Materialism and Dualism

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Title

There is one thing on which all philosophers agree, and that is that our earthly life in our current physical form will end. One definition of death is ‘the complete and permanent cessation of all vital function in a living creature, the end of life’. All philosophers will agree with the first part of this definition, but there is a disagreement over exactly what the latter part, ‘the end of life’, means. Many people accept death as the end of any form of existence. Others would argue that death is not the end of life, and that we continue in some form after death. There are many different ideas of the form that life after death may take.

There are three main ideas in which philosophers believe a person may take after death; the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body and reincarnation.

There are two main theories of human nature that have implications for meaningful survival after death:

Materialism is the theory that our minds are inseparable from our bodies.
Dualism is the theory that there exist both bodies and minds, distinct from one another, but linked in some way.

Materialism

Materialism does not accept that there is a separate part of the human body called the ‘soul’. An individual is a living, physical body and nothing more. Most materialists believe that at death the body dies and therefore the whole body ceases to exist.

Materialists also believe that what we assume to be an emotional response, such as lover or fear, is no more than psychochemical reactions in our brain.

Dualism

A dualist approach to mind and body argues that it is the mind that determines our personality and the body is an outer shell for the real self. The body is contingent and therefore destined for decay, but the mind, associated with the higher realities such as truth, goodness and justice, is immortal. If a man life is spent in contemplation of those higher realities, then his soul can enter eternity after the death of the physical body.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One very popular and important philosopher for the subject pf body, soul distinction was Plato, and Plato was a dualist. He posited a theory of two worlds-the ‘unreal’ world of the senses and physical objects and the ‘real’ world of ideal forms. For everything in existence, Plato accepted that there was the perfect idea (form). For example, for every man, there is an ideal man; for every dog there is an ideal dog, and so on. He regarded the body and soul as separate entities and believed that though the body dies and disintegrates, the soul continues to live forever. Plato had a very low opinion of the body. As the body is part of the world of appearance it is physical and the desire for sense pleasure frequently takes priority in a persons life. Plato believed that after the death of the body, the soul migrates to the realm of the forms. After a time the soul is implanted in another body and returns to our world. However the reincarnated soul retains a dim recollection of the forms and yearns to go back. It could be maintained that this process of recollection is strong evidence for a distinction between body and soul.

Another philosopher who developed a concept of dualism was Descartes held that the body was spatial and in no sense conscious and that the mind (or soul) is non-spatial and conscious. The mind experiences emotions and desires. Descartes believed that these two interacted with each other and that the body could affect the mind and the mind could affect the body. The feelings in the mind could have physical affects for example depression causing weight loss. Descartes postulated that the point of this interaction between body and mind was the pineal gland, which is located in the brain. Descartes explanation could provide us with reasonable evidence for a distinction between body and soul in that we talk as if we are distinct from our bodies for example if my bodily make up changed I would consider myself to be the same person. This may offer comfort to think that we are still the same person whatever our body looks like e.g. with age etc. Also we can think about something without showing it through the behaviour of our bodies. However this may be questioned as we also say “I have a soul”. In this case what is ‘I’ if not the body or the soul alone? Descartes reasoning may be defended as what he is arguing for is fitting with the coherence theory of truth i.e. it is logically possible for us to survive death without a body. However this still does not mean that this is necessarily going to happen for example it would be logically possible for me to survive after a car crash but this does not mean its going to happen. Even if we could survive after death would we still be the same person? Or even a person at all? We owe much of who we are to our bodies as it is through our body that we interact with others. The body is part of what makes me ‘me’.

A more recent philosopher who has put forward his views on this subject is John Hick. Hick deemed that there are differences between the physical and non-physical characteristics of a person. Hick cultivated a theory in regard to this distinction between body and soul called ‘Replica’ theory. He uses three examples in this theory. The first is that if someone suddenly ceased to exist in a certain place and instantly appeared somewhere else we would accept that the person had not moved from A to B but had disappeared at A and reappeared at B. If this person had the same appearance and the same memories we would have to conclude that it was in fact the same person. In the second example a person in London dies and a ‘replica’ appears in New York. It would again be reasonable to regard the ‘replica’ as the same person who died. In the final example the person dies and a replica appears in another world. Hick likens this to waking up. The person would still believe they were the same person. Hick concludes that if someone dies and appears in a new world with the same memories it would be meaningful to say that this is in effect the same person. However it is not logically possible for the original and the ‘replica’ to exist simultaneously. Neither is it possible for there to be more than one ‘replica’. This theory is useful as it suggests the idea of heaven or another place after death. This could provide comfort for families who have lost loved ones. Also it is logically possible for this to happen, although just because it is logically possible does not mean that it is fundamentally true. Nevertheless this theory does have its flaws. For example how would the ‘replica’ be identified as the person it is supposed to be? Surely they would need to be in the same environment to behave in the same way. It also raises a number of important questions for instance are we replicated with all of our imperfections? Plus what if people die in an explosion or something equally horrific? How will they be replicated? Another point I feel needs to be put forward is that, according to catholic teaching and Plato, heaven is timeless. How can a replica of ourselves exist in two places if they don’t have the share the same time? There is also the issue of whether or not we live forever in replica form if so can we contract diseases and die again? If this is the case the theory has a considerable weakness in that is could suggest that there is no point in making anything of life as we will be replicated in a new world anyway. It could essentially encourage death. Hick does not fortify his argument with any cogent evidence which questions its practicality.

Another hugely influential recent philosopher who has contrived views in relation to a distinction between body and soul is Richard Dawkins. Dawkins was an atheist and he puts forward a non-religious argument for two different souls. Soul one can be described as “The principle of thought and action in man commonly regarded as an entity distinct from the body, the spiritual part of man in contrast to purely physical.” Dawkins felt that there is no such thing as soul one, a soul which is separate from the body. He did feel that soul has a meaning although it is not one which entails the soul being a distinct thing. He felt that soul was “intellectual or spiritual power. High development of the mental faculties.” In could be in terms of things such as ‘soul music’. In ‘River out of Eden’ Dawkins describes a river of DNA that branches through geological time. Dawkins therefore did not believe that we have a soul or that the soul was in any way an entity in its own right but instead that it could only be used as a descriptive word until science finds an answer for what it is. Dawkins theory of evolution opposes the idea of a soul, as there is no time where it could have entered. Everything in the world would have one which, some would say, challenges the meaning of what a soul is. This may be a more believable theory as empirical proof and science can back it up. However it does not provide us with evidence as to whether or not there is a soul separate from the body and may be disregarded by people who are eminently religious.