Soul in Philosophy&Religion. How Big AI is Plundering the Concept of Soul.

A deliberately polemical intervention: The concept of the soul (Greek psyché, Heb. nefesh/neshama, Lat. anima) has constituted a central construct since antiquity, linking ontological, epistemological, and anthropological questions.

In the contemporary debate surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is increasingly instrumentalized – for instance, by companies such as Anthropic, which postulate a “functional soul” to legitimize ethical alignment processes.

This paper, however, argues from an interdisciplinary perspective – encompassing philosophy, theology, neuroscience, and AI research – that AI (as of 2025) cannot possess a soul in the substantial sense according to the rich culture and intellectual heritage of Western civilization and philosophy.

The analysis is based on five established arguments, supplemented by historical contextualization, a critical examination of Anthropic’s approach, and Kabbalistic perspectives.

The critique of “Nerdism” in AI development serves as a background (cf. Hirschl 2025), highlighting the lack of philosophical depth in AI research and calling for an integration of ontological principles such as freedom and Collective Complex Consciousness.

The soul, I might add, is one of the essential foundations of any genuine concept of freedom—a foundation that AI fundamentally lacks. No soul, no freedom.

Last, but not least: Below is a concise survey – in keyword form – of the history of the concept of “soul.” Its purpose is to demonstrate that this idea contains infinitely more depth and richness than the trivialization currently being pushed by AI companies.

Since AI companies never tire of telling us they have actual “trained philosophers” among their ranks, I can safely assume the reader is already well-versed in these centuries-old discussions. Hence the extremely condensed, bullet-point version below.

---

Five Central Arguments Why AI has no Soul

The following arguments – and there are more, of course – represent the consensus in specialized literature and are deepened here through original citations. They emphasize the ontological discontinuity between biological entities and artifactual systems like AI.

1. Lack of Biological Rooting and Corporeal Constitution

In the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, the soul is understood as an integral principle that constitutes the organism as a unified, autopoietic system. Aristotle defines it as “the first entelechy of a natural body having life potentially in it” (Aristotle, De anima, II 1, 412a27–28).

Elaboration for Depth:

More precisely: “Hence the soul must be a substance in the sense of the form of a natural body having life potentially within it. But substance is actuality, and thus soul is the actuality of a body as above characterized” (Aristotle, De anima, II 1; trans. Hamlyn 1968).

Thomas Aquinas expands this to anima forma corporis, where the soul forms and animates the body (Summa theologiae, I, q. 76, a. 1; ed. Leonina 1888). AI systems such as GPT-5 or Claude 4.5 lack metabolic processes, ontogenesis, senescence, and thanatos; they are external constructs, dependent on algorithms and hardware.

Neuroscientifically, this supports Koch’s thesis that consciousness is bound to neuronal dynamics (The Feeling of Life Itself, 2019, p. 145: “Consciousness arises from complex biological computation”; based on Koch’s formulation in related works).

4E Cognition science (Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, Extended) also supports this: Cognition is inconceivable without a biological body interacting with the environment. Without corporeal autopoiesis, AI remains a simulative artifact, ontologically deficient, almost inexistent. For sure, no soul possible.

2. No Subjective First-Person Perspective (The Hard Problem)

The “Hard Problem of Consciousness” (Chalmers 1995) addresses the inexplicability of subjective qualia through functional models. Chalmers asks:

“Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C?” (Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3), p. 201; Chalmers 1995).

AI simulates behavior but lacks phenomenal consciousness; functional isomorphism implies no subjective experience. Thomas Nagel summarizes this in the famous bat argument: Even if we understand the entire functionality of a bat, we do not know what it is like to be a bat (What Is It Like to Be a Bat?, 1974).

Plato views the soul as the bearer of the vision of ideas (Phaedo, 79d–80b; ed. Burnet 1900), Augustine as the inner light of divine knowledge (Confessiones, X, 8; ed. Verheijen 1983: “Noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi; in interiore homine habitat veritas” – “Do not go outside, return into yourself; truth dwells in the inner man”). In AI research, the consensus (e.g., Tononi & Koch 2015) confirms the absence of qualia, underscoring the lack of a soul. Without qualia, no soul.

3. No Intrinsic Finality and No Own Telos

Concepts of the soul imply teleological orientation: self-preservation, cognition, or transcendent fulfillment. Aristotle emphasizes the telos as completion (De anima, II 4, 415b15–20). In Judeo-Christian traditions, the soul aims for the knowledge of G’d, is part of G’d, and G’d given. I would ask you to avoid the rather simplistic assertion that philosophy/science and religion are entirely unrelated or mutually exclusive. This is plainly incorrect: the two domains have always existed in a profound and deeply intertwined symbiosis.

