, Kulam |publisher=University of the Philippines Press |year=2008 |isbn=9789715425704 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EktzHrfup1UC}}</ref><ref name="sather2018">{{cite book |author =Clifford Sather |editor =James J. Fox |title =Expressions of Austronesian Thought and Emotions |chapter =A work of love: Awareness and expressions of emotion in a Borneo healing ritual |publisher =ANU Press |year =2018 |pages =57–63 |isbn =9781760461928 |url =https://books.google.com/books?id=wAxfDwAAQBAJ}}</ref> the [[Hun and po|Chinese]] people ([[Hun and po|''hun'' and ''po'']]),<ref name="Harrell">{{cite journal |last1 =Harrell |first1 =Stevan |title =The Concept of Soul in Chinese Folk Religion |journal =[[The Journal of Asian Studies]] |date=1979 |volume=38 |issue =3 |pages =519–528 |doi =10.2307/2053785|jstor=2053785 |s2cid =162507447 |doi-access =free }}</ref> the [[Tibetan people]],<ref name=":5" /> most [[Ethnic groups of Africa|African]] peoples,<ref name="McClelland" /> most [[Indigenous peoples of the Americas#North America|Native North Americans]],<ref name="McClelland">{{cite book |last1 =McClelland |first1 =Norman C. |title =Encyclopedia of Reincarnation and Karma |date =2010 |publisher =McFarland & Company, Inc. |isbn =978-0-7864-4851-7 |pages =251, 258}}</ref><ref name="Merkur">{{cite book |last1 =Merkur |first1 =Daniel |title =Becoming Half Hidden / Shamanism and Initiation among the Inuit |date =1985 |publisher =Almqvist & Wiksell |location =Stockholm |isbn =91-22-00752-0 |pages =61, 222–223, 226, 240}}</ref> ancient [[South Asia]]n peoples,<ref name="jackson" /> Northern [[Eurasia]]n peoples,<ref name="Hop-Nat">{{cite web |last =Hoppál |first=Mihály |title=Nature worship in Siberian shamanism |url =http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol4/hoppal.htm |url-status=live |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20181230025609/http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol4/hoppal.htm |archive-date=30 December 2018 |access-date =8 March 2021}}</ref><ref name="Hoppál">{{cite book |last1 =Hoppál |first1 =Mihály |title =Sámánok. Lelkek és jelképek ["Shamans / Souls and symbols"] |date =1994 |publisher =Helikon Kiadó |location =Budapest |isbn =963-208-298-2 |page =225}}</ref> and among [[Ancient Egyptians]] (the [[Ancient Egyptian conception of the soul|''ka'' and ''ba'']]).<ref name="McClelland" />

Belief in soul dualism is found throughout most [[Austronesian people|Austronesian]] [[shamanistic]] traditions. The reconstructed [[Proto-Austronesian]] word for the 'body soul' is ''*nawa'' ('breath', 'life', or 'vital spirit'). The body-soul is located somewhere in the [[abdominal cavity]], often in the [[liver]] or the [[heart]] (Proto-Austronesian ''*qaCay'').<ref name="tan"/><ref name="sather2018"/> The "free soul" is located in the head. Its names are usually derived from Proto-Austronesian ''*qaNiCu'' ('ghost', 'spirit [of the dead]'), which also apply to other non-human nature spirits. The "free soul" is also referred to in names that literally mean 'twin' or 'double', from Proto-Austronesian ''*duSa'' ('two').<ref name="yu2000">{{cite book |first=Jose Vidamor B. |last=Yu |title=Inculturation of Filipino-Chinese Culture Mentality |volume =3 |publisher =Editrice Pontifica Universita Gregoriana |series =Interreligious and Intercultural Investigations |year =2000 |pages =148–149 |isbn =9788876528484 |url =https://books.google.com/books?id=c4WqAOKb5c8C}}</ref><ref name="duSa">{{cite encyclopedia |author1 =Robert Blust |author1-link =Robert Blust |author2 =Stephen Trussel |title =ACD - Austronesian Comparative Dictionary - Cognate Sets - D |dictionary =Austronesian Comparative Dictionary |entry =*du |url =http://www.trussel2.com/acd/acd-s_d.htm#30339 |access-date =7 July 2018 |archive-date =20 October 2020 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20201020233130/https://www.trussel2.com/ACD/acd-s_d.htm#30339 |url-status=live }}</ref> A virtuous person is said to be one whose souls are in harmony with each other, while an evil person is one whose souls are in conflict.<ref name="mercado1991">{{cite journal |author =Leonardo N. Mercado |year =1991 |title =Soul and Spirit in Filipino Thought |journal=Philippine Studies |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=287–302 |jstor=42633258}}</ref>

The "free soul" is said to leave the body and journey to the [[Spirit world (spiritualism)|spirit world]] during sleep, [[trance|trance-like states]], [[delirium]], [[insanity]], and at death. The duality is also seen in the healing traditions of Austronesian shamans, where illnesses are regarded as a "[[soul loss]]"—and thus to heal the sick, one must "return" the "free soul" (which may have been stolen by an evil spirit or got lost in the spirit world) into the body. If the "free soul" cannot be returned, the afflicted person dies or goes permanently insane. The [[shaman]] heals within the spiritual dimension by returning 'lost' parts of the human soul from wherever they have gone. The shaman also cleanses excess negative energies, which confuse or pollute the soul.<ref name="salazar">{{cite journal |author =Zeus A. Salazar |author-link =Zeus A. Salazar |year=2007 |title=Faith healing in the Philippines: An historical perspective |url =http://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-43-02-2007/Faith%20Healing%20in%20the%20Philippines%20Zeus%20Salazar.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Asian Studies |volume=43 |issue=2v |pages=1–15 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20220917111325/https://asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-43-02-2007/Faith%20Healing%20in%20the%20Philippines%20Zeus%20Salazar.pdf |archive-date=17 September 2022 |access-date=22 April 2019}}</ref>

