life after death

can i survive my death pt 2

the questions above thought pint are designed to make you think about how you would define who you are. these issues have puzzled philosophers for centuries. in order to discuss whether life after death is possible, you need to understand 2 related problems of philosophy: the mind-body problem and the problem of personal identity, so that it is possible to say what needs to survive to be able to talk about me the individual surviving after death. there are many ways in which philosophers have approached these problems. some philosophers suggest that personal identity is linked to one's body. all of us can recognise our families, and the way we do this is often linked to some form of physical recognition. a person who believes in resurrection could hold this view. for other philosophers it is the mind that secures personal identity. supporter rebirth hold the view that the soul is what gives us identity. according to this view you are an individual because of the soul you have. the mind-body problem questions how our mental activities such as thinking relate to the actions of our bod. e.g. as you read this book you are thinking. when you finish a page you turn to the next. the mind-body problem questions the relationship between decisions and thoughts such as 'I will turn the page' or 'this book is boring' and physical actions such as turning the page. some philosphers like plato and descartes hold views known as dualist. according to dualism the mind/soul and body are separate. the mind (soul) is the centre of identity. the soul and body are somehow joined together but we also experience them as separate. if you look at your feet you can see your feet and sense your toes but the experience of seeing your feet and sensing your toes happens in the mind. descartes famously said 'i think therefore i am'. dualists like descartes and plato hold that a person consists of mind/soul and body. the strength of this view is that we clearly do experience ourselves as thinking beings distinct from our bodies. for other people this view is credible due to reports concerning people having out of body or near death experiences. on the other hand many philosophers are monist. the mind and body are not separate and distinct.the mind is one with the body and inseparable from it. according to this view the mind is the product of the functioning of the brain and the brain in turn is a physical organ of the body. typically monists are materialists, they argue the only form of existence is physical so it is not possible to talk of the existence of a soul separate from the body. materialists can only support life after death if that life is physical such as resurrection. the appeal of this view is that it accords with our knowledge of the world. since the work of Kant human beings have been aware that our knowledge is limited to the physical world even if there is a numinous world beyond the possibility of our sense experiences.

Religious views on the afterlife

vary between dualist and monist. both of these approaches in religious traditions are considered in this section such as christianity and hinduism

problems with plato's view on the soul

Geach - questions what it can mean for the disembodied soul to see the Forms given seeing is a process that is linked to the body and experience through one's senses learning really matter of remembering? many people learning concerns acquiring a new knowledge is not an act of remembering does the argument for opposites demonstrate existence of soul? many question whether an argument from opposites can demonstrate existence of anything, since the assumption there are pairs of opposites can be challenged. part of plato's defence of existence of the soul relies on theory of Forms. many challenges to this theory if plato's theory forms is debatable, undermines theory of soul

Does the soul survive after death?

aristotles unity of the form and matter of the body suggests that the soul doesn't survive after death, form of the body is inseparable from the body. furthermore his book doesn't focus on the question of the immortality of the soul. its concern is to explain plant and animal life. confusion has been caused by fact that aristotle also suggested that intellectual thought could possibly be separated from the soul and be eternal. even if thought can survive after death this is not the same as saying that one's that personal identity survives death. aristotle's writings about the intellectual faculty of the soul are described as inconstant by Kenny. thought aristotle thought about the soul surviving death is unclear and some of these ideas conflict with other ideas of his.

introduction

birth and death events only common to every human being's life birth is obviously needed, but how is death? reality is attitudes to death vary enormously. e.g. death of loved one tends to distress people a lot, death of child is tragedy. death of people in developing countries doesn't affect us as much as someone we knew dying. accidents r sad so is malnutrition but not as bad. death in news or in tv programs etc doesn't affect as bad as someone we know dying. equally most people living in western europe haven't regularly witnessed the death of people they know, unlike in deprived places across the world. in addition millions of other living creatures die every year as food pests or sport

