Quite apart from the Ancient philosophers, the French philosopher Rene Descartes had his own ideas concerning dualism. Descartes saw that everything that is not physical is part of the mind, this included sensations that he could not describe or locate. Descartes doubted that everything physical existed – he could question the existence of his body. However, one thing Descartes could not doubt the existence of was his mind, this led to the formation of his most famous saying, ‘I think, therefore I am’. Through this, he proposed that the mind could exist independently of matter. Thus, Descartes theory becomes unquestionably dualist, embracing the teachings of Plato rather than Aristotle. One problem that Descartes did encounter, was explaining exactly how mind and body interacted. He did not strictly see the body as the prison of the mind; they were separate entities that could meet at the pineal gland. Like Plato’s theory, Descartes’ theory does allow for the possibility of an afterlife, as this suggests that mind and body are separable and so, can survive independently.
A further problem that arises from Dualism is that of life after death. If, as Plato claims, the mind is released from the body upon death, this indicates that there must be some form of continuity. Or, as we would call it, an ‘afterlife’. The Christian theology sees continuity in the form of bodily resurrection to heaven. This afterlife is, essentially, another level of existence. Problems, however, arise in the representation of heaven itself; the myth element to religion makes heaven into a seemingly implausible account of the afterlife. However, Buddhism, Hinduism and many of the earth religions prefer to follow the idea of ‘reincarnation’.
Reincarnation, as accounted in the writings of Dalai Lama, involves the idea of the transmigration of the soul from body to body. Upon death, the soul leaves the body, and enters another to begin a new life in a completely different body. Presumably, this idea, would have horrified the ancient Greeks, and is not an idea that Plato would have even considered. There is supposed ‘evidence’ that proves reincarnation to be the true form of afterlife. This is in the form of survival of the personal identity of previous hosts, in the form of memories and experiences retained. Many people choose to explain irrational phobias or bodily pains that seemingly have no natural explanation by way of reincarnation. These are supposedly experiences that a previous host endured or injuries inflicted upon them.
Criticism of reincarnation can be found in the problem of ever-increasing population sizes. It would seem that there are an infinite number of souls present within the world if the population is increasing. This does not seem likely. However, even if the human population is increasing, the same cannot be said for all of the creatures on the planet. One explanation that has often been dismissed is the idea that a human is not automatically reborn as a human; it is wholly possible that we are reborn as plants or animals as well as humans. The Buddhist idea of karma states that the creature we are reborn as is determined by the way we live our lives; the consequences of our actions in this life can influence whether we are reborn as a human or as, e.g. a slug.
Another fault lies in the very nature of the ‘transmigrating soul’ itself. The soul described in reincarnation can often be seen as akin to a parasite, using each body as a parasite until death. The fact that we do not remember our past lives does indicate that we do not learn anything from our past experiences, so we may make the same mistakes again and fail to progress onto another level of existence. Maybe the reason we do not remember our past lives can be explained in a similar way to Plato’s ‘Theory of Recollection’.
Despite the arguments made by dualists about the distinction between body and soul, other theories such as materialism doubt even the existence of the soul. Materialism claims that nothing exists but matter, therefore anything ethereal, i.e. the soul, does not exist. Idealism, on the other hand, only acknowledges the existence of the mind or soul; nothing exists but ideas. Therefore, there is no need for the physical and the body is just a creation of the mind. These contrasting theories take the idea of body and soul in two completely different directions – both attempting to disprove the idea of dualism.
Supporters of Materialism argue that an individual is comprised solely of physical substance, and that nothing more exists. This rules out the possibility of a soul or mind and is so used as an argument against dualism. It uses the idea that, upon death, a person ceases to exist and the afterlife is not a possibility. Materialism holds that what we see as thought or emotion are actually occurrences of the physical form. Emotion and such are really a pattern of behaviour exhibited by the body.
The philosopher Gilbert Ryle, in his work – ‘The Concept of Mind’, also supported and developed the theory behind Materialism. He argued against the Cartesian view of dualism, stating that the presence of a soul within the body would be akin to a ‘Ghost in the Machine’; Ryle claimed that the presence of a soul would be a ‘Category Mistake’. This is a misuse of language, in which the mind and body are seen as two distinct entities. Ryle believed that the ‘ghost’, or the mind, was a separate and identifiable entity; mind and body are one and the same. To him, the brain was the mind – the physical. Although they may appear to belong to two categories, together they make up the same entity.
Some Soft Materialists do not believe that everything that exists is matter; consciousness is more than just a brain process. Most materialists reject the idea of life after death, but the soft materialists attempted to explain it by conceiving a ‘Re-creation Theory’. This involves the complete resurrection of the body, as it is not distinguishable from the mind; this theory of Hick’s borrows from the theory of Gilbert Ryle. If mind and body are resurrected, then a person can continue to exist beyond death with mind and memory intact. The problem with this theory is the implausibility of it. A dead body can decompose in the grave or be turned into ashes at cremation. So, how can a body be wholly resurrected as it was once before? Survival must include the body, as the soul cannot exist independently of it. This is one of the reasons why Aristotelian dualism can appear akin to Materialism; if body and soul cannot exist independently, how is life beyond death possible?