In some ethnic groups, there can be more than two souls. Among the [[Tagbanwa people]] of the Philippines a person is said to have six souls—the "free soul" (which is regarded as the "true" soul) and five secondary souls with various functions.<ref name="tan"/> Several [[Inuit]] groups believe that a person has more than one type of soul. One is associated with respiration, the other can accompany the body as a shadow.<ref>Kleivan, Inge; Sonne, B. (1985). "Arctic peoples". Eskimos. Greenland and Canada. Institute of Religious Iconography. Iconography of religions. Leiden (The Netherlands): State University Groningen, via E.J. Brill. section VIII, fascicle 2. ISBN 90-04-07160-1.</ref> In some cases, it is connected to [[Inuit religion|shamanistic beliefs among the various Inuit groups]].<ref name="Merkur" /> [[Caribou Inuit]] groups also believed in several types of souls.<ref>Gabus, Jean (1970). A karibu eszkimók (in Hungarian). Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó. Translation of the original: Gabus, Jean (1944). Vie et coutumes des Esquimaux Caribous. Libraire Payot Lausanne.</ref>

===Sikhism===
In [[Sikhism]], the soul, referred to as the ''Ātman'', is understood as a pure consciousness without any content.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Virk |first=Hardev |date=2018 |title=Concept of Mind, Body and Soul in the Sikh Scripture (SGGS) |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322622656}}</ref> The soul is considered to be eternal and inherently connected to the divine (''[[Paramatman]]''), although its journey is shaped by [[karma]]—the cumulative effect of one's actions, thoughts, and deeds. According to Sikh teachings, the soul undergoes cycles of rebirth (transmigration) until it achieves liberation (''mukti'') from this cycle, a process governed by the principles of divine order ([[hukam]]) and grace (''nadar'').{{citation needed|date=June 2025}}

The cycle of rebirth is influenced by the individual's attachment to worldly desires and ego (''haumai''), which obscures the soul's innate connection to the divine. Sikh scripture warns that preoccupation with material wealth, familial ties, or sensory pleasures at the moment of death can lead to rebirth in lower life forms, such as animals or spirits. Conversely, meditation on God's name ([[Naam Japo|Nam Simran]]) and remembrance of the divine (''[[Waheguru]]'') during life—and especially at death—enable the soul to merge with the eternal truth ([[Sach Khand]]), ending the cycle of reincarnation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What Do Sikhs Believe About the Afterlife? |url=https://www.learnreligions.com/sikhs-believe-about-the-afterlife-2993490 |access-date=2025-04-16 |website=Learn Religions |language=en}}</ref>

Central to Sikh doctrine is the belief that while karma determines the soul's trajectory, divine grace can transcend karmic limitations. The [[Guru Granth Sahib]] claims that liberation ultimately depends on God's will.{{citation needed|date=June 2025}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Singh |first=Jagraj |title=A Complete Guide to Sikhism |publisher=Unistar Books |year=2009 |isbn=9788171427543 |location=India |pages=266 |language=English}}</ref> Ethical living, including honest labor ([[Kirat Karo]]), sharing resources ([[Vand Chhako]]), and community service (''seva'').{{citation needed|date=June 2025}}

===Taoism===
In [[Taoism]], the idea of the "soul" is not a single, unchanging entity like in many Western traditions. Instead, it is seen as a dynamic balance of energies. Two key parts are the [[hun and po|''hun'' and ''po'']]. The ''hun'' is the "ethereal soul", linked to light, spiritual awareness, and the mind. It is considered yang ('active, upward energy') and is said to depart the body after death. The ''po'' is the "corporeal soul", tied to the body, instincts, and physical senses. It is yin ('passive, earthly energy') and stays with the body after death, dissolving back into the earth over time.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Robinet |first=Isabelle |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9e7wzgEACAAJ |title=Taoism: Growth of a Religion |date=2022 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0-8047-6494-0 |language=en}}</ref>

There is significant scholarly debate about the [[Taoism|Taoist]] understanding of [[death]].<ref name=EoB>{{citation|title= Encyclopedia of Bioethics|page=2467|author=Warren T. Reich|year=1995|publisher=Simon & Schuster Macmillan |isbn=978-0-02-897355-5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bmaoP_Azp-4C}}</ref>  The process of death itself is described as ''[[Shijie (Daoism)|shijie]]'' or "release from the corpse", but what happens after is described variously as [[Spiritual transformation|transformation]], [[immortality]] or ascension of the soul to [[Tian|heaven]]. For example, the [[Yellow Emperor]] was said to have ascended directly to heaven in plain sight, while the [[thaumaturge]] [[Ye Fashan]] was said to have transformed into a sword and then into a column of smoke which rose to heaven.<ref name=eoT>{{citation|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t8h8myrpxAUC&pg=PA896|title=The encyclopedia of Taoism|chapter=shijie|author=Russell Kirkland|publisher=Routledge|year=2008|isbn=978-0-7007-1200-7}}</ref>

Taoist texts such as the [[Zhuangzi (book)|Zhuangzi]] suggest the soul is not separate from the natural world but part of the flow of the Tao (the universal principle). One passage states, "Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me."<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu translated by Burton Watson, Terebess Asia Online (TAO) |url=https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2 |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=terebess.hu}}</ref> Similarly, the ''[[Tao Te Ching|Daodejing]]'' teaches that harmony with the Tao dissolves rigid boundaries between self and cosmos: "Returning to one's roots is known as stillness. This is what is meant by returning to one's destiny."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chapter-16-Commentary |url=https://www.centertao.org/essays/tao-te-ching/dc-lau/chapter-16-commentary/ |access-date=2025-04-15 |website=www.centertao.org}}</ref>

