416: Ask David: The "Soul" Revisited; Acountability: Is "personality" another illusion? And more!

Podcast 416 Ask David is it reckless to question the existence of the "soul?"' How can I make myself accountable? Do we have a "personality," or is that just another illusion? Do questions about the "self" and "free will" involve All-or-Nothing thinking?

The answers below were prepared prior to the podcast, and simply based on email exchanges. Be sure to listen to the live podcast discussion to get a variety of opinions and comments!

Questions for today's podcast.

#1: Weren't your comments on the self a bit reckless, given that the existence of / or belief in the "soul" is a prerequisite for most religions?

#2: How can I make myself accountable for doing the exercises in your books?

#3. Holy asks if the concept of having "a personality" is the same as the question of having "a self?"

#4. Could questions about the "self" and "free will" involve All-or-Nothing Thinking?

Question #1. (not question, just a comment worthy of a response)

Your comments on the "self" were shallow, mocking and restless.

The recent episode on 'Do I have a self?' (Episode 406) was very shallow and mocking of people who thought there was a soul/self. Given a soul is a prerequisite for most religions, dismissing it out of hand without meaningful discussion seems reckless.

David's response

Thanks, there's a lot of truth in your comment and we'll definitely include this on an upcoming Ask David!

To give a brief response prior to the show, I would say that I am not trying to defend or attack any religion, but don't want to give up my right to freedom of thought. I, David, am not saying that the "soul" does not exist, but what I am saying is hard to convey, and I probably won't be successful now, either.

But, when you talk about a "soul," I do not have any idea what you mean by that word, or what you are referring to, if anything. To me, words like "self" or "soul" are simply language that is "out of gear," as Wittgenstein might say. Meaning can only occur in a specific concept. It is not the case that there are "pure meanings" for abstract concepts. Thinking along those lines was the huge error that Plato and Aristotle made.

Now, let's say I go to YouTube and listen to some really kick-ass music that I totally love. I might say, "Wow, that guy (like James Brown, for example) really has soul!"

What I'm saying is that I tremendously admire and appreciate his talent, his energy, and so forth. I am not referring to something metaphysical.

My concern about your comment is that it sounds scolding, at least to my ear, like the "morality police," perhaps. Personally, I have seen a great deal of evil done in the name of this or that religion, and I have no doubt that you have, too!

Still, I am sure you have strong religious beliefs, which I respect, and apologize for having offended you. But I admit I am ambivalent, and partially happy that you are offended, and speaking out, because I believe that critical thinking is also tremendously precious, just as your religious beliefs are precious to you.

In a selfish way, I have to confess I am also happy for the criticism, because controversy stirs up interest, and I am trying to interest people in our podcasts, which are ultimately dedicated to healing and relief of suffering.

Still, I cannot deny the truth in your comment, that my "critical thinking" can be a disguise for a put down.

When I wrote Feeling Good, I was very aware already (in the 1970s) that the chemicals categorized as "antidepressants" had few or no clinically significant effects above and beyond their placebo effects, and subsequent research has validated this.

But I did not emphasize this in that book because I did not want to pull the rug out from anybody, and hurt anybody's feelings. After all, if you are getting a nice "placebo effect," that's a good thing, at lest to some extent.

Now, I'm older, so I'm more willing to speak my mind, and let the chips fall where they may.

And you have bravely spoken your mind, too. Kudos to you!

And that's the end of my prayer! Keep those good thoughts rolling along.

Amen

Best, david (PS I'm sure you'll get way better answers from the others on the podcast tomorrow!)

Question #2. How can I make myself accountable for doing the exercises in your books?

Good to have Fabrice back. Regarding your books I have a question. I have trouble holding myself accountable doing the exercises in the book. Do you have any advice on how to prioritize doing the homework and being disciplined with it? How did other depressed people get better using your books? I already filled out multiple notebooks but appear to be stuck. Any help appreciated!

David's Response

Thanks, we will address your question on a future Ask David podcast, if that's ok.

Question #3. Holy asks if the concept of having "a personality" is the same as the question of having "a self?"

@HolyLoveQuest • 1 day ago

Thank you for this video on this topic, it was very clear to me!

It's a shame that this chapter of your Feeling Great book was removed, because to me this philosophical point is one important tool (among the many techniques that you propose) to get read of negative thinking, and to heal.

What you said about the DSM is refreshing, and I agree with it. So, you said schizophrenia and bipolar1 are mental disorders, and you explained why, but what would be the third: psychopathy? It would be nice if you do another video where you dig on this. Your voice on it is really important. What the APA is doing is really concerning. Other psychiatrists disagree with this business of labelling people. And you're right, it's detrimental to human beings.

There is another psychological concept that you didn't talk about, but who looks similar to the "self", which is the "personality". What is your take on it, the same or different?

Lastly, now in the spiritual domain, is the notion of the soul the same for you than the "self"? Or, in your opinion, could it be a possibility of an essential part of us which links us all to the Spirit, to spirituality?

Looking forward to watching the other philosophical videos!

David's Response

Will include in next Ask David Podcast!

Question 4. Could questions about the "self" and "free will" involve All-or-Nothing Thinking?

Matt send me the following email he received and asked if we could include it in our next podcast, and my answer was "of course!"

Hi,

I'd like to tell you about my experience with my son. He is 14 years old and despite our honest attempts not to label, he has always been the problem child: selfish, disobedient etc.

Recently we started him on Prozac and the changes have been incredible. Things that have been way beyond his best times are now simple, like going to sleep on time or having a good time with his brother. Every night my wife and I tell each other about some new miracle.

So, I wonder what you can say about this from the lens of free will. An obvious conclusion would be that the choices he made until now were not "free" because his brain was not presenting him with the same set of choices that other kids experience. On the other hand, if he is acting better now, we could say that it is not his choice, just a pill making the decision for him. I feel like that would be insulting and degrading.

I wonder if a lot of resistance to therapy and especially pharmacotherapy is related to anxiety about the question: "If I can be changed by a pill, then who am I?"

I had another thought after listening to the episode on "self". The position that self doesn't exist seems extreme to me, maybe like "all or nothing thinking". Maybe we could answer that question with a "magic dial". How much do we agree that there are selves and free wills? I agree that there are problems associated with having a self and free will, but I think there are practical and theoretical reasons on the other side as well.

Maybe the golden path is in the middle?

David's Response:

Will include your excellent question in the next Ask David Podcast! I am so happy to hear the good news about your son!

At this point I will briefly say that concerns about "free will" might definitely include all-or-nothing thinking in the following sense. There is an awful lot of our thoughts, beliefs, feelings, behaviors, preferences, and so forth that is kind of hard-wired by evolution, genetics, and who knows what.

For example, I really love blueberry pie that way my mother made it, but I never cared for pumpkin pie. I cannot "will" myself to like pumpkin pie! So I don't have free will in that sense.

Similarly, I can't "will" myself to want to stop breathing permanently, or to stop feeling hungry when I haven't eaten, and I can't "will" myself to levitate when mediating or being able to high jump over something five feet high.

The list goes on and on. And even when I freely chose something, like what type of new shirt to purchase, I have no doubt by genes and innate preferences, and possibly my upbringing, will strongly influence my choices.

We all have biases, preferences, and desires that we do not choose, at least not consciously, Like sexual preferences, for example. We're kind of stuck with what we've got.

Now we can make free choices, of course, but we cannot be "totally free," because we exist and are human. A cat can't "not" get excited by a wiggly piece of string or a mouse that's running away.

But we CAN make conscious choices, obviously, just as I made the decision to print your excellent question and type out this brief response!

Warmly, david