Does photography steal the subject's soul?

[bmm]

<p><em>Nods once towards Thomas K and extends the hand of friendship too</em></p>

<p>Sorry mate if I sound heated, debating online can do that sometimes. I totally acknowledge that we are playing with ideas and I am in not way coming away from this with a view that you are discouteous or anything negative. Quite the opposite I am enjoying having my views tested by yours.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, a few posts above when you point out my 'huge leap', I was not originally referring to taking a soul (as I thnk I said before I don't believe in souls). The 'thing which is not ours to take' to which I was referring is more simply someone's image without consent.</p>

[lightwait]

<p>Bernard,</p>

<p>Thanks. Offer accepted.</p>

<p>I'm glad you didn't take me wrong. Still, I need to work on the delivery.</p>

<p>I am sure there are some reading who immediately place a voice with my words based on their reaction to my terms which are often purposefully void of any customary attempt to hide my emotional investment. It's not that I am ill-mannered, it's just that writing with manners hides clarity to some extent. And as lazy as I am, I just haven't the energy to give much time to worrying about putting makeup on the face of my thoughts.</p>

<p>Besides, one never knows if or when ones post will be deleted here (knock on wood).</p>

<p>I do stand behind what I am attempting to articulate. If you press me for clarity I will attempt to dig deeper instead of fleeing in a burst of ink (the octopus escape), a common escape method found online.</p>

<p>I don't think my response earlier was presupposing a definite object -- soul or image. The idea was that "image" is no better than "soul." The "image" you speak of, in such possessive terms, may as well be a soul. Both seem to be based in religious thought.</p>

<p>I guess I am saying the whole "my image" concept is mistaken. What I object to are actions that violate a person's reasonable expectation not to be exploited merely by being in a public space.</p>

<p>It is a perversion to inflict ones momentary interests over the "reasonable privacy expectations" of a fellow human being. And those who do it for money are not only perverts, but whores as well.</p>

<p>There. How's that?</p>

[bmm]

<p>Thomas K - very much enjoyed reading your post above.</p>

<p>To extend my goodwill indeed I very much enjoyed reading your entire side off our argument because, in fact, my general disposition is to have limited patience for cultural relativism, and for (what I see as the uncourageous and flawed) shying away from making judgements and acting on them even if that results occasionally in social tension.</p>

<p>This general disposition causes me to struggle with myself at times (ie whether to impose my own view and preference, how important it is to do so in a given situation, what other factors are at play) and perhaps indeed some of the intensity in my writing above reflected more an internal discomfort at these issues and an argument within myself than anything else.</p>

<p>I can only imagine in practise how this issue plays out for a photojournalist who has somewhat of a duty, and less latitude to exercise the social choice that we have...</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>For me, the fundamental right that people have is the right to deal with death as they feel they have to. If that means the idea of a soul comes into play, and my activity of 'taking their soul' interferes with their 'death beliefs', then I would not take that photo. Death is inevitable and no matter who you are, you will be tempted to appeal to a 'higher being', it may not be for yourself but a loved one, when the time comes. The soul is 'transport mechanism' that people use for the tranisition between life and death - how can we take that from them.<br>

It is for sure this kind of discussion is best down the pub, where there can be some continuity, faster interaction, time and other such things that face to face contact allows! </p>

[lightwait]

<p>"The soul is 'transport mechanism' that people use for the tranisition between life and death - how can we take that from them."<br /> <br /> (I wonder; are these "them" the same unspeakable them who are using film more and more these days?) [parenthetical reference to another POP thread]</p>

[lightwait]

<p>B M Mills: "This general disposition causes me to struggle with myself at times (ie whether to impose my own view and preference, how important it is to do so in a given situation, what other factors are at play) and perhaps indeed some of the intensity in my writing above reflected more an internal discomfort at these issues and an argument within myself than anything else."<br /><br>

Well, these are all good points, but as philosophers, if we are serious about it, we each seek a universality to our views. <br /><br>

So, although it is true that our views are perspectival (partial and limited) it does not follow that they are "subjective" in the strict sense -- a subjective view is a result of something peculiar to that subject, like cataracs changing someones vision or a brain disorder being at the root of odd behavior. Personal tastes would seem to fall within this category as well. But views that have been informed by the articulations of others or, have routinely been subject to the perview of others, tend to fall outside it.<br /><br>

No?</p>

[jennifer_ruiz]

This is my opinion & you may or may not agree. But I do think to an extent.. The Native American & Carribean belief that a picture steals

your soul is true in a way. I don't think they mean that in a literal way or right at that moment.. But when you die your energy can still be

attached to an image of you, be it a photograph or drawing. There have been people who are haunted in their homes by old photographs

of someone who previously lived in the home.. Depending on the nature of that person & how they died & other factors. If someone has a

photograph of you and was into black magic or voodoo they can use the picture of you to create a doll or just use the picture a lone to put

a curse or hex on you. There are even people who practice witchcraft positively using white magic and could be very infatuated with them

or in love with someone who might not love them.. And can create a love spell towards that specific individual with a photograph of them,

their name & date of birth. And when you think about the damaging things a photograph does that is used illegally as in child pornography

it's very damaging to that person yet used as a positive thing of excitement for that pedophile which is sick. But now I'm getting off track..