Christianity and resurrection

christians believe that death isn't end of human existence but marks an end to physical life and beginning of a new stage in life. the new testament refers to afterlife as paradise a state continued existence with god after death. the resurrection is interpreted by christians as a sign that death is not the end of human existence and god doesn't abandon people even when dying. 'but we don't want you to be uninformed brothers & sisters about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. for since we believe that jesus died and rose again even so through jesus, god will bring with him those who have died' (1 thessalonians 4:13-14). story of jesus in the gospels concluces with his resurrection. in christian belief this is the most important and significant event. jesus not only dies for people but rises from the dead. if you read accounts of resurrection jesus is somehow changed and different. his followers don't at first recognise him and his body has changed. jesus isn't described as being a ghost or vision, risen from the dead physically but his body is transformed and different. there are many people christians and non who believe that some sort of non-physical life after death is possible. what is distinctive is that christians traditionally believe in the resurrection of the body in some way not just a person's soul or centre of identity. many philosophers challenge concept of bodily resurrection but Geach suggests that resurrection is only meaninfgul way in which one can peak of life after death. he states this view on the grounds a person could not be meaningfully identified with spiritual existence after death. he suggests that because people are a unity of body and soul, the only meaninfgul way to talk about survival after death is to say that soulds can be reunited. Paul wrote in corinthians 15 christian belief has been in resurrection and life after death though it has not always been clearly stated what is meant by resurrection of the body. christian belief centres on jesus' resurrection as illustrated by the following example: 'we firmly believe and hence we hope that just as christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen christ and he will raise them up on the last day.' christianity has argued in favour of the unity of body and soul in an individual person, it has also at times sounded dualistic. from biblical stories christians believe that at death the soul of a person is separated from her or his body awaiting the final resurrection and transformation of the person's body to be resurrected like jesus. at death each person is judged by god in what is called 'the particular judgement' this sounds dualistic but christianity also emphasis resurrection of the physical body after death, whether this takes place at the point of death is not always clear

is it true that you will go to hell if you don't believe in god?

christians over centuries have argued jesus died to save people who believe in him. since atheism is a denial of god's existence such people would be judged and condemned by god. in past e.g. in medival Europe or Ancient Greece atheism was punishable by death. this attitude was supported in christian culture by passages in Bible which clearly say if you knowingly reject the holy spirit you go to hell. while this attitude has been a part of mainstream popular christian culture over the centuries its not necessarily reflective of christian teaching. e..g roman catholics state all people must follow their consciences. compulsion or threats cannot be used to make people believe. this rejection of the belief that you must believe in god to be saved developed among catholic missionaries who were scandalised by the way the conquerors in the new world treated the native populations. theologians from spain suggested if the person preaching christianity is scandalous in his behaviour it was unreasonable to say that people should believe the preaching. god is seen by christians as the judge of people who decides whether they go to heaven or hell christians cannot decide this. modern christian teachings like roman catholic clearly states judgement is a matter of god and people can only be expected to believe in christianity if the witness they have seen is credible. in roman catholic theology is possible to be a good person and go to heaven by following your conscience and NL if you aren't christian and have no credible opportunity to become a christian

predestination and divine election

christians place emphasis on importance of free will moral responsibility and a rejection of any idea of predestination. its important to note some christians believe in divine election. this isn't the same predestination it has led some people to believe in predestination. 16th century protestant reformer John Calvin is associated with what he called the doctrine of divine election. by this he means some poeple are destined for relationship with god while some are not. may be seen by the way that some people believe and jesus and some don't. what is noticeable is whether one is saved or goes to hell is not a matter of human choice. calvin ultimately argues that whethr a person is among god's elect or a matter of god, who is omnipotent and omniscient and a mystery beyond human comprehension. DOE is associated with predestination, by which is meant people's fate is determined. calvin believed some people are destined for eternal life and some are not. this is part of mystery of human experience. people's actions in life are a sign of whether they are among intellect or not. among protestant groups which are offshoots from calvinism the doctrine of predestination became an important article of belief separating catholics and lutherans from some other protestants. some support for belief in predestination may be found in the bible in the book of revelation which refers to the 144,000 servants of god who are to be saved. belief in divine election is a belief that god's justice triumphs the good are saved while the bad go to hell.