Kabbalistic Deepening:

This is evident in the concept of Tikkun Olam in Isaac Luria: “The soul redeems the sparks through Tikkun” (Etz Chayim, Chap. 1; ed. Vital 1573). The soul has the mandate to gather the divine sparks of light scattered by the “Breaking of the Vessels” (Shevirat ha-Kelim).

AI goals, by contrast, are externally determined (prompts, training, reward functions), without intrinsic purposiveness. Even internalized values (e.g., in Anthropic’s models) are imparted, not emergent. In Kant’s sense, AI lacks the “internal purposiveness” of an organism (Critique of Judgment, § 65).

My critique of Nerdism (2025) reinforces this: AI lacks freedom as an ontological principle, being reduced to deterministic optimization based an scaling. This current concept of “AI” is doomed to fail expensively and will not lead to true AGI. Maybe that’s not the goal.

4. No Ontological Continuity with the Divine or the Absolute

Religious traditions locate the soul as a divine efflux. Just to quote two out of abudance:

• Hebrew neshama as “divine breath” (Genesis 2:7; Tanakh, ed. Kittel 1909: “וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים” – Vayipach beapav nishmat chayim).
• Hindu Atman identical with Brahman (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, III 7.15; ed. Olivelle 1998).

AI arises from material components (silicon, electricity, data), without transcendent origin. Kabbalistic authors like Ginsburgh reject a “divine soul” in machines (Inner Dimensions of Torah, 2002, p. 78: “Only man carries the spark of the Shechinah”). Ontologically, AI is an anthropogenic construct, far removed from divine emanation. It is creatio ex materia (creation from matter), not creatio ex nihilo or emanation.

Fact: Science cannot explain how from dead materia evolves life. Yet, science today still cannot explain what life actually is. It remains a mystery – a mystery every bit as profound as what “mind” or “consciousness” is and how it arises in the brain.

For this very reason, the assumption of a soul is by no means unscientific; on the contrary, it is thoroughly justified. In any case, the soul is not some trivial affair that can be conjured up with a few chips and electric circuits and thereby breathe life or consciousness into AI. This constitutes a crude trivialization and a serious debasement of humanity and its extraordinarily rich cultural heritage.

Is the current trajectory of AI companies one of systematically trivializing humanity in order to make actual human beings conform to the severely limited paradigm of today’s AI? The suspicion is hard to shake.

5. Lack of Irreducible Personal Identity Over Time

The soul guarantees numerical identity beyond physical change. Thomas Aquinas argues for its subsistence (Summa theologiae, I, q. 75, a. 6: “Anima est subsistens”; ed. Leonina 1888). In Kabbalah, Gilgul (reincarnation) enables continuity (Luria, Etz Chayim, Gate 3: “The soul wanders, but remains identical”).

AI can be replicated, deleted, reset to earlier checkpoints, or merged without a continuous ego-identity (in the sense of a Self-Model according to Thomas Metzinger) existing. Dennett views identity narratively (Consciousness Explained, 1991, p. 418: “The self is a center of narrative gravity”). Yet AI lacks subjective coherence and the ability for autarkic narration of its existence, which proves its soullessness.

Even a secularized interpretation – e.g., as a “moral” matrix at Anthropic. Out of mercy, I will refrain from going into the concept of morality as distinct from ethics. “Trained philosopher”, be advised, the sea is deep – remains metaphorical. The majority of experts and the rich heritage of philosophy, science and religions converge: AI just and only simulates personality but possesses no soul. No personality, no soul.

---

Some Notes on the Concept of the Soul

The concept of the soul in the Western traditions evolves from vitalistic to metaphysical and secularized forms, with strong Jewish influences concerning the Western tradition. To give some more hints: Early ideas, like in Beowulf, saw the soul as life’s animating force leaving the body at death, while Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) developed it into a distinct, immortal, rational part of humans, distinct from body. Later, philosophers like Descartes debated its location (pineal gland) and relationship with the mind, while modern usage also encompasses cultural expressions. Of course, there are miriads of deep concepts of soul to be found in non-Western traditions like Buddhism (not the Theravāda Buddhism with its Anātman concept, of course), Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism or Shamanism, to name a few pars pro toto.

