Life after death is a topic of controversy in which Bertrand Russell and John Hick discusses the idea of whether it is possible to have life after death. Russell addresses his argument against the idea through his brief essay titled “The Illusion of Immortality” (1957). In addition, Hick also discusses the topic through his work “In Defense of Life after Death” (1983) of why life after death is a plausible idea. In this paper I will be discussing Russell’s argument against the belief of life after death. As well, I will also be addressing the opposing view by explaining Hick’s argument in defense of life after death. My goal in this paper is to highlight through the analysis of life after death how Russell in my opinion holds the strongest position.
Russell is a bundle theorist. The bundle theory states objects consist of a collection of properties. He uses this as his perspective to discuss the topic of life after death stating that basically if one’s brain is dissolved and all we are left is with just our memories it would be pointless because the death is the end. He starts of by arguing how “...it is not reasonable to believe that our personality and memories will survive the destruction of our bodies” (Russell 1957, 377). He does so by addressing how in the past “Philosophers used to think that there were definite substances, the soul and the body, that each lasted on from day to day, that a soul, once created, continued to exist throughout all future time, whereas a body ceased temporarily from death till the resurrection of the body” (Russell 1957, 377). He states that this idea is obviously false because the matter our bodies are constantly changing. He proceeds to make an analogy of how “Our memories and habits are boun...
... middle of paper ...
...e occurrence of death. Russell argued against life after death, while Hick argued in defense of it. Russell’s argument for life after death overall was emphasizing that not possible for one to continue to exist after death because death is simply the end. Hick’s argument in defense of life after death was discussed through his John Smith thought experiment and his insight on parapsychology.
Works Cited
Pojman, Louis P., and Fieser James. Introduction to Philosophy – Classic and Contemporary
Readings Fourth Edition. In Defense of Life after Death, 1983, John Hick, 380-386. New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2008. Print.
Pojman, Louis P., and Fieser, James. Introduction to Philosophy - Classic and Contemporary
Readings Fourth Edition. The Illusion of Immortality, 1957, Bertrand Russell, 377-380.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2008. Print.
Davis was vague in his writing, only discussing the options. Russell’s submission was completely inaccurate due to the fact that his opinions does not align itself with the Word of God. I found it quite challenging to follow Geach’s perspective that the only possibility for life after death is found in the hope of a resurrection to come which presents the most for life after death argument.
When reflecting on immortality, longevity, death and suicide, or taking into consideration some of the central concepts of the Sino-Japanese philosophical tradition, such as impermanence (Chinese: wuchang, Japanese: mujo), we see that the philosophical methods developed in the Graeco-Judaeo-Christian tradition might not be very suitable. On the other hand, it is instructive to put them into contrast with the similar themes developed in the Graeco-Judeo-Christian tradition, since these problems present a challenge for a redefinition of "philosophy" which has traditionally regarded itself as a European (and in an even less acceptable variation as a "Western") phenomenon and therefore today the very borders of philosophical discourse known in European history as "philosophia" are reexamined (affected).
Life and death represent a dyad; their definitions inherently depend on one another. Simply defined, death is the cessation of life. Similarly, life can be defined as not death; however, not everything not alive is dead. Boniolo and Di Fiore explain this dyadic relationship well, and other authors have cited this interdependency to better define life and death.1-6 The academic literature contains multiple definitions for both terms depending on which discipline or interest group attempts the definition. Nair-Collins provides a thorough discourse on this diversity in terms of death, differentiating between “biological death, death of the person, death of the moral agent, death of the moral patient, legal death, and the commonsense notion of death.”2(p.667,668,675) Through the dyadic relationship, similar groupings could be arrived at for defining life. Whether or not one accepts Nair-Collins’ categories, at least some differentiation of this type is necessary given the complexity of these concepts. I propose a simplified categorization of the definitions of life and death: (1)scientific/biological, (2)medic...