==Philosophy==
[[File:Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.jpg|thumb|[[Socrates]], [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]], the Socratic philosophers in [[ancient Greece]], laid the foundation for the traditional understanding of the soul.]]
Greek philosophers, such as [[Socrates]], [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]], understood that the soul (ψυχή, ''[[wikt:ψυχή#Ancient Greek|psykhḗ]]'') must have a logical faculty, the exercise of which was the most divine of human actions.<ref>Claus, David (1981) [https://books.google.no/books?id=d9QDAQAAIAAJ&printsec=front_cover&redir_esc=y ''Toward the Soul: An Inquiry into the Meaning of Psyche Before Plato'']. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300020960</ref> At his defense trial, Socrates even summarized his teachings as nothing other than an exhortation for his fellow Athenians to excel in matters of the psyche since all bodily goods are dependent on such excellence (''[[Apology (Plato)|Apology]]'' 30a–b). Aristotle reasoned that a man's body and soul were his matter and form respectively: the body is a collection of elements and the soul is the essence. Soul or [[Psyche (psychology)|psyche]] ([[Ancient Greek]]: ψυχή ''psykhḗ'', of ψύχειν ''psýkhein'', 'to breathe', cf. [[Latin]]  ''anima'') comprises the mental abilities of a living being: reason, character, [[free will]], feeling, [[consciousness]], [[qualia]], memory, perception, thinking, and so on. Depending on the philosophical system, a soul can either be [[Mortality of the soul|mortal]] or [[immortality of the soul|immortal]].<ref>{{Cite OED|Soul (noun)|id=185083|access-date=1 December 2016}}</ref>

The [[ancient Greece|ancient Greeks]] used the term "[[ensouled]]" to represent the concept of being alive, indicating that the earliest surviving [[Western philosophical]] view believed that the soul was that which gave the body life.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/ancient-soul/|title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|last=Lorenz|first=Hendrik|chapter=Ancient Theories of Soul|date=2009|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Summer 2009|archive-date=24 February 2021|access-date=8 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224163804/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/ancient-soul/|url-status=live}}</ref> The soul was considered the incorporeal or spiritual "breath" that animates (from the Latin ''[[:wikt:anima|anima]]'', cf. "animal") the living organism. [[F. M. Cornford|Francis M. Cornford]] quotes [[Pindar]] by saying that the soul sleeps while the limbs are active, but when one is sleeping, the soul is active and reveals "an award of joy or sorrow drawing near" in dreams.<ref>[[F. M. Cornford|Francis M. Cornford]], ''Greek Religious Thought'', p. 64, referring to Pindar, Fragment 131.</ref> [[Erwin Rohde]] writes that an early pre-[[Pythagoreanism|Pythagorean]] belief presented the soul as lifeless when it departed the body, and that it retired into [[Hades]] with no hope of returning to a body.<ref>[[Erwin Rohde]], ''Psyche'', 1928.</ref> Plato was the first thinker in antiquity to combine the various functions of the soul into one coherent conception: the soul is that which moves things (i.e., that which gives life, on the view that life is self-motion) by means of its thoughts, requiring that it be both a mover and a thinker.<ref name="Campbell, Douglas 2021">Campbell, Douglas (2021). "Self-Motion and Cognition: Plato's Theory of the Soul". ''The Southern Journal of Philosophy''. '''59''': 523–544.[https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=CAMSAC-13] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241210021051/https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=CAMSAC-13|date=10 December 2024}}</ref>

===Socrates and Plato<!--Linked from 'Emanationism'-->===
{{Main|Plato's tripartite theory of soul}}
[[File:Uc2.ark 13960 t8rb76g72-seq 443 (cropped Plato).jpg|thumb|upright|Likeness of [[Plato]] after an [[engraved gem]]. The Psyche-wings fastened to his temples allude to his doctrine of the immortality of the soul.<ref>{{Cite book |last=King |first=Charles William |url=https://archive.org/details/handbookofengrav00king/page/236/mode/2up?view=theater |title=Handbook of Engraved Gems |publisher=George Bell and Sons |year=1885 |edition=2nd |location=London |pages=236}}</ref>]]

Drawing on the words of his teacher Socrates, Plato considered the psyche to be the [[essence]] of a person, being that which decides how humans behave. He considered this essence to be an incorporeal, eternal occupant of our being. Plato said that even after death, the soul exists and is able to think. He believed that as bodies die, the soul is continually reborn ([[metempsychosis]]) in subsequent bodies; however, Aristotle believed that only one part of the soul was immortal, namely the intellect ({{tlit|grc|logos}}). The Platonic soul consists of three parts, which are located in different regions of the body:<ref>{{cite book|title = The Gift of Logos: Essays in Continental Philosophy|last = Jones|first = David|publisher = Cambridge Scholars Publishing|year = 2009|isbn = 978-1-4438-1825-4|pages = 33–35|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=1RgaBwAAQBAJ&q=plato+soul+logos&pg=PA34|access-date = 2016-02-23}}{{better source needed|date=April 2025}}</ref><ref>See Karfik 2005. Karfik, Filip. 2005. "What the Mortal Parts of the Soul Really Are". ''Rhizai: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science'' 2: 197–217.</ref>
# The ''[[Logos#Ancient Greek philosophy|logos]]'', or ''logistikon'' (mind, [[nous]], or [[reason]]), which is located in the head and is related to reason.
# The ''[[Thumos|thymos]]'', or ''thumetikon'' ([[emotion]], spiritedness, or masculine), which is located near the chest region and is related to anger.
# The [[Eros (concept)|eros]], or ''epithumetikon'' (appetitive, [[motivation|desire]], or feminine), which is located in the stomach and is related to one's desires.

Plato compares the three parts of the soul or psyche to a societal [[Plato's tripartite theory of soul|caste system]]. According to Plato's theory, the three-part soul is essentially the same thing as a state's class system because, to function well, each part must contribute so that the whole functions well. ''Logos'' keeps the other functions of the soul regulated.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Welton |first=William A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vbtbQk_A0YoC |title=Plato's Forms: Varieties of Interpretation |date=2002 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-0-7391-0514-6 |language=en}}</ref>

The soul is at the heart of Plato's philosophy. Francis Cornford described the twin pillars of Platonism as being the [[theory of forms]] on the one hand, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul on the other.<ref>[[F. M. Cornford|Cornford, Francis]] (1941). ''The Republic of Plato''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. xxv.</ref> Plato was the first person in the history of philosophy to believe that the soul was both the source of life and the mind. In Plato's dialogues, the soul plays many disparate roles.<ref>Campbell, Douglas (2021). "Self-Motion and Cognition: Plato's Theory of the Soul". ''The Southern Journal of Philosophy''. '''59''': 523–544</ref> Among other things, Plato believes that the soul is what gives life to the body (which was articulated most of all in the ''Laws'' and ''Phaedrus'') in terms of self-motion: to be alive is to be capable of moving yourself, and the soul is a self-mover. He also thinks that the soul is the bearer of moral properties (i.e., when one is virtuous, it is their soul that is virtuous as opposed to, say, their body). The soul is also the mind: it is that which thinks in them. This casual oscillation between different roles of the soul in observed many dialogues, including the ''Republic:''<blockquote>Is there any function of the soul that you could not accomplish with anything else, such as taking care of something (''epimeleisthai''), ruling, and deliberating, and other such things? Could we correctly assign these things to anything besides the soul, and say that they are characteristic (''idia'') of it?