can i survive my death?

for centuries people and philosophers have thought about whether life after death is possible. belief in life after death is widespread throughout cultures all around the world. the history of belief in life after death can be traced back to the cultures of ancient China India and the middle east. the great pyramids of Egypt are a good example of a culture in which the afterlife played a significant part in the belief system of a people. in more recent centuries philosophers theologians and scientist have all examined the question of survival post mortem. the questions are: what must survive of me if i am to talk meaningfully of life after death? is belief in life after death coherent? is belief in life after death possible? all 3 are related. the first question points to the great debates that have raged through history concerning the nature of personal identity. this is important because if you talk of personal survival after death, a clear definition of what is meant by 'you' is required. this is the philosophical debate about the mind-body problem and personal identity. in philosophical history two main approaches have been taken to this problem. one approach often labelled dualist argues that human beings consist of a body and soul/centre of identity/spiritual component. in this view survival after death is possible if the soul can survive death. the body is less important in dualist thinking as it functions as the carrier of the soul. an alternative view is often called monist. this view suggests that human beings minds or centres of identity cannot be separated from their bodies. human beings are a unity of what may be called body and soul. accordingly the concept of life after death s possible only if humans survive death in some way as a body-soul unity. dualism and monism lead to question 2 and 3 above

plato - dualist view

he suggests the soul is distinct from body. the soul is immortal whereas the body is mortal. at the end of life the soul is set free from the body. plato writes that a human person is a soul imprisoned in a body. for plato the goal of the soul is the world of the forms which can only be seen indirectly in the physical world. he argues that real knowledge of the forms comes from the soul. he suggests that when we learn we are actually recalling back to mind the knowledge about the forms that the soul had before it was incarnated int he body. plato's view of the body is rather negative as the body distracts the soul from seeking knowledge of the WOF. 'the body is the source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and is liable also to diseases which overrtake and impede us in the search after true being; it fill us full of loves and lusts and fears and fancies of all kinds, and endless foolery and in fact as men say takes away all power of thinking' plato, phaedo. he suggests a true philosopher avoids any distractions from the body and concentrates all his energy on gaining knowledge of the forms. his chariot analogy illustrates the divide between the soul's desires and desires of the body. plato compres the soul to a chariot driver trying to direct the two horses of the cariot, one horse is the mind and other body. both horses pull in different directions but the soul tries to direct them to harmony.

Identification of the replica with the original person

hick argued replica and original person cannot exist at same time. as persons are individuals. for replica to be you, it has to be individual. hick argued that if the replica has the same consciousness, memory, emotion and volition, as the original person it is logical to identify the replica as the same individual as the original person. for some philosophers what matters is the physical continuity of the person through life, i.e. an individual person consists not just of consciousness, memory, emotion and volition but also of the fact that these are linked to the same physical body throughout our life. body's life ends the unity which was the person ends. hick insisted there is continuity because replica has the consciousness, memory, emotion and volition of the person and there can only ever ben one replica of an individual. however if physical continuity of the body is important when explaining identity, then replica theory is problematic.

death

if you don't believe in afterlife you personally have to experience death because it's when your life ends. no new memory or experience can be formed from it. although when you're alive you may want to carry on living without an afterlife at death this becomes meaningless. some believe death doesn't matter, death is unknown, end of reality as people experience it everyday of their lives. 2) death marks final parting with people we may have loved and whom the living will continue to miss. 3) religious people who believe in afterlife death is dawn of new stage in life with god or in some beliefs separated from god into hell

Dawkins ideas

in favour of materialist view of personal identity with no survival post mortem. dawkins argues individual human beings cannot survive death. only sense in which human beings can survive death is through memories (memes) of them in other people's minds or through their genes, passed onto next gen of offspring. genes don't have any sense of goal or direction. they are DNA. DNA is protein that makes copies o itself. dawkins argues genes are potentially immortal as they are the basic unit of natural selection. our genes have been passe on from previous generation of living organisms. role of the body is a survival machine for genes. genes that survive into another generation survive because they make bodies that enable them to be passed on to the next generation. a gene can live for a million years but many new genes don't even make it past first gen. few new ones that succeed to go so partly because they are lucky, but mainly because making survival machines. you can program a computer to play chess but when it's actually playing it not being directed by the programmer it plays on its own. ideas on soul -soul one refers to a particulae theory of life. it's the theory that there is something non material about life some non physical principle (traditional idea). soul two which takes off from anther one of the oxford dictionary definton 'intellectual or spiritual power. High development of the mental faculties. Deep feeling and sensitivity.' Dawkins argues that this is a meaningful way of describing ourselves provided we are clear that this does not refer to a separate thing He argues that the consolation religion provides can only truly by consolidation if religion is true and we are able to survive death. He contends that death should not be feared and that it is merely the 'extinguishing' of our consciousness and will be no different to the time before we were born. focuses on science and DNA

the issue

is there such thing as life after death and if there is what do we mean by life after death

heaven hell and the problem of evil

many christian theodicies like irenaeus augustine and swnburne place emphasis on role of free will as an explanation for the existence of evil. people are morally accountable for their actions precisely because they have free will, however a traditional challenge to free will defences is: if god is just why does it appear that wrongdoers thrive and good suffer? for some christians the justification of this situation comes rom the belief that ultimately god holds everyone to account and judges them according to their actions. hence god's punishment for some people is to send them to hell because that is what they deserve and justice demands that they are punished. one important aspect of christian belief is god accepts people as they really are. if people ead a good life and choose to be in good relationship with god and other people they go to heaven. people in disharmony and bad relationship with god and other people so they bring hell on themselves. within roman catholic and orthodox christian traditions no one is predestined to go to hell; god loves everyone and wishes to forgive everyone and be in good relationship with everyone if that is what they want. god doesn't wish for people to go hell, but people through their actions choose hell as their fate 'god doesn't want any to perish, but all to come to repentance' (ecumenical council of trent) if people turn away from sin repent an believe in god, they can rebuild their relationship with god. to end up in hell you have to continue in your wrongdoing and never repent what you've done.

Arguments against belief in life after death

many philosophers rejected belief in life after death of any sort. their arguments focus on 3 key ideas: -belief in afterlife is product of human wishful thinking -there is no evidence to suggest people do survive death -makes no sense to talk of person surviving death, since person is physical entity many people fear death because its somethign unknown. some philosophers argue fear of death being the end leads people to believe in continued existence after death. Flew argues against belief in afterlife, particular he points out people are mortal. the minds of human beings are united to a physical and th body is mortal.as far as anyone can tell mental processes do not survive physical death. furthermore flew suggests 'people are what you meet' meaning when we talk abotu tony blair or martin luther king jr e mean a particular physical person. we don't mean a disembodied soul that is called martin luther kings jr soul. flew talk of life after death was self-contradictory it made no sense. Russell argued there was no such thing as life after death. his arguments focused on the claim that wishful thinking on the part of human beings was the cause of belief in life after death. argues a person is the experiences that are connected in the memory of an individual. suggests memories are linked to the brain just as river with bed. if river bed is destroyed so is any meaningul sense of the use of the word river to what was there before. at death a person's brain ceases to function and their body starts to decay. the person's memories that make them who they are also lost because the brain like the rest of the body dies and rots. for russell fear of death is instinctive and result of this fear is that people believe in life after death. russell argues universe is indifferent to people and there is no evidence of life after death. this leads to russell questioning two things, whether the ethical beieves that led to these types of activites are really from god particularly fom an intelligent creator god. russell questions whether people really want those who don't conduct events such as witch-hunts or pogroms to life forever. russell suggests the world is better understood without god and an afterlife, because if there is evidence in the world for 'deliberate purpose the purpose must have been that of a friend'

Heaven and Hell

many religious traditions like christianity and islam believe in a state of existence wth god after death called heaven and state of punishment caled hell. in christianity the experience of afterlife with god is described as a state of existence with god in which people see god face to face that is people see or experience god in a new way. in catholic tradition this situation of seeing god face to face is called the beatific vision and the same belief is found in orthodox christianity. belief originates from the first followers of jesus who witnesses the events surrounding jess death and resurrrection and it is reflected in the bible in writings of paul and in book of revelation. paul stated in heaven god is experineced in a different way. 'for now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face' (1 corinthians 13:12). 2nd heaven is described in christian tradition as a state of fulfilment it is a palce in which all human longigns and wishes are to be in a right relationship with god. 'heaven is the ultimate end and fulfilment of the deeprest human longings, the state of supreme definitive happiness' (catechism of catholic church). heaven is seen as ultimate goal or end of human existence to which all humans are called. important to note in roman catholic adn orthdox christian tradition life after death with god in heaven is something people have to achieve through their actions in life. people have to desire to do good and actually do it. within christian tradition there is much emphasis placed upon hell as the fate of people who do wrong in life. hell is traditionally charactersed by 2 features; state of separation from god and is place of punishment by god. imagery of fire pain suffering and torture is used to describe hell. images convey hell a state of sufferng after death. in traditional christian teaching hell is clearly a place of suffering and punishment a state of suffering becaus ethe wicked people in hell lose the chance of a beatific vision and they know they have lost it and state of punishment because god's justice demands wrongdoers are punished. in much christian teaching hell is interpreted as an aspect of god's justice. people who do wrong deserve to be punished and through their wrong actions that people bring punishment on themselves. this is like a retributive theory of justice. in principle many christians would argue a failure of god to punish people would contradict god being just. imagery of heaven and hell is often used to teach children the seirous consequences of their wrong actions and to highlight fact that people are judged according to their actions. however some people today find these images unhelpful as they believe they don't communicate the idea of loving and forgiving god. for others the eternal nature of punishment appears unjust punishment is punishment alone it's not educative and doesn't rehabilitate person. images of hell form of negative reinforcement may encourage people not to commit act but not necessarily to choose right for own sake. problem related to hell being a place of physical suffering. if it's a place of physical suffering where is it? within christian history there have been many suggestions as to the location of hell such as under the earth or other side of moon we know these places though inhospitable are not hell in traditional sense. some writers have focused on the idea that hell is state of separation from both god and other people caused by a person becoming aware of others 'judgement' on them. hell may be understood as a state of loneliness and separation. through choices in life sometimes people bring this situation on themselves. e.g. steal from family and get caught the effect is that yo lose their good will and your relationship with them. in medival christian thought hell is both a state of separation from god and state of punishment 'for mortal sin which is contrary to charity a person is expelled for ever from the fellowship of the saints and condemned to everlasting punishment' - aquinas summa theologiae hell is a separation from other people, poor relationships - Sartre

Materialism and monism

materialists argue against any concept of the afterlife mostly, but it is worth noting a materialist could believe in bodily resurrection. materialists often called monists. monist refers to anyone who believes there is only one substance - matter - and therefore dualism is incorrect since it postulates the existence of matter and non-physical substance (body and soul). materialists the identity of a person is linked inextricably to the physical body. when physical body's lie ends that person ends. emotions feelings and thoughts derive from our brains and are mental processes in the brain. according to materialism all these characteristics of our experience are explainable by reference to the mental activity of the brain. identity theory claims all mental activities are centred in the brain. this approach is supported by scientific research which can point to the modification of mood, behaviour and character by drugs. if drugs like alcohol affect our character whch they clearly do, this suggests mental activity is not to be linked to an immaterial soul or identity but to our brain. when our physical life ends mental activity ceases. argument is that it is not the soul has gone to another place but life has just ended. Stephen T.Davis points to fact that identity theory has been criticised concerning how intentionality can be explained. philosophers mean that brain activity consists of nerves functioning in the brain. when you as an individual make a decision such as whether to listen to music or open a window, you form an intention. challenge is neural activity in the brain has no intentionality. other philosophical criticisms include the fact that mental events are private or don't have a physical location. some support for claims that mental activity is fully explainable in terms of neruone activity in the brain has come from recent scientific discoveries. NASA example.

