I’m not looking for a theological or metaphysical discussion. I just want to know what a soul is supposed to be, according to pretty much main-stream belief systems (Abrahamic religions in particular) that assert souls exist. If the definition turns out to be “whatever is left over after you die” or something similar, then fine (but no cigar).
I’m sure this has been discussed before here, but just searching for “soul” returns about 3 threads per day.
I’m no theologian, but here’s my layman’s understanding as (I believe) generally accepted by Christian groups in the U.S.
The soul is your non-corporeal self. As I understand most people’s concept, it’s everything but the body: your image and consciousness. When you go to heaven or hell, you’re basically the same as you are. (That ‘psychic’ on a daytime talk show said everyone is 30 in their spiritual form.)
In a non-religious/non-spiritual context, the question is probably meaningless. (I feel like Der Trihs :D)
In uses related to religion or spirituality (somewhat distinct concepts), so far as I can determine, it appears to be the self-aware self, complete with personality, memories, etc., but divested of characteristics associated with having a body (hunger, sex drive, etc.). Some distinguish between “soul” and “spirit” with the personality apparently one and the “self” the other.
That’s the best I can do. Some definitions:[ul]
[li]"the immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life " (Wordnet)[/li][li]“The soul, according to many religious and philosophical beliefs, is the self-awareness, or consciousness, unique to a particular living being, defined as being distinct from the body and survives the death of the body. …” (from Wikipedia)[/li][li]“The spirit or essence of a person usually thought to consist of one’s thoughts and personality. Often believed to live on after the person’s death,” (Wictionary)[/li][/ul]
I try to leave such metaphysical questions to a higher source…specifically, TV Tropes, which I listen to more, and has better oversight.
Thank you for your answer, but it highlights a problem I have with many concepts of soul that I’ve seen so far: they seem to define soul as a negative, in this case “not the body”. As someone who’s not sure at all that there is anything “concrete” but the body, or more to the point, there is much too much stuff about people that isn’t material and/or part of the body (acquaintances, companies, wealth, friends, ideas, despair, hunger, homes etc) which don’t seem to all be part of the soul as it’s generally understood, it’s pretty confusing.
You’re probably right. I just want a definition that I can actually use sort of objectively.
As far as I can tell, this definition is the most practical one I’ve seen that more or less works. If only I could find out what a personality is 
Oh no, another day wasted on tvtropes…
I like to phrase the question as “what is the soul made of?”
Words like “immaterial,” or “non-corporeal” parts of the body strike me as semantically senseless. How can there be a non-corporeal part of the body? How is an “immaterial” object distinguishable from a non-existent one?
Or a “spirit” or an “essence.”
While the OP was OK to start in General Questions, it’s probably better suited to an opinion forum. Moved to IMHO.
samclem Moderator, General Questions
Oh god, no. At least “personality” sounds reasonable.
ETA: as in “you’re in heaven now, but you’re still a dick” 
Do clothes have souls?
Assuming for the moment that a ghost is a soul that has not found its way to heaven or hell (and that they exist in the first place), why do people never see naked ghosts? Unless clothing has souls, the only clothes a ghost should be wearing is a birthday suit. (Or shoes.)
“What am I ? A blind ghost with clothes ?” - Georgi La Forge
The same applies to ghosts or spirits who appear visibly rotting/worm-eaten. Are the worms ghosts, too? What did they do to end up as wandering spirits?
Unless, of course, the afterlife saves on space by overlapping zones of eternal reward and punishment when possible. So the worms infesting tormented human spirits were in fact Good and Virtuous worms in life, and they’re being rewarded by being allowed to feast on (non-corporal) flesh with impunity for all time (Worms, being simple creatures, not requiring that much to make them happy).
If everything in the universe follows the laws of physics, then we don’t really have free will. It’s all just cause and effect following from the initial conditions of the big bang.
If we DO have free will, its source would have to be something outside the realm of physics. And that would be a soul.
In Buddhist thought, there is no soul or self (in Sanskrit Ātman), by which Buddha meant a unchanging eternal non-physical essence or manifestation of personality which survives death. Does that help?
Aren’t you forgetting about randomness?
Could a case be made for the electrical activety in the brain and nervous system that gives us our self awareness and thinking ability being the soul?
Of course this would not be an immortal soul as presumably without a body to reside in the electrics would fail.
In modern everyday (not theological) languages we occasionally use formulations like “the spirit of” or “the essence of”.
Examples:
“That measure may have received plenty of Labour votes but it still violates the spirit of the Labour party”
“The American spirit was embodied in the moon landing”
When we do so, we are invoking an abstraction, such as a set of characteristics or attitudes or whatever that we think represent the “core” of whatever the heck we’re talking of. We neither think that there is a semi-translucent duplicate of the thing hidden inside the thing that floats up and out when the thing dies nor posit that God collects the good ones. The idea of either is downright silly when it is the Labour Party or the American nation as subject matter, but only marginally less silly when we are speaking of Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Aquinas or other persons.
I think “soul” was originally used in the same way, and then in the long history of organized and institutionalized religion it became fossilized into this very literal and very childish notion of a “soul” as a pseudo-tangible “thing inside the thing”.
Yeah, right. There are ghosts living inside of us! scoff
Next they’ll be saying we have skeletons living inside of us!
Sheesh, people, you could have just asked me directly.