On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Ted Winslow wrote:
> "Soul," in this context, is a reference to a set of ideas originating
> with Plato that provide the basis for a conception of human being
> radically different from the one you're treating as self-evident.
>
> In particular these ideas attribute to human being forms of
> self-determination and final causation consistent with the development
> of a "will proper" and a "universal will."
>
> These are Hegel's terms for the human potential he takes as defining
> the human "essence." His philosophy of history treats human history as
> a process through this this potential - the human "in itself" - becomes
> actual - "for itself."
To be blunt, I don't see the need for any of this in social theory. It's analogous to theological questions about the existence of God: whether or not God exists, we need to understand and analyze the social importance of religion in society. Similarly, whether or not the soul exists, we need to analyze the "genealogy" of the soul to see the ideological roles it plays in social life. Whether or not this Hegelian "essence" has any ontological status is completely irrelevant to this type of social analysis.
I guess I should just say I'm working from different assumptions than you are.
Miles