Christian thinking supports the idea of resurrection, as a basis for most of the teachings of its church. Jesus rises from the dead, as detailed in the testaments of Luke Ch.24, John Ch.20 and Paul 1 Corinthians Ch.15. This attempts to explain how the perishable body can survive beyond the grave. Paul writes about how the mortal body will be transformed, upon death, into an immortal and imperishable body. They held the body in decided contempt, as detailed earlier. Luke and John’s accounts both describe how the resurrected Jesus was different in appearance than it was before his death.
‘…Jesus himself drew near, and they went with him. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him…”
-Luke Chapter 24, Verses 15-16
He is not recognised by the apostles on his first encounter with them, yet, interestingly, the wounds that killed him are still present. This allows us to question how the body is restored, as Jesus does not appear to be wholly renewed. Its coherency is questionable. We can also call upon the myth element of religion, which supports the theory that the information given here is questionable due to the sheer improbability of it.
A further problem arises in the question of personal identity. One can ask, ‘What is it that makes my personal identity recognisable to others?’ If a person is recreated in a whole new body, how are you recognisable as ‘you’? Most people would say that their physical description and their unique characteristics make them an individual. How can a person be recognised in a new body? Whether the mind or soul is identical or not – is this the same person that existed in the original body? Many philosophers would argue not, and claim that this is a new person completely. This is the argument that Materialist Terence Penelhum used to argue against Hick’s re-creation theory.
Near-Death experiences also provide support for a distinction between soul and body. People who have been declared ‘dead’, have been resuscitated to give such similar accounts of their experiences that it seems much more than mere coincidence. Sensations of floating and detachment from the body seem much akin to a disembodied existence. It could be said that this is the separation of the mind or soul from the physical body to a continuation into the afterlife. Many people also claim to travel along a tunnel, in which their lives are displayed before them. Although, there is little physical evidence, it would appear that these testaments give some indication of what occurs to the soul beyond death. As some witnesses have been declared dead for great lengths of time, lacking any residual brain activity; the materialist argument that these experiences are simply induced by reactions in the body is a tad redundant. Much more support is given to dualism through this theory.
Following directly on, the study of phenomena such as telepathy and telekinesis provide further verification for dualism. Telepathy is the name given to the occurrence of shared thoughts or communication with another by non-physical means. The problem is, thoughts can occur in situations of mere coincidence, which induce similar thoughts. Telekinesis, on the other hand, sees the movement of physical objects by non-physical means. It is claimed that such objects are moved by the power of the mind alone. Both of these, particularly telekinesis, show that the mind is potentially capable of functions beyond those of the body, showing a clear distinction between the two.
Idealism can be seen as the polar opposite of Materialism. Instead of seeking to explain the world as a composition of nothing but material objects, it postulates that nothing exists but ideas. So, the body does not exist – only the mind as an immaterial object exists. The body only appears to exist because we ‘think’ it into existence and because everybody else does likewise. However, the theory also presents many logical flaws and is incoherent as an explanation of the distinction between mind and body. Many are likely to have a problem with accepting that things appear a certain way because we, and everybody else perceives them as so. If we all see the same object, surely this means that our minds are all, in some way, connected. This seems implausible. Also, this theory allows for the possibility of a being to enter existence. If everyone believes that something such as, e.g. a unicorn exists, then, technically, this creature should exist. However, this is obviously not the case.
Science has made many attempts to disprove the need for an afterlife and the existence of the mind/soul as part of existence. Richard Dawkins explanation was called ‘Biological Materialism’. This theory claims that our perception of an afterlife is completely misguided. When we think about afterlife, we assume that our own individual existence continues to the afterlife. Biological Materialism claims that what is known as the ‘afterlife’ can be explained as the continuity of molecular structure. We are composed of countless atoms and molecules; the likelihood is that at least one or two of our atoms once belonged to somebody or something else, whether it is the sun, or a dinosaur or an ancient Greek. These atoms are timeless and will continue to exist as long as the universe exists. Continuity of out own personal being is also possible in the discovery and mapping of DNA. Are not our genes a unique part of ourselves? By passing on our genes, technically, the self is surviving – in a different form.
So, maybe we are looking at life after death, and thus, mind and body, in completely the wrong way. The ‘myth’ element of religion does mean that it is possible to dismiss afterlife as nothing more than a mere construct of society. Sociologists such as Karl Marx claimed that promise of an afterlife was a way for the ruling classes to oppress the working classes. However, it is equally difficult to prove that the afterlife does not exist. So, what does happen upon death? Nobody knows. Maybe upon death we will find it all irrelevant anyway.
Word Count: 2698
Plato sees the chariot as being guided by two horses, known as mind and body. The soul is the rider who has to constantly guide the two horses towards the ‘Realm of Ideas’ and to freedom. To Plato, the mind was a separate entity from the soul; the mind was an immaterial substance capable of knowing eternal truths. It is the horse labelled ‘mind’ that directs the soul towards the Good, yet, the body must not be neglected as the chariot cannot be guided without it.
This ‘evidence’ is highly questionable, however, as it is difficult to prove that these ‘memories’ have any significance at all. Especially as for the majority of the population, these memories are either very well hidden or even non-existent.
Plato held that the soul pre-existed the body and that what we perceive as knowledge learnt is really knowledge remembered. So, maybe the key to progression is by ‘remembering’ our mistakes in past lives.
The sensations we classify as pain are, in reality, a response to an external stimulus that results in the body displaying the characteristics of pain; we may cry or pull away and defend ourselves. Emotion is simply a pattern of behaviour.
This would not have been favourable among the Greeks, as their disgust towards the body would turn to disdain to be told that they would still have a body beyond the grave.
