Life and Death Philosophical Perspectives

Two problems To discuss whether life after death is possible we need to understand two related philosophical problems: To discuss whether life after death is possible we need to understand two related philosophical problems: –The mind-body problem –The problem of personal identity

Problem of Personal Identity Who am I? Who am I? –Option 1: ‘I am my body / physical’ – this view might lead to belief in resurrection of the body –Option 2: ‘I am my mind / soul’ – this view might lead to belief in rebirth or reincarnation

The Mind / Body Problem What is the relationship between the mind and the body? What is the relationship between the mind and the body? How far do our mental activities, such as thinking, lead to physical actions? How far do our mental activities, such as thinking, lead to physical actions?

Plato Dualist Soul = charioteer Cycle of opposites Knowledge of the Forms

Plato’s Phaedo Reincarnation The cycle of death and rebirth involves intermediate stages where things change = the act of dying and revival Things are generated from their opposites

Plato – Evaluation Arguments for Arguments against

Criticism of Plato Peter Geach rejects Plato’s views: Peter Geach rejects Plato’s views: –How can the disembodied soul see the world of the Forms? Surely seeing is linked to the body? –Is existence without a body really human existence? Other philosophers have rejected Plato’s argument from the cycle of opposites. Many things in the universe have opposites but this doesn’t necessarily mean that death and life are the opposite of each other Other philosophers have rejected Plato’s argument from the cycle of opposites. Many things in the universe have opposites but this doesn’t necessarily mean that death and life are the opposite of each other

Descartes Dualist Doubts the body ‘I think therefore I am’ Mind can survive death

Descartes – Evaluation Arguments for Arguments against

Points in favour of Dualism We often talk as if our ‘selves’ were different from our bodies. Consider the sentence ‘I have a body’ We often talk as if our ‘selves’ were different from our bodies. Consider the sentence ‘I have a body’ We say that we are the ‘same’ person as we were years ago, despite the fact that our body has changed We say that we are the ‘same’ person as we were years ago, despite the fact that our body has changed We seem to have privileged access to many of our thoughts. In other words, we are able to know what we are thinking, even though others cannot tell We seem to have privileged access to many of our thoughts. In other words, we are able to know what we are thinking, even though others cannot tell We can doubt we have a body but cannot doubt we have a mind (Descartes) We can doubt we have a body but cannot doubt we have a mind (Descartes)

Points against dualism Just because our language refers to body and mind distinctly, this does not mean that mind and body are different things Just because our language refers to body and mind distinctly, this does not mean that mind and body are different things The point that some of our thoughts can be secret does not necessarily imply dualism. This only shows that we can keep some thoughts to ourselves. There are also numerous occasions when it is possible for others to know what I am thinking The point that some of our thoughts can be secret does not necessarily imply dualism. This only shows that we can keep some thoughts to ourselves. There are also numerous occasions when it is possible for others to know what I am thinking

Points against dualism To say that ‘I can doubt that I have a body but I cannot doubt that I exist, therefore I am not a body’ is a false reasoning process. It is similar to ‘Fred can doubt that he is a professor of philosophy but he cannot doubt that he exists, therefore he is not a professor of philosophy’ To say that ‘I can doubt that I have a body but I cannot doubt that I exist, therefore I am not a body’ is a false reasoning process. It is similar to ‘Fred can doubt that he is a professor of philosophy but he cannot doubt that he exists, therefore he is not a professor of philosophy’ Is it possible to conceive of yourself as being a disembodied soul? Isn’t so much of what makes you ‘you’ linked to your physical body, your location in space, etc? Doesn’t our concept of person involve reference to bodies? Is it possible to conceive of yourself as being a disembodied soul? Isn’t so much of what makes you ‘you’ linked to your physical body, your location in space, etc? Doesn’t our concept of person involve reference to bodies?

Ryle’s critique of Dualism Gilbert Ryle criticised Dualism on the grounds that it posited a ‘ghost in the machine’ Gilbert Ryle criticised Dualism on the grounds that it posited a ‘ghost in the machine’ He uses the idea of a ‘category mistake’ to criticise dualism. To argue that the mind is some kind of extra object that exists in the body and controls it, is like arguing that ‘team spirit’ can exist separately from the eleven cricketers that make up the team He uses the idea of a ‘category mistake’ to criticise dualism. To argue that the mind is some kind of extra object that exists in the body and controls it, is like arguing that ‘team spirit’ can exist separately from the eleven cricketers that make up the team

Aristotle Monist Soul = Life of the body Soul dies with the body Different types of soul

Aristotle – Evaluation Arguments for Arguments against

Dawkins Materialist DNA survival Humans are physical The mind is the brain

Dawkins – Evaluation Arguments for Arguments against

Criticisms of Dawkins Dawkins presents religious belief as much cruder than it actually is. He criticises a position no serious theologian would wish to maintain Dawkins presents religious belief as much cruder than it actually is. He criticises a position no serious theologian would wish to maintain For instance, he compares belief in God to the belief that there is teapot orbiting the planet Pluto For instance, he compares belief in God to the belief that there is teapot orbiting the planet Pluto Dawkins does not recognise that there are some questions which are beyond the scope of science, such as ‘why is there anything rather than nothing?’ Dawkins does not recognise that there are some questions which are beyond the scope of science, such as ‘why is there anything rather than nothing?’

Hick Materialist Replica theory – 3 scenarios Bodily resurrection Personal identity

Hick – Evaluation Arguments for Arguments against

Criticisms of Hick Hick argues that the replica is the same as the original person because it has the same consciousness, memory and emotions. Others argue that there can only be automatic and unquestionable identification when there is physical continuity Hick argues that the replica is the same as the original person because it has the same consciousness, memory and emotions. Others argue that there can only be automatic and unquestionable identification when there is physical continuity Even Hick acknowledges that any discussion of the nature of life as a replica is impossible – e.g. Even Hick acknowledges that any discussion of the nature of life as a replica is impossible – e.g. –What stage of life is the replica a copy of? –If the original person died from cancer will the replica also suffer from the disease?

Criticisms of Hick Penelhum – to say that the person in the afterlife is the same as the one who died is something we can do but we do not have to. Our ordinary use of the term ‘the same’ does not commit us one way or the other Penelhum – to say that the person in the afterlife is the same as the one who died is something we can do but we do not have to. Our ordinary use of the term ‘the same’ does not commit us one way or the other Williams argues that spatio-temporal continuity is the only reliable measure to use. Therefore, resurrection is not logically possible because it involves believing that people can remain the same while crossing the boundaries of time and space Williams argues that spatio-temporal continuity is the only reliable measure to use. Therefore, resurrection is not logically possible because it involves believing that people can remain the same while crossing the boundaries of time and space