Heck in many contexts soul is just a synonym for an ineffable immaterial thing that makes things better (e.g. the soul of a song).
So how can you feed your own soul? How do you know the nature of your soul?
With that definition I feel like a lot of the soul talk makes sense. Like here you 'feed' your soul the information, experiences, and media you seek out, and that influences the 'nature of your soul' by creating the environment it reacts to.
For example, now you've exposed yourself to the idea of a mutually self-giving relationship, and if you keep trying to figure out more about what that means, then your thoughts and choices can start falling in line with that concept.
In common use 'ego' tends to mean someone with selfish or slightly narcissistic personality trait, though, right?
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." — Phillipians 4:8
Freud intended the term "ego" to refer to conscious awareness, basically. Jung used it to mean the focal point of conscious awareness - he treated awareness as being a lot more "smeary" than Freud did.
Western Buddhists use the term to refer to attachment - to the body, emotions, feelings, and the sense of selfhood. I think the closest term might be "atman" - the selfhood that is derived from Vishnu in hindu thinking (I really don't know). Atman sounds like "atmen" - german for breathing. I assume they have the same root. Anyway, the Buddhist notion is a notion of something of which they deny the existence - the term "anatman" refers to the fundamental Buddhist notion that there is no enduring self (or "soul").
I was raised a Christian, and spent a number of decades as a Buddhist; I've never known what the term "soul" was supposed to refer to.
It's about dispelling ignorance about identity. This is easier being a bit dim.
By generalization, there's less need to clarify more coarse concepts.
Whoever I see the word soul, in an argument I can otherwise understand… it works and glosses over a lot of complicated common ground.
But if I don’t know what’s going on, it’s as useful as reading “quod erat demonstrandum” at the end of a proof.
It's not an easy thing to summarize or pin down, and it's kind of different for everyone.