Avicenna 's Argument against the Death of the Soul 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. The argument begins by making a distinction between corruptibility and incorruptibility. This distinction made is that because the body is corruptible, and the soul is viewed as a substance that is incorruptible, an explanation is needed as to how the soul can continue …show more content…
Avicenna explains that if the body is first formed, and then the soul enters it, then the body would have to be the efficient cause of the soul’s existence. As Avicenna explains, “But the body cannot be the soul’s efficient cause, for body, as such, does not act; it acts only through its faculties” (Avicenna 203). By this Avicenna is explaining that it is impossible to think of the body as forming, as a substance, and then waiting for another substance, the soul, to enter it. This, for Avicenna, shows the improbability of the soul existing prior to the formation of the body.
From this line of reasoning Avicenna concludes that the attachment of the soul to the body is not a modal process of cause and effect, but that the specific nature of the body is an accidental cause for the creation of the soul. Avicenna explains this as:
“The truth is that the body and the temperament are an accidental cause of the soul, for when the matter of a body suitable to become the instrument of the soul and its proper subject comes into existence, the separate causes bring into being the individual soul, and that is how the soul originates from them” (Avicenna
In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.
The existence of the soul has perplexed man for ages. Islamic philosopher Avicenna believed that he had proved the existence of the soul with his flying man thought experiment. He claims that the soul is a separate part of the human body that we don’t access. He claims that the flying man lacks knowledge of anything due to his predicament and through this can find the soul. This lack of knowledge makes it impossible for the flying man to actually create an understanding of his own existence and is reliant upon the soul. But the soul proposes an understanding that existence that is either through the body or inconsistent with Avicenna’s own explanation of modern existence. To truly understand the soul man must have full access to all possible knowledge and will inevitably realize that their conscience is immaterial.
The argument of Forms was the most convincing in proving that the soul is immortal due to the explanation and examples that Socrates provides ...
Through the course of these last few weeks, we as a class have discussed the Soul, both in concept, and as it applies in terms of our readings of The Phaedo and as a philosophical construct. But the questions involved in that: In the ideas of good, of living a ‘good’ life and getting ‘rid of the body and of their wickedness’, as ‘there is no escape from evil’, (Phaedo, 107c), in whether or not the soul is immortal, or if our bodies themselves get in the way of some higher form of knowledge, or even of the importance of philosophy itself are rather complex, simultaneously broad and specific, and more than a little messy. While I discuss these aspects, the singular question that I feel applies to this is, in a sort of nihilistic fashion, does
3. Matter is enduring and, therefore, so is the soul. If the soul exists after
The relationship of the human soul and physical body is a topic that has mystified philosophers, scholars, scientists, and mankind as a whole for centuries. Human beings, who are always concerned about their place as individuals in this world, have attempted to determine the precise nature or state of the physical form. They are concerned for their well-being in this earthly environment, as well as their spiritual well-being; and most have been perturbed by the suggestion that they cannot escape the wrongs they have committed while in their physical bodies.
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
All the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy admit in thinking of the soul as not only immortal but also as endless. The reasoning of the materialists like Charvakas amount to this that, however consciousness is unseen in external objects, it develops i...
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,
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
The soul can be defined as a perennial enigma that one may never understand. But many people rose to the challenge of effectively explaining just what the soul is about, along with outlining its desires. Three of these people are Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. Even though all three had distinctive views, the similarities between their views are strikingly vivid. The soul indeed is an enigma to mankind and the only rational explanation of its being is yet to come and may never arrive.
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
Here, Avicenna presents a situation where we are to imagine being born all at once, suspended in air, and our limbs stretched out, with our sight veiled from visually observing the world around us. The point of this is to suspend all sensations and senses so that there is nothing to experience. In this way, Avicenna demonstrates that although the flying man is sensorily deprived, he is still aware of himself. Thus, he argues, without any sensory particulars, one can still be aware of their own existence. In this state, Avicenna argues, the flying man would not feel the need to assert they had anything external, only that they are aware they exist in and of themselves. In this way, Avicenna claims that at our most basic level we are self-aware, and that this self-knowledge stems from the soul. Avicenna ultimately uses this thought experiment of self-awareness as evidence that the soul exists as a separate entity from the body. Seeing as the flying man is aware of his own existence, what he is really aware of is his soul, since his suspension keeps him from being aware of the existence of a body. Also, he is aware of his soul without the prior knowledge that his soul resides in the body, which means his soul is not a
Imagine yourself walking past a homeless man. His hopeless eyes catch yours while he asks, “can you spare (should be spare) some loose change, please look to your soul.” If you were to look deep into a mirror past the exterior fixtures of the face and see into the inner sanctum: what would you find? Why do people reference the soul before the actions of the body, and why do we associate the soul to a higher state of harmony? In the short novel Bhagavad Gita, Krishna, the Vrishni prince believes that the only way to ultimate harmony is to reject the body, including the brain and embrace the soul. Throughout the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna explains the eternal power of the atman or “soul” is the all-encompassing force over the body, while the body itself is considered an unpretentious vehicle that produces the soul’s movements and decisions. Although Krishna emphases the soul is more powerful than the body, he also believes the soul is more powerful than the mind.
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 in a purely physical state. That is to say that the human mind and consciousness is confined to the human body, and thus when the body dies so does the mind. The dualist view holds that the human condition is made up of two parts. The first part being the physical body and the second the soul or the non-physical mind. I present my argument in this form; (1) Physical objects such as the human body have to obey physical laws; (2) Non-physical objects such as the human mind/soul do not have to obey physical laws; (3) Humans present both physical and non-physical properties; (4) Therefore the mind/soul does not die with the physical body.