Among the wide range of controversial concepts, one of the most prominent theories in the field of philosophy and perhaps religion as well, is the question of whether or not the existence of a conscious being or rather the ‘soul’ is a valid ideology. Plato, Socrates and Descartes believed in the existence of a spiritual essence when a body ceases to exist allowing there to be a sense of the afterlife. There are two distinct theories that conflict with this issue of the afterlife known as, materialism and dualism (Vivaessay.org, 2016). Materialists portray the concept that the existence of the soul ceases to come about. While on the other hand, dualists posit the presence of an immaterial entity. In relation to the perception the philosophers …show more content…
Some people might say that the existence of the soul may be supported by the following theories conducted by philosophers and theorists. Firstly, some will argue that our five senses are one way to prove the existence of certain notions, but it creates a tentative argument to prove something an individual can’t see nor touch (Kagan, 2008). However, the existence of atoms, for instance, has been proven without the possibility to see or touch them because as the atomic theory states, posit atoms suddenly begin to explain concepts that need clarification with the inferred existence of atoms (Kagan, 2008). In reference to that, inferring the existence of the soul may be the explanation to present or future concepts offering it the best and simplest form of interpretation (Kagan, 2008). Secondly, Plato argued that death must come from life, and life from death suggesting a series of rebirth. He believed that all individuals gained a form of past knowledge by our ‘souls’ before being brought into this life (Godwin, …show more content…
This essay has stated reasons and evidence supported greatly by the materialists proving that the existence of the soul ceases to be. The arguments provided by the dualists and the philosophers suggested statements that were not strong enough to confirm a valid theory in order to prove the existence of the soul and without a doubt, the theories conducted refrained from being convincing. Any such form of the afterlife does not prove to be of much logic as it cannot be proven completely, thus, there is no such immaterial essence that pre-existed or that will exist after death. The existence of the soul has not been established by any sort of physical evidence either. In contrast, to prove that there is no such sort of the afterlife, the Occam’s Razor is said to be the best weapon to eliminating a concept formed like the ‘soul’. It has come about confirmed that the Occam’s Razor is the simplest argument opposing the existence of an immaterial being. Additionally, the dualists theories are said to have created an added complication which is another reason that was stated in the arguments opposing the existence. There is no need to develop a complicated hypothesis. As a final point, there is no afterlife, there is no soul and there is no form of an immaterial
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.
The philosophical theory of dualism holds that mind and body are two separate entities. While dualism presupposes that the two ‘substances’ may interact, it contrasts physicalism by refusing to denote correlation between body and mind as proof of identity. Comparing the two theories, dualism’s invulnerable proof of the existence of qualia manages to evade arguments from physicalism. While a common argument against qualia—non-physical properties defined in Jackson’s Knowledge Argument—targets the unsound nature of epiphenomenalism, this claim is not fatal to the theory of dualism as it contains claims of causation and fails to stand resolute to the conceivability of philosophical zombies. This essay argues that epiphenomenalism, while often designated as a weakness when present in an argument, can remain in valid arguments from qualia.
Belief whether or not the mind and the body are distinct substances have split the philosopher community in two: the dualists and the monists. In this essay, I will discuss how the mind and body are not distinct based on Rene Descartes’ arguments in The Meditations Of First Philosophy. First, I am going to introduce a few of Descartes’ arguments and his position on the matter. Then, I will pick the most appealing argument and put it up against logical reasoning with other philosophers’ points of view. Finally, I am going to conclude how the 17th-century philosopher proposes a fallacious argument which tests his Cartesian dualism theory.
Elizabeth writes a letter to Descartes asking him to explain to her the relationship “there is between the soul, which is immaterial, and the body, which is material” (Margaret A.: p16). She seeks this clarification particularly on the aspect of how the soul influences the body movements. This question comes following a claim that Descartes had made “regarding the body and the soul” (Gordon B. and Katherine J.: p17 -19). He intimated that the body and the soul exist as single entities and that each has autonomous function. This is found in the philosophy of the dualism.
Descartes, Rene, and Donald Cress. Mediations on First Philosophy In Which The Existence of God And the Distinction of the Soul from the Body Are Demonstrated. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1993. Print.
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.
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.
. There are two kinds of dualism. One is Substance dualism which holds that the mind or soul is a separate, non-physical entity, but there is also property dualism, according to which there is no soul distinct from the body, but only one thing, the person, that has two irreducibly different types of properties, mental and physical. Substance dualism leaves room for the possibility that the soul might be able to exist apart from the body, either before birth or after death; property dualism does not. A substance dualism is something with "an independent existence". It can exist on its own. This holds that each distinct non-physical entity mind composed a different kind of substance to material objects. Substance dualist believed only spiritual substances can have mental properties. It is “soul” along with certain memory and psychological continuities that constitutes the survival of the person. Physical properties of property dualism are properties like having a certain weight, conducting electricity and mental properties are properties like believing that 1+1=2, being in love, feeling pain, and etc. Property dualism allows for the compatibility of mental and physical causation, since the cause of an action might under one aspect is describable as a physical event in the brain and under another aspect as a desire, emotion, or thought; substance dualism usually requires causal interaction between the soul and the body. Dualistic theories at least acknowledge the serious difficulty of locating consciousness in a modern scientific conception of the physical world, but they really give metaphysical expression to the problem rather than solving it.
The debate as to the true nature of human beings, the existence of free will and the validity of science is centered on two philosophical theories; dualism and materialism. Under dualism, the proponents believe that there are two kinds of matter that make up human beings which is the physical presence and the non-physical mind or soul . Materialism on the one hand proposes that man and matter is one and the same thing and there cannot be in existence any other non-physical entity therefore . Materialism is one of the major theories that greatly oppose dualism.
When Descartes published his ideas in his Meditations on First Philosophy, his ideas were not new, but nonetheless groundbreaking. He proposed there were two separate types of matter or stuff that can exist independent of each other. These are physical substances and mental substances. The physical can only occupy space in the real world, and cannot do any of the things we attribute to mental faculties, such as thinking and reasoning. Though the mental cannot be present in the material world, it can surely have an effect on what the physical body does. Substance dualism, therefore, gives way to the idea of an immortal soul that occupies a different realm than our physical bodies.
...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.
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.
Descartian dualism is one of the most long lasting legacies of Rene Descartes’ philosophy. He argues that the mind and body operate as separate entities able to exist without one another. That is, the mind is a thinking, non-extended entity and the body is non-thinking and extended. His belief elicited a debate over the nature of the mind and body that has spanned centuries, a debate that is still vociferously argued today. In this essay, I will try and tackle Descartes claim and come to some conclusion as to whether Descartes is correct to say that the mind and body are distinct.
In short, I summarized Descartes position of the relationship of the mind and body. After that I discussed two objections to his argument which were related to the mind existing without the body and that the mind is not divisible while I discussed how Descartes might respond to these arguments. These arguments adequately show that Descartes argument for mind/body dualism is false.
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.