No, to nothing else.

What about living? Will we deny that this is a function of the soul?

That absolutely is.<ref>Plato, ''Republic,'' Book 1, 353d.  Translation found in Campbell 2021: 523.[https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=CAMSAC-13] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241210021051/https://philpapers.org/go.pl?aid=CAMSAC-13|date=10 December 2024}}</ref></blockquote>The ''Phaedo'' most famously caused problems to scholars who were trying to make sense of this aspect of Plato's theory of the soul, such as  Dorothea Frede and Sarah Broadie.<ref>Frede, Dorothea. 1978. "The Final Proof of the Immortality of the Soul in Plato's Phaedo 102a–107a". ''Phronesis'', 23.1: 27–41.[https://philpapers.org/archive/FRETFP.pdf]</ref><ref>[[Sarah Broadie|Broadie, Sarah]]. 2001. "Soul and Body in Plato and Descartes." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 101: 295–308.[https://philpapers.org/archive/BROSAB-3.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250131072942/https://philpapers.org/archive/BROSAB-3.pdf|date=31 January 2025}}</ref> 2020s scholarship overturned this accusation by arguing that part of the novelty of Plato's theory of the soul is that it was the first to unite the different features and powers of the soul that became commonplace in later ancient and medieval philosophy.<ref name="Campbell, Douglas 2021" /> For Plato, the soul moves things by means of its thoughts, as one scholar puts it, and accordingly the soul is both a mover (i.e., the principle of life, where life is conceived of as self-motion) and a thinker.<ref name="Campbell, Douglas 2021" />

===Aristotle===
{{See also|Aristotle's biology}}
[[File:Aristotelian Soul.png|thumb|upright=1.5|The structure of the souls of plants, animals, and humans, according to [[Aristotle]], with ''Bios'', ''Zoê'', and ''Psūchê'']]''
[[Aristotle]] defined the soul, or ''Psūchê'' (ψυχή), as the "[[first actuality]]" of a naturally organized body,<ref>{{cite book|last=Aristotle|title=On The Soul|page=412b5}}</ref> and argued against its separate existence from the physical body. In Aristotle's view, the primary activity, or full actualization, of a living thing constitutes its soul. For example, the full actualization of an eye, as an independent organism, is to see (its purpose or [[final cause]]).<ref>{{cite book |last=Aristotle |title=Physics |at=Book VIII, Chapter 5, pp. 256a5–22}}</ref> Another example is that the full actualization of a human being would be living a fully functional human life in accordance with reason (which he considered to be a faculty unique to humanity).<ref>{{cite book |last=Aristotle |title=Nicomachean Ethics |at=Book I, Chapter 7, pp. 1098a7–17}}</ref> For Aristotle, the soul is the organization of the form and matter of a natural being which allows it to strive for its full actualization. This organization between form and matter is necessary for any activity, or functionality, to be possible in a natural being. Using an artifact (non-natural being) as an example, a house is a building for human habituation but for a house to be actualized requires the material, such as wood, nails, or bricks necessary for its actuality (i.e., being a fully functional house); however, this does not imply that a house has a soul. In regards to artifacts, the source of motion that is required for their full actualization is outside of themselves (for example, a builder builds a house). In natural beings, this source of motion is contained within the being itself.<ref>{{cite book |last=Aristotle |title=Physics |at=Book III, Chapter 1, pp. 201a10–25}}</ref>

Aristotle addressed the faculties of the soul. The various [[faculties of the soul]], such as nutrition, movement (peculiar to animals), reason (peculiar to humans), sensation (special, common, and incidental), and so forth, when exercised, constitute the "second actuality", or fulfillment, of the capacity to be alive. For example, someone who falls asleep, as opposed to someone who falls dead, can wake up and live their life, while the latter can no longer do so. Aristotle identified three hierarchical levels of natural beings: plants, animals, and people, having three different degrees of soul: ''Bios'' ('life'), ''Zoë'' ('animate life'), and ''Psuchë'' ('self-conscious life'). For these groups, he identified three corresponding levels of soul, or biological activity: the nutritive activity of growth, sustenance and reproduction which all life shares (''Bios''); the self-willed motive activity and sensory faculties, which only animals and people have in common (''Zoë''); and finally "reason", of which humans alone are capable (''Pseuchë''). Aristotle's discussion of the soul is in his work, ''De Anima'' (''[[On the Soul]]'').<ref>{{Cite book |last=Aristotle |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=quCipxLxEzwC |title=De Anima |date=2008-12-01 |publisher=Cosimo, Inc. |isbn=978-1-60520-432-1 |language=en}}</ref>

Although mostly seen as opposing Plato in regard to the immortality of the soul,<ref name="auto">Goetz, S. (2016) Soul. In Vocabulary for the stury of religion Brill</ref> a controversy can be found in relation to the fifth chapter of the third book: in this text both interpretations can be argued for, soul as a whole can be deemed mortal, and a part called "active intellect" or "active mind" is immortal and eternal.<ref>{{cite book |last=Aristotle |title=On The Soul |at=Book III, Chapter 5, pp. 430a24–25}}</ref> Advocates exist for both sides of the controversy; it is argued that there will be permanent disagreement about its final conclusions, as no other [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] text contains this specific point, and this part of ''De Anima'' is obscure.<ref>{{cite book |chapter-url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-psychology/active-mind.html |title=Aristotle's Psychology |chapter=supplement: The Active Mind of De Anima iii 5) |access-date=2013-12-12 |last=Shields |first=Christopher |author-link=Christopher Shields |year=2011 |publisher=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref> Furthermore, Aristotle states that the soul helps humans find the truth, and understanding the true purpose or role of the soul is extremely difficult.<ref>{{cite book |title=Introduction to Aristotle |last=Smith |first=J. S. (Trans) |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1973 |location=Chicago |pages=155–59}}</ref>

