You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Is there a "self" or "soul" that could survive the death of the body — and if so, in what could its survival consist? These are among the oldest questions in philosophy, and the AQA 7062 specification frames them in three connected stages. First, the nature and existence of the soul: is there an immaterial self distinct from the body, or is the "soul" a way of talking about the living body and its capacities? Second, the spec names Descartes' argument for the soul — the most famous defence of substance dualism — and sets it against rival accounts of the body–soul relationship: Aristotle's hylomorphism, Ryle's behaviourist critique of "the ghost in the machine," and the materialism of writers like Dawkins. Third, the possibility of continuing personal existence after death: the rival models of resurrection (a recreated, embodied person) and immortality of the soul (a surviving immaterial self), and whether personal identity could be preserved across death — examined through Hick's "replica" argument. Throughout, the AO2 task is to see how one's view of the self dictates which afterlife, if any, is even coherent.
The word "soul" is used in at least two very different ways, and keeping them apart is essential. On the dualist picture, the soul is an immaterial substance — a non-physical thinking self that can in principle exist apart from the body. On the hylomorphic or materialist pictures, "soul" is not a separate thing at all: it names the form, life or set of capacities of a living body (Aristotle), or it is simply discredited as a relic of pre-scientific thinking (the hard materialist). Which account is correct settles, in advance, what kind of survival of death is possible: an immaterial soul could in principle float free of the body, whereas a "soul" that is the form or activity of this body cannot outlast it except by the body's own recreation.
Key term: Soul — variously, an immaterial substance (the dualist's thinking self, separable from the body) or the form / life-principle of a living body (the Aristotelian view). On materialism there is no soul as a distinct entity at all.
René Descartes (1596–1650), in the Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) and the Discourse on Method (1637), gives the canonical modern argument for the soul as a distinct, immaterial substance — the view called substance dualism.
Key term: Substance dualism — the view that a human being is composed of two distinct substances: a non-physical, thinking mind (or soul) and a physical, extended body, which interact in life but are in principle separable.
Descartes' route to dualism runs through his method of doubt. Resolving to reject anything that can possibly be doubted, he finds he can doubt the existence of the external world and even of his own body (perhaps a deceiving demon feeds him false sensations). But he cannot doubt that he is thinking — for the very act of doubting is a thought, and to think he must exist. This is the cogito: cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am." The one thing he cannot doubt is that he is "a thing that thinks" (res cogitans).
From this he builds the argument from the "real distinction" (Meditation VI). Its core is a principle about clear and distinct conception: if I can clearly and distinctly conceive of A existing without B, then A and B are really distinct and God could make them exist apart. Now, Descartes argues, he has a clear and distinct idea of himself as solely a thinking, non-extended thing, and a separate clear and distinct idea of body as solely an extended, non-thinking thing. Because he can conceive each without the other, mind and body are really distinct substances. He reinforces this with the observation that the two have wholly different essential properties:
| Mind (res cogitans) | Body (res extensa) | |
|---|---|---|
| Essence | Thinking | Extension (occupying space) |
| Divisibility | Indivisible — the self is a unity | Divisible — any body can be cut into parts |
| Known how? | Directly, indubitably (the cogito) | Only via the senses, which can be doubted |
| Spatial? | Non-spatial | Spatial |
The indivisibility argument is a second, independent strand: the body is divisible (one can lose a limb), but the mind is not — when I lose a part of my body I lose no part of my self; the mind is experienced as a single, partless whole. Since one is divisible and the other not, they cannot be the same thing (by Leibniz's Law, things with different properties are not identical). Descartes concludes that the soul "is entirely distinct from the body, and would not fail to be what it is even if the body did not exist" — so the soul can survive the body's death.
Descartes was acutely aware that the two substances must nonetheless interact — a decision in the mind moves the body; an injury to the body causes pain in the mind. He located the point of interaction in the pineal gland, a small midline structure in the brain. This is the notorious weak point of his system, and it leads directly to the central objection.
Key term: The real distinction (Descartes) — Descartes' claim that, because mind and body can each be clearly and distinctly conceived without the other (and have contrary essential properties — thinking vs extension, indivisible vs divisible), they are really distinct substances, so the soul can exist without the body.
The most damaging objection is the problem of interaction, pressed in Descartes' own lifetime by Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia: how can a wholly non-physical, unextended mind exert a physical push on the body, and vice versa? Causation, as we understand it, runs between physical things via contact and force; an immaterial substance has no location, mass or energy with which to move a gland. If mind and body are as utterly different as Descartes says, their interaction becomes mysterious to the point of unintelligibility — and Descartes never gives a satisfying account of it.
Second, the conceivability move is suspect: from the fact that I can conceive of my mind without my body, it may not follow that they really can exist apart. Conceivability is a fact about the limits of my imagination, not obviously about the nature of reality; perhaps I can conceive mind-without-body only because I do not fully understand what the mind is (it may be the brain, even if I cannot tell this just by introspecting). Critics from Arnauld onward charged Descartes with sliding from "I can doubt my body exists" to "my essence excludes body," which does not follow.