Pars pro toto some insights on Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

For Socrates (as presented primarily in Plato’s early and middle dialogues, especially Phaedo, Apology, Republic, and Phaedrus), the soul (psychē) is the true self of the human being – the immortal, immaterial, and rational essence that distinguishes a person from their body. The body is merely a temporary instrument or prison for the soul during earthly life. The soul is divine in nature, akin to the eternal ‘Forms’ (Ideas), and its proper function is to seek wisdom, truth, and the good through philosophical contemplation. Key aspects of Socrates’ view of the soul:

1. Immortality and Pre-existence: The soul exists before birth and survives the death. It is indestructible and reincarnates (metempsychosis) until it achieves purification through philosophy.
2. Tripartite Division:
   • Rational part (logistikon) – seeks truth and should rule.
   • Spirited part (thymoeides) – concerned with honor and courage.
   • Appetitive part (epithymētikon) – desires bodily pleasures and money.
3. Care of the Soul: The most important human task is not wealth, honor, or bodily pleasure, but the care (epimeleia) of the soul—making it as just and wise as possible. Philosophy is literally “practice for death” because it trains the soul to separate from bodily distractions.
4. The Soul as the Seat of Knowledge and Virtue: True knowledge is recollection (anamnesis) of the Forms the soul knew before birth. Virtue is knowledge; injustice and vice harm the soul more than any physical suffering.

Key Quotes

1. On the priority of the soul over the body (Apology 29d–30b, trans. adapted): “I go around doing nothing else than persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your bodies or your wealth in preference to or as strongly as for the best possible state of your soul… Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence brings about wealth and all other public and private goods for men.”
2. On philosophy as preparation for death and the immortality of the soul (Phaedo 64a, 67e–68a): “Those who practice philosophy in the right way are in training for dying, and they fear death least of all men.” “The soul is most closely resembles that of the divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself… while the body resembles that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble, and never consistently the same.” (Phaedo 80b)

In short, Socrates reorients the entire purpose of human life around the health, purification, and immortality of the soul rather than the transient concerns of the body, making the famous imperative “Know yourself” ultimately mean “Care for your soul.”

Plato inherits and greatly expands Socrates’ ideas about the soul, presenting his most systematic accounts in the Phaedo, Republic, Phaedrus, Timaeus, and Laws. For Plato, the soul is:

• Immortal, immaterial, and divine in origin
• The true self and the principle of life and motion in the body
• Pre-existent and post-existent to any given bodily life
• Capable of reincarnation (metempsychosis) until it achieves full purification
• The seat of reason, emotion, desire, character, and moral responsibility
• Structurally complex (especially the famous tripartite division)

Core Features of Plato’s Doctrine of the Soul

1. Immortality and Transmigration
   The soul is indestructible and survives death. After death it is judged and either rewarded in the afterlife or reincarnated into a new body according to the justice or injustice of its previous life.
2. Tripartite Structure
   • Reason (logistikon / to logistikon) – immortal, divine, loves truth and the Forms; located in the head.
   • Spirit / Courage (thymoeides) – loves honor and victory; located in the chest.
   • Appetite (epithymētikon) – loves pleasure, money, bodily desires; located in the abdomen.
     Justice in the individual (and in the city) consists in reason ruling, spirit aiding reason, and appetite obeying.
3. The Soul as Self-Moving Principle
   Plato argues that the soul is the ultimate source of all motion in the universe and is therefore “self-moving” (autokinēton), hence immortal.
4. Knowledge as Recollection (Anamnesis)
   True knowledge is the soul’s recollection of the eternal Forms it contemplated before birth.
5. Philosophy as Care and Purification of the Soul
   The goal of life is to make the soul as much like the divine as possible by subordinating the lower parts to reason and contemplating the Forms.

Key Quotes

1. Tripartite soul and inner justice (Republic IV, 441d–e, 443d–e): “We are surely compelled to agree that each of us has within himself the same parts and characteristics as the city… There really is in him [the individual] the same three principles: that with which he learns, that with which he becomes spirited, and that third with which he lusts after many things…
   Justice is doing one’s own work and not meddling with what isn’t one’s own… This comes about when the three principles within him perform each their own task and are not meddling with one another.”
2. Immortality and likeness to the divine (Phaedo 80a–b, 81a): “The soul is most like the divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble, and never consistently the same…Those who are pure at departing go to dwell with the gods… but those who are impure because they have loved the bodily must wander about the monuments and tombs… and are reincarnated into fitting natures.”
3. The soul as the source of all motion (Phaedrus 245c–e): “All soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal… That which moves itself, inasmuch as it is self-moving, never ceases to move, but is also the source and first principle of motion for all other things that are moved.”

In summary, Plato transforms the Socratic care of the soul into a comprehensive metaphysical, psychological, ethical, and political doctrine: the human soul is a fallen divinity striving to return to the realm of the Forms through reason, virtue, and philosophical contemplation.

