To use the Spinozan (and Deleuzian) school of thought, wherein all things are constructed from the same matter and therefore only different in their present form rather than their essence, there is no individual soul just the over soul that we all embody a portion of. Matt talks about this sort of shit on the cushvlogs all the time, but the gist is that we are all parts of the same larger social entity and that that entity might be what we recognize as a divine being. I find this compelling as a socialist because it’s the underlying principle behind Durkheim’s analysis of the elemental forms of religion. As Durkheim describes religion, in its most basic form, is created from a group of individuals experiencing a power larger than themselves through ritualistic social interaction wherein the social whole becomes greater than the sum of the individual parts. Essentially through social connection we nihiliate the ego and feel our connection to everything around us, touching the divine social entity. That’s where socialism works for me, in tapping into the social fabric that binds people together past their own individual boundaries. It’s why Matt keeps going on about socialism needing a spirituality on his streams.
So from my perspective you don’t have a soul because that’s a liberalism where you assume your own godhood. Instead you encompass a piece of the oversoul that we are all a part of
I'm not personally familiar with Vedanta or emanationism myself so I can't properly answer your question. Based on your description though I don't think they're necessarily the same idea. Spinoza imagines a single fundamental matter that all things are constructed from in their own time and place. He does not posit a single fundamental truth that our realities more or less pertain to. A chair with a wobbly leg isn't less of a chair in non-essentialist thought whereas essentialist thought would say it is further away from the singular 'truth' of what a chair is because it embodies the essence of what a chair is to a lesser extent. (This shit is why essentialist thought can never be liberationary imo, it implicitly posits a hierarchy as a transcendental truth)
To use the Spinozan (and Deleuzian) school of thought, wherein all things are constructed from the same matter and therefore only different in their present form rather than their essence, there is no individual soul just the over soul that we all embody a portion of. Matt talks about this sort of shit on the cushvlogs all the time, but the gist is that we are all parts of the same larger social entity and that that entity might be what we recognize as a divine being. I find this compelling as a socialist because it’s the underlying principle behind Durkheim’s analysis of the elemental forms of religion. As Durkheim describes religion, in its most basic form, is created from a group of individuals experiencing a power larger than themselves through ritualistic social interaction wherein the social whole becomes greater than the sum of the individual parts. Essentially through social connection we nihiliate the ego and feel our connection to everything around us, touching the divine social entity. That’s where socialism works for me, in tapping into the social fabric that binds people together past their own individual boundaries. It’s why Matt keeps going on about socialism needing a spirituality on his streams.
So from my perspective you don’t have a soul because that’s a liberalism where you assume your own godhood. Instead you encompass a piece of the oversoul that we are all a part of
deleted by creator
I'm not personally familiar with Vedanta or emanationism myself so I can't properly answer your question. Based on your description though I don't think they're necessarily the same idea. Spinoza imagines a single fundamental matter that all things are constructed from in their own time and place. He does not posit a single fundamental truth that our realities more or less pertain to. A chair with a wobbly leg isn't less of a chair in non-essentialist thought whereas essentialist thought would say it is further away from the singular 'truth' of what a chair is because it embodies the essence of what a chair is to a lesser extent. (This shit is why essentialist thought can never be liberationary imo, it implicitly posits a hierarchy as a transcendental truth)
deleted by creator