The Dynamic Nature of Human Existence: Beyond the Soul

Contemporary reflections on the nature of human existence challenge traditional notions of an immutable soul. Our inner "self" can be seen as the result of a complex interaction between bodily and mental processes, constantly changing like biochemical reactions that render our body a dynamic, living mechanism. As science advances, it becomes evident that physical and mental functions are inseparable, forming a holistic picture of personality that preserves its essence despite physical changes and mental trials. From this perspective, a human being is not a constellation of static entities with a separate soul but a unity of living processes where movement, perception, and thought not only accompany us but define our very existence. This understanding allows for a new evaluation of phenomena such as aging and decay: if life is a process that does not cease even in moments of decline, then the traditional idea of the soul becomes superfluous, giving way to a dynamic conception of being. Thus, by viewing a person as a harmonious unity of inseparable functions, we have the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of what makes an individual a living and unique entity.

Why do some people not believe in the existence of the soul and consider themselves merely collections of bodily functions?

According to one viewpoint, a person consists solely of constantly changing bodily and mental functions, eliminating the need to introduce the notion of a separate, unchanging soul in explaining human existence. Proponents of this view rely on the following ideas and arguments:

1. They believe that the body itself is a dynamic process—a harmony of functions described as continuous movement, reflecting biochemical reactions and other processes underlying bodily functions. Thus, the body is defined not as something static, but as a collection of processes through which human life is expressed. As noted:
"Moreover, our immediate experience tells us that the so-called 'body' is not something given once and for all and unchanging, but represents a dynamic process, a harmony of functions that is executed as continuous movement (thus, we can unconditionally accept the conclusions of modern biology with all its future additions and refinements regarding the description of biochemical reactions and other mechanisms underlying bodily functions)." (source: 436_2178.txt)

2. Another argument is that the human "self" is not reduced exclusively to the body or a hypothetical soul but is expressed through a combination of bodily and mental functions. Thus, even in the face of physical changes or mental deficiencies, the inner "self" remains unchanged, emphasizing a holistic conception of human existence:
"Thus, the human 'self', its essence, is not identified with either the body or the soul, but acts, reveals, and expresses itself in both bodily and mental functions. That is why no physical infirmity, no mental inadequacy or damage to the mind is capable of depriving a person of their inner 'self', of rendering them non-human, or of annihilating them as an existential fact." (source: 436_2178.txt)

3. Furthermore, supporters of this position argue that if human existence were based solely on the products of bodily activity (i.e., if the soul were merely a byproduct of biological processes), then phenomena such as aging and decay would seem highly questionable, since the key metabolic processes continue to operate. This argument suggests that it is less plausible for human life to be reduced solely to bodily functions:
"For one who does not acknowledge the existence of the soul, even the question of the plausibility of such a definition is unacceptable. What soul could detach when it does not exist at all? It would only be desirable that such 'butchers' pay attention to the fact that a person can see, hear, in a word, live and act even when their body lies stiff and completely insentient. And for someone who believes that besides the physical composition and physical processes of a person there is some other power, completely independent of these, the phenomenon is not incredible. And believing this seems far more reasonable and well-founded, for if not that power which enlivens and gives life to our body—and is itself merely the product of its activity—then death itself becomes utterly absurd. Why should I believe in the logic of phenomena such as aging and decay when the metabolism necessary for nourishing and renewing my body does not cease?" (source: 1254_6268.txt, page: 42)

4. Finally, there is the opinion that a person essentially consists of only one body. This view is sometimes taken literally, as a person may be perceived solely through the aggregate of bodily functions, without a division into a body and a separate entity known as the soul:
"Some even go as far as to deny the existence of the soul and assert that they consist only of one body—and, in fact, it often turns out to be so." (source: 9_44.txt, page: 44)

In summary, those who reject the existence of the soul base their stance on the conception of a person as a union of dynamic bodily and mental processes. They argue that every aspect of our existence can be explained by these functions, rendering the idea of an additional, independent entity in the form of a soul unnecessary and even contradictory to the observed biological and physiological processes.

Supporting citation(s):

"Moreover, our immediate experience tells us that the so-called 'body' is not something given once and for all and unchanging, but represents a dynamic process, a harmony of functions that is executed as continuous movement (thus, we can unconditionally accept the conclusions of modern biology with all its future additions and refinements regarding the description of biochemical reactions and other mechanisms underlying bodily functions)." (source: 436_2178.txt)

"Thus, the human 'self', its essence, is not identified with either the body or the soul, but acts, reveals, and expresses itself in both bodily and mental functions. That is why no physical infirmity, no mental inadequacy or damage to the mind is capable of depriving a person of their inner 'self', of rendering them non-human, or of annihilating them as an existential fact." (source: 436_2178.txt)

"For one who does not acknowledge the existence of the soul, even the question of the plausibility of such a definition is unacceptable. What soul could detach when it does not exist at all? It would only be desirable that such 'butchers' pay attention to the fact that a person can see, hear, in a word, live and act even when their body lies stiff and completely insentient. And for someone who believes that besides the physical composition and physical processes of a person there is some other power, completely independent of these, the phenomenon is not incredible. And believing this seems far more reasonable and well-founded, for if not that power which enlivens and gives life to our body—and is itself merely the product of its activity—then death itself becomes utterly absurd. Why should I believe in the logic of phenomena such as aging and decay when the metabolism necessary for nourishing and renewing my body does not cease?" (source: 1254_6268.txt, page: 42)

"Some even go as far as to deny the existence of the soul and assert that they consist only of one body—and, in fact, it often turns out to be so." (source: 9_44.txt, page: 44)