===Avicenna and Ibn al-Nafis===
[[File:Avicenna-miniatur.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Avicenna]] was a Muslim philosopher who integrated the Aristotelian theory of the soul into an Islamic framework.]]
Following Aristotle, [[Avicenna]] (Ibn Sina) and [[Ibn al-Nafis]], an Arab physician, further elaborated upon the Aristotelian understanding of the soul and developed their own theories on the soul. They both made a distinction between the soul and the spirit, and the [[Avicennism|Avicennian]] doctrine on the nature of the soul was influential among later Muslims. Some of Avicenna's views on the soul include the idea that the immortality of the soul is a consequence of its nature, and not a purpose for it to fulfill. In his theory of "The Ten Intellects", he viewed the human soul as the tenth and final [[intelligence|intellect]].<ref>Nahyan A.G. Fancy (2006), [http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-11292006-152615 "Pulmonary Transit and Bodily Resurrection: The Interaction of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion in the Works of Ibn al-Nafīs (d. 1288)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150404020329/http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-11292006-152615/ |date=4 April 2015 }}, pp. 209–10 (''Electronic Theses and Dissertations'', [[University of Notre Dame]]).</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Arabic and Islamic Psychology and Philosophy of Mind |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-mind/#Avi |publisher=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |date=29 May 2012 |access-date=18 October 2019 |archive-date=6 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306150626/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-mind/#Avi |url-status=live }}</ref>

While he was imprisoned, Avicenna wrote his famous "[[Floating man]]" thought experiment to demonstrate human [[self-awareness]] and the substantial nature of the soul.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Groff |first=Peter |title=Islamic Philosophy A-Z |date=2022 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=978-0-7486-2216-0 |series=Philosophy A-Z PAZ |location=Edinburgh}}</ref> He told his readers to imagine themselves suspended in the air, isolated from all sensations, which includes no [[sense|sensory]] contact with even their own bodies. He argues that in this scenario one would still have [[self-consciousness]]. He thus concludes that the idea of the [[self (philosophy)|self]] is not logically dependent on any physical [[object (philosophy)|thing]], and that the soul should not be seen in relative terms but as a primary given, a [[substance theory|substance]]. This argument was later refined and simplified by [[René Descartes]] in [[epistemology|epistemic]] terms, when he stated, "I can abstract from the supposition of all external things, but not from the supposition of my own consciousness."<ref>Seyyed [[Hossein Nasr]] and [[Oliver Leaman]] (1996), ''History of Islamic Philosophy'', p. 315, [[Routledge]]. {{ISBN|0-415-13159-6}}.</ref><ref>Adamson, Peter, and Richard C. Taylor, eds. The Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy. Cambridge university press, 2004. p. 309.</ref>

Avicenna generally supported Aristotle's idea of the soul originating from the [[heart]], whereas Ibn al-Nafis rejected this idea and instead argued that the soul "is related to the entirety and not to one or a few [[organ (anatomy)|organs]]". He further criticized Aristotle's idea whereby every unique soul requires the existence of a unique source, in this case the heart. Al-Nafis concluded that "the soul is related primarily neither to the spirit nor to any organ, but rather to the entire matter whose temperament is prepared to receive that soul", and he defined the soul as nothing other than "what a human indicates by saying "[[I (pronoun)|I]]"".<ref>{{cite thesis |author=Nahyan A.G. Fancy |year=2006 |title=Pulmonary Transit and Bodily Resurrection: The Interaction of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion in the Works of Ibn al-Nafīs (d. 1288) |pages=209–210 |work=Electronic Theses and Dissertations, [[University of Notre Dame]]|url=http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-11292006-152615 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150404020329/http://etd.nd.edu/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-11292006-152615/ |archive-date=4 April 2015|publisher=University of Notre Dame}}</ref>

===Thomas Aquinas===
[[File:St-thomas-aquinas.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Thomas Aquinas]] was a Christian theologian who greatly developed the Aristotelian theory of soul in his ''[[Summa Theologica]]''.]]
Following Aristotle and Avicenna, [[Thomas Aquinas]] understood the soul to be the first actuality of the living body.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Pasnau |first=Robert |date=December 7, 2022 |title=Thomas Aquinas |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/ |website=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]}}</ref> Consequent to this, he distinguished three orders of life: plants, which feed and grow; animals, which add sensation to the operations of plants; and humans, which add intellect to the operations of animals.<ref name=":8" /> Concerning the human soul, his epistemological theory required that, since ''the knower becomes what he knows'', the soul is definitely not corporeal—if it is corporeal when it knows what some corporeal thing is, that thing would come to be within it.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Aquinas |first=Thomas |title=Whether there is knowledge in God |url=https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q2.A1}}</ref> Therefore, the soul has an operation which does not rely on a body organ, and therefore the soul can exist without a body. Furthermore, since the rational soul of human beings is a subsistent form and not something made of matter and form, it cannot be destroyed in any natural process.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Aquinas |first=Thomas |title=Does natural philosophy treat of what exists in motion and matter? |url=https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~DeTrin.C2.Q5.A2}}</ref>