Third, materialists argue Descartes simply misreads the evidence. The intimate dependence of mind on brain — that anaesthesia, brain damage, dementia and a sharp blow can switch off, distort or destroy thought — looks exactly as it should if the mind is the brain's activity, and quite unexpected if the mind is a separable substance merely "using" the brain. A dualist can reply that a damaged radio distorts a broadcast without the broadcast being the radio — the brain might be the instrument through which a soul expresses itself, so that damaging the instrument disrupts the expression without touching the soul. But the materialist presses back: the radio analogy predicts that the "signal" persists when the receiver is destroyed, whereas everything we observe suggests that specific mental capacities are lost when specific brain regions are damaged (a stroke in the language area destroys language; frontal-lobe injury alters personality and moral character, as in the famous case of Phineas Gage). The lesion data look less like a damaged receiver and more like the seat of the mind itself being injured — which is what materialism, not dualism, would lead us to expect.
A fourth, subtler difficulty is the unity of the person. On Descartes' account I am, strictly, a thinking thing merely lodged in a body, related to it as a "pilot in a ship." Yet Descartes himself admits this does not match experience: I do not perceive an injury the way a pilot notices damage to his vessel — I feel pain as my own, immediately and from within. The intimacy of the mind–body union seems far closer than substance dualism can comfortably explain, which is part of what drives Aristotelian and materialist thinkers to deny that there are two substances at all.
Aristotle (384–322 BCE), in De Anima, rejects the idea of the soul as a separate substance imprisoned in the body. On his hylomorphism (from hylē, matter, and morphē, form), every living thing is a unity of matter and form; the soul is the form of a living body — "the first actuality of a natural body that has life potentially within it." The soul is not a thing lodged in the body but the organisation, life and capacities that make this lump of matter a living organism rather than a corpse. His famous analogy: if the eye were an animal, sight would be its soul; if an axe were alive, its "soul" would be its capacity to chop. Just as the axe's sharpness cannot survive the destruction of the axe, so the soul, as the form of this body, cannot ordinarily survive the body's death — form and matter are two aspects of one substance, not two substances. (Aristotle leaves a famously obscure qualification about the active intellect perhaps being separable, which Aquinas later exploited.)
Key term: Hylomorphism (Aristotle) — the view that a living being is a single substance composed of matter and form, where the soul is the form (the life and organising capacities) of the living body — not a separable thing. The soul stands to the body as sharpness stands to the axe.
Aquinas (1225–1274) christianises Aristotle: the soul is the form of the body (so the human being is a psychophysical unity, against Plato's "prisoner" picture), yet because the human intellectual soul performs immaterial operations (grasping universal concepts), it is "subsistent" and can survive death — though only as an incomplete substance, a soul missing its body, awaiting the resurrection that restores full humanity. This is a subtle middle position: not Cartesian dualism (the soul is the body's form, not a separate substance), but not pure Aristotelianism either (the soul can subsist). Its difficulty is whether a disembodied "incomplete" soul is really me at all, given how much of human life is bodily.
Gilbert Ryle (1900–1976), in The Concept of Mind (1949), attacked Cartesian dualism as "the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine" — the false picture of a non-physical mind mysteriously inhabiting and steering a physical body. Ryle's diagnosis is that the dogma rests on a category mistake: it places the mind in the wrong logical category, treating it as a thing (an inner, ghostly object) of the same type as the body, only made of subtler stuff. His celebrated illustration: a visitor shown the colleges, libraries and departments of Oxford asks, "but where is the University?" — mistakenly expecting the University to be one more building alongside the others, when in fact it is not a further thing but the organised way the colleges and faculties operate. Likewise the "mind" is not an extra inner entity over and above behaviour; talk of mind is talk of the intelligent, purposive way a person acts.
Key term: Category mistake / "the ghost in the machine" (Ryle) — Ryle's charge that dualism wrongly treats the mind as an inner thing of the same logical type as the body; mental talk in fact describes patterns of (and dispositions to) intelligent behaviour, not a ghostly inner object.
Ryle's positive view is a form of logical behaviourism: mental terms (knowing, believing, wanting, being clever) refer not to private inner events but to dispositions to behave in characteristic ways. To call someone "vain" or "intelligent" is to say how they are liable to act across a range of circumstances, not to report a hidden inner episode — much as to call glass "brittle" is to say how it is liable to behave if struck, not to name a ghostly property inside it. The standing objection is that behaviourism seems to leave out the felt, conscious quality of mental life — the experience of pain is surely something more than a disposition to wince and say "ouch"; a perfect actor could produce all the behaviour without the feeling, and a sufferer with iron self-control could feel agony while displaying none. Ryle is widely thought to have over-corrected, rightly attacking the Cartesian ghost but wrongly seeming to deny the inner conscious life altogether. For the afterlife debate, the upshot is significant: if Ryle is right that there is no inner self over and above behaviour, then there is no "soul" to detach and survive — but his very difficulty with consciousness is what keeps the dualist's door ajar.
Hard materialism (physicalism) holds that only the physical exists: a human being is a biological organism, the "mind" is what the brain does, and there is no soul to survive death. Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) is a prominent exponent: on his view the human person is a "survival machine" built by genes, consciousness an emergent product of immense neural complexity, and the sense of an immaterial soul an illusion — there is, he insists, no "ghost," no surviving self; death is simply the end of the organism. Identity theory (J.J.C. Smart, U.T. Place) sharpens the metaphysics: mental states are brain states (pain is the firing of certain neural fibres), so the very idea of a mind existing without a brain is incoherent.
Key term: Materialism / physicalism — the view that only the physical exists; the mind is the activity of the brain, there is no immaterial soul, and bodily death is the end of the person (Dawkins; identity theory: mental states are brain states).
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.