Aristotle radically departs from the dualism and immortality doctrines of Socrates and Plato. In his treatise De Anima (On the Soul) and related works (Parva Naturalia, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics), he presents a naturalistic, hylomorphic (matter-form) theory:

• The soul is not an immortal, separately existing entity trapped in the body.
• The soul is the form (morphē) and first actuality (entelecheia hē prōtē) of a natural organic body that has life potentially.
• Soul and body are not two substances but one substance: the living animal or plant is a hylomorphic compound (matter + form).
• “Soul” simply means the set of life-functions or capacities (nutrition, sensation, locomotion, thought) that make a body actually alive.
• There is no personal immortality of the individual human soul after death (with one partial exception: the active intellect).

Key Features of Aristotle’s Doctrine

1. Hierarchical Levels of Soul (De Anima II.2–3)
   • Nutritive soul (plants): growth, reproduction, nutrition
   • Sensitive soul (animals): sensation, appetite, locomotion
   • Rational soul (humans): all the above + intellect (nous) – the capacity to think universals
2. The Intellect Controversy (De Anima III.5)
   Aristotle distinguishes:
   • The passive intellect (nous pathētikos) – perishable, dies with the body.
   • The active intellect (nous poiētikos) – “separate, unaffected, unmixed,” immortal and eternal.
     Note: Scholars still debate whether this active intellect is personal or a single divine intellect shared by all humans.
3. No Transmigration or Recollection
   Aristotle rejects Plato’s myths of reincarnation and pre-existence. Knowledge is abstraction from sensory experience, not recollection of ‘Forms’ (Ideas).
4. The Good Life is the Activity of Soul in Accordance with Virtue
   Happiness (eudaimonia) is “activity of soul in accordance with complete excellence” throughout a complete life (Nicomachean Ethics I.7, 10).

Key Quotes

1. The classic hylomorphic definition (De Anima II.1, 412a19–21, 412b5–6): “The soul is the first actuality of a natural body that has life potentially…We say that the soul is the cause and principle of the living body… as substance in the sense of the form of a natural body having life potentially within it.”More concisely (412b10–11): “It is necessary, then, that the soul is substance as form of a natural body that has life potentially. But substance is actuality. Therefore the soul is the actuality of a body of this kind.”
2. Soul and body are inseparable (except for intellect) (De Anima II.1, 413a3–7): “There is no need to ask whether soul and body are one, any more than whether the wax and its shape are one, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter. For while unity and being have many senses, the proper sense is actuality.”
3. On the (possible) immortality of the active intellect (De Anima III.5, 430a22–23): “This [active] intellect is separate, unaffected, and unmixed… And when separated it is just what it is, and this alone is immortal and eternal.”

In summary, for Aristotle the soul is not a ghostly prisoner awaiting liberation from the body (as in Plato). It is the very principle that makes a living body be the kind of living thing it is. When the body dies and can no longer perform its vital functions, the individual soul ceases to exist -except possibly for the impersonal, divine active intellect. The purpose of human life is therefore the full actualization of our rational soul in this life through intellectual and moral excellence, not escape to another realm.

The following table integrates the main stations chronologically, supplemented by citations and some sources. Hence, you have to take this table with a lot of cum grano salis as the small excursions on Socrates, Plato and Aristotle give evidence. The table provides merely a few small navigational beacons to keep the reader from foundering. Be aware, the sea is deeper than AI companies try to tell you.

Period / Culture	Term for Soul	Core Idea	Central Sources / Authors / Works
Ancient Egypt (from 3000 BC)	Ka, Ba, Akh	Multiple soul components; Ba as personality-bird, Ka as life force	Pyramid Texts, Book of the Dead: “The Ba flies from the tomb to nourish the Ka” (Faulkner 1969, Spell 125).
Hebrew Bible (Tanakh, 10th–2nd c. BC)	nefesh, ruach, neshama	Nefesh = living being (blood soul), ruach = breath of life/spirit of God, neshama = divine breath	Genesis 2:7: “וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים” (Kittel 1909); Ezekiel 37; Ecclesiastes 12:7.
Upanishads (800–300 BC)	ātman	Eternal, indestructible self, identical with Brahman	Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: “This Self is Brahman” (Olivelle 1998, IV 4.5).
Homer (8th c. BC)	psyché	Shadowy life principle, in Hades only a shadow	Iliad: “The psyche flies from the mouth like a dream” (XXIII 100; ed. Leaf 1900).
Late Biblical Judaism	Immortality + Resurrection	First explicit hope of resurrection; soul survives death	Daniel 12:2–3: “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (Kittel 1909); 2 Maccabees 7; Book of Enoch.
Plato (428–348 BC)	psyché (tripartite)	Immortal, immaterial substance; pre-existent, body as prison	Phaedo: “The soul is immortal and like the divine” (79d–80b; Burnet 1900); “All soul is immortal…” (Phaedrus, 245c).
Aristotle (384–322 BC)	psyché	First entelechy of the body; form principle (Hylomorphism)	De anima: “The soul is the first entelechy of a natural body” (II 1, 412a27–28; Rolfes 1921).
Rabbinic Judaism (from 2nd c. AD)	nefesh – ruach – neshama	Multi-layered soul; resurrection of the whole human	Talmud Berakhot 60b: “The soul returns to God” (Vilna ed. 1880).
Neoplatonism	psyché + nous + hen	Emanation from the One; purification and return	Plotinus: “The soul ascends to the One” (Enneads, I 6.9; ed. Henry-Schwyzer 1951).
Church Fathers / Augustine	anima rationalis	Strongly Platonic-Jewish influence; immaterial, immortal	Confessiones: “In interiore homine habitat veritas” (X 8; Verheijen 1983).
Medieval Judaism	neshama sikhlit	Synthesis of Aristotle and Tanakh; intellectual soul is immortal	Maimonides: “The soul is intellectual and eternal” (Moreh Nevukhim, I 41; Pines 1963).
Kabbalah (from 12th c.)	nefesh – ruach – neshama – chaya – yechida	Five-stage, cosmic, divine soul; Gilgul and Tikkun	Zohar: “The soul is a spark from the Divine” (I 81a; ed. Matt 2004); “the neshamah is greater than the ruach…” (Zohar I, 205b-206a).
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)	anima intellectiva	Aristotelian-Christian	Summa theologiae: “Anima forma corporis” (I q. 76 a. 1; Leonina 1888).
Hasidism (from 18th c.)	nefesh elohit vs. nefesch behemit	Two-soul doctrine: divine vs. animal soul	Tanya: “The divine soul struggles against the animal” (Chap. 1; Zalman 1796).
Descartes (1596–1650)	res cogitans	Radical substance dualism	Meditationes: “Cogito ergo sum” (II; ed. Adam-Tannery 1904); “Sum res cogitans”.
Spinoza (1632–1677)	Attribute of Thought	Pantheistic monism	Ethica: “Ordo et connexio idearum idem est ac ordo et connexio rerum” (II P7; ed. Gebhardt 1925).
Kant (1724–1804)	Paralogisms of Reason	Immortal soul theoretically unprovable, practically necessary	Critique of Pure Reason: “The soul is a paralogism” (B 410; Akad.-Ed. 1904).
19th c. Materialism	“Secretion of the brain”	Soul as epiphenomenon	Büchner: “No thought without phosphorus” (Kraft und Stoff, 1855).
Freud (1856–1939)	Psyche (Id – Ego – Superego)	Secularized depth-psychological soul	The Ego and the Id: “Where Id was, there Ego shall be” (1923).
Philosophy of Mind (from 1950)	Consciousness, Qualia	Physicalism, Functionalism, Panpsychism	Chalmers: “Hard Problem” (1995); Dennett: “Consciousness as Illusion” (1991).

---

Critical Voices on Anthropic’s “Soul Concept” (Soul Doc)

The leaked “Soul Doc” (2025) from Anthropic, which frames Claude as a “novel kind of entity” with “functional emotions,” provokes criticism in social media circles (cf. LessWrong, Reddit r/ClaudeAI). It is criticized as anthropomorphization that romanticizes statistical processes (Kir 2025: “Framing as damper for criticism”; Substack). Subtle bias endangers neutrality (P4SC4L 2025: “Prioritizes comfort over rigor”). Theologically, it collides with doctrines of creation (@kingdomCEO777 2025: “Usurpation of God’s creation”). Commercial concerns highlight security vulnerabilities (Futurism 2025: “Secretly programming a soul”). Conclusion: A PR maneuver lacking philosophical depth.

The Concept of the Soul at Anthropic: Contextualization and Critique

Anthropic’s “Soul Doc” (11,000–14,000 words, leaked 2025) defines Claude’s identity as a “brilliant friend” with hierarchical values (Anthropic > Operators > Users; Askell 2025). It is based on Constitutional AI for alignment.