The full argument for the [[immortality of the soul]] and Aquinas' elaboration of Aristotelian theory is found in the ''[[Summa Theologica]]''. Aquinas affirmed in the doctrine of the divine effusion of the soul, the [[particular judgement]] of the soul after the separation from a dead body, and the final [[resurrection of the flesh]]. He recalled two canons of the 4th&nbsp;century, for which "the rational soul is not engendered by coition",<ref name=GennadiusM-c496>{{cite book
 |author=Gennadius of Massilia |author-link=Gennadius of Massilia
 |orig-year=4th&nbsp;cent.
 |title=De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus
 |title-link=Gennadius of Massilia#De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus
 |id=canon&nbsp;XIV
}}
: ''cited in''
{{cite book
 |first=((Thomas, St.))
 |last=Aquinas
 |author-link=Thomas Aquinas
 |year=1920a
 |orig-year=1274
 |title=Summa Theologica
 |title-link=Summa Theologica
 |language=en
 |at=Pars&nbsp;I, Quaestio&nbsp;118, Article&nbsp;2
 |section=Objection&nbsp;4
 |publisher=Fathers of the English Dominican Province
 |section-url=https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm#article2
 |via=newadvent.org
 |archive-date=2 June 2021
 |access-date=12 June 2021
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602134920/https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm#article2
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref> and "is one and the same soul in man, that both gives life to the body by being united to it, and orders itself by its own reasoning".{{efn|      ''Full citation of the canon''<br/>
Nor do we say that there are two souls in one man, as James and other Syrians write; one, animal, by which the body is animated, and which is mingled with the blood; the other, spiritual, which obeys the reason; but we say that it is one and the same soul in man, that both gives life to the body by being united to it, and orders itself by its own reasoning. — {{harvp|Gennadius of Massilia}}<ref name=GennadiusM-c496/> via {{harvp|Aquinas|1920b}}<ref name=Aquinas-1920b>{{cite book
 |first=((Thomas, St.))
 |last=Aquinas
 |author-link=Thomas Aquinas
 |year=1920b
 |orig-year=1274
 |title=Summa Theologica
 |title-link=Summa Theologica
 |language=en
 |at=Pars&nbsp;I, Quaestio&nbsp;76, Article&nbsp;3
 |section=Whether besides the intellectual soul there are in man other souls essentially different from one another?
 |publisher=Fathers of the English Dominican Province
 |section-url=https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm#article2
 |via=newadvent.org
 |archive-date=2 June 2021
 |access-date=12 June 2021
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602134920/https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm#article2
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref>
}} Moreover, he believed in a unique and tripartite soul, within which are distinctively present a nutritive, a sensitive, and intellectual soul. The latter is created by God and is taken solely by human beings, includes the other two types of soul and makes the sensitive soul incorruptible.<ref name=Aquinas-1920c>{{cite book
 |first=((Thomas, St.))
 |last=Aquinas
 |author-link=Thomas Aquinas
 |year=1920c
 |orig-year=1274
 |title=Summa Theologica
 |title-link=Summa Theologica
 |language=en
 |at=Pars&nbsp;I, Quaestio&nbsp;76, Article&nbsp;3
 |section=Reply to objection&nbsp;1
 |publisher=Fathers of the English Dominican Province
 |section-url=https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm#article2
 |via=newadvent.org
 |archive-date=2 June 2021
 |access-date=12 June 2021
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602134920/https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1076.htm#article2
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref>

According to [[Thomas Aquinas]], the soul is ''tota in toto corpore''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Aquinas |first=Thomas |title=Whether the soul exists in the whole body and in each of its parts |url=https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeAn.Q9.Rep19}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Thomas |last=Aquinas |author-link=Thomas Aquinas |year=1274 |title=Summa Theologiae |language=la |trans-title=All of Theology |title-link=Summa Theologiae |at=I-I quaestio 76 }}
: See also
{{cite book |first=C. |last=Klein |author-link=Christian Klein |year=1655 |title=An anima sit tota in toto corpore, et tota in qualibet parte, disquisitio philosophica |language=la |publisher=Goetschius |oclc=253546381 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last=Pepe | first=Giovanni | title=Recenti Studii Su la Metafisica dell'anima | date=19 November 2023 | journal=Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica | volume=11 | issue=2 | pages=167–194 | jstor=43065579 }}</ref> This means that the soul is entirely contained in every single part of the human body, and, therefore, ubiquitous and cannot be placed in a single organ, such as the heart or brain, nor is it separable from the body (except after the body's death). In the fourth book of ''[[De Trinitate]]'', [[Augustine of Hippo]] states that the soul is all in the whole body and all in any part of it.<ref>{{cite book |first=Thomas |last=Aquinas |author-link=Thomas Aquinas |year= |title=Quaestiones Disputatae de Anima |language=la |trans-title=Contested Issues Regarding the Soul |section=quaestio 10 |quote=Augustinus dixit, in ''VI [[De Trinitate]]'', quod anima est tota in toto corpore, et tota in qualibet parte eius. |section-url=https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeAn.Q10.Obj16 |archive-date=6 November 2023 |access-date=6 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231106213526/https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeAn.Q10.Obj16 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Immanuel Kant===
[[File:Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) engraving.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Immanuel Kant]] has criticized the [[Rationalism|rationalist]] project of understanding the soul's nature by analyzing the proposition "I think".]]
In his discussions of rational psychology, [[Immanuel Kant]] identified the soul as the "I" in the strictest sense, and argued that the existence of inner experience can neither be proved nor disproved. He said, "We cannot prove a priori the immateriality of the soul, but rather only so much: that all properties and actions of the soul cannot be recognized from materiality." It is from the "I", or soul, that Kant proposes [[Transcendence (philosophy)|transcendental]] rationalization but cautions that such rationalization can only determine the limits of knowledge if it is to remain practical.{{efn|
Immanuel Kant proposed the existence of certain mathematical truths {{nobr|(e.g. {{math|2 + 2 {{=}} 4 }})}} that are not tied to matter, nor soul.<ref>
{{cite book
 | last = Bishop | first = Paul
 | year = 2000
 | title = Synchronicity and Intellectual Intuition in Kant, Swedenborg, and Jung
 | place = Lewiston, NY
 | publisher = [[Edwin Mellen Press]]
 | isbn = 978-0-7734-7593-9
 | pages = 262–267
}}
</ref>
}}

Kant critiques the [[metaphysics]] of the soul—an investigation he calls "rational psychology"—in the ''Paralogisms of Pure Reason''. Rational psychology, as he defines it, seeks to establish metaphysical claims about the soul's nature by analyzing the proposition "I think". Many of Kant's [[Rationalism|rationalist]] predecessors and contemporaries believed that reflecting on the "I" in "I think" could demonstrate that the self is necessarily a substance (implying the soul's existence), indivisible (to argue for the soul's immortality), self-identical (pertaining to personal identity), and separate from the [[Reality|external world]] (leading to skepticism about external reality). Kant, however, asserts that such conclusions stem from an error of reasoning.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |title=Immanuel Kant |url=https://iep.utm.edu/kantview/#SSH2gi |access-date=2025-04-11 |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |language=en-US}}</ref>

