Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

  “The nitrogen in our DNA, 
  the calcium in our teeth, 
  the iron in our blood, 
  the carbon in our apple pies
  were made in the interiors of collapsing stars.
  We are made of star stuff”.
  – Carl Sagan


  We have calcium in our bones, 
  iron in our veins, 
  carbon in our souls, 
  and nitrogen in our brains.
  93 percent stardust,
  with souls made of flames, 
  we are all just stars 
  that have people names"
  Nikita Gill


I understand this is a poem that is focused on artistic expression and not scientific accuracy, but I find the line about “carbon in our souls” to be out of place. I guess the rest of the poem is incidentally correct (when not abstract)


>Carbon in our souls

I think it might be an allusion to alchemy. Basically, the alchemists believed that ash (what was left after burning something) was the soul of all things...And-- this is where my complete lack of understanding about science shows-- I'm pretty sure Ash has lots of carbon? It's, you know, poetic. Many have claimed that poems are the "language of paradox" so it's okay for it to be a little non-literal. My interpretation of it, though, is that the soul is something impure that you must burn away, or maybe that the soul is polluted by our own words and behavior. It's definitely not meant to be scientifically accurate.


ash has no carbon

carbon's oxides are all gaseous at standard temperature and pressure


Not quite. Plenty of carbon is release as carbon oxides, but calcium carbonate is also a major component of ash (or at least wood ash).


good point

little carbon, then, not none


Going by what wikipedia says, wood ash can have carbon. If I understand correctly, how much depends largely on how hot it burned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_ash#Elemental_analysis


Sure, the word “soul” comes from the proto Germanic “saiwiz” (for sea or ocean).

But not because “you are like a drop in the ocean,” but because “you are like an ocean in a drop.”

The idea of soul can be objectionable when it is based on an immortal being or on a vitalist life-force (like “anima” of the Latin). But it seems fine when it is based on the psyche (like the “Psuche” of the Greek).

I embrace taboo words like soul because they 1. are common 2. are useful for referring to things that seem pretty important (like avoiding soulless companies or products or buildings) and 3. are challenging to my normal (scientific) understanding of the world.

Still, I’d be more comfortable if the poem referred to the “carbon of our souls” rather than “carbon in our souls.” Hmm…


One who is a materialist could argue that your "soul" comes from the stuff you're made out of, so your "soul" probably has carbon it somewhere.


You could define soul as the fuel engine for life, which is basically burning carbon. As long as that furnace is functioning you're alive == you have a soul.


Oh wait I can play this game:

You and I are complicated but we're made of elements Like a box of paints that are mixed to make every shade They either combine to make a chemical compound or stand alone as they are

- They Might Be Giants


I find this poem inaccurate.


?


Souls are clearly not made of both carbon and flames.


The ones in Hell could be.


Was that originally in a different language? "Heart" makes more sense than "soul", and could be translates loosely.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: