The concept of "what we're made of" has been crossing my mind a lot in the last year. Or, the more simple "What are we?" might be a more accurate question in terms of what confuses me.
I was eating egg whites this morning (I suggest them over whole eggs - same amount of protein and flavor, without any of the yolk's cholesterol) and I started to think about whether it's wrong to eat egg whites in the same way vegans think it's wrong to eat eggs in general. The "origin" of the chicken embryo is in the yolk, where it forms, so presumably, if you took all the yolks, you take any of the originating matter of the creature - developed or not.
Then I realized again what I had always known - when that little chick emerges from the egg, it IS that yolk and egg white. It's not as if the chick grows bigger and the yolk and white disappear - the chick eats/absorbs that stuff and then metabolizes it into its body.
So when I eat egg whites, I'm eating EVENTUAL CHICKEN.
Now I guess this is where a lot of the stem cell debate comes up when we're talking about human eggs. Is it okay to use EVENTUAL HUMAN for research? What if the embryo is already dead and will never become a human? At that point it's just an ordered mass of molecules and electrostatic bindings - it could become anything eventually really.
So the question is: Are we what we're made of, are we who we are, both, or is there even a difference?
I'll understand if you don't want to dwell on this question too long. It doesn't really help you much in life short of making you confused (or not, if (a) you have a defined opinion on the matter or (b) you're having a tough time grasping why it's such a big deal). Though, if you ever wanted to think productively about stem cell research, or more importantly in my opinion, what makes us who we are, it's interesting to mull over.
I just want to go over some of the implications of each opinion:
We are what we're made of
This means that once your body dies, you cease to be. That's it. Most anyone who belongs to a major religious group (i.e., the majority) believes that you have a soul, and once you die, something happens to that soul: it goes somewhere, it becomes something, it starts over, for example.
Of course, we know now that the body renews itself roughly every seven years. That is to say, after 7 years, every cell in your body has been replaced by a new cell. Following with the above opinion, does this mean that you're a totally new person?
On might say "Oh, it's the whole that makes the being, not the individual molecules" - but that at that point, you're talking about some cohesive factor other than chemical bindings - you're talking about something resembling a soul, derivative of the form or otherwise.
We are who we are
This is a brief way of saying "We are something other than our bodies - we have something that defines us as being ourselves". The reason I think most major religions prescribe to this school of thought is because (a) it makes the most sense in terms of personal instinct about one's self (b) it gives a better pretense for morality than any other system.
Here's a simple proof that you will have to work out for yourself. It doesn't follow very strong logic since it will rely on your own personal evidence, but let's give it a shot anyway:
You are yourself. If, in an accident, you lose an arm or a leg, you are changed, but you remain yourself. Therefore, your body doesn't define who you are. Therefore, there must be another non-physical factor that defines who you are.
We are both matter and soul
It's obvious that we consist of matter, the question really is "Is matter one of the things that matter?" (Sorry!) Rather, does matter define who we are, or are we ourselves in spite of it? Most religions will say otherwise. I keep mentioning "most religions" and of course, that's a matter of faith, but since most people prescribe to some kind of faith whether personal or organized, I figure it's a good way of putting these thoughts into a common framework.
Let me clarify what I mean about what religions believe. In Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism there is a paradise to where good souls go after death. The body remains on earth and eventually ceases to be, but the soul lives on. In Native American belief, varied as it is, most believe that there is a non-vital (i.e., not required for life) soul that exists after death. Many jewish lines of thought believe in purgatorial states separate from the body. In Buddhism the soul is interchangeable between bodies, and it is possible to separate oneself from the material world entirely.
In many of these religions, the physical world is a critical element of a person - usually being treated as a moral proving ground or a prison for those who haven't reached enlightenment. However, since a person can be themselves entirely without the body (either for a short time or for eternity) it's suggested that the body is a non-critical aspect of self-definition.
Is there a difference between the soul and the body?
This is one I've considered simply from a scientifically defensible point of view. It is possible that our feelings of self and our perception of souls in ourselves and others stem purely from a psychological perception of individuality. It is entirely possible that I am robotically (being a machine of organs, bone, and electronic impulses) deluding myself into thinking I have a soul - and that the soul is nothing more than a projection of the physical being.
This is the one that "makes sense" but is extremely unfulfilling. Does that mean we should abandon it? Of course not - in fact I think it should be the mirror against which we hold all other theories of individuality against. To juxtapose different theories that suggest the soul does exist is kind of like the old direction-of-the-toilet-paper-roll argument: all the solutions work, and what's "right" is often a matter of preference.
