Immorality of the Soul
Is the human soul mortal or immortal? With death does one fall into nothingness or does one survive death, passing into another way of existing? This is a question that has agitated thought for ages. There is something within all human beings that lives on forever. Even when death is upon us, the soul of a human being never dies. Thus, we arrive at the statement that the human soul is immortal. The purpose of this paper is to explain how the human soul is immortal through analyzing various philosophies.
The soul is defined as the "vital principal" or the principle of life. It is the first source of life in a living being. It is the thing that makes a living thing live. It is the thing that separates living beings from non-living beings. (1) It is the first source of life in a living being. It is the thing that makes a living thing live. With this in mind, it is evident that all living things have a soul; this includes animals and even plants. However, just like there are different grades of life, there are different grades of soul. Unlike animals and plants, human beings have a rational life; therefore, they have a rational soul.
Immortality is a complex idea in society, even today. Immortality is the indefinite continuation of a person’s existence, even after death. (2) Immortality implies a never ending existence, regardless of whether or not the body dies. In order to understand the immortality of the human soul it is important to understand the difference between an individual’s body and soul. The body is the physical object of an individual, which lives until death, and then decomposes. On the other hand, people connect soul to an individual’s personality. The soul may also be associated to the mind. Th...
... middle of paper ...
... learning of important things is remembered. Meaning that the knowledge we acquired before birth was lost by us at birth, and afterwards by the use of the senses we recovered that which we previously knew. For example, we are able to perceive that two sticks are equal in length but unequal in width only because we have an innate understanding of the form of equality.(4) That is, we have an innate understanding of what it means for something to be equal even though no two things we encounter in experience are themselves perfectly equal. Since we can grasp this Form of Equality even though we never encounter it in experience, our grasping of it must be a recollection of immortal knowledge we had and forgot prior to birth. This argument implies that the soul must have existed prior to birth, which in turn implies that the soul’s life extends beyond that of the body’s.
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
Immortality a fantasy that the human civilization has for centuries fantasied with. The ideas of an eternal life, legends and myths have been passed down from generation to generation of figures who have achieved this obscure goal. Let’s ask ourselves; in essence what really determines immortality? It is clear that the human body will no matter what have a predetermined end from dust to dust. We have to stop and re-think the true meaning of the word immortality. Immortals are those who are for always remembered throughout history for their accomplishments throughout their mortal life. Bernhard Riemann is one of these figures who achieved greatness throughout his life and as long as math is vital to all of us and immortal he will be.
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
The differences of mind and soul have intrigued mankind since the dawn of time, Rene Descartes, Thomas Nagel, and Plato have addressed the differences between mind and matter. Does the soul remain despite the demise of its material extension? Is the soul immaterial? Are bodies, but a mere extension of forms in the physical world? Descartes, Nagel, and Plato agree that the immaterial soul and the physical body are distinct entities.
The body decays and returns to the dust from which it was created and the soul returns to that which loaned the essence of life to the body, Socrates knew as the swan sang more beautifully as death approached, that death was not to be feared but embraced.
In the book Plato 's Phaedo, Socrates argues that the soul will continue to exist, and that it will go on to a better place. The argument begins on the day of Socrates execution with the question of whether it is good or bad to die. In other words, he is arguing that the soul is immortal and indestructible. This argument is contrary to Cebes and Simmias beliefs who argue that even the soul is long lasting, it is not immortal and it is destroyed when the body dies. This paper is going to focus on Socrates four arguments for the soul 's immortality. The four arguments are the Opposite argument, the theory of recollection, the affinity argument, and the argument from form of life. As the body is mortal and is subject to physical death, the soul
If, as Epicurus claims, everything is either body or void, the soul must also be one of these two things. It cannot be void, as the void is nothing and can consist only of nothing, so therefore it must be a body or compound of bodies (Letter to Herodotus 63). He believes that the soul is most responsible for sense-perception, and that it must be enclosed within the body to facilitate this (Letter to Herodotus 63-64). If this is the case, it must therefore be acknowledged that the soul must exist...
In Chapter 13 of Concerning the Soul, Avicenna argues that, because the soul is incorruptible, it does not die with the death of the body. He then presents two arguments to support the conclusion that, upon death, the soul does not die. It is my intent to explain the general structure of the “absolutely incorruptible” argument that Avicenna gives for the immortality of the soul, and to give a critical assessment of that argument.
Epicurus believed that death was not a misfortune. He Believed that once an individual passes away, he or she looses their wordily sensation. He drew that sensation is a necessary condition of value to a person, so without it, the person will not sense, therefore be incapable of feeling. Contemporary philosophers however object this theory. Arguing that death is bad precisely because it deprives a person of good experiences which one could not possibly experience when deceased. In paragraph one of this essay, it expands on the epicurean argument for death not being a calamity for the one passing away. The second paragraph will look at the with this view and lastly paragraph three will consider the objective argument of Thomas Nagel and Fred Feldman.
The pursuit of knowledge has led many a philosopher to wonder what the purpose of life truly is, and how the material and immaterial are connected. The simple fact is, we can never know for certain. Arguments can be made, words can be thrown around, and rationale can be supported, but we as mere humans are not capable of arriving at the perfect understanding of life. Nonetheless, in the war against our own ignorance, we seek possible explanations to explain that which science and math cannot. Philosopher 's such as Plato and Aristotle have made notable contributions to our idea of the soul and its role in the grand scheme of life, while some, such as Descartes, have taken a more metaphysical view by pondering the impact one 's mind has on
Do we have a soul inside ourselves? Does this “soul” make us who we are? Can the “soul” change? There are arguments between philosophers debating each side. Some believe that there is a soul, while others do not. Some believe that the soul can change, while others do not. There is no scientific evidence siding with either side. However, there are many studies that have been conducted in order to attempt to prove one side right. These attempts have not been successful. There have also been cases where individuals claim that they had a soul and lost it. Again, nothing has been proved; there are studies, and testimonials arguing one side or the other. Still we find ourselves asking the same questions over and over again. This essay will discuss
We should not focus on pleasures of the body and only fulfill those that are necessary to live. The soul’s only desire is wisdom, which can only be achieved through the intellect and not through the deceitful senses. This can be illustrated by the fact that the true form of things such as justice, beauty and goodness can never be perceived through the senses. However, we are born with some sort of sense of what these things are, therefore there must be an ideal form which the things in the emperical world are somewhat equal to. Since the mind already has a sense of these forms when its born, the soul needs to be immortal. (102-104,
When reading On The Soul, I found myself asking what role the soul and body play as a combination. This question came about because Aristotle’s notion differs from the usual concept of a soul acting as a sort of substance simply occupying a body, but existing distinctly separate, and eternally. Such is the notion that I choose to believe, due to the death of my brother. The truth is that the soul is an enigma to mankind, and we may never fully understand it, as no rational explanation exists to date. To Aristotle, the soul is the essence of a living being. The soul is what makes a person a person by actualizing its potential for life, and for its capacity for activities that are essential to the specific being.
Death and immortality Since the times of Plato and before, humans have pondered the existence of a soul and the afterlife. I am going to present my argument for the existence of a soul and the potential for surviving one's physical death. For the purpose of my argument, I will define that the meaning of the mind and soul are one and the same. The two main accepted views of the human condition are that of the physicalist and that of the dualist. The physicalist views the human condition as a purely physical state.