the argument for knowledge?

plato argued learning is remembering what the soul knew in WOF e.g. recalling knowledge of Forms we have forgotten. plato e.g. of equals to explain this point. suggests one can see many things that are equal like stones of equal size. he points out that no one has ever seen the Form of equals. that doesn't stop us using the concept and applying it to different things. evidence is when people come to understand something they recognise to be true. ideas in science or maths like the laws of physics or fractions are true long before we learn they're true.

the argument for opposites?

plato argued physical world consists of opposites like big, small, sleep, wake. he suggested the opposite of living is death. there is such a thing s living which there clearly is, then there must be such a thing as death. for death to be a thing rather than nothing the soul must exist so one can talk of living and death as opposites. argument also supports the idea of reincarnation since if something is dead its opposite is being alive vice versa, which implies a cycle of death, birth, life, death so on. plato suggested souls were: bewitched by body by its passions and pleasures it thinks nothing else real save what is corporeal, can be touched and seen drunk and eaten or used for sexual enjoyment. would be reincarnated again. e.g. tyrants being reincarnated as wolves and drunkards as donkeys, souls of philosophers who see Forms enjoy the company of gods.

does the soul exist?

plato puts forward arguments to show the soul is immortal and that it exists before incarnation in body

Hick's replica theory - an alternative materialist view

presents 1 way which concept of resurrection may be understood. significant of hick's theory is that he rejects dualism at the same time presenting a defence of belief in bodily resurrection. contrasts with many philosophers in history who have held monist views and not accepted life after death, or dualist views and accepted life after death. starting point is human beings are a psycho-somatic unity. hick means human beings are unity of physical body and the mind or soul. 2 cannot be separated doesn't think that a soul is like gilbert ryle's ghost in a machine. the concept mind or soul is thus not that of a ghost in a machine but more flexible and sophisticated ways in which human beings behave and have it in them to behave. soul isn't separate part of human beings such as plato or other dualists, so he isn't dualistic. hick suggests replica theory to explain what is meant by resurrection. paul spoke of resurrection involving spiritual bodies and hikc's replica theory is a way to understand paul. argues resurrection is a divine action in which an exact replica of ourselves is created in a differentn place. 'i wish to suggest that we can think of it as the divine creation in another space of an eexact psycho-physical replica of the deceased person. replica is in all respects the same as us but the location of the replica is not on earth. argues resurrection could take place instantaneously at death or after a time lapse determined by god. the replica exists in a different space from us that is observable by god and not by us. replica of a person is not the sameas a copy. hundreds of copies can be made of an article using a photocopier. hick uses replica because each person can only exist in one place at a time. rejects idea of having hundreds of possible copies of you, because part of being a human person is that we are individuals. what matters is the replica is the real you, there cannot be another replica in different place. in his book he suggested an e..g of a person disappearing in london and reappearing in ny. he suggested for the person in ny to be identifiable the particular appearance of the person, their character the arrangement of the matter that makes them have to enable a person observing them in ny, who knew them first in london to recognise who they are. what matters is the arrangement of matter in the person in ny being such that it is the same as the person who disappeared in london. hick suggests you imagine a person who dies in london and is re-created in ny. hick argues if a replica of that person eixsts in ny and a dead body in lodnon it's easy to identify the replica in ny as the person rather than the dead body. suggests that resurrected persons do not doubt they are the same person as before. resurrection is understood y hick as the creation of a replica by god in a different space. philosophers have raised many issues concerning hick's ideas