I was eating egg whites this morning (I suggest them over whole eggs - same amount of protein and flavor, without any of the yolk's cholesterol) and I started to think about whether it's wrong to eat egg whites in the same way vegans think it's wrong to eat eggs in general. The "origin" of the chicken embryo is in the yolk, where it forms, so presumably, if you took all the yolks, you take any of the originating matter of the creature - developed or not.
Then I realized again what I had always known - when that little chick emerges from the egg, it IS that yolk and egg white. It's not as if the chick grows bigger and the yolk and white disappear - the chick eats/absorbs that stuff and then metabolizes it into its body.
So when I eat egg whites, I'm eating EVENTUAL CHICKEN.
Now I guess this is where a lot of the stem cell debate comes up when we're talking about human eggs. Is it okay to use EVENTUAL HUMAN for research? What if the embryo is already dead and will never become a human? At that point it's just an ordered mass of molecules and electrostatic bindings - it could become anything eventually really.
So the question is: Are we what we're made of, are we who we are, both, or is there even a difference?
I'll understand if you don't want to dwell on this question too long. It doesn't really help you much in life short of making you confused (or not, if (a) you have a defined opinion on the matter or (b) you're having a tough time grasping why it's such a big deal). Though, if you ever wanted to think productively about stem cell research, or more importantly in my opinion, what makes us who we are, it's interesting to mull over.
I just want to go over some of the implications of each opinion:
We are what we're made of
This means that once your body dies, you cease to be. That's it. Most anyone who belongs to a major religious group (i.e., the majority) believes that you have a soul, and once you die, something happens to that soul: it goes somewhere, it becomes something, it starts over, for example.
Of course, we know now that the body renews itself roughly every seven years. That is to say, after 7 years, every cell in your body has been replaced by a new cell. Following with the above opinion, does this mean that you're a totally new person?
On might say "Oh, it's the whole that makes the being, not the individual molecules" - but that at that point, you're talking about some cohesive factor other than chemical bindings - you're talking about something resembling a soul, derivative of the form or otherwise.
We are who we are
This is a brief way of saying "We are something other than our bodies - we have something that defines us as being ourselves". The reason I think most major religions prescribe to this school of thought is because (a) it makes the most sense in terms of personal instinct about one's self (b) it gives a better pretense for morality than any other system.
Here's a simple proof that you will have to work out for yourself. It doesn't follow very strong logic since it will rely on your own personal evidence, but let's give it a shot anyway:
You are yourself. If, in an accident, you lose an arm or a leg, you are changed, but you remain yourself. Therefore, your body doesn't define who you are. Therefore, there must be another non-physical factor that defines who you are.
We are both matter and soul
It's obvious that we consist of matter, the question really is "Is matter one of the things that matter?" (Sorry!) Rather, does matter define who we are, or are we ourselves in spite of it? Most religions will say otherwise. I keep mentioning "most religions" and of course, that's a matter of faith, but since most people prescribe to some kind of faith whether personal or organized, I figure it's a good way of putting these thoughts into a common framework.
Let me clarify what I mean about what religions believe. In Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism there is a paradise to where good souls go after death. The body remains on earth and eventually ceases to be, but the soul lives on. In Native American belief, varied as it is, most believe that there is a non-vital (i.e., not required for life) soul that exists after death. Many jewish lines of thought believe in purgatorial states separate from the body. In Buddhism the soul is interchangeable between bodies, and it is possible to separate oneself from the material world entirely.
In many of these religions, the physical world is a critical element of a person - usually being treated as a moral proving ground or a prison for those who haven't reached enlightenment. However, since a person can be themselves entirely without the body (either for a short time or for eternity) it's suggested that the body is a non-critical aspect of self-definition.
Is there a difference between the soul and the body?
This is one I've considered simply from a scientifically defensible point of view. It is possible that our feelings of self and our perception of souls in ourselves and others stem purely from a psychological perception of individuality. It is entirely possible that I am robotically (being a machine of organs, bone, and electronic impulses) deluding myself into thinking I have a soul - and that the soul is nothing more than a projection of the physical being.
This is the one that "makes sense" but is extremely unfulfilling. Does that mean we should abandon it? Of course not - in fact I think it should be the mirror against which we hold all other theories of individuality against. To juxtapose different theories that suggest the soul does exist is kind of like the old direction-of-the-toilet-paper-roll argument: all the solutions work, and what's "right" is often a matter of preference.