Although it is hard to address this topic in such a short time,

I hope to at least give you something to think about.

A valuable life lesson is that, if we have realistic expectations,

we will not be disappointed.

In a given field of study, wealth-informed expectations lead us to ask insightful questions, yet unrealistic or misguided expectations only lead to disappointment.

Let's pause and ask ourselves, what are my expectations for proving and explaining the human soul?

Do I expect to form a clear and distinct idea of it, as I might have of a triangle or a square?

Do I expect it to be something that can be imagined, like a semi-transparent ghost?

A frequent pitfall in the search for truth is that our expectations predetermine our answers.

As Sartre wrote, our choice of whom we should seek advice from may determine the response that we will get.

He gives the example of a youth who is uncertain whether he should join the

resistance against the Nazis. If he already knows that one counselor will encourage him to join,

while another will not, his choice effectively predetermines the advice he will receive.

Likewise, when wondering about the soul, one has some premonition of the kind of

answer one is more likely to get from a scientist as opposed to a poet. It is not easy to have

an open mind regarding the soul's existence, since people tend to have strong feelings either way.

In particular, some scientists consider the soul to be a mere mental construct

that has been disproven by what we allegedly now know about the human brain and its functioning.

Yet, I'd like to suggest that it is neither the poets nor the scientists' task to examine competing claims on the soul.

Rather, the question properly falls under philosophy.

While philosophy can help us examine whether each of us has a soul, we must be willing to think in ways that are unfamiliar.

We may even need to be willing to reconsider our expectations of what constitutes demonstrative knowledge. As we will see, Aristotle

...