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
reasoning than desire. So we see two distinct parts of the soul. The first is
However, to his surprise, Elizabeth is not yet convinced. She says that “despite what explanation Descartes has given so far, she still does not understand the manner in which the soul moves the body” (Margaret A.: p21). Therefore, it is clear that Descartes does not give a satisfactory answer to Elizabeth regarding the union between the body and the soul. In this regard, it is understandable why Elizabeth gets upset when she fails to get the answer she needs. Ultimately, the question is not answered and Descartes advises Elizabeth not to pay much attention to the meditation in order to explain the union of the body and soul.
Epicurus’s Death argument is very simple, and thus can be hard to refute. The basic premise is that is that no one feels any pain while they are dead, thus being dead is not a painful experience, so being dead is not bad for the one who is dead. My goal for this paper is to prove how those premises fails. In section 1 I will explain in greater detail Epicurus’s argument, in section 2 I will attack those arguments citing various theoretical examples, and in section 3 I will defend my attacks against potential rebuttals.
...ience. Yet, what can be deduced is that it is there prior to our awareness of that which is there. It is both internal and external. The body on its own provide as the access with which the world is known. This connection of the body with the world is anchored on the reality that the body is there with and in the world. The experiences of the body is not something that you extract or signify, it is there simply because the body is there.
The next argument is called “the affinity” it simply reiterates that the world of the forms is superior to the world of senses. This argument is intended to establish only the probability of the soul’s continued existence after the death of the body. The soul is more like the world of forms. The body is the mortal part of us, the part that passes away. Which makes him believe the soul is divine. If the soul is freed from the pleasures of the body, it’s most likely to participate in the world of forms.
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.
But this would be impossible unless our soul had been somewhere before existing in this form of man; here then is another proof of the soul’s immortality.” (Phaedo,
...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.
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
Life after death is a topic of controversy in which Bertrand Russell and John Hick discuss 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.
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.
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.
Throughout the evolution of philosophic thought, there have been many different views on the relationship of mind and body. The great philosopher Plato and the Neoplatonists held the belief that man's body is merely a prison of his soul, but St. Augustine later refutes this with his idea of the disembodied soul. He distinguishes between the concept of the physical form and the spiritual soul, and he argues that humankind can be redeemed because of the God spirit contained in the intellectual soul. This intellectual soul is not an inseparable part of the body, as St. Thomas Aquinas postulates. Instead, this soul is indeed the higher part of man, the state and well-being of man depends upon its stability.
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,