All three arguments propose an intriguing account for Socrates’ claim that the soul exists past death. Plato’s three arguments for the proving of the immortality and longevity of a soul provide clear and concise reasons to agree with his approach. It seems that any counterargument can be debated using at least one of the three arguments, simply begging the question.
The problem with Russell’s argument arises when he states “we must know that only A causes B.” (Russell, 248) We are given no reason to accept that only A causes B. Russell does not explain the concept of reflexes in his argument. A reflex is “an action that is performed as a response to a stimulus and without conscious thought.” (Reflex) You have the thought that your reflex will be stimulated but this does not cause the reaction of the reflex. There is an action that must occur to cause the reaction of the reflex. When a reflex is stimulated you don 't need to think about the action that is taking place. Involuntary bodily functions also go against the postulate for the Existence of Other Minds. We do not need to think about the involuntary bodily functions taking place inside of us to know they are functioning. In order to be alive your brain is controlling more actions then you could even think of. If you had to think about every time your heart was to beat or every time you were to take a breath you would most likely forget to do either one of these two and die. This causes great uncertainty as to whether Russell’s new postulate is true or not. When faced with the question of this uncertainty he responds by saying that “It is not necessary that we should know this with any certainty; it is enough if it is highly probable.” (Russell, 249) The only way this position is able to be salvaged is if Russell were to distinguish between what actions he was talking about in his A causes B postulate. If Russell was to specify that only voluntary thought provoked actions are included in the postulate for the Existence of Other Minds then he would have made his argument stronger. He leaves doubt in his argument when he references all analogous visible human movements. We do not think to blink, breathe, or pump our blood.
John L McIntosh. (2003) . Handbook of Death and Dying. Volume 1: The Presence of Death. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference.
I have tried not to simply re-write what Russell has said, but rather endeavoured to explain, in an original way, each part of Russell's theses, and in the order that they are found in the article.
After death, life does cannot be put on hold. Life will continue as usual because death is a part of life. In Henry Longfellow’s “A Psalm of Life,” he explains how the continuation of everyone else’s life after someone’s is the future and death should be left in the past. For example, this theme is represented by the statement “Let the dead Past bury its dead! Act,-act in the living Present!” in “A Psalm of Life” (659). In Bryant’s “Thanatopsis,” he expresses this theme by the statement
Hall, Manly Palmer. Reincarnation, The Cycle of Necessity. Los Angeles, CA, USA: The Philosophical Research Society, 1956
Nash, Ronald H., (1999). Life‘s ultimate questions: an introduction to philosophy, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530.
He begins by looking at the very common views of death that are held by most people in the world, and tells us that he will talk of death as the "unequivocal and permanent end to our existence" and look directly at the nature of death itself (1). The first view that
The concept of human mortality and how it is dealt with is dependent upon one’s society or culture. For it is the society that has great impact on the individual’s beliefs. Hence, it is also possible for other cultures to influence the people of a different culture on such comprehensions. The primary and traditional way men and women have made dying a less depressing and disturbing idea is though religion. Various religions offer the comforting conception of death as a begining for another life or perhaps a continuation for the former.
Bryant offers a view of life everlasting, “Thine individual being, shalt thou go to mix forever with the elements” (Krupat and Levine 124). This offers a sense of each person’s life living on, through the earth, and the comfort of knowing that no one is alone in death even if someone is alone in life. For the reason that, death is the one occurrence in nature that ultimately unites us all. As it is all part of the unending circle of life.
Furthermore Russell talks about memories and how after we die they no longer exist. I feel that he has not way of proving this. I do not agree or disagree with his theory. I think that there are so many ways to record our memories now that they could always exist. Our memories and sometimes even our personality can be carried by and kept alive through our families depending on how strong the ties are. Maybe not the person’s entire memories are kept but at least a fragment. For instance a lot of writers wrote about their real life experience so we get a glimpse of their life and through their writings the memories continue.