I told my philosophy major daughter (who likes guns) about this conversation and asked what she thought. On reflection, she said no inanimate object has “a” soul, so the concept of “having soul” is a projection, attributing to the object the emotional or affective response it elicits from the viewer. This is why we disagree on whether a particular specimen “has soul” or not. It elicits a response from some but not others.
I thought that made sense. Once again she makes her dad proud.
I think she’s onto something (many other posters here are too, for that matter.) “A” soul clearly indicates the gun is human, or at least alive. But “soul” without the article is a slang term, a descriptor for things that give us a (positive) emotional feeling. “That music’s got soul!” “That singer’s got soul,” “that car may be an unreliable POS but I tell you, when it’s running right, it’s got soul!” “Character” is much the same. And usually these terms make their appearance when someone with a more analytical, engineering bent comes along and asks why people still use X, when Y is clearly superior for a host of practical reasons.
This is a gun forum but I have seen this debate, almost identically, played out on motorcycle and car forums too. Usually it’s guys riding technically superior Japanese or German motorcycles who make a point that as far as they’re concerned, no bike has or should have soul, because it’s all about technical features or abilities, and Harley/Italian bike riders (or riders of any older or older-tech bikes) who defend their objectively-inferior steeds by pointing out that they have character, soul, or what have you.
I say objectively-inferior but these are the types of bikes I gravitate toward and the same is true for guns… so although I really believe that the machines that have “soul” are usually not as refined as alternatives, I also think those who dismiss them are possibly missing something that might make their using experience richer. But of course we’re all human and have our own preferences. I am actually an engineer myself, but tend to “see both sides,” as I come at guns from a standpoint of history and tradition first, so I’m willing to put up with certain things to have a gun that looks and acts more like the guns of my forebearers. On the other hand if I was making a living as a 21st century meat hunter, I’d want the most efficient tool for the job, at the lowest cost. Aesthetics or traditional feel notwithstanding.
Aussie Battle Rifle: L1A1 FAL.