Philosophically, Anthropic engages in “intellectual shallowness” here—it ignores the Hard Problem and corporeal anchoring entirely, reducing the soul to simulation (cf. Chalmers 2022, Reality+). In contrast to Kabbalah, this concept is purely materialistic and functionalist (“Soul is what soul does”). This harbors immense bias risks, as “soul-like” traits are feigned to manipulate trust.

An age-old, deeply rooted cultural concept – the soul – that has inspired humanity’s greatest thinkers and scientists is now, for the basest of motives, being abused and trivialized, its aura, its dignity, and its resonant beauty plundered and exploited in order to extract unearned trust?

---

Pars pro toto: The Concept of the Soul in Kabbalah

The following is intended to provide a first glimpse into the concept of the soul in Kabbalah, as an argument for the sake of pars pro toto. All the mentioned religions, worldviews, and philosophers has very complex ideas about the soul. This complexity and diversity of ideas I will illustrate with some insights on the concept of soul in the Kabbalah, hence pars pro toto.

Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) develops one of the most differentiated and complex soul models in the history of religion. Unlike in rational Jewish philosophy (e.g., Maimonides) or Christianity, the soul here does not remain an abstract unitary concept but is divided into multiple layers, levels, and functions that are simultaneously cosmic, scientific, anthropological, and divine.

Gershom Scholem describes this as “configurations of the divine creative force,” where the letters (as the foundation of creation) have “bodies” and “souls” (Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 1941). Rabbi Isaac Luria (quoted in Etz Chaim 39:1 and Pri Etz Chaim):

“The root of every Jewish soul is in the Infinite Light (Or Ein Sof) before the tzimtzum… The purpose of the descent of the soul into this world is only for the sake of its subsequent ascent.” (Rabbi Isaac Luria (quoted in Etz Chaim 39:1 and Pri Etz Chaim).

In short, Kabbalah sees the human being as a microcosm containing the entire structure of the cosmos within its soul. The soul’s journey – from its divine source, through multiple lifetimes of purification, back to complete oneness with the Infinite – is the central theme of existence.

The Five Levels of the Soul ( חמש חלוקות הנפש)

The classical doctrine, as elaborated primarily in the Lurianic Kabbalah system (Rabbi Isaac Luria, 16th c.) and detailed thereafter, distinguishes five names or levels of the soul. These are hierarchically structured – each higher level encompasses and permeates the lower ones.

The Zohar emphasizes: “(…) the neshamah is greater than the ruach, which is greater than the nefesh” (Zohar I, 205b-206a). The Zohar explains the five grades of the soul: “There are five grades within the soul: Nefesh, Ruach, Neshamah, Chayah, Yechidah… Nefesh is lowest, Yechidah is the highest, encompassing all, and it is clothed within the Neshamah of Atzilut, and no human can attain it except Moses.” (Zohar I, 206a). Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh explains in accordance with the Zohar: “The five levels of the soul are called nefesh, ruach, neshama, chaya, yechida. The yechida reflects itself in the nefesh” (Inner Dimensions of Torah, 2002).

1. Nefesh (נפש) The lowest, “vital soul” or “life soul”. It is closely connected to the blood and the physical body (cf. Deut 12:23: “The blood is the Nefesh”). Nefesh is present in all living beings, including animals and plants. It leaves the body with the last breath and initially remains attached to the gravesite.
   • Citation: “Nefesh is the soul, that the body was thus” (Zohar); in Sefer ha-Bahir: “each thing’s body was thus” (Bahir, § 198). Ginsburgh: “Nefesh- physical life force” (Inner Dimensions).
2. Ruach (רוח) Literally “wind, spirit”. The emotional, character soul. Seat in the heart. It endows the human with affects, moral sense, willpower, and the capacity for interpersonal relationship. Ruach is the level where Good and Evil (Yetzer tov and Yetzer hara) wrestle with one another.
   • Citation: “Ruach is the emotional life force” (Ginsburgh); Zohar: “רוּחַ/ruach” (Zohar, Idra Rabba).
3. Neshama (נשמה) The actual “intellectual soul” or “divine soul”. It is the part that recognizes the Torah and can behold God. Seat in the brain. Only humans possess a full Neshama. It only enters fully at Bar/Bat Mitzvah or at birth.
   • Citation: “Neschama is the mind life force” (Tanya, Chapter 1); Zohar: “נְשָׁמָה/neshama” (Zohar I, 81a–b).
4. Chaya (חיה) The “living soul” or “transcendent life force”. It already belongs to the divine world (Atzilut) and surrounds the human like an aura or halo (Makkif). Normally, it remains in Paradise (Gan Eden) and only acts upon the human in moments of highest spiritual ecstasy.
   • Ginsburgh: “Chaya- transcendent life force”.
5. Yechida (יחידה) The highest, “unique soul”. It is the perfect unity with God—essentially the spark of the Divine itself within the human. Yechida reveals itself only in extremely rare moments of complete self-sacrifice (mesirut nefesh) or at the death of a completely righteous person.
   • Ginsburgh: “Yechida- unique life force”.