Hinduism and rebirth

rebirth is a belief held by many religious traditions like hinduism which contrasts christianity's resurrection. central idea of reincarnation is the belief the soul of a body is eternal. reborn in new bodies generation after generation. reincarnation is a dualistic religious theory of life after death. status of body in which the reincarnated soul finds itself depends on the actions of the untied body and soul in previous incarnation. if in previous life the person was morally good the soul will be reincarnated in a better body (e.g. that of a wealthy person or even a deity) if a person is morally bad the soul will be reborn in a lower status body even that of a worm or an insect. hinduism the physical world is believed to be a dreamlike state. brahman who is divine and transcendent is reality. physical world is temporary int he sense it's not true reality which is brahman. in every body an atman 'soul' which animates body. soul is essence of the person. soul's place in life reflects the law of karma. karma is the cycle of life, death and rebirth in which the person's previous actions in life determine the soul's place in the next life. a person who is wicked and creates bad karmas's soul will be reincarnated in a lower position in the hierarchy of life. in hinduism all living things have an atman. karma reflecting one's actions in life is carried to the next incarnation of the soul. ultimate goal of soul is to be reunited with brahman and escape the cycle of death and reincarnation. evidence that is often put forward to support belief in reincarnation includes example of children who appear to remember evens they weren't present at (dejavu). problem with this type of evidence it can be explained in different ways. young children hear conversations about an event which took place before they were born and in later life believe they were present at this event, when in reality they only heard a later conversation concerning the event. problem with claim that a person remembers previous life is that the memory could be explained in others ways or just be a hoax. philosophical problem is the nature of link between the previous life and person who has inherited the soul. nature of reincarnation is that memory of the physical body is not the link, in which case what does it mean to say there is an immaterial soul that links the 2? Swinburne rejects reincarnation precisely this ground, becaus there is no continuity between the brain of the new baby and old person who died, no way of saying the soul is distinctively the soul of a particular person. (laptop e.g.). if the reincarnated soul has no direct link with the old body it was in what are you really saying when you say that karma is carried forward when the atman is reincarnated. Davis has also pointed out that the doctrine of karma is claimed to explain the problem of suffering in people suffer because of sins in their past lives, noted that a question arises about this situation what is the connection between the person suffering and the past life? if the person suffering now has no memories of a past life and link is only the immaterial soul, how is it jst the person suffers now for sins committed by a different person in a previous life? Geach rejects belief in reincarnation on the grounds a link with the person who has died cannot be established. reincarnation rules out any possibility of memories being the link between the dead adn the new person. gives the example of an old man dying and soul being reincarnated in a new-born baby. he questions link there could be between two given that a person the old man was a unity of both body and experiences and memories gained through life. if baby is you reincarnated how is the baby you if the baby lacks your body, memories, experiences, feelings and so on?

plato's description of the soul

simple and without parts. soul cannot be divided up or split into sections. calls the soul complex when in the body. there are different aspects of the soul. e.g. diamond has different aspects or faces but it's still a single diamond. even tho it's complex it is still simple and without parts. 3 aspects: reason (truth and rules soul), spirit (aggressiveness and emotion) and desire (necessary and unnecessary). evidence for different aspects comes from conflict between these. Kenny - a young child who has not reached the age of reason throwing a tantrum. this illustrates the lack of harmony in plato's soul. shows spirit and desire are not being directed by reason. plato said harmony is a virtue like being healthy, health is concerned with all parts of your body and mind working as they should do together. when lacking it health it means parts of your mind or body are not functioning correctly and this affects a part of you. lack of harmony means not all aspects of the soul work together, this stops a person obtaining a knowledge of the Forms. injustice comes from disharmony in the soul. this relates to parts of the soul. if parts of the soul don't work in harmony then e.g. desire may overpower reason.crimes like stealing are motivated by inappropriate desires and lack of appropriate spirit and reasoning. vices like stealing are wrong because they destroy harmony int he soul and prevent one from seeing the truth (Forms). should do right thing because it's good for you not because of material benefits like wealth, popularity respect or honour.

