Against Soulmates

What is a soulmate?

Is it your missing piece, a la Shel Silverstein? Is it the person who completes you, a la Jerry Maguire? Is it the person you've known since before you were born, even before you've spoken a word?

No. No. And no, again. The concept of a soulmate is an exceptionally apt metaphor for the feelings that we may experience when seeing, meeting, or being with another being. Beyond that, however, it is a hollow, and dare I say, toxic, metaphor.

Amy Carmichael's triple filter (usually misattributed to Socrates) asks us to pose three questions before passing on information to another:

Is it true?

Is it useful?

Is it kind?

So, is the idea of a soulmate true? We'll save the metaphorical component for Part II (Is it useful?) and Part III (Is it kind?). Right now we're just looking at the factualness of soul mates.

Which brings us back to being able to define what a soulmate would be, beyond "we know it when we feel it" or "we know it when we see it". Since soulmate is a compound word, perhaps we can explore the meanings of the components?

At the least developed level, a soul could be described as the spiritual animating force of a particular being. Some cultures may have souls whose identities persist through multiple incarnations, while others may have a pool of souls with a single incarnation and afterlife, and others may see the soul as formed at conception/quickening/birth and then dissipating or returning to a pool of soul-stuff after death. Some belief systems have soul-stuff following its own natural laws, while others indicate active intervention by an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good (AKAPAG) deity.

So, which is it? When it comes to exploring the truth of the existence of soulmates, don't we need to know? Doesn't what the soul is, and how it works, constrain what kinds of answers we may have to other questions? If we've got an AKAPAG deity in the house, certainly we can invoke 'mysterious ways', but if souls have their own natural laws, then knowing those laws has implications for soulmates, doesn't it?

At this point, it feels to me as though starting from the forest, as if we know what soulmates are, is not a productive path. Unfortunately, my own perspective blinds me a bit to starting from the trees; I have trouble thinking of any couples, no matter how close or healthy their relationships, that I would label as soulmates.

Perhaps you're not in the same boat? Perhaps you can think of multiple beings who appear to have a lifelong partner bond of exceedingly high quality? Ones that you would give the label to?

If so, how large is your sample? Three relationships would be the minimum number to begin to define our plane of discussion. What are the things that all three relationships have in common? Do they self-define as soulmates? Did they "know" when they first met? Is there evidence from that time, or is this from their later personal history? Have they ever had a rupture in their relationship? How did they recover from it? Are they platonic? Romantic? Post-romantic? What other important commonalities or diversity are you seeing?

Do you still feel like all three+ examples are representing the same underlying idea of soulmates?

If you think that you've got a sample that does illustrate a common core for soulmates, please comment!

If not, then I'll consider the point conceded: we haven't been able to define soulmates as a concept, or from examples, to the point where we can realistically pose, let alone answer, the question of whether or not soulmates factually exist.

Splash Image by Deflyne Coppens from Pixabay