Talk:Soulmate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Definitions for Soul mate from the web
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary a person temperamentally suited to another
Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] somebody close to somebody else: somebody with whom somebody else naturally shares deep feelings and attitudes
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary a person, usu. of the opposite sex, with whom one has a strong intimate attachment based on shared interests, values, and the like.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language One of two persons compatible with each other in disposition, point of view, or sensitivity.
Infoplease Dictionary a person with whom one has a strong affinity.
WordNet 2.0 someone for whom you have a deep affinity
Ultralingua English Dictionaries Someone for whom one has a deep affinity
.RhymeZone someone for whom you have a deep affinity
AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary someone who shares the same feelings, thoughts, ideas, outlook, tastes, etc as someone else.
LookWAYup dictionary someone for whom you have a deep affinity.
Petersam 08:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Films with soul mate themes
Help look for movies with soul mate themes and add them to the list....
Internet Movie Data Base search plot for Soul Mate
DejaVu (1998) with Stephen Dillane and Victoria Foyt, directed by Henry Jaglom.
[edit] Possible topics to expand on
Modern Soulmate Theory - explaining soulmates using probabilities.
Classic Soulmate Theory - explaining soulmates versus work-it-out theory.
The Search for the Perfect Soulmate
Work-it-out - or 'love the one you're with'
Soulmate Calculator - A revolutionary analytical web-based tool using population statistics to find out the number of American singles you have to met to find a soulmate.
Petersam 08:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of Soul Mate Theories
(moved out of main page)
- Note of skepticism: This concept uses certain ideologies of the supernatural (such as reincarnation) which have no way of being tested. It also supposes conclusions that are not even a part of the borrowed ideologies, without noting the difference, such as that soulmates exist to "heal" or play "other important roles" in each other's lives. This is also, in itself, vague and meaningless. In what way are these supposed "soul mates" supposed to heal each other? And why? The logical fallacy Appeal to Emotion comes to mind.
- Note of skepticism: This "theory" is misleading and makes conclusions for the reader rather than simply explaining what the concept is. It does this by using words such as "unfortunate reality" and then by going on to speak of what that "unfortunate reality" is. Many new agers will describe certain situations in the light of their concepts and accept no other explanation, such as logical explanation.
- Note of skepticism:A concept, derived from fairy tales and bad hollywood movies, used as a justification for what would otherwise be called psychotic behavior. A common mantra when invoking said concept is "But (s)he is my soulmate!" Tears usually follow to add support to the statement and successfully end rational discussion about the wisdom of the relationship.
Hey lighten up dude, nothing's perfect.
------
(I can tell *you're* a virgin..;) 69.203.129.19 06:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] this article needs a re-write
I think that this article needs to either be greatly expanded/re-structured or even completely re-written. The esoteric stuff is nice and stuff (/irony), but I feel that this very important topic really needs to be covered from a scientifical/psychological point of view. I was really annoyed when reading it and very dissatisfied, and I would really appreciate if some expert on that topic is willing to make a start for a good article. I could try to re-write it myself if noone else is ready to do it but even though I have some knowledge of this topic, I wouldn't consider myself an expert on it, but I can make myself one if necessary, but it would be easier if someone more knowledgeable would be wanting to do it. Cryonic 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- You can't have a scientific debate about soul mates. This is because by definition, a soul is not physical (and represents the spiritual part of a living being). The term soul originates from Hindu Vedic scripture and maybe older than 10,000 years as a concept (in Sanskrit: Atman). By definition, spiritual energy can not be detected by physical science. You can debate scientific experiments designed to observe the function of different area's of the brain. Explaining this using an analogy: The mind is akin to a car. It has certain functions that limit its use. The driver whilst himself not part of the car, can express himself through the car, yet the car limits his capacity for expression. If you want a serious article about the soul, one needs to base the article on religion and spirituality, for that is where the expression originates. Any psychology that can be attributed to the brain or body also has nothing to do with a persons soul which is uneffected by the body/mind.86.4.59.203 00:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Deva.
if you cant scientifically prove or disprove the existence of the soul then why are there reports out there of a body being weighed right before and right after the exact second of death and there being a differnece of mere grams? explain that one away and i will become a non-believer. yeah right. NOONE can make ME believe that souls dont exist. which brings my next point: how can someone whole-heartedly believe in the concept of soul but NOT the concept of soulmate? to me that's just ridiculous......(later on) ok i cited my 'report' just by googling 'weight of the soul' and got http://www.lostmag.com/issue1/soulsweight.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.109.48 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] nice and fluffy
beautiful thoughts however, they are meant to be enjoyed over a glass of red wine at 4am. like faith and religion, these thoughts have merit, just not for those who think rationally on a regular basis. Tamiam3 06:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scientific Soulmates?
Did somebody just pull that out of their asses? Cite, please. Metalrobot 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Multiple Soulmates
What about the possibility of multiple soulmates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterczyk (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tall glass of original research
Seriously, this article is in dire need of a complete overhaul. It's on my to-do list: For my own reference: http://marriage.about.com/cs/soulmates/a/soulmates.htm I might even hit up the library for this one. Lara❤Love 16:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Soulmate
Can anyone discribe how it feels to encounter a soulmate? i feel i have found mine... every now and then He an I connect without words, I love him and he loves me we both know that. altho we are not together. there is this feeling, its so deap... not lust... not nerves... its more like satisfaction without being satisfied.. How do we talk about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.113.40 (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a talk forum, it's for discussion on improving the article. But I'll respond on your talk page. There's a link at the top of your page that says "my talk", click that. Lara❤Love 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Written by a 14 year old girl?
This article is at least 2/3 vomit. The only relevant (or even meaningful) part is the 'concepts' section. "someone you love, and would do anything for, and someone who loves you, and would do anything for you"? This is an encyclopaedia, not a teenage diary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.251.160 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Picture?
What's with the picture. Horray for James Ososki, but his poorly made photoshop love letter doesn't need to be the main display for this section.
Teldumor (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced it with a more appropriate image and table. --Polylerus (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