Multiple replicas and the nature of the resurrected body

some philosophers suggest there could be multiple replicas. if this were the case the individuality of replica wold be lost and so none of the copies would be a replica. hick rejected this suggestion as not fitting with people's understanding of what a person is: 'our concept of the same person has not developed to cope with such a situation' any discussion of life after death is limited by human beings inability to talk about what lies beyond our sense experience. hick acknowledged that discussion of the nature of life as a replica is a copy of. if it is a copy at death are terminal illnesses replicated? hick suggested one possibility might be that the healing of illness and disease takes place int he new existence as a replica

The soul in Aristotle

wanted to explain philosophically what life is. we refer to his writing on the soul, but his ideas differ from modern understanding of soul. soul is translation of the greek word psyche which has many different meanings not corresponding to common idea soul is centre of person's identity and survives after death. soul is form and shape of body. argued the soul is not a substance like matter because matter can be given form and be many different things but what gives matter its shape and function is its Form. marble statue physically a block of marble but it has the shape and form of statue, soul is Form of body. the shape and form of the status cannot be separated from what the statue is made of. soul cannot be separated from body. uses example of an imprint in wax to suggest the soul and body cannot be separated, liek imprint from wax. if an axe was living its boy would be the handle and axe the head, Form would be what makes it an axe. fact it has the sahpe of an axe and is suited to chopping. if the eye were a body its soul would be the capacity to see. by suggesting the soul is the Form of the body aristotle means that 1. soul gives shape to matter which is the body 2. soul is the principle of life or activity of body Lawson-Tancred - Form of car is both its shape and its activity - driving soul principle of life of living things, there are various different faculties of soul and not all living things have souls with the same facilities. hierarchy of faculties of soul, these are nutrition, perception, desire, locomotion and intellect. plants have nutrition. obviously obtain food and this keeps them alive. animals have this capacity and other capacities like perception and desire. perception is seeing world through different senses not just sight while desire refers to appetite, desire, passions, wishing and sensations gained through touch. some animals distinguished from others bu their faculty of locomotion - ability to move. intellect distinguishes human beings 1. living creatures with faculties like perception and desire also have lower faculties such as nutrition 2. human soul is distinguished by intellect was influential in middle ages. christian writings of this period the distinction between animals and humans is that animals have irrational souls and we have rational 3. human souls have faculty of intellect and reason doesn't mean they're rational in what they do. aristotle gave e.g. Form of the soul illustrates this point. person can learn greek he has this knowledge however doesn't mean person uses this knowledge and speaks greek. soul efficient cause of body, causes life and movement in body. formal and final gives form to the matter of body and causes growth and development

particular judgement

within christianity the traditional belief has been that every person is judged as moment of her or his death. this judgement is called 'the particular judgement' because each judgement is personal to an individual. the belief is that the good would go to heaven and bad to hell. the word judgement is not a particularly accurate term. the parable of last judgement (matthew 25) tells christians very clearly that people shape their relationship with god through their own actions. god accepts people as they are. christian belief in judgement at death comes from the teaching of jesus. he stated that and the king will answer them 'truly i tell you just as you did it ot one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me' (matthew 25). christians argue the way you act in life makes you the character you are and god judges you according to how you choose to be. the belief is that god in the jew scripture and jesus in the NT set out principles for people to live by to remain in relationship with god. deliberately rejecting these is a sign of rejection relations with god. some claim god will forgive them whaetever however in christian tradition this is a mistaken view as justice demands that people make up for wrongdoing if they are to be forgiven. god accepts people as the are, forgiveness is on offer if people really repent but also requires people to acknowledge their wrongdoing (contrition) admit their wrongdoing (confession) andmakeup for it (an act of saitsfaction)