A Dialogue On Personal Identity And Immortality Summary

1006 Words3 Pages

For this paper I am going to argue that in “A Dialogue on Personal Identity and Immortality” Gretchen Weirod was correct by claiming that personal identify cannot consist in the sameness of an immaterial, unobservable soul. My view is that one is who they are because of the brain/mind not their soul. (52) I will begin by stating Weirods position towards Sam Millers claim. Weirod argues that because sameness of body and sameness of psychological characteristics, that doesn’t automatically mean sameness of person, one can’t claim they know who she is. If they do know who she is then personal identity doesn’t consist in sameness of immaterial soul. One doesn’t know if they have had the same soul all their life. In that sense, one doesn’t even know if other people have had the same soul all their life. Weirod states that the soul and mind cannot be the same thing because there is no way of proving it. Thus giving us her argument where sameness …show more content…

Weirod says what if the soul changes daily or perhaps yearly, and that every time it changes its with a different soul that has similar psychological characteristics as the last soul, how would one be able to measure that, if the soul cannot be seen or touched? How would one know that their soul isn’t changing constantly if there is no way for them to find out or more importantly prove it? Weirod clearly states if the soul cannot be observed it cannot be associated with the body. In other words, soul has no identity. With that being said, Weirod claims that if there isn’t anyway of proving having a soul, there can’t be any prediction that the soul will be with her or in this case with anyone in the afterlife as it is with her and us now. That claim made by Weirod can be supported by her saying that when she dies she will be buried and rot away and perhaps there is no afterlife at all.

Open Document