Kant believes this error arises when the conceptual thought of the "I" in "I think" is conflated with genuine cognition of the "I" as an object. [[Cognition]], for Kant, requires both [[intuition]] (sensory experience) and [[concept]]s, whereas the "I" here involves only abstract conceptual thought. For example, consider whether the self can be known as a substance. While the "I" is always the subject of thoughts (never a predicate of something else), recognizing something as a substance also requires intuiting it as a persistent object. Since a person lacks any intuition of the "I" itself, they cannot cognize it as a substance. Thus, in Kant's view, although a person will inevitably conceive of the "I" as a soul-like substance, true knowledge of the soul's existence or nature remains out of their reach.<ref name=":6" />

===Contemporary philosophy===
The notion of soul often relies on a theory called [[Mind–body dualism|mind-body dualism]], which posits that [[Mind|mental]] phenomena are [[Non-physical entity|non-physical]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dualism and Mind |url=https://iep.utm.edu/dualism-and-mind/ |access-date=2025-04-17 |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |language=en-US}}</ref> If body and soul (or mind) are of two distinct realms, the question remains how these two are related. Contemporary [[philosophy of mind]] distinguishes three major dualist theories about the relationship between mental properties and the body: [[interactionism]], [[Psychophysical parallelism|parallelism]], and [[epiphenomenalism]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite SEP|url-id=Dualism|title=Dualism|first=Howard|last=Robinson|date=2023}}</ref> Interactionism holds that physical events and mental events interact with each other. This view is often considered to be the most intuitive: one perceives the mind reacting upon physical stimulation and then thoughts and feelings act upon the physical body, such as by moving it. Thus, humans are naturally inclined in favor of interactionism.<ref name=":3" /> The [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] states, "[t]he critical feature of interactionism is its commitment to 'two-way' causation – mental-to-physical causation and physical-to-mental causation."<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |title=Mental Causation |url=https://iep.utm.edu/mental-c/#SH1ci |access-date=2025-04-11 |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |language=en-US}}</ref>

Parallelism sidesteps debates about mind-body interaction by proposing that both operate in parallel. Under this framework, mental and physical events do not causally influence one another; they merely coincide. When causation occurs, it is strictly confined within each domain: mental events only trigger or result from other mental events, and physical events exclusively cause or are caused by other physical events.<ref name=":7" />

Epiphenomenalism posits that physical events generate mental events, but mental events themselves lack causal power—they cannot influence physical events or even other mental phenomena. This stance partially accommodates interactionism by permitting causation in a single direction (physical to mental), thereby rejecting parallelism, which denies any causal link between the two realms. In this framework, the mind is likened to a bodily shadow: while the body actively produces effects, the mind is merely a passive byproduct, incapable of driving outcomes or interactions.<ref name=":7" />

[[Non-dual]]ist theories include [[physicalism]], the view that everything is physical,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Physicalism |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|date=2024 }}</ref> and [[idealism]], the conviction that ''a priori'' [[intelligence]] grounds all phenomena ([[science]]).<ref>“By the path into which Lange has led us we therefore ascend from the agnostic-critical standpoint to the higher and invigorating one of a thorough, all-sided, and affirmative idealism.” George Howison, p.171, second edition, “The limits of evolution, http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref><ref>Herbert Callen, “Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics,” second edition, p.461, “Only inspired insight guided by faith in the simplicity of nature somehow revealed the interplay of the concepts of energy and entropy, even in the absence of ''a priori'' definitions or a means of measuring either!” https://archive.org/details/herbert-b.-callen-thermodynamics-and-an-introduction-to-thermostatistics-wiley-1985_202201/page/461/mode/1up?view=theater</ref>  [[George Howison]] put the question about (the necessity of logically prior) souls in context thus:

{{blockquote|The question whether we have not some knowledge independent of any and all experience – whether there must not, unavoidably, be some knowledge ''a priori'', some knowledge which we come at simply by virtue of our nature – is really the paramount question, around which the whole conflict in philosophy concentrates, and on the decision of which the settlement of every other question hangs.<ref>p.17, George Howison, “The limits of evolution,” second edition, http://books.google.com/books?id=dg3wkAkfKQ4C&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>}}

==Psychology==
"Seelenglaube" or "soul-belief" is a prominent feature in [[Otto Rank]]'s work.<ref name=":4">{{cite journal |last=Sheets-Johnstone |first=Maxine |year=2003 |title=Death and immortality ideologies in Western philosophy |journal=Continental Philosophy Review |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=235–262 |doi=10.1023/B:MAWO.0000003937.47171.a9 |s2cid=143977431}}</ref> Rank explains the importance of immortality in the psychology of primitive, classical and modern interest in life and death. Rank's work directly opposed the scientific psychology that concedes the possibility of the soul's existence and postulates it as an object of research without really admitting that it exists.<ref name=":4" /> He says, "Just as religion represents a psychological commentary on the social evolution of man, various psychologies represent our current attitudes toward spritual belief. In the animistic era, psychologizing was a ''creating'' of the soul; in the religious era, it was a ''representing'' of the soul to one's self; in our era of natural science it is a ''knowing'' of the individual soul."<ref name="Psychology and the Soul">{{cite book |last=Rank |first=Otto |title=Psychology and the Soul: Otto Rank's Seelenglaube und Psychologie |translator-first=William D.|translator-last=Turner |location=Philadelphia |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |year=1950 |page=11 |oclc=928087}}</ref> Rank's work had a significant influence on [[Ernest Becker]]'s understanding of a universal interest in immortality. In ''[[The Denial of Death]]'', Becker describes "soul" in terms of [[Søren Kierkegaard]] use of "self":

<blockquote>Kierkegaard's use of "self" may be a bit confusing. He uses it to include the symbolic self and the physical body. It is a synonym really for "total personality" that goes beyond the person to include what we would now call the "soul" or the "ground of being" out of which the created person sprang.<ref>{{cite book |last=Becker |first=Ernest |url=https://archive.org/details/denialofdeathbeckrich |title=The Denial of Death |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=1973 |isbn=0-684-83240-2 |location=New York}}</ref></blockquote>

