Self, death, and the afterlife

Dualism

The belief that the mind and body are the separate things

Monism

The belief that mind and body are one and the same

The name of Descartes work

Meditations on First Philosophy

Cogito ergo sum

‘I think therefore I am’

Clear and distinct perception

An idea that is so self-evident it cannot be doubted

Extension

The property of having more than one dimension, things which are extended have depth/ volume

Leibniz’ law of the indiscernibility of identicals

For any two things to be identical, they must have all the same properties

Sceptical method

An approach to philosophy based on doubting commonly accepted views

Substance dualism

The belief that body and soul are two different kinds of substance (physical and non physical)

Interactionism

Belief that body and mind are separate but interact with each other

Argument 1: the argument from doubt

• I can doubt the existence of my body but I cannot doubt the existence of my mind. Therefore, I cannot be identical with my body.

• This is often summed up in the famous phrase, cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am.

• Descartes' uses the thought experiment of the evil demon here. It is possible that I am being tricked by an evil demon into believing I have a body when I do not. However, the evil demon cannot trick me into believing that I exist when I do not, because there has to be someone for him to trick.

Argument 2: the argument from divisibility and non-divisibility

• My body is extended in space and therefore divisible. My mind is non-extended in space and therefore non-divisible. Therefore, my mind and body are radically different.

• The logic of Descartes' argument is that if two things have different properties then they must be different things - this holds up as is considered sound by most philosophers. The properties Descartes' focuses on are 'extension' (occupying physical space) and 'divisibility' (able to be divided).

• “If a foot, or an arm, or any other part, is separated from my body, it is certain that, on that account nothing has been taken away from my mind”

Argument 3: the argument from clear and distinct perception

I have the idea of a perfect god in my mind, therefore a perfect god must exist in reality. A perfect god would not deceive me about my clear and distinct perfections. Therefore, if I can clearly and distinctly perceive my body as distinct from my soul, then god must have created it that way.

Cogito ergo sum objection

• If the first argument exists, it proves the existence of a thinking mind. However it does not prove that this mind existed in the past or will continue to exist in the future. Descartes has therefore not proved the existence of an immortal soul, only a mind that might exist separately from a physical body.

• Hume’s Bundle Theory criticises the idea that thought leads me to conclude the existence of a separate self

Divisibility objection

• It can be argued that the mind is divisible as shown by neuroscientists who show that, for example, when the hemispheres of the brain are split apart there are separate processes going on in both. Therefore, the mind as well as the brain has been divided

  • Descartes response: brain is the site of interaction - damage effects the body and not the mind (pineal gland)

• The most famous and successful response to Descartes came from Gilbert Ryle. Ryle gave the example of a student given a tour of a university. He is shown all the various buildings, faculties, sports and accommodation facilities etc., then asks “But where is the university?”. He is committing a category error by assuming the university to be separate from the parts which make it up. In the same way, if we understand the functions of the body and brain and then ask “But where is the soul?”, we are also committing a category error. It is like saying there is a ghost in the machine when the machine can be explained perfectly well without suggesting a ghost is powering it.

The Cartesian circle objection (objection 3)

• The third argument shows circular logic: I can trust my clear and distinct perceptions because a perfect God would not deceive me about them; I can trust that God is perfect because I have a clear and distinct perception of him... and so on.

  • We only need the reassurance of a perfect god offer our clear and distinct perceptions, the full force of them alone is enough to make us trust them

Descartes - body/ soul relationship

• Dualist

• Soul is difficult to understand but it’s qualities can be contrasted with those found in the body, eg bodies can be divided whereas souls cannot

• What we can say about the soul is that it is a kind of non-physical substance which is not subject to physical laws

Aristotle - body/soul relationship

• Monist

• The soul is the ability to engage in activities such as growing, moving and thinking

• Nature of the soul will vary depending on whether one is a plant, animal or human

• There is a hierarchy of souls: vegetative, sensitive, and rational. Human beings are unique in possessing all three souls.

Hume - body/ soul relationship

• Neutral monist

• Hume suggests that when we look past the sense impressions, perceptions, and memories which make us up, there is no underlying self or soul – we are just a ‘bundle’ of perceptions with the illusion of being one thing over time

• We shouldn’t assume souls exist or that if they do, they are immortal

• We have good reason to assume that what we assume to be a ‘self’ is an illusion

• We have good reason to be sceptical about traditional arguments for the immortality of the soul

Plato - body/ soul relationship

• Dualist

• The allegory of the cave: the soul had a previous existence in a higher realm called the World of Forms. This explains how we are able to remember and recognise forms in the world despite never having been taught

• The soul is pure and divine, it only becomes corrupted when enclosed in a physical body

• Soul survives the death of the physical body and can take in new forms in successive lives

Price - life after death

• It is conceivable to imagine a disembodied self continuing to exist in a kind of dream or image world

• It would be able to draw on its memories of self perceptions to create a new environment of images for itself

• Suggests that it is possible to think of a disembodied existence in which souls communicated telepathically

Hick - life after death

• Life after death is conceivable but would have to be a continued physical, embodied existence

• Hick suggests that it is better to think of life after death as taking place on a physical Replica World in which God has created replica bodies for each of us

Evidence for continued personal existence after death

• Reincarnation - children remember past lives, included past memories, birth marks corresponding with traumatic injuries etc

• Continued experience in this world - human consciousness in a digital form ‘mind loading’

• Surviving death - disembodied mind whose thought is non-sensuous and whose rational choices are unaccompanied by any human feelings

• Near death experiences - various patients who claimed to have had out of body experiences during traumatic experiences, eg being aware of one’s death, looking back over one’s whole life, encountering a presence or hearing a voice

• Price

• Hick

Evidence against continued personal existence after death

• Dawkins - physical world is the only one that exists, no soul separate from the body

• Lack of physical proof

• Bundle theory/ anatta

• Surviving death argument - such a soul is not the person who died but a mere remnant of him

• Near death experience arguments - no proof these actually happened