• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Does it make sense to believe in life after death?

Extracts from this document...


Does it make sense to believe in life after death? In this essay I will be arguing that you can almost make no sense to believe in life before and after death and that there is no humanly logical way of proving either side of the argument. Plato acts on the words of his teacher, Socrates, and how he considered the soul to be separate from the body but linked until death. He says that the soul influences how we behave and tries to sway us from bodily desires. He says that the soul moves from one body to another when death occurs and to be born into subsequent bodies. This is a good indication from Plato to show life after death because he says the life of the soul is everlasting like an infinite line or a circle. Plato said that the soul is made up from three parts: the Logos, which is the mind and allows logic to prevail. ...read more.


The flaw in this statement is that it is impossible to connect meta-physics with logic so there is no way to measure, see, touch or knowing what the answer is. Thomas Aquinas once said that the soul has the appetite for knowledge because he said, "since the intellectual soul is capable of knowing all material things, and since in order to know a material thing there must be no material thing within it, the soul was definitely not connected and that it was an individual spiritual substance and that it could survive on its own". Aquinas said that the soul is subsistant and therefore can't die with the body and cant be born with it. This is like saying the soul doesn't even exist in this form of life properly and only exists partly with your body and outside it. John Hick, a 20th century philosopher said that life after death is no where near provable but he said that a rational person would be able to accept it. ...read more.


If you had done this 100 times and then one time it didn't work to plan and it would take 30 minutes to incinerate you, you would see an exact replica of you at the other teleportation receiver. Which one are you another person would ask, but the answer would be neither of them because the real person would be the very first incinerated person because only clones were created afterwards. I think this is one of the most valid arguments because he uses knowledge and common sense in his story but doesn't explain where the soul went. I think that there is no logical way of making sense of life after death because to have sense, you must have proof and because there is no proof of and sides of the arguments aren't logical there is no way of making sense of them. I think that it is still rational be open to the concept of life after death. Does it make sense to believe in life after death? Matthew Oliver 1 17/05/2008 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death.

    He states that if human beings are not to be identified with their bodies, then the view that they can survive death seems a plausible one. We normally think of death as the end of a persons bodily life. But if people are distinct from their bodies, then the fact that their bodies die does not entail that they die.

  2. Plato & The Soul

    An argument from recollection, which Plato first put forward when discussing his theory of the world of the forms, also serves his theory of the soul. Perfect forms, such as equality, are knowable a priori; we have no need for experience to tell us whether two lines are equal length.

  1. Philosophy: Life After Death Analysis

    term for the collective banter of many men - not a separate entity of its own. Ryle saw talk of a soul in a similar fashion, as a way to describe the way a man behaves in the world and acts around others and that to say a soul is something separate is trying to justify something that isn't there.

  2. Discussing John Dewey.

    How can there be "an empirical account of inconclusive integrity of experience," if experience is always changing? There cannot. What would define the account? Experience? Experience cannot be defined if it constantly changes. If experience is constantly changing, it can only be used to direct us to new and better meaning.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work