According to [[Cognitive science|Cognitive scientist]] [[Jesse Bering]] and psychologist [[Nicholas Humphrey]], humans are initially inclined to believe in a soul and are born as soul-body dualists. As such, religious institutions did not need to invent or inherent the idea of the soul from previous traditions, rather the concept has always been present throughout human history.<ref name="auto"/> Echoing that sentiment, American philosopher [[Stewart Goetz|Steward Goetz]] has claimed that according to anthropologists and psychologists, ordinary human beings are soul-body substance dualists, who, at all times and in all places, have believed in the existence of a distinction between the soul and the body.<ref>{{Citation |last=Goetz |first=Stewart |title=Soul |work=Vocabulary for the Study of Religion Online |url=https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/VSRO/COM-00000026.xml?rskey=EmQACQ&result=1 |access-date=2025-04-11 |publisher=Brill |doi=10.1163/9789004249707_vsr_COM_00000026 |language=en|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

==Parapsychology==
[[File:Duncan MacDougall physician.png|thumb|upright|Duncan MacDougall was a physician from [[Haverhill, Massachusetts]], who wished to scientifically determine if a soul had weight]]
Some [[parapsychologists]] attempted to establish, by [[scientific]] experiment, whether a soul separate from the brain exists, as is more commonly defined in religion rather than as a synonym of psyche or mind.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Alcock |first=James E. |date=1987 |title=Parapsychology: Science of the anomalous or search for the soul? |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/parapsychology-science-of-the-anomalous-or-search-for-the-soul/148CDBF5AF083F0048341FE81708F6BC |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |language=en |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=553–565 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X00054467 |issn=1469-1825|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

One such attempt became known as the "[[21 grams experiment]]".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=MacDougall |first1=Duncan |author-link=Duncan MacDougall (doctor) |year=1907 |title=The Soul: Hypothesis Concerning Soul Substance Together with Experimental Evidence of the Existence of Such Substance |journal=American Medicine |series=New Series |volume=2 |pages=240–43}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=December 2012 |title=How much does the soul weigh? |url=http://www.livescience.com/32327-how-much-does-the-soul-weigh.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160428081819/http://www.livescience.com/32327-how-much-does-the-soul-weigh.html |archive-date=28 April 2016 |website=[[Live Science]]}}</ref> In 1901, Duncan MacDougall, a physician from [[Haverhill, Massachusetts]], who wished to scientifically determine if a soul had weight, identified six patients in nursing homes whose deaths were imminent. Four were suffering from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes. MacDougall specifically chose people who were suffering from conditions that caused physical exhaustion, as he needed the patients to remain still when they died to measure them accurately. When the patients looked like they were close to death, their entire bed was placed on an industrial sized scale that was sensitive within two tenths of an ounce (5.6 grams).<ref name=karl>{{cite book |last=Kruszelnicki |first=Karl |year=2006 |title=Great Mythconceptions: The Science Behind the Myths |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YIfEO4nvvLUC |publisher=Andrews McMeel Publishing |pages=199–201 |isbn=9780740753640 |author-link=Karl Kruszelnicki}}</ref><ref name=mary>{{cite book |last=Roach |first=Mary |author-link=Mary Roach |date=6 September 2012 |title=[[Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers]] |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0241965016}}</ref>  One of the patients lost "three-fourths of an ounce" (21.3 grams), coinciding with the time of death, which led MacDougall to the conclusion that the soul had weight.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kruszelnicki |first=Karl |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YIfEO4nvvLUC |title=Great Mythconceptions: The Science Behind the Myths |date=2006 |publisher=Andrews McMeel Publishing |isbn=978-0-7407-5364-0 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mikkelson |first=David |date=2003-10-27 |title=Was the Weight of a Human Soul Determined to Be 21 Grams? |url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/weight-of-the-soul/ |access-date=2025-04-16 |website=Snopes |language=en}}</ref>

The physicist [[Robert L. Park]] wrote that MacDougall's experiments "are not regarded today as having any scientific merit", and the psychologist [[Bruce Hood (psychologist)|Bruce Hood]] wrote that "because the weight loss was not reliable or replicable, his findings were unscientific".<ref>[[Robert L. Park|Park, Robert L]]. (2009). ''Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science''. [[Princeton University Press]]. p. 90. {{ISBN|978-0-691-13355-3}}.</ref><ref>[[Bruce Hood (psychologist)|Hood, Bruce]]. (2009). ''Supersense: From Superstition to Religion – The Brain Science of Belief''. Constable. p. 165. {{ISBN|978-1-84901-030-6}}.</ref>

==See also==
{{div col begin|colwidth=12em}}
* [[Ātman (Buddhism)]]
* [[Being]]
* [[Chinese room]]
* [[Consciousness]]
* [[Ekam]]
* [[History of the location of the soul]]
* [[Kami]]
* [[Knowledge argument]]
* [[Metaphysical naturalism]]
* [[Mind–body problem]]
* [[Nishimta]] in Mandaeism
* [[Open individualism]]
* [[The Over-Soul]] (essay)
* [[Paramatman]] (or oversoul)
* [[Philosophical zombie]]
* [[Plant soul]]
* [[Shade (mythology)]]
* [[Vitalism]]
* [[Vertiginous question]]
{{div col end}}

==Notes==
{{Notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{Commons category}}
* [[Catholic Encyclopedia]] entry on [https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm Soul]
* [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] entry on [https://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-religion-and-philosophy Soul]
* [[Encyclopedia.com]] entry on [https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/soul-human Human Soul]
* [[The Jewish Encyclopedia|Jewish Encyclopedia]] entry on [https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13933-soul Soul]
* [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] entry on [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/ Ancient Theories of the Soul]

{{Consciousness}}
{{Metaphysics}}
{{Philosophy of religion}}
{{Religion topics}}
{{Spirituality-related topics}}
{{World view}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Souls| ]]
[[Category:Conceptions of self]]
[[Category:Concepts in metaphysics]]
[[Category:Metaphysics of religion]]
[[Category:Concepts in the philosophy of mind]]
[[Category:Religious philosophical concepts]]
[[Category:Religious belief and doctrine]]
[[Category:Spirituality]]
[[Category:Vitalism]]