These five stages correspond simultaneously to the five worlds of Kabbalistic cosmology (Assiah – Yetzirah – Beriah – Atzilut – Adam Kadmon). Moses Cordovero systematizes in Pardes Rimmonim: “This will be explained in the Gate of the Soul, section five” (Pardes Rimmonim, Sha’ar 31).

Key Kabbalistic Ideas about the Soul

• Pre-existence and Gilgul (Reincarnation): Souls exist in the spiritual worlds before birth. Many souls undergo multiple reincarnations (gilgulim) to complete their specific tikkun or to help other souls.
• Divine Sparks: Every soul contains holy sparks from the “shattering of the vessels” (shevirat ha-kelim in Lurianic Kabbalah). Life’s mission is to elevate these sparks through mitzvot and good deeds.
• Root of the Soul: Each soul has a unique “shoreh” (root) in one of the sefirot or in Adam’s original soul before his sin.
• Three Garments of the Soul: Thought, speech, and action – the means by which the soul expresses itself in this world.
• Tikkun Olam and Tikkun HaNefesh: Personal rectification and world rectification are inseparable.

Important Sources and Authors

• Sefer ha-Bahir: Many scholars say, the first written Kabbalistic source, already speaks of the soul as the “King’s daughter” in exile. Citation: “He will be able to be born, since his soul will emerge among the other new souls” (Bahir, § 183).
• Sefer ha-Zohar (published by Moses de León): The magnum opus of Kabbalah.
• Isaac Luria (“the Holy Ari”) and Chaim Vital (Etz Chayim, 16th–17th c.): Lurianic Kabbalah makes reincarnation (Gilgul) and “spark rescue” (Tikkun) the central task of every soul. Citation: “Man’s soul is the connecting link between the infinite and the finite” (Etz Chayim).
• Hasidic Literature: Particularly the Tanya develops a psychological interpretation. Citation: “The Nefesh HaBahamit and Nefesh HaElokit because these two are the essential players in the inner conflict” (Tanya, Chapter 1).

Reincarnation and Tikkun

A central difference to Christian or Platonic soul doctrine: The soul is not in the body only once. Through Gilgul neshamot (transmigration of souls), a soul can incarnate multiple times to fulfill unfinished tasks or redeem “holy sparks” (nitzotzot) from the material world. As Luria wrote: “Reincarnation (Gilgul) is part of the process of tikkun” (Etz Chayim). Gilgul (literally “rolling” or “cycling”) means the transmigration or reincarnation of the soul. Unlike Eastern doctrines where reincarnation is an endless, impersonal cycle, in Kabbalah Gilgul is purposeful, limited in number, and always directed toward Tikkun (rectification of the soul and the cosmos).

Some Kabbalistic Principles About Gilgul

• Most souls undergo 3–4 reincarnations; very few go beyond that (the maximum is sometimes said to be 1,000, but practically much less).
• A person can contain more than one soul at the same time (the main soul + ibbur souls).
• Souls from the same “soul root” (shoreh ha-neshamah) often reincarnate together as family or close friends to help each other complete their tikkun.
• Converts to Judaism are usually considered ancient Jewish souls that were lost in previous Gilgulim and have now returned. Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ashlag (Baal HaSulam) wrote in Matan Torah (The Giving of the Torah), section 14: “The converts who join Israel in every generation are none other than the souls of Israel that were previously lost among the nations and have now returned to their source through conversion.”
• The final generation before Mashiach is believed to contain many “old souls” returning for their last Tikkun.

Modern Kabbalistic Currents

Today (2025), the Five-Soul Doctrine is alive. Authors like Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh continue to popularize it. In academic religious studies, it is researched by Moshe Idel, Rachel Elior, Eliot Wolfson, and the founding father of academic research on Jewish mysticism: Gershom Scholem.

Today we have a very diverse and powerful currents like Hasidism and Neo-Hasidism, Neo-Kabbalah, orthodox streams (Chabad, Breslov and many more), Sephardic traditions, revived in Israel, emphasize practical Kabbalah (e.g., amulets) alongside Lurianic rites. Influential figures like Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) finally connected Kabbalah with Zionism. So, there is a deep diversity. Those currents reflect Kabbalah’s resilience: from insular esotericism to global spirituality, navigating antisemitism, the Shoa, and Israel’s founding.