But the nature of a photograph creates many elements but a photograph does steal your soul... Not all of it, but a part of who you are..

Small part & for some that might mean their soul. And when photographs are taken in a negative & degrading manner.. A much bigger

part of you. When I was 12 years old I learned that I might have Native American Ancestry & have tried to learn a lot about their beliefs '

superstitions & who they are.. I heard about picture stealing your soul a long time ago & their may be some Natives who still believe it but

I think the younger generation.. Are aware of the superstition but it's not exactly something they follow especially in a society today where

we love taking pictures and posting them on Facebook & instagram. I love pictures too but I have come to find out the Native superstition

does hold true because when you die.. A part of you.. Your energy stays with that picture depending on how you died or the nature that

picture was taken.. ESP if it was in a very bad nature. Native Americans were not dumb or primitive people.. They were very smart & very

in-tuned with nature & spirits more so than any other people I have seen. I don't know why the lady didn't want her picture taken it may

not have been because she thought you were going to steal her soul with your photograph.. It could have been because she didn't think

she looked nice that day or the fact that she didn't know you & didn't know what your intentions were with the photograph of her.

[nozar_kishi]

<p>I am entering so late in the discussion that I may (surely) have overlooked strings on exchanges; so forgive me if I am repeating an issue:<br />I see back-and-forth on the meaning of "soul" to be considered as the core difference, and that if it is solved (i.e., if brought into words) then the issue is clear. To me, both sides of the issue, the ones who believe there is such thing as soul, and those who believe there is no such thing as soul, are (identically) the same. The devil is in the term "believing", not in the term "soul". Believing means accepting, or asserting, an idea without convincing, not only the listeners, but also oneself. "Believing" is a form of "shut up and obey", rather than "a state of knowledge".<br />At the end, the term "subject's soul" is neither "correct", nor "wrong"; it is non-sense; i.e., it does not carry any sense. It is as if I say " the reason to existance is to be found in "armadraba" ". It only is meaningful if one, in the process of convincing (oneself or other-) stops reasoning and resorts to "faith" and "believe", etc. "Soul" and other non-sense like God, and Good/Bad, have historically been only weapons in hands of the religious exploiter.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>What I find unfortunate in reading this interesting discussion is the very rigid way in which the "rationalists" seem to be interpreting 'fact' and the "ephemeralists" seem to be interpreting 'equivalence of emotional and logical value'. We can all think of many inherently offensive ideas which were considered factual by those of high intelligence working sincerely from both points of view, but facts are unfortunately, very often not facts at all. Religious believers neeed not be any more 'fundamentalist' than dry rationalists; those who peremptarily dismiss any attempt at formulating a world-view using the more sublimated aspects of the human experience as folly, can be equally fundamentalist as those who damn to unspeakable horror and ostracisation anyone who rejects their creed. The relationship between Human Experience, "Objective Reality" and Culture is far too complex to rely simply on the "it doesn't make sense to me so I can belittle it" defense and any dogma from either camp is likely to end in failure, recrimination or foolishness.<br>

The original exchange which prompted the thread has given us an expansive springboard from which to explore these themes, but I feel it is most important neither to cleave to the stupidity of rationalism nor the blindness of superstition. I do not believe in God but if I did I would feel obligated to hate him. But I do believe that those who close themselves off from religiosity of any type deny themselves the most profound and inherently valuable aspects of human experience. Monotheism is only a tiny part of this richness. </p>

[mubeen_mughal]

<p>And we must remember to neither be contemptuous nor arrogant irrespective of the belief system that we believe.</p>

[nozar_kishi]

<p>Religious or non-religious believers, are the same, as both believe, meaning that, they have come to a state of knowledge that is beyond proof (for themselves or for others). A believer (either a religious one who believes in a God without proof, or a scientist who believes, without prrof that there are yet-to-be-discovered rules for nature) escapes the burden of proof and hides the curiosity under the carpet. Religion has conditioned us, both the religious and the scientist, that there is a ceiling for proof (a la Kant) and with that leaving room for non-provable nonsense. And is this arrogant to say, or is it merely a "harsh" reality. I encourage a "believer" to sit with himself/herself, and try to answer all questions of curiosity, without damping or hiding them.</p>