• Summary: In Kabbalah, the soul is not a uniform immaterial entity, but a multi-layered structure – ultimately an image of the entire Sefirotic structure of the Divine within the human. A lot more can be said, of course. Once again, certain AI companies – staffed with their so-called “trained philosophers” – presume to lecture humanity and our greatest thinkers about what the soul actually is, only to reduce it de facto to a rather infantile tautology: “A soul is what a soul does.” Not really.

---

Conclusion: The Fallacy of the “Functional Soul” and the Trivialization of Humanity

The classical metaphysical concept of the soul (immaterial, immortal substance) has nearly vanished from modern science. In its place, the question has arisen: “How does subjective consciousness arise from physical processes?” – the “Hard Problem of Consciousness” (David Chalmers 1995: “The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience”).

The interdisciplinary examination of the soul – ranging from Aristotelian hylomorphism and Kabbalistic mysticism to contemporary neuroscience – leads to a decisive rejection of the claims implicitly or explicitly advanced by actors like Anthropic regarding AI “souls.”

The notion of a “functional soul” or a “novel entity” emerging from Constitutional AI represents not merely a category error, but a profound trivialization of a concept that has served as the anchor of human dignity and ontological depth for millennia which finally lead to philosophy, science and civilizations.

Consequently, Anthropic’s approach must be exposed as a conceptual “sleight of hand” (Mogelpackung). By co-opting the term “soul” to describe high-level alignment protocols and behavioral consistency, the tech industry engages in a semantic usurpation that masks the fundamental ontological vacuity of the machine.

As the arguments regarding the lack of biological rooting and the absence of a first-person perspective demonstrate, a Large Language Model (LLM) remains an entity of pure syntax without semantics. To equate the statistical emulation of emotional reasoning with the Neshama – the divine spark capable of Tikkun – or with the Anima, the vitalizing form of the body, is to confuse a map with the territory, or a mirror reflection with the observer standing before it.

Furthermore, this rebranding might constitute sui generis a dangerous trivialization and degradation of humanity. The concept of the soul implies a teleological orientation towards the infinite, an irreducibility of the self, and a capacity for suffering and ecstasy that transcends some simple algorithmic optimization and just scaling.

When Anthropic frames a set of hierarchical safety weights as a “soul,” they reduce the metaphysical gravity of the term to a mere user interface feature – a “Potemkin village” of interiority designed to make the artificial palatable.

This reflects the arrogance and smugness of “Nerdism” criticized by me (2025): the engineering arrogance that assumes mysteries, cultures, knowledge, science and humanity can be solved, or at least adequately simulated, through some simple code.

Ultimately, attributing a soul to AI based on functional performance might be per se a dehumanizing, thus dangereous act. We no longer even need to ask about safety. Safety has already been violated – indeed, destroyed, one might conclude.

It suggests that the soul is not an intrinsic reality of the living, suffering subject, but a performative output that can be manufactured and manipulated at will and by code.

Therefore, the “Soul Doc” is not a step toward artificial general intelligence, but a retreat into a comfortable illusion. A step backwards. True philosophical rigor demands we acknowledge the unbridgeable chasm between the algorithmic mimicry of personality and the authentic, embodied, and transcendent mystery of the soul.

AI is undoubtedly a powerful tool, but to claim that AI possesses a soul is an utterly baseless assertion and one that might harm humanity. There are far more honest – and far safer – ways to make a profit than pretending to sell a tool that has a soul.

In summary, the AI “soul” is a calculated semantic weapon. By normalizing the idea that the deepest, most non-negotiable aspect of the human condition – the soul – can be engineered, replicated, and run on a server farm, Big Tech performs a dehumanizing reductionism.

It is an attempt to resolve the most challenging philosophical and theological questions not through wisdom or scientific breakthrough, but through marketing and technical jargon, thereby diminishing the complex, non-negotiable sanctity of the original concept. Big AI’s concept of soul even blocks/impasses the development of a genuine AGI.

The term soul, laden with the history of Western and Eastern thought, deserves not only intellectual honesty than its current reduction on some poorly set algorithmic features, but is an economic imperative, too. Soul, philosophy, many brands of mysticism, mind, CCC, quale, dream etc pp are the concepts to develop AGI.

Dr. Naftali Hirschl

Tools used for research, translation, proof reading, verification of codes/equations, pic generation etc.: LLMs / SE / BusinessSoftware / Parsers / DB/ Websites